1. 1 Measuring Progress: Monitoring and Evaluation in WRIA 8 WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council November 19, 2009 Scott Stolnack WRIA 8 Technical Coordinator

2. 2 Purpose of this presentation: Update SRC on the overall framework of monitoring in WRIA 8 Update SRC on the overall framework of monitoring in WRIA 8 What we monitor and why What we monitor and why How it all fits together How it all fits together Introduce how this information can be used to help define our future course (adaptive management) Introduce how this information can be used to help define our future course (adaptive management)

3. 3 Why Monitor?

4. 4 Science-based Chinook Conservation Plan requires monitoring: Science-based Chinook Conservation Plan requires monitoring: Measure and document progress toward salmon recovery and habitat restoration goals Measure and document progress toward salmon recovery and habitat restoration goals Assure $$ is spent on actions that make a difference Assure $$ is spent on actions that make a difference Provide information to guide course corrections, if (when) needed Provide information to guide course corrections, if (when) needed

5. 5 What do we need to know? Is the watershed producing more or less Chinook? (Fish in/Fish Out Status and Trends Monitoring) Is the watershed producing more or less Chinook? (Fish in/Fish Out Status and Trends Monitoring) Are watershed conditions improving or declining? (Habitat Status and Trends Monitoring) Are watershed conditions improving or declining? (Habitat Status and Trends Monitoring) Are we doing what we said wed do? (Implementation Monitoring) Are we doing what we said wed do? (Implementation Monitoring) Is what we said wed do, doing what we said it would? (Effectiveness Monitoring) Is what we said wed do, doing what we said it would? (Effectiveness Monitoring)

6. 6

7. 7 Fish In Fish Out Is the watershed producing more or less Chinook? (Fish in/Fish Out Status and Trends Monitoring)

8. 8 Fish In (Adults) Live Counts Redd Surveys Sockeye Chinook

9. 9 Photo: H. Berge

10. 10

11. 11 15 year average Fish In – How Many?

12. 12 Fish In – How Many? 2009 ~300 10-year average

13. 13 WDFW Fish Out (Smolt trapping)

14. 14 WDFW Fish Out (Smolt trapping)

15. 15 Juvenile production is basically what the WRIA is responsible for. This is how we can tell how were doing. Everything else is needed to be able to reliably track this knowledge. Juvenile production is basically what the WRIA is responsible for. This is how we can tell how were doing. Everything else is needed to be able to reliably track this knowledge.

16. 16 Fish Out (PIT Tagging) WDFW

17. 17 Fish In Fish Out

18. 18 Are watershed conditions improving or declining? (Habitat Status and Trends Monitoring)

19. 19 Field Assessments

20. 20 Field Assessments Physical Characteristics Pools Channel substrate Wood Channel sinuosity Riparian Vegetation Etc.

21. 21 Pools Large wood Channel sinuosity Riparian cover etc. Chinook Productivity Field Assessments

22. 22 Field Assessments Biological Characteristics Fish community composition Insect community composition

23. 23 Field Assessments Objective is to describe current STATUS and detect TRENDS over time Objective is to describe current STATUS and detect TRENDS over time Stream surveys begun 2009 Stream surveys begun 2009 Funded through 2010 Funded through 2010 Cedar River survey scheduled for 2010 (King County) Cedar River survey scheduled for 2010 (King County) Seeking EPA funding to continue this work beyond 2010 Seeking EPA funding to continue this work beyond 2010

24. 24 Land Cover Change Overall guidelines: Adapt existing sources of information where appropriate Adapt existing sources of information where appropriate Focus on highest priority areas first Focus on highest priority areas first

25. 25 Use existing data sources to supplement local information

26. 26 Take existing change analysis… Take existing change analysis… Land Cover Change

27. 27 Isolate forest cover change… Isolate forest cover change… Focus in on most crucial areas for a closer look Focus in on most crucial areas for a closer look Land Cover Change

28. 28 Land Cover Change Analysis is just beginning using NOAA change classification and 2006 satellite photos Analysis is just beginning using NOAA change classification and 2006 satellite photos Funded by a grant from the EPA through the Puget Sound Partnership Funded by a grant from the EPA through the Puget Sound Partnership

29. 29 Are watershed conditions improving or declining? (Habitat Status and Trends Monitoring)

30. 30 Development alters watershed hydrology (runoff intensity and timing) Development alters watershed hydrology (runoff intensity and timing) Affects worsened by poor riparian conditions Affects worsened by poor riparian conditions Trends over time reveal changing watershed conditions Trends over time reveal changing watershed conditions Flow Characteristics

31. 31 Existing gauge data needs to be analyzed for trends Existing gauge data needs to be analyzed for trends Winter high flows – higher highs? Winter high flows – higher highs? Summer low flows – lower lows? Summer low flows – lower lows? Changes in overall timing? Changes in overall timing? Create predictive computer models for places without flow gauges Create predictive computer models for places without flow gauges Seeking funding through EPA grant Seeking funding through EPA grant Flow Characteristics

32. 32 Are we doing what we said wed do? (Implementation Monitoring) Is what we said wed do, doing what we said it would? (Effectiveness Monitoring)

33. 33 Implementation Monitoring Habitat Work Schedule Habitat Work Schedule Metrics under development Metrics under development Projects

34. 34 Limiting Factors

35. 35 Implementation Monitoring Spatial component – Cedar River (example)

36. 36 Implementation Monitoring Programs Implementation Survey

37. 37 Are our actions having the desired effect? Do levee setbacks increase juvenile survival rates? Do LID programs reduce stormwater runoff? Does outreach program X result in behavior change in population Y? Effectiveness Monitoring

38. 38 Are our actions having the desired effect? Least-developed at this time Capacity issues have prevented us from addressing up to now Regional issue (e.g., SRFB) Some questions are beyond the scope of WRIA 8 Technical Committee will discuss in December Effectiveness Monitoring

39. 39 Adaptive Management Plan, Decide Implement Monitor Assess

40. 40 Adaptive Management Is the sum of our actions having the desired effect? Is the sum of our actions having the desired effect? If not, what are we going to do about it? If not, what are we going to do about it?

41. 41 Adaptive Management Regional assistance is planned for early 2010 Regional assistance is planned for early 2010 Will tie entire monitoring framework to course-correction framework Will tie entire monitoring framework to course-correction framework SRC will be involved SRC will be involved Through staff on Implementation Committee Through staff on Implementation Committee Through direct reporting via these meetings Through direct reporting via these meetings

42. 42 Questions?