DRAFT 2009_0923
PNAMP ISTM PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR HABITAT MONITORING TASKS
Narrative Preamble:
The 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) Biological Opinion (BiOp) is a tenyear operations and configuration plan to mitigate for the adverse effects of the hydrosystem on
the 13 listed fish under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The BiOp provides mitigation
actions that are required of the FCRPS action agencies to avoid jeopardy and adverse
modification of the critical habitat of ESA listed Columbia River fish. Ongoing projects
supported and new projects developed are designed to contribute to hydro, habitat, hatchery and
predation management activities required under the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion.
Additionally, the projects assist the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) in meeting its
protection, mitigation, and enhancement objectives and responsibilities by implementing the
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program adopted pursuant of the Northwest Power Act.
1
Project Title: Development of a Coordinated Multi-Agency Habitat Monitoring Program in
the Lower Columbia River ESU to Meet Regional Priorities for Salmon Recovery
Table 1. Proposal Metadata:
Project Number
Title
Development of a Coordinated Multi-Agency Habitat Status and
Trends Monitoring Program in the Lower Columbia River ESU to Meet
Regional Priorities for Salmon Recovery
Proposer
PNAMP ISTM Workgroup. Ecy, lcfrb, odfw,usfs
The goal of this project is to develop a coordinated habitat monitoring
program to assess the status and trend of tributary habitat conditions in
the Lower Columbia River (LCR). This program will address priority
monitoring questions to meet the needs of regional decision-makers and
managers. The resulting program will inform and be repeatable in
regions outside the LCR.
Brief Description
The specific objectives for this project include: 1) determine and
prioritize monitoring questions and objectives for management
agencies, including appropriate spatial and temporal scales;
1) determine adequacy of existing monitoring programs, potential
efficiencies, and existing gaps; 3) identify feasible monitoring designs,
sampling frames, protocols, and analytical tools; 4) develop a set of
habitat monitoring recommendations for the LCR based on regional
priorities established in Objective 1, cost-effectiveness, and a range of
budgets..
Province(s)
Columbia Estuary, Lower Columbia, Columbia Gorge
Subbasin(s)
Columbia Estuary, Lower & Lower Mid-Columbia Mainstem including
Big Creek, Clackamas, Clatskanie, Cowlitz, Elochoman, Grays, Hood
River, Kalama, Lewis, Little White Salmon, Lower Gorge tributaries,
Scappoose, Sandy, Upper Gorge Tributaries, Washougal, Wind,
Youngs Bay.
Contact Name
Bob Cusimano (WADOE) OTHERS? and Jen Bayer (USGS/PNAMP)
Contact email
[email protected], [email protected], ????
Projected Start Date January 1, 2010
2
A. Abstract
In response to ESA listings for salmon and steelhead, federal and state agencies, local
governments, private industry, and the tribes have invested substantial resources to restore and
protect the ecological function of rivers and streams in the Pacific Northwest. One of the
important salmon recovery needs is the ability to describe, with known certainty, the current
status and long-term trends of the habitat conditions (physical, chemical, and biological
conditions) of these aquatic resources. The goal of this project is to develop a coordinated
habitat monitoring program for the Lower Columbia River ESU that meets these information
needs and ultimately answers the question: “Are the primary habitat factors limiting the viability
of the salmon and steelhead populations and ESU increasing or decreasing?”
The objectives for this project include:
1) Determine and prioritize monitoring questions and objectives for management agencies,
including appropriate spatial and temporal scales;
2) Determine adequacy of existing monitoring programs, potential efficiencies, and existing
gaps;
3) Identify feasible monitoring designs, sampling frames, protocols, and analytical tools
a. Identify a probability-based sampling design and site selection process (using a
master sample from a linear based hydrographic system) that will allow for
characterizing habitat status and trends throughout the LCR, to demonstrate the
utility of the master sample approach for providing a consistent framework for
regional habitat monitoring efforts;
b. Evaluate need for common list of habitat indicators and metrics or potential
habitat indexing protocol that can be used to compare and analyze metrics across
programs for evaluating potential limiting factors;
c. Integrate existing information and monitoring data, where possible, into the status
assessment (may include data colleted outside of the master sample, as well as
data collected from a master sample draw that would need different weighting);
d. Supplement baseline status and trend assessments with remote sensing techniques
to assess watershed and land-cover/land-use conditions within the ESU;
4) Develop a set of habitat monitoring recommendations for the LCR based on regional
priorities established in Objective 1, cost-effectiveness, and a range of budgets; and
5) Recommend process for implementation, data management, reporting mechanisms, and
adaptive management of monitoring.
