Monitoring Program

Oregon's Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative (OCSRI) is a collaboration of inter-governmental and community based effort focused on conserving and restoring native coastal salmon populations. Development and implementation of a monitoring program is a crucial component of the overall strategy. The monitoring program:

• Outlines a spatial, biologic, and temporal framework for collecting and analyzing information and develops a focus of investigation at the level of the coho Gene Conservation Group.
• Provides organizational integration for the expansion of existing programs and establishment of new projects that address the most fundamental monitoring issues; reliable detection and documentation of future declines or increases in coho populations and a comprehensive evaluation of the quality of their supporting habitats.
• Describes fifteen major elements, Tasks, that work together to create a comprehensive monitoring program.
• Identifies areas where additional input is necessary, were coordination between state and federal efforts is developing, and acknowledges support for OCSRI from local watershed associations and initiative groups, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and Oregon State University Extension Service Programs.
• Establishes an interdisciplinary, interagency, approach and program structure that provides opportunities for collaboration and participation from all groups.
• Incorporates peer and public review of the August 1996 draft monitoring plan, responding to issues and developing a team approach to refine sampling designs, monitoring protocols, data standards, and mechanisms for the distribution of information.
• Has the capacity to evaluate the effectiveness of actions and measures conducted as part of OCSRI.
• Makes a commitment to provide annual reporting of assessment and effectiveness monitoring that will be used to support adaptive management approaches.
• Recognizes that the monitoring program has made significant progress during the last six months, but that continued work is needed to improve interagency coordination as the program evolves in the future.

As a crucial part of Oregon's Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative, it is essential that a commitment to the development and support of this monitoring program be established and maintained.

Peer Review - Progress Toward Implementation

Concurrent with the release of the Draft Proposal for a Comprehensive Monitoring Program for OCSRI in August, 1996, work began on the formation of a Monitoring Group responsible for further development and implementation of the monitoring program. The Monitoring Group is comprised of representatives from participating state and federal agencies, watershed associations, and other groups. The initial task of the Monitoring Group was to identify and further develop the description of agency monitoring activities, working primarily in areas of assurance of implementation and coordination. Next, the group began to respond to issues identified through the process of peer review and to provide public opportunities to comment on, and participate in, continued development of the plan. Finally, the group created monitoring Issue Teams and gave them the responsibility to evaluate the effectiveness of proposed monitoring measures relative to the factors of decline identified by the Collaborative Issues Discussion Project.

Peer Review

In general, responses from the peer review of the Draft Monitoring Proposal were very supportive of the plan while acknowledging the difficulty and complexity associated with such a large program. In particular, there was strong support for the approach to sampling design, integration of tasks, and shared responsibility for reporting, and acting on the information. Most of the critical comment focused on the need to get past the plan and actually fund and implement the program. All reviews strongly supported the need for a comprehensive, well integrated monitoring plan and the broad scope of the monitoring proposal.

A sampling of some critical comments:

"A consistent and strategic approach to indication selection as well as standardized protocols must be developed"
"Long term agency accountability as well as resource commitments must be guaranteed."
"The link between the monitoring plan, the Interagency Planning Team, and the Benchmarks for Agency Actions need to be made explicit."
"...to a significant extent, they (the Tasks) are a grab bag of past monitoring elements supplemented by a few new approaches. ... Little or no effort is made to show how each element or the set of elements will be used to make the difficult decisions that will be required ..."
"My most serious concern is the absence of substantive discussion regarding links between the monitoring program and changes in policy or management."

The Monitoring Group took these comments seriously and has worked to resolve these, and other, issues raised through the peer review process. Changes in organization were made and more explicit links between the monitoring and policy and management were developed. Changes found throughout this draft reflect the review process. New actions designed to address linkage between monitoring and policy are specifically addressed in the sections describing Program Structure and Organization (page 32) and Monitoring Support for Adaptive Management (page 34).

Public Comment and Participation

From November 1996 until January 1997, a series of public scoping sessions and planning meetings were held to involve stakeholders and other interested parties in determining the common direction of the OCSRI Monitoring Plan. Representatives from state and federal agencies, watershed councils, soil and water conservation districts, private interest groups, tribes, university professors and extension agents, and others participated in each of two scoping sessions. These groups formed the Monitoring Plan Advisory Team. Their active participation, feedback, and contribution revealed an active commitment to an evolutionary process of refining and improving the state-wide Monitoring Plan. This process continues to date. Interest in the objectives, purpose, and logistics of the Monitoring Plan was keen and many excellent suggestions, ideas, and courses of action have been incorporated into the Monitoring Plan as a result of these scoping session forums.

Input from the scoping sessions was similar to that received from the peer review process, though often more directed at the immediate needs for guidance and support identified by the participants. A common theme, expressed most clearly by one participant: "We need standards (protocols) to follow for monitoring, regional databases to enter results, review by technical advisors, and we need to share equipment and expense."

Questions, responses, and suggestions were generally structured around the proposed monitoring Tasks. Participants frequently identified programs and new opportunities for cooperation (local Soil and Water Conservation District programs and expertise from OSU Extension Service in particular) that will be incorporated into the monitoring plan and the Monitoring Group process.

A complete summary of the Scoping Session Record is in Appendix I. The summary includes a discussion of OCSRI strategy, a synthesis of background information, and a summary of agency actions and databases relevant to the monitoring effort. The scoping session solicited monitoring questions from participants, these are summarized and referenced to specific items in the plan. Many participants emphasized the importance