Download High Level Indicators for Salmon and Ecosystem Health

DRAFT
HLI Rept2 NWEIS v1.doc
High Level Indicators for Salmon and Ecosystem Health
Report on Aquatic Ecosystem Indicators
Prepared by PNAMP for the Northwest Environmental Information Sharing Executive Summit
(3/26/09)
Background
In May 2008, the Northwest Environmental Information Sharing (NWEIS) executive summit initiated a
new task (Task 5) to address the long term goal of achieving a core set of indicators that could be shared
in common to communicate salmon status and ecosystem health to Congress, legislatures, governors, and
the public. NWEIS requested the assistance of the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership
(PNAMP) to provide technical review and support. In response, in September 2008, PNAMP compiled
basic information in a report that included: current high level biological, physical, and implementation
indicators currently in use in the PNW; who is using the indicators; and to the extent possible, metrics
being used to support the indicators.
At their October 2008 meeting, NWEIS executives decided that in addition to concurrent tasks aimed at
fish and ecosystem monitoring, substantial additional focus was needed to expedite work on a key need –
identification of high level indicators for aquatic ecosystem or watershed health. The executives asked
PNAMP to continue their assistance by providing information pertinent to those HLIs:
1. List of potential indicators
2. Definitions and metrics in use for these indicators
3. Data gaps
4. Recommendations for consideration by NWEIS
High level indicators for ecosystem and watershed health are communicated in easily understood terms
and are used to address the following kinds of questions posed by decision-makers:
 What is the status of biological and physical conditions at identified scales (e.g., region-wide,
statewide), and how is that condition changing over time?
 Are freshwater and estuarine habitats healthy and productive?
Use of HLIs requires that data be compatible across multiple geographical scales – local data that can be
rolled-up to larger scales, and rolling-up regional data to even broader scales (statewide). In contrast, data
collected for HLIs at larger scales should also be able to inform local questions. Agreeing on HLIs for
watershed/ecosystem health is an important first step for agencies to incorporate the relevant measures in
their monitoring programs.
Approach
This report builds upon and generalizes from the solid base of HLI information prepared for PNAMP’s
2008 inventory report to NWEIS, updating that information where appropriate (cite a link to the
ecosystem/watershed health section our updated inventory here... should avoid cluttering up the doc or
piling on Appendices). PNAMP benefited considerably from coordination with the recent surge in
complementary HLI activities, especially those of the Washington Forum on Monitoring Salmon
Recovery and Watershed Health, the work of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, and others
across the Pacific Northwest.
The results below for aquatic ecosystem or watershed health HLI are intended to reflect the areas of
greatest alignment across current agency initiatives, reports, and associated policy interests. This includes
1
DRAFT
HLI Rept2 NWEIS v1.doc
general alignment of questions, issues of scale, existing information, and potential new data needs.
Although PNAMP’s interest also extends to fish-related HLIs, those HLIs are not the focus of this report.
List of Potential Indicators and Example Metrics
Identified below is a short list of six core indicators for watershed health. They are narrower in scope but
complementary to broader indicators of “ecosystem health” or general biodiversity. More work is needed
to identify the most common and meaningful measures for each indicator.
A. Water Quality
B. Stream Flow
C. Sediment Quality
D. Habitat Quality (in-stream and riparian)
E. Biological Health (in-stream)
F. Land Use / Land Cover
A. Water Quality
 Example measures: Water quality indices (WQI) are already being used in several high level
reports (e.g., WA, OR). The specific index and how to deal with technical issues like monthly vs.
one-time samples, and sampling design and distribution, still need refinement. A starting point is
the WQI as currently reported in Washington’s State of Salmon in Watersheds Report, which
aggregates temperature, pH, fecal coliform bacteria, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and sediments
over a 12-month period. A randomized sampling design (e.g., GRTS) applied to common
statewide sampling frames is assumed, but is not currently being implemented broadly.
B. Stream Flow
 Example measure: percentage of time minimum instream flows (as established in state rule) are
met during the salmon critical period (August 1 – September 30).
C. Sediment Quality
 Example measures: measures like those obtained from the EPA Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Project (e.g., substrate size, embededness); Relative Bed Stability is a relatively new
index with high potential.
