Introduction

Numerous species of salmon and steelhead as defined by the federal Endangered Species Act have been listed as either threatened with extinction or in immediate danger of extinction. Listings have been affecting the Pacific Northwest for almost 20 years[BAC1]through altered hydro, harvest and land management practices and extensive mitigation programs. Knowing the effectiveness of these actions is important for effective planning and for justification of existing and future funding.

Habitat action effectiveness monitoring is a critical component of performance tracking and adaptive management needs of the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF), the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, the 2008 NOAA Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) Biological Opinion, several other regional Biological Opinions, and several federal, state and tribal mitigation programs. The current habitat action effectiveness monitoring and assessment strategies being implemented under these Programs requires a combination of project implementation monitoring, project level and watershed scale effectiveness monitoring, along with habitat/fish status and trend monitoring. This information will support a tool box of various habitat and fish population relationships and models that can be used to make assessments and inferences about the effectiveness of various actions. For these strategies to succeed, the components need to be coordinated with compatible and well documented metrics, methods, and designs and balanced across different categories of action types within limited budgeting available for this type of information.

The PNAMP Action Effectiveness Workgroup has been working with member agencies to coordinate these various strategies and advance a network of action effectiveness monitoring at a regional level.

Project Scale Habitat Action Effectiveness Strategy

We will develop a multi-agency programmatic approach to effectiveness monitoring that is based on a consistent and uniform evaluation process. There are several benefits to a programmatic approach to habitat action monitoring. These benefits include the following:

  • Coordination across agencies conserves limited monitoring funding and reduces effort
  • Data can be shared seamlessly across the region
  • Data analysis is stronger with a larger sample size
  • Agencies could produce a single report for regional monitoring data with quantified results
  • Sub-sampling by category removes the need to monitor every project for effectiveness, further saving on monitoring costs.
  • Results are achievable in the short term- within the first 5 years – for some categories

In order to accomplish these benefits we will:

  • Identify and evaluate categories of projects using a randomized selection process[BAC2] and a standardized experimental design. Categories of projects are projects that address certain kinds of limiting factors such as fish passage, riparian cover, instream structure, etc. The randomized sampling design will answer questions at the category scale concerning which categories are effective in terms of outcomes and cost versus benefit;
  • Where this kind of approach doesn’t work , for unique projects we will develop an additional category for ‘special cases’;
  • Determine the sample size needed to provide statistically valid information about the category of project. This will be accomplished using existing or developed information on project metric variance to calculate sample size needed to have power to detect change within a reasonable time.
  • We will identify the agencies participating by sub-basin and the categories of projects they are willing to help monitor.
  • Identify, publish and maintain standard protocols and field methods that will be used to evaluate each category of action effectiveness project monitoring. Without standardized protocols and field methods comparisons between sponsors of monitored projects will be difficult or impossible to make or to combine for additional power to detect change and to share in costs of evaluation.
  • Define the metrics calculated from the data and what decision criteria will be used to determine effectiveness. The criteria used to determine effectiveness is a policy decision based upon the perceived flexibility in making a management decision and in its need for high or low risk outcomes. For example the project category may be considered effective with only an 80% certainty that a 5% change in habitat conditions has occurred or policy makers may want to be 95% certain that a 50% change in habitat conditions has occurred before they would consider the category of projects effective.
  • Ensure that the metrics can feed into high level indicator reporting established by the states and the NPCC.
  • Create an action effectiveness audit and accountability process with data transparency by selecting a contractor that is independent from the projects being evaluated and with a separate reporting structure directly to the granting entities. Although this is a sensitive subject, the use of disinterested parties to carry out the monitoring ensures that all participants are treated consistently and openly. Results should be reviewed by an independent science panel.
  • Ensure that all project sponsors and proponents are briefed on the results of the effectiveness monitoring as it is completed in order to meet the needs of local interests and volunteers in maintaining interest in and continuity with the local project results.