B. Problem Statement: technical and/or scientific background
Human disturbance and natural alterations to watershed and stream regulating processes
(characteristics of the riparian zone and channel) can decrease the amount of high-quality habitat
in a watershed and disrupt the regeneration and maintenance of habitat for salmonid and aquatic
species. Monitoring is needed to assess the status of listed species and their habitat, track
progress toward achieving recovery goals, and provide information needed to refine recovery
strategies and actions through the process of adaptive management.
3
Current monitoring for watershed and stream habitat conditions is poorly coordinated with
limited ability to roll data up into comprehensive statistically valid assessments. A number of
factors have contributed to the current disparate monitoring approaches adopted by monitoring
entities. These factors include:
1) differing agency missions, programs, and monitoring needs;
2) differences (or perceived differences) in the questions and indicators that need to be
addressed by the monitoring program;
3) different jurisdictions or spatial extents;
4) legacy of past monitoring programs (e.g. “we have always done things this way and need
to maintain data continuity”);
5) differing levels of required scientific rigor;
6) needs for site specific monitoring or area based monitoring design and
7) differing levels of available funding.
After considering the above factors, the PNAMP Integrated Monitoring Workgroup concluded
that the geographic area encompassed by Lower Columbia Region (LCR) would be an
appropriate place to demonstrate how a master sample could facilitate integration of watershed
and stream data collection. This area is within the jurisdiction of two states (Oregon and
Washington) and numerous federal, tribal, watershed, county, and municipal entities; is the focus
of ongoing recovery efforts for four ESA listed anadromous salmonid species (coho, chum,
Chinook, and steelhead), and bull trout; and has diverse land use and increasing human
population pressures. Also this area uses multiple existing master samples draws, including the
Washington’s Statewide habitat assessment design, the USFS AREMP, and ODFW master
samples, and it provides opportunities to show how existing monitoring designs may be
integrated.
Using the LCR as a demonstration area will provide the opportunity to pilot the evaluation of
monitoring methods and their bias and precision, and implement a comprehensive monitoring
design across two states and multiple entities to assess instream and riparian habitat conditions
on clearly defined regional priorities.
The agencies involved in this proposed monitoring coordination project are responsible to collect
data on watershed and stream attributes that are directly or indirectly related to salmon and trout
environmental requirements. These data may be used to answer multiple questions at varying
scales, including population/subbasin-level status and trend questions, as well as ESU-wide
management and delisting questions. The Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF,
2008), Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish & Wildlife Subbasin Plan (LCFRB 2006),
draft Lower Columbia River Conservation and Recovery Plan for Oregon Populations of Salmon
and Steelhead (ODFW 2009), and FCRPS Biological Opinion identified the major limiting
habitat factors that are potentially limiting salmon and trout survival and recovery in Washington
and Oregon. Additional work by the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership
(PNAMP), the Washington Forum on Monitoring, North West Executive Information Sharing
(NWEIS) group and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) have identified
high level indicators for habitat condition that are used in regional reports. However, current
monitoring is not coordinated in a manner to support aggregating up data from various individual
4
sources to provide summary results across larger areas i.e. watersheds or basins. The proposed
project will evaluate the need for consistent comparable indicators and metrics versus the use of
a habitat classification index that would allow for comparison across disparate programs.
One tool that may facilitate more compatible and consistent habitat data collection efforts is the
development of a coordinated master sample design that can serve as the framework to support
the further evaluation of indicators at various spatial and temporal scales. The utility of the
master sample design concept is based on the basic assumption that it is not feasible to measure
indicators of choice at all locations throughout a chosen stream network at the spatial scale that is
of current interest (e.g., sub-basins, ESU/DPS scale, population scale, and state-wide). As a
result, the demonstration will apply the concept of a sample survey by which representative
locations are identified and sampled. Inferences with various degrees of certainty will then be
able to be made at various scales based on data collected at the sample of sites. Where
appropriate, the preferred technique is to select sites using a Generalized RandomizedTessellation Stratified (GRTS) design (Stevens and Olsen, 2004). This will apply the concept of
a master sample consisting of a large number of locations identified using the GRTS design. A
linear based master sample design for Oregon and Washington was created based on the
1:24,000 National Hydrography Data set (NHD), and will be used in this project to facilitate the
use of a common master sample to monitoring stream and riparian conditions across the
Northwest.