D. Habitat Quality (in-stream and riparian habitat)
 Example measures: it would be highly desirable to agree on a Habitat Quality Index (HQI);
however, such agreement does not yet exist. In lieu of a widely-accepted HQI, a starting point is
to identify a short-list of core measures that would be informative on their own and could
eventually feed into an HQI:
o Stream physical character (e.g., channel morphology, sinuosity) (still need work on the
specific metrics to be reported)
o Riparian vegetation (e.g., canopy density, vegetation type and height) (still need work on
the specific metrics to be reported)
o In-stream habitat (e.g., large woody material, pool ratio, pool residual depth) (still need
work on the specific metrics to be reported)
E. Biological Health (in-stream)
 Example measure: macro-invertebrates (need to define the specific metrics or indices that would
be reported), and possibly periphyton
F. Land Use/ Land Cover
2
DRAFT

HLI Rept2 NWEIS v1.doc
Example measure: information obtained from remote sensing (general attributes only: land use
type and change in terms of agriculture/forest/urban, percent impervious surface)
Data Gaps
There are fewer comprehensive data to include in ecosystem or watershed health HLIs, in contrast to
salmon and steelhead. Although some data exist for each of the HLI categories identified above, there are
considerable gaps in coverage in time and space. More work is needed to better adequately describe the
type and extent of existing data coverage and gaps, and existing data management systems and access.
Recommendations for NWEIS Consideration
 Endorse a short list of high level indicators for watershed health, and commit support for additional
work to continue to flesh details out (i.e., refining definitions and metrics)
 Seek more detail on existing data for the indicators, and identify impediments and solutions to
facilitate access and sharing where data exist.
 Other ?
Needed Indicator Work
PNAMP interests have identified the following ecosystem/watershed health and other indicator categories
for which more work is appropriate:
 Nearshore/estuary condition indicators and measures
 Toxics
 Pollutant loads (all significant pollutants)
 Fecals
 Implementation indicators
 Project or action effectiveness indicators
Summary
1. The indicators are truly “high-level.” They would be derived from specific measures and a
number of component data and indices.
2. They are aligned with and responsive to a broad range of policy interests (salmon recovery and
watershed health), but are narrower in scope and complementary to broader indicators of
“ecosystem health” or general biodiversity.
3. They are consistent with several previous efforts to develop indicators to address the same or
similar questions and purposes (e.g. Washington’s “State of Salmon in Watersheds” and
“Environmental Indicators for the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds”), providing
credibility and the potential for broad consistency.
4. Several of these indicators are essentially “ready to go,” pending a relatively moderate extent
of additional development and agreement among implementing agencies (e.g., water quality and
flow, land use/land cover). All would benefit from improving the data management and data
transfer steps needed to roll-up the data for broad reporting. Some measures will require
improved sampling designs.
5. Progress has been made in recent years on identifying and reporting common indicators and
metrics to track implementation of actions (e.g., number of fish barriers improved, number of
miles/acres restored). Much room for improvement remains, especially with regard to access and
sharing of data across agencies.
3
DRAFT
HLI Rept2 NWEIS v1.doc
6. Identification of indicators and measures that pertain to questions about the effectiveness of
actions on high level outcomes is lagging; they are currently not included in HLI reports.
Effectiveness questions include – “are our actions responsible for producing more fish and/or
better habitat?” “Did our actions have the outcome we wanted?”
4
DRAFT
HLI Rept2 NWEIS v1.doc
Appendix X
Examples of Indicator Sorting Criteria/Questions
Criteria:
Quantifiable – Can be described numerically and objectively
Relevant – Is biologically and socially germane to the question(s) being asked
Responsive – Will be sensitive to the stressors of concern
Understandable – Can be summarized in intuitively meaningful ways to a wide range of audiences and is
pertinent to decision makers
Reliable – Will be supported by science; statistical properties understood
Accessible – Data exist or collection of necessary data is feasible, in terms of cost, time, skills
Adapted from Dent et al. (2005). Environmental indicators for the Oregon Plan for Salmon and
Watersheds. Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon State University. Prepared for the Oregon
Watershed Enhancement Board
Evaluation questions
Is the indicator conceptually valid?
Do data exist?
Can the indicator feasibly be implemented?
Are the statistical properties understood and sufficient?
Does the indicator fulfill management and reporting needs?
From O’Neil et al. (2008) A regional effort to select environmental indicators for the Puget Sound.
Abstract at the 2nd Annual NWFSC Science Symposium
5
DRAFT
HLI Rept2 NWEIS v1.doc
Appendix Y (I did not edit this…as is this is too technical for our exec audience; plus it has not
received rigorous PNAMP scrutiny yet so may not want to include it; needs editing if retained)
Monitoring Terminology Definitions for High Level Indicators
Performance Measure: A quantitative or qualitative tool used to assess a particular indicator, value or
characteristic designated to measure input, output, outcome, efficiency, or effectiveness or the range of
success a program has had in achieving its stated objectives, goals, and planned program activities.