Intensively Monitored Watersheds (IMW)

Intensively monitored watersheds answer the question: Are the collective habitat improvement projects implemented within our Pacific Northwest watersheds actually increasing the numbers of juvenile salmon and steelhead produced within those watersheds as reflected by an increase in the number of juveniles migrating to the sea? This question has been asked by Congress, state and local governments, and the public. Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board implemented four IMW clusters in 2003 in response to Congress. Northwest Power and Conservation Council has implemented pilot watersheds in the Columbia River Basin and most of them have an IMW component through ISEMP BPA Contract #200301700. NOAA Fisheries has funded additional IMWs in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington directed by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, and the Washington Recreation and Conservation Office through the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board. IMWs are expensive to operate and the results require a minimum of 10-15 years to allow for the return of 2-3 generations of salmon or steelhead. NOAA Fisheries has recommended at least one IMW per salmon recovery domain and to address different limiting factors and ecoregions. The region is close to meeting this recommendation.

  • Protocols, procedures and monitoring designs used in IMWs to the extent possible will be coordinated with reach scale effectiveness monitoring ongoing elsewhere so that the results obtained in IMWs can be extrapolated to other areas of the Pacific Northwest where similar limiting habitat factors are being addressed.
  • Sufficient projects will be sponsored and enacted in order to be able to affect enough of the IMW watershed to be able to detect a significant response in fish abundance.

Identified Participants

Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, Bonneville Power Administration, Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board, NOAAs National Marine Fisheries Service, and Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership

Development Timeline

July 2010

  • Identified participants affirm their willingness to participate in the strategy
  • List of monitoring categories and their distribution across the ColumbiaBasin are identified.

August 2010

  • Tetra-Tech will develop draft evaluation process for each category for PNAMP review, comment, and participant adoption. The evaluation for each category will find common ground in approaches that are currently being implemented across the region.
  • Participants will determine decision criteria for effectiveness of the project categories
  • Basinwide projects are categorized and a random draw is made for the aggregate of all participating agencies within each category to determine which specific projects will be monitored.
  • Monitoring begins by selected monitoring entity or entities.

Similarities Among Existing Effectiveness Programs

Sponsors with Ongoing Project Scale effectiveness Monitoring which test certain kinds or categories of projects are as follows:

Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB)[T3]funding monitoring by Tetra Tech EC of fish passage, channel connectivity, riparian plantings, livestock exclusions channel constraints, gravel placements, habitat purchases, instream structures, diversion screening using BACI or BA design with consistent protocols and methods based on EMAP. Sample Size is approximately 90 projects. SRFB also funds IMW evaluations in Lower Columbia River in Germany, Mill, and Abernathy creeks as well as three Puget Sound sites. Washington Department of Ecology is implementing habitat status/trend monitoring in Washington salmon recovery regions as part of overall habitat condition evaluation and as a part of habitat effectiveness monitoring.

Colville Confederated Tribes (CCT) are monitoring effectiveness of habitat restoration actions in the Okanogan River using upper Columbia River habitat protocols.

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) funding monitoring by Tetra Tech EC of livestock exclusions. Others monitor juniper removal, -- using BACI or BA design. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife coupled with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality evaluate habitat status/trends in Oregon coastal and Lower Columbia River sites and compare results to estimated densities of coho salmon and steelhead.

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) funding monitoring by individual project sponsors on effectiveness of local habitat restoration projects. Methods vary depending upon project sponsor but most are BA design with a variety of protocols and methods.

BPA provides funding for pilot watersheds on watershed scale effectiveness monitoring and IMW monitoring to determine the best metrics and parameters to measure. Their methods and protocols are relatively similar due to overall project oversight by NOAA Fisheries NWFSC. Protocols and methods were taken from EMAP, PiBO and other sources and are partially consistent with Oregon and Washington. Program uses multivariate analysis of treatment areas.

NOAA Fisheries (NMFS) funding for IMWs in the Lemhi, Potlatch, MF John Day, and Asotin Creek. The project sponsors, IDFG, WRCO, and OWEB are using a variety of protocols and methods. Protocols and methods are taken from EMAP, PiBO and other sources and are partially consistent with Oregon and Washington. Designs employ BACI or BA.

Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) funds effectiveness monitoring through the AFEP program designed to test effectiveness of hydropower modifications on fish passage. Protocols and procedures are not related to other habitat effectiveness monitoring being conducted in the Columbia Basin.

US Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau Of Land Management (BLM) BiOP effectiveness monitoring for the Northwest Forest Plan for national forests and BLM lands west of the crest of the Cascades and the Pac Fish InFish Plan for national forests and BLM lands east of the crest of the Cascades and within the Columbia Basin. AREMP and PiBO determine effectiveness of a broad recipe of management actions designed to reduce effects of managed forest lands on watershed health and salmonid survival as well as other avian species. Effectiveness is determined by comparing habitat status and trend of HUC 6 watersheds randomly chosen in those lands since implementing the new standards. Improvement in watershed health is determined using protocols and methods developed by the USFS and BLM and similar to each other and to EMAP. PiBO current sample size is 1,300 sites. AREMP sample size is 250 HUC 6 watersheds. AREMP uses a decision module based on weighted desirable characteristics to typify watersheds while PiBO uses reference stream sections to calibrate watershed sites sampled and to rank them.

Nez Perce Tribe (NPT) is monitoring effectiveness of habitat restoration actions in Clearwater, Lapwai, and other streams in their usual and accustomed fishing areas. Design is mostly BA with some BACI design.

Changes Needed For Better Alignment Of Programs

Protocols and Field Methods

A series of meetings should be held between the field sampling supervisors for each program to reach a compromise standard protocol and field method to the extent possible using the Bowes et al paper as a basis for beginning the process. When needed policy level individuals may be needed to approve changes in programs. [T4]

Information And Data Management

A strategy and timeline for adopting a common data dictionary, common metadata standards and implementation of a Columbia River habitat node to the Northwest Data Exchange Network so that all habitat data can be readily shared and available to all interested parties

Decision Models and Reference Sites

Additional discussion and consensus is needed on how to interpret habitat information, especially status/trend information where multiple metrics are being collected to typify watershed condition[T5]. The decision model approach weights those parameters considered most important in answering the specific management questions needed by the agency performing the monitoring. This approach may obtain quite different results from another management agency using the same information if they weighted the metrics in a different manner than the first agency.

The reference site approach uses those sites with the least human disturbance as the reference or ideal conditions used to typify all other sites. This approach may be affected by altitude, gradient, and other site specific effects.

Coordination of High Level Indicator dials informed by these monitoring programs

Do the metrics developed by these effectiveness monitoring programs provide information for the same high level indicators for OWEB, WA GSRO, NPCC, USFS, and others? If not, what are the differences and can they be explained or translated for comparison and use by all?

1

[BAC1]Michael Newsome comment: I think we need some visuals here to show how implementation, status and trend and effectiveness monitoring are linked. In some cases we will use implementation monitoring in the Katz et al. framework to draw correlative conclusions about project effectiveness. Status and trend monitoring (smolts/spawner, e.g.) may provide the fish metric for the project and fish correlative relationship. In other cases we will use IMWs to develop cause and effect relationships between project categories and fish populations at distinct life-stages. Perhaps we could lay out all of these possibilities visually. Actually I think that we did this in an earlier document.

[BAC2]Michael Newsome commented I am not sure that a randomized sampling design will work for effectiveness monitoring. Most effectiveness monitoring will be opportunistic. I thought we were using Jennifer O’Neal’s survey including IMW work to identify gaps. We may need to classify the categories of actions by ESU or ecological province and add EM to fill the gaps where an ESU or province is not covered adequately. The sample design problem then is to identify a treatment/response monitoring program that meets the Hirrichsen BACI test criteria. Based on those criteria, the study design will need to shoot for large population percentage effects. As I have stated in earlier comments, detecting these large percentage changes should be doable because we are starting with very small (wild) populations.

[T3]Should add in additions that have been made by the Washington Forum to align WA state monitoring with other programs (PIBO)

[T4]Part of this was accomplished with the recommendations from the WA Forum.

[T5]Can we find a process to integrate status and trends with project scale monitoring- through common protocols perhaps?