Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program

Transcription

1 Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program Who/what is PSEMP Monitoring inventory and gap analysis Puget Sound Vital Signs regional context Ken Dzinbal Monitoring Program Manager

2 PSEMP does: PSP created in 2007 Coordinate efforts to restore Puget Sound Lead science and recovery planning, and set priorities Provide tracking, accountability, and reporting Action Agenda Biennial Science Work Plan State of the Sound reports

3 PSEMP created in 2011: Governed by a Charter adopted by the Leadership Council Charter describes a semi-independent collaboration of monitoring entities and interests Coordinate monitoring and build partnerships Build a monitoring framework that supports the Action Agenda and recovery goals Evaluate progress towards recovery of Puget Sound

4

5 Steering Committee Stormwater Work Groups Marine Waters Salmon Toxics Freshwater Birds Modeling Terrestrial Forage Fish and Food Web Nearshore Mammals Rock Fish Other Other Other

6 PSEMP Steering Committee members As of January, 2015 San Juan LIO Lummi Tribe Wa Dept of Agriculture US EPA NOAA NWIFC USGS Wa Dept of Natural Resources Kennedy/Jenks (business consultant) Nisqually Tribe West Central LIO Seattle Audubon Pierce County City of Everett Washington Sea Grant Boeing Company University of Washington King County Seattle City Light Wa Dept of Ecology Mason County Futurewise Wa Dept of Fish and Wildlife

7 PSEMP Work Group members As of January 2015 > 350 total work group members across 12 current work groups Scientists, technical experts, monitoring program managers, data users, others > 200 active members (i.e. attend >50% of meetings)

8 Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program Collaborative network of monitoring agencies and organizations

9 Independent agencies conduct monitoring and manage funding, aligned with their statutory mandates PSP does not fund or conduct monitoring EPA funds PSEMP (PSP) staff for coordination PSEMP operates through collaboration, coordination, and persuasion Focus on: Sharing results; building partnerships Collaborations and coordination

10

11

12 Who is monitoring what, and why? Is current monitoring able/sufficient to track the Vital Sign indicators and targets?

13 PSEMP began by compiling inventories of current monitoring 2012 early 2013

14 12 Vital Signs with data for all indicators 6 Vital Signs with missing or poor data 3 Vital Signs with no data

15 Work Groups developed Conceptual Frameworks to help evaluate monitoring needs beyond the vital signs

16 Gaps Beyond the Vital Signs late 2013 Steelhead population monitoring is dramatically deficient.." 120 Comparison of Chinook and Steelhead Scores By Geographic Region Of Puget Sound Chinook Steelhead 20 0

17 Just a partial list, for example: Need biological samples of adult herring (for age/size/genetics) Conduct zooplankton surveys Status & trend monitoring of salmon habitat at the watershed scale Implement monitoring recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Ocean Acidification Flow monitoring in small streams Define presence and persistence of current urban and agricultural use pesticides Expand steelhead spawner abundance surveys into areas having little or no monitoring Improve fine scale circulation and water quality predictions in bays and inlets Measure abundance and distribution of ESA-listed adult and juvenile rockfishes

18 > 150 gaps beyond the vital signs were identified What to do?

19 Prioritization of Monitoring Gaps Workgroup Monitoring Gaps Sub-committee Prioritization Leadership Council Approval Funding Strategy Steering Committee Compilation Science Panel Review June August October November December

20 Watershed Adaptive Management and Monitoring Plans Effectiveness Framework Pressures Assessment Integrate into current prioritization process Prioritized Monitoring Gaps Indicators

21 Steering Committee debated ranking criteria Choosing 5-10 highest-priority gaps was considered, but misrepresented the actual breadth of gaps Used a decision-model process to identify ranking criteria - But lots of push back on the results (decision criteria are not absolute; may be contextual or arbitrary) *Effectiveness monitoring was recognized as a separate gap

22 Ranking Criteria PSEMP Monitoring Gaps Measurability Strategic Initiatives Work Group Count Readiness Leveraging Data continuity Cost Total NOTE: The following monitoring gaps are NOT RANKED 1 2 Design a comprehensive study focused on evaluating causes for the decline (and limiting recovery) of Cherry Point herring (SCIENCE SUPPORT) Collect biological samples of adult herring (age/size/genetics) 3 Conduct zooplankton surveys Conduct icthyoplankton surveys (esp for estimating abundance of sand lance, other forage fishes and rockfish) Monitor predator diets (predator fishes, seals, birds) Conduct Sound-wide, seasonal (systematic) field surveys of forage fish (and jellies) for diversity, abundance, and other attributes