Benchmark: A benchmark is a reference point or standard against which progress or achievements may
be compared. (May be synonymous with Goal or threshold)
Trigger: 1) An event or result that precipitates the release or activates a mechanism for changing the
current strategy by adaptive management. 2) The event or result precipitated by reaching a specified
threshold.
Subject_Category_Group: A collection of subjects at the highest level of categorization.
Attributes: Biological, Physical, Chemical, Location, Action/Project, Temporal (Full List: Appendix A)
Subject Category_Name: The name of a subject category
(the following table is overkill for execs, will remove if we retain list of definitions)
Air Quality
Climate/Weather:
Climate/Weather: (Air Temperature)
Climate/Weather: (Precipitation)
Climate/Weather: (Wind)
Environmental Condition:
Environmental Condition: (Bathymetry/ Topography)
Environmental Condition: (Channel/Instream Condition)
Environmental Condition: (Estuary Condition)
Environmental Condition: (Lake/Pond Condition)
Environmental Condition: (Nearshore Condition)
Environmental Condition: (Ocean Condition)
Environmental Condition: (Riparian Condition)
Environmental Condition: (Upland)
Environmental Condition: (Watershed Condition)
Environmental Condition: (Wetland Condition)
Hydrology/Water Quantity
Light
Other
Sediment/Substrate/Soils
Species
Species: Invasive or Exotic
Species: Biodiversity
Species: Amphibians
Species: Birds
Species: Fish
Species: Fish: Abundance
Species: Fish: Diversity
Species: Fish: Productivity
6
DRAFT
HLI Rept2 NWEIS v1.doc
Species: Fish: Spatial Distribution
Species: Insects
Species: Macroinvertebrates
Species: Macroinvertebrates (Freshwater)
Species: Macroinvertebrates (Marine)
Species: Mammals
Species: Pathogens/Disease
Species: Plankton
Species: Reptiles
Species: Tissues or Cellular
Species: Vegetation/Plants
Toxicity/Pollutants/Contaminants:
Toxics/Pollutants/Contaminants: Air Quality
Toxics/Pollutants/Contaminants: Biota/Tissues
Toxics/Pollutants/Contaminants: Sediment Concentration
Toxics/Pollutants/Contaminants: Water Concentration
Water Quality:
Water Quality: Biological
Water Quality: pH, DO, N, P, BOD, CO2, Conductivity, Salinity
Water Quality: Sediment
Water Quality: Temperature
Water Quality: See Toxics/Pollutants/Contaminants: Water Concentration
Indicator: 1) a surrogate of variables informing status and condition and trend of a resource representing
ecological processes. 2) A measured or derived variable defined at different hierarchical scales based on
metric/s collected in the field, from remote sensing, from models or from other raw data sources.
(Synonymous with “Derived Variable”)
Derived Variable: See Indicator
Indicator Group: a collection of indicators (See indicator)
Indicator Species: a species of plant or animal whose presence or absence indicates the general health of
the community upon which the species is most dependent. Generally, providing for the needs of the
indicator species will also meet the needs of most other organisms in the community. (See indicator)
High Level Indicator: 1) Biological and physical habitat indicators that are monitored and evaluated
over time at a watershed and regional scale, and can be communicated in easily understood terms. 2)
Indicators used in regional reports to high level officials, i.e. executives, Congress, governors, etc.
Limiting Factors: (A category of Indicators): Limiting factors are the physical, biological, or chemical
features experienced by a species that result in reductions in viable salmonid population (VSP) parameters
(abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity) at any life stage. Limiting Factors may be
classified by impairment categories (e.g., inadequate spawning habitat, high water temperature,
insufficient prey resources). Key limiting factors are those with the greatest impacts on a population’s
ability to reach its desired status.
Threats: (A category of Indicators): Threats are the human actions or natural events (e.g., road building,
floodplain development, fish harvest, hatchery influences, volcanic activity) that cause or contribute to
7
DRAFT
HLI Rept2 NWEIS v1.doc
limiting factors resulting in a species decline. Threats may be caused by the continuing results of past
events and actions as well as by present and anticipated future events and actions.
Metric (Measure/Variable): 1) a system of related measures that facilitates the quantification of some
particular characteristic of data. 2. A metric is a standard unit of measure, such as mile or second, or more
generally, part of a system of parameters, or systems of measurement, or a set of ways of quantitatively
and periodically measuring, assessing, controlling or selecting a person, process, event, or institution,
along with the procedures to carry out measurements and the procedures for the interpretation of the
assessment in the light of previous or comparable assessments.
Summary Metric - min, mean, max (condense data) - (Same as Indicators because this is derived
however, the indicator is used as a metric to derive new inform another indicator.)
8