While there is no doubt that the master sample concept is a tool that will be useful in designing
many aspects of habitat monitoring, it may not be the most appropriate tool for the design of
some aspect of habitat monitoring. This may be particularly true for conditions that are
relatively rare along a stream network (such as impairment to fish passage), or indicators that can
be economically measured by way of a census (such as remote sensing of upslope and riparian
conditions).
A major purpose of this monitoring coordination project is to report on recovery progress to
federal and state administrators, Congress, the State Legislatures, and the public; therefore, it is
essential that we choose parameters that can accurately portray progress. Remote sensing may
provide a method to supplement baseline status and trends monitoring to help answer some
broad-scale questions in an efficient manner. The combination of on-the-ground monitoring
supplemented with remote sensing data may provide varying levels of information to address
recovery progress at differing spatial and temporal scales.
Goals and Objectives
The goal of this project is to develop a coordinated habitat monitoring program that addresses
key regional (priority) monitoring questions and develop study designs of sufficient quality and
quantity to determine the status of LCR tributary habitat conditions in order to address the
primary management question: “Are the primary habitat factors limiting the status of the salmon
and steelhead populations and ESU increasing or decreasing?”
5
The proposal includes the following five objectives:
1. Determine and prioritize monitoring questions and objectives for management agencies,
including appropriate spatial and temporal scales;
The Lower Columbia Region provides a unique opportunity to evaluate status and trends of
habitat conditions across a complex bi-state area with multiple listed salmonid species. One
of the ultimate goals of this project is to assist management entities in making decisions and
reporting on habitat status in relation to recovery of listed species. It is recognized that these
decisions may need to occur at different spatial scales, as well as different temporal scales.
For example, the status of habitat in a given county may be important to track the effects of
local critical areas ordinances. In addition, the status of habitat loss or improvement in a
subbasin may be important to answer questions about sharing recovery burden across impacts
(habitat, harvest, etc).
While ESA recovery plan priorities for the LCR will serve as the foundation for developing
monitoring priorities, management agencies may have additional questions they need
answered through habitat monitoring. These non-recovery-related monitoring goals may
provide opportunities to extend existing long-term data sets, evaluate indicator streams, or
provide information related to other management objectives. These monitoring goals are
important to identify, as they may provide opportunities for efficiencies, more detailed data
collection, or the use of differing monitoring techniques.
While most management entities have a good sense of the questions they need answered, in
order to develop a comprehensive, efficient monitoring program, it will be necessary to
identify the relevant monitoring questions and objectives from all entities, as well as
determine a method for their prioritization. This prioritization method may involve
evaluating populations present within a geographic area, their recovery goal (Primary,
Contributing, or Stabilizing), and other factors. The result of this objective will be a
prioritized list of monitoring questions, including their appropriate spatial and temporal
scales. This list should be able to be integrated with the concurrent effort to develop a
comprehensive biological (fish) monitoring program.
6
Cascade
Tilton River
Upper Cowlitz River
Lewis
Lower Cowlitz River
Grays River
Pacific
Cispus River
Wahkiakum
Elochoman
Mill,
River
Abernathy
& Germany
Creeks
Big
Creek
Youngs River
Toutle River
Cowlitz
NF Lewis River
Coweeman River
Clatskanine
River
Big White
Salmon
River
Kalama River
Skamania
Coast
Scappoose
Creek
Wind
River
EF Lewis River
Clark
Salmon
Creek
Little
White
Slamon
River
Klickitat
Upper Gorge
Tribs
Washougal River
Lower Gorge
Tribs
Hood River
Sandy River
Clackamas River
Clackamas River
Gorge
Figure 1. Lower Columbia Region
2. Determine adequacy of existing monitoring programs, potential efficiencies, and existing
gaps;
Many habitat monitoring programs exist in the LCR, and there have been numerous efforts to
identify and document those programs by LCFRB, NOAA, ODFW, and others. This project
will build on these existing inventories to identify potential efficiencies with ongoing
monitoring programs. In addition, this project will identify gaps related to answering
questions relevant to recovery objectives or other management objectives. These gaps and
efficiencies may include overlap in monitoring programs, basins without adequate
monitoring, and high priority basins to target with more frequent monitoring efforts.