23 What constitutes a priority gap depends first on policy questions. Dedicated funding provisos, legal mandates, & opportunities also interfere. Work groups asked to chose the top 5 gaps within their topic areas This produced a final list of 56 monitoring gaps (July 2014) Gaps were subsequently classified into 3 policy categories: 1) Gaps directly supporting the Vital Sign indicators 2) Gaps that support one of the Partnership s three strategic initiatives (habitat, shellfish and stormwater) 3) Gaps related to other scientific priorities (e.g., ocean acidification)

24 Category Estimated Annual Cost* 1) Gaps in 9 Vital Signs: $2.3M 2) Gaps that support one of the Partnership s three strategic initiatives: Stormwater (21 gaps identified) $7.3M Habitat (24 gaps identified) $5.3M Shellfish (14 gaps identified) $2.9M 3) Gaps addressing other scientific priorities Ocean acidification (9 gaps) $2.3M Climate change (12 gaps) $2.9M Food web dynamics $1.8M Species status $6.8M * gaps and costs include overlaps so are NOT additive!

25 PSEMP report transmitted to PSP, EPA, Leadership Council, ECB, Science Panel, and PSEMP agencies

26 PSP used the PSEMP Gap Analysis and forwarded a $2.7M budget request to the Governor to fill Vital Sign monitoring gaps. (PSP s highest priority budget request!) Governor s Office reduced the total request but included ~$1.04M in his proposed biennial budget to fill gaps in 6 Vital Signs and modestly augment effectiveness monitoring An additional $3M is proposed for WDFW to improve monitoring for toxics in fish (also a Vital Sign) WOW!

27 Vital Signs = ecosystem indicators reflect recovery goals snapshot of overall health can be tracked over time resonate with public

28 Over 30 scientists and their teams Dozens of organizations 1. Ken Balcomb, Center for Whale Research 2. Scott Berbells, Washington Department of Health 3. Bob Carey, The Nature Conservancy 4. Randy Carman, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 5. Paul Cereghino, NOAA 6. Christopher Clinton, Washington Department of Ecology 7. Pete Dowty, Washington Department of Natural Resources 8. Maggie Dutch, Washington Department of Ecology 9. Leska Fore, Puget Sound Partnership 10. Stuart Glasoe, Washington Department of Health 11. Alana Knaster, Puget Sound Partnership 12. Ken Koch, Washington Department of Ecology 13. Christopher Konrad, U.S. Geological Survey 14. Christopher Krembs, Washington Department of Ecology 15. Adam Lindquist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 16. Julie Lowe, Washington Department of Ecology 17. Dayv Lowry, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 18. Alex Mitchell, Puget Sound Partnership 19. Scott Pearson, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 20. Paul Pickett, Washington Department of Ecology 21. Kenneth B. Pierce Jr., Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 22. Puget Sound Recovery Implementation Technical Team (RITT) 23. Mindy Roberts, Washington Department of Ecology 24. Mindy Rowse, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 25. David St. John, Puget Sound Partnership 26. Hugh Shipman, Washington Department of Ecology 27. Fred Short, Washington Department of Natural Resources 28. Kurt Stick, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 29. Kari Stiles, Puget Sound Partnership 30. Markus Van Prause, Washington Department of Ecology 31. Dave Ward, Puget Sound Partnership 32. Jim West, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 33. Jo Wilhelm, King County

29 Freshwater Quality Index

30 Streamflow trends

31 Marine WQ Index

32 New Shoreline Armoring (rate)

33 Eelgrass Trends

34

35

36

37 Toxics in Fish

38 Sediment Chemistry Index

39 Herring

40 Chinook Spawners No trend; Total numbers << targets

41 One last thing

42 Annually since 2011 An unprecedented, collaborative summary of annual monitoring results focused on Puget Sound s marine waters: climate and weather ocean conditions river inputs seawater temperature salinity, nutrients, dissolved oxygen ocean acidification phytoplankton and spring bloom biotoxins, bacteria and pathogens, shellfish birds, mammals, forage fish and more...