Converging Lines of Evidence Evaluating Progress Toward Recovery in the Upper Columbia

Transcription

1 Converging Lines of Evidence Evaluating Progress Toward Recovery in the Upper Columbia GREER MAIER SCIENCE PROGRAM MANAGER UPPER COLUMBIA SALMON RECOVERY BOARD

2 However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results W. Churchill

3 Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board INTEGRATED RECOVERY REPORTING PURPOSE Recovery Communication Tracking Adaptive Management PROCESS Data Gathering Compilation Reporting Outreach AUDIENCE UCSRB All-H Managers All-H Policy-Makers

4 HABITAT HATCHERY HYDROPOWER HARVEST Change in Habitat Change in Density Change in Egg-to- Emigrant Survival Change in Emigrant & Smolt Survival Change in Adult Survival Change in Productivity OTHER FACTORS RECOVERY

5 HABITAT ACTIONS Change in Habitat Change in Egg-to- Migrant Survival BUT. Unfortunately we lack much of the Change in Smolt Survival Change in Productivity Change in Adult Survival information needed to evaluate how habitat actions contribute to recovery RECOVERY

6 HABITAT ACTIONS HOWEVER, answering this question is central to accountability and tracking How much should we do? How much will it cost? When will we be done? Are we on track?...etc. RECOVERY

7 HABITAT ACTIONS What we do have MULTIPLE LINE OF EVIDENCE What is the status of habitat? What have we done to improve habitat? How much is left to do? What does the monitoring tell us? Can we model results? RECOVERY

8 Habitat Report

9 Key Questions What is the current status of habitat? What have we done to improve habitat? How have habitat actions potentially benefitted listed species? What are the contribution of habitat actions to recovery? What are the key data gaps and uncertainties?

10 What is the status of habitat?

11 What is the status of habitat? Summary of information Regional Technical Team - Biological Strategy Expert Panel- Current Condition (Low Book End) Reach Assessments CHaMP Monitoring data

12 What have we done to improve habitat?

13 What have we done? our pace of implementing projects has increased by 300% since 2008

14 What have we done? 278 projects completed 22 miles of stream improved 518 instream structures placed 28 miles of restored flow 11 miles of off-channel habitat created 93 barriers removed 282 miles opened to fish 127 acres of riparian habitat improved 3,379 acres protected 47 miles of stream protected

15 What have we done? projects have increased 40-70% since 2008 with the biggest increase in instream and floodplain projects

16 What have we done?

17 Alignment of Habitat Projects with Regional Priorities Restoration Priority Areas Restoration projects were generally focused within priority areas for the region although roughly 28% of restoration projects did not fall within priority areas

18 Alignment of Habitat Projects with Regional Priorities Protection Priority Areas Protection projects were well aligned within priority areas for protection

19 Alignment of Habitat Projects with Regional Priorities Ecological Concerns 33% of projects addressed HIGH priority ecological concerns Percent of Projects Percent EC Identified

20 Alignment of Habitat Projects with Regional Priorities Intrinsic Potential SPRING CHINOOK STEELHEAD

21 What are the benefits to listed species? Summary of monitoring Local effectiveness monitoring Programmatic effectiveness monitoring Literature RESULTS: INCONCLUSIVE

22 What much is left?

23 What much is left? Future Past

24 Simple Model Progress Toward Recovery Current Abundance Egg-to-Emigrant SAR Pre-Spawn Mortality Target Abundance

25 Progress Toward Recovery Full LCM Model Wenatchee Spring Chinook Recovery Criteria It s going to take more than just habitat actions to achieve recovery.but habitat is the key to long-term sustainability

26 Data Gaps and Information Needs Status and trends of habitat related to ecological concerns and summarized at the assessment unit and reach scale. Robust effectiveness monitoring at the reach scale. Modeling tools that can incorporate monitoring data and help evaluate recovery scenarios (e.g., EDT and Life Cycle Modeling). Status and trends of abundance, survival, and life history of freshwater life stages at the tributary scale.

27 Take Home Message We have done a lot of work on the ground and the benefits of this work can be assumed but not proven or translated into progress toward recovery. We generally have LOTS of data but little information to inform restoration and track progress. Modeling is key to interpreting data. In lieu of robust effectiveness monitoring we should be working to ensure our actions are as STRATEGIC as possible and target the limiting life stages and the associated limiting habitat factors at a reach or tributary scale.

28 Questions?

29 What have we done? $63 million dollars spent in the region on capital habitat projects and an additional $6.8 million on non-capital projects since 1996