7
3. Identify feasible monitoring designs, sampling frames, protocols, and analytical tools
1. Identify a probability-based sampling design and site selection process (using a
master sample from a linear based hydrographic system) that will allow for
characterizing habitat status and trends throughout the LCR, to demonstrate the utility
of the master sample approach for providing a consistent framework for regional
habitat monitoring efforts
Determining the status and habitat trends over time over a large geographic area like the LCR
can be accomplished with a census or random sampling. A census by definition requires
every unit of a population to be measured. Since this approach is often impractical, random
samples of the population are taken to make statistical inferences about a population with
known confidence. This project is based on a probability-based sampling design and site
selection process and is consistent with and complimentary to the recent PNAMP project that
is being implemented in the LCR to develop and implement a master sampling design that
can be used to integrate fish and habitat monitoring.
Our population of interest is the linear stream network and results from the project will be
expressed in terms of length (kilometers, miles) or percent population length. Within this
population, data gathered needs to be able to answer questions at a variety of spatial scales
for a variety of management agencies. GIS data for existing boundaries may be used to
guide scope and site selection (sample draws). These data sets include:
 Salmon Recovery Region (SRR)
 Willamette/Lower Columbia TRT Population Designations
(http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/mapsanddata.cfm)
 WA Water Resource Inventory Area
 Strata/Ecoregion
 Physiographic zones
 County
 USGS Hydrologic Unit
 Ownership (federal, state, private)
 Stream habitat restoration priority tiers (LCFRB)
 Distribution for each listed species
 Stream layers
Because existing monitoring programs collect data focused on a variety of spatial scales, the
proposed project will document what attributes were used in the site selection process for the
existing designs. For example how are the GIS data for Water Resource Inventory Areas
(WRIAs), federal or state lands, ESA populations, Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs),
ecoregions, bio-geographical regions, or priority stream reaches used to determine scope and
site selection. This information will be critical in determining monitoring gaps that need to be
filled, as well as how existing monitoring data can be integrated into the overall design
(Objective 3c).
For example, the LCFRB’s Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation Program recommends the
following sampling targets to represent conditions at the subbasin level: samples in each of
8
18 subbasins, 3 physiographic zones, 4 stream orders and 3 replicates in each strata (648
samples total). This sampling scheme could be repeated on a 12 year rotating panel to
incorporate status and trend monitoring goals. It may also be appropriate to incorporate
monitoring at sensitive indicator sites on a more frequent (3-year) rotation to detect trends
over a shorter time scale. The resulting sample design and process for its development
should be repeatable in regions outside the LCR.
b. Evaluate need for common list of habitat indicators and metrics or potential habitat
indexing protocol that can be used to compare metrics across programs for evaluating
potential limiting factors;
Due to the number of disparate ongoing monitoring efforts across the region, there exists a
need to make data comparable. One option to this end is to develop a common list of habitat
indicators and metrics that implementers agree to use in data collection. These indicators and
metrics can then be used to evaluate potential salmon and steelhead limiting factors at
multiple scales. Indicators may be based on PNAMP HLI recommendations (PNAMP 2009),
the ongoing work from the PNAMP monitoring glossary project, LCFRB and ODFW
Recovery Plan indicators and metrics, and the FCRPS RM&E workgroup. This option
would ultimately result in a list of habitat monitoring metrics and indicators using controlled
vocabulary to facilitate , or ensure interoperability and data exchange of information.
Currently each agency may use various synonyms/aliases for the same term or they may use
variations of summary metrics based on core metrics collected in the field.
Another option would be to develop an index system that would allow data collected using a
variety of methods to be compared as indicators of watershed condition or health. For
example, a rating for a subbasin could be expressed as a numeric score from 1-100 by
aggregating individual metric scores into an index. This would allow data collected for
varying purposes to be compared at a broader scale to answer questions about habitat status.
This project will evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of each option, incorporating the
appropriate management agencies, and determine the preferred course of action.
c. Integrate existing information and monitoring data, where possible, into the status
assessment (may include data colleted outside of the master sample, as well as data
collected from a master sample draw that would need different weighting);
In collaboration with ongoing PNAMP Master Sample design project (Oregon State
University is responsible for the development of the master sample and web-based tracking
tool), this project will identify how existing monitoring programs may be integrated into the
new regional master sample or into a specific new design. This will identify how existing
sites may be associated to the new master sample draw points and how they sites may be
weighted. For example if the AREMP program has 5 sites in federal lands in a watershed
and WA ECY has 2 new site on state lands, and the LCFRB has the desire for 9 total sites
distributed across 3 biogeographical regions, how would AREMP the sites be weighted to
support a spatially balanced sample and evaluation.
9
This project will also identify the steps needed to incorporate monitoring from existing
programs that are not based on probability designs and what the limitations are for inclusion.
For example how could an existing water quality monitoring station for a county be
incorporated into a design and weighted. Note: this will not focus on the compatibility of data
or the confidence intervals around data associated with various field monitoring data
collection methods and protocols.
This project will identify the constraints for site incorporation into a master sample. This
should identify what the limitations are and what factors are considered for weighting a value
of an existing monitoring site.
d. Supplement baseline status and trend assessments with remote sensing techniques to
assess watershed and land-cover/land-use conditions within the ESU;
Remote sensing is currently used to assess land-cover and land-use conditions within the
Lower Columbia ESU. This ongoing monitoring effort could be tied into the overall
monitoring strategy. While this tool may not be directly tied to the master sample, the
information gathered from remote sensing could be used to fill gaps or detect broad-scale
changes in an efficient manner.
Using geographic information system (GIS) and remotely sensed data to describe habitat
conditions in the Lower Columbia River Salmon Recovery Region has potential to efficiently
provide data describing the conditions of upland and riparian habitat, and perhaps of some
important features of large streams or rivers.
There are several advantages to sampling using GIS and remote sensing, including the ability to
reduce temporal variability by collecting all data in a short time, high certainty of site access, and
permanent records of data that allows for continued development of methods and reanalysis.
Furthermore, the cost of procuring GIS and remotely sensed data has been decreasing while the
cost of field sampling has been increasing rapidly.
Remote Sensing Data
Three types of remotely sensed data might prove useful for habitat monitoring and evaluation:

Satellite-derived data (e.g., LANDSAT TM) can provide a coarse census of land use and
land cover throughout the Recovery Region. Such data are frequently available, cost little
to procure, have a long period of record to allow trend detection, and standard methods of
analysis are developed. The Interagency Mapping and Assessment Program (IMAP)
recently finished an assessment of wall-to-wall vegetation cover type, seral stage, and
changes over the past 15 years for the states of Washington and Oregon. This partnership
included the participation of the Washington Department of Natural Resources. The
assessment is expected to be repeated on five-year intervals. The Status of Vegetation
maps can be found at these two websites:
10
o http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lemma/main.php?project=nwfp&id=studyAreas
o http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lemma/main.php?project=imap&id=studyAreas
The Aquatic and Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Program staff is using IMAP data as
part of their efforts to characterize watershed condition:
o Hydrologic recovery (based on stand maturity) is determined by vegetation cover
found at rain-on-snow elevations;
o Hydrologic connectivity is partly evaluated by the proportion of the watershed
that has been converted to urban or agricultural uses;
o Riparian stand maturity is based on percent riparian with large conifers and
hardwoods; and
o Landslide risk is partly determined by the amount of forested and non-forested
areas.

Low-level high-resolution aerial photography can be used to supplement satellite-derived
data. Photographic sampling can provide accurate, high resolution descriptions of land
cover and land use for parts of the landscape that importantly effect salmon (e.g., riparian
zones). Attributes such as the presence of large wood can be tallied in large streams and
rivers with little canopy cover. However, some further work will likely be required to
provide standard methods of image processing and data analysis. Alternatively, where
and when available aerial photographs can be procured from ongoing programs such as
the National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA). The USDA is amenable to providing supplemental remotely sensed
data (e.g., different sensors and additional sampling periods) and alternative sampling
methods (e.g., different areas and different resolutions).

Finally, light detecting and ranging (LiDAR) data can provide a useful, high resolution
description of bank conditions (e.g., presence of dikes) and stream morphology (e.g.,
floodplain width, channel gradient). Overlaying LiDAR and aerial photography data can
provide an informative description of the status of upland and riparian conditions that
effect instream habitat conditions. Because LiDAR data are relatively expensive to
procure and process, their procurement might often be limited to priority areas. Some
LiDAR data are available from the Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium.
11
Remotely sensed data usually do not provide the high resolution descriptions of stream habitat
that is often desired for monitoring. However, it can be a cost effective alternative to collecting
some field data and might prove sufficient to address many questions. When a census is not
feasible, sampling is often used. However, appropriate sampling schemes for collecting
remotely sensed data to describe stream systems are little developed. Point sampling using
remote sensing is usually inefficient. Spatial units that describe the habitat for priority
populations can be prioritized for a census via aerial photography and LiDAR. Further, stream
types or specific locations (e.g., non-wadeable streams) can be identified and prioritized for
sampling. Methods for appropriately integrating remotely sensed data that describe conditions
across large spatial extents with field data collected at randomly selected locations for status and
trend monitoring remain to be fully developed.
Geographic Information System (GIS)
GIS data are useful for calculating environmental attributes that describe habitat at different
spatial extents. It can also be used as a surrogate for upslope and riparian processes. For
example, a GIS can be used to measure the spatial location of roads in relation to stream
crossings, hill slopes and riparian areas, which are used as a surrogate for sediment delivery to
streams. Various GIS stream layers are available at different scales and other types of GIS data
(e.g., soil types) are being developed. Some advantages of using GIS are that data are readily
12
accessible to different users, data continue to be improved, spatial coverage is expanding, and
analytical methods are improving. However, coordination of data is often challenging; more
than one layer may exist for an attribute. For example, in Washington data users are still
developing a shared, standard GIS stream layer.
Roads can affect ground water interception, shade, floodplain loss, channel modification (stream
straightening), connectivity (passage for fish, sediment, wood), channel complexity, and flow
interception. Because it is difficult to directly measure these impacts, road attributes are often
used as surrogates to describe watershed processes. The Aquatic and Riparian Effectiveness
Monitoring Program staff is using the following road GIS data as part of their efforts to
characterize watershed condition.;
 Number of road-stream crossings;
 Miles of road (paved and unpaved) in riparian areas;
 Proximity of roads to streams;
 Steepness of slope where roads occur; and
 Influence of road density on landslide risk.
The following are preliminary results for status and trend of a road-stream crossing attribute for
the Oregon Coast aquatic province.
Road Crossing Scores
1994
2009
I-5
Trend
I-5
I-5
13
Trend Data
Status Data
+0.61 to 1.0
+ 0.2 to 0.6
-0.19 to
+0.2
-0.59 to -0.2
-1.0 to -0.6
+25%
+15 - 24%
+5 - 14%
-4 - +4%
-5 - 14%
-15 - 24%
-25%
The Pacific Northwest Regional Geographic Information Council (PNW-RGIC) is composed of
federal, state, local, and tribal members from Oregon, Washington, and Idaho who are dedicated
to assisting regional stakeholders by coordinating, promoting, and enabling the development,
distribution, and maintenance of regionally and nationally significant geospatial data sets. See
http://pnw-rgic.wr.usgs.gov/about.htm for more information about PNW-RGIC.
4. Develop a set of habitat monitoring recommendations for the LCR based on regional
priorities established in Objective 1, cost-effectiveness, and a range of budgets.
The primary result of this effort is a monitoring program that allows entities to determine the
status and trend of habitat conditions in the LCR. This program should incorporate the
appropriate spatial and temporal scales necessary to answer the priority monitoring questions
identified in Objective 1. These questions will include both recovery-based goals and other
management goals and constraints. The resulting program will include a detailed plan for
implementation at varying funding levels, recognizing the need to take advantage of existing
programs while ensuring adequate sampling coverage. The resulting program will be
integrated with ongoing methods to monitor fish population status and trends, as well as
ongoing efforts to design an estuary monitoring program.
5. Recommend process for implementation, data management, reporting mechanisms, and
adaptive management of monitoring.
Based on the set of prioritized recommendation for habitat monitoring developed in objective
4, recommendations will be made on the most appropriate ways to implement the monitoring
(i.e. lead entities, cost estimates, etc.), data management needs, and reporting mechanisms.
This objective recognizes the need for flexibility in the monitoring design. As data are
analyzed to answer the various questions identified in Objective 1, the scale and frequency of
sampling may need to be adjusted. Over time, additional management questions may arise
that would cause the need to adjust the sampling scheme. This project will identify points
where the efficacy of the sampling design is evaluated. This evaluation should involve the
relevant management agencies and look for potential refinements and efficiencies, as well as
potential deficiencies in the sampling program. This adaptive management program might
14
also look for opportunities to incorporate additional monitoring goals such as project
effectiveness monitoring and critical uncertainties research, if appropriate.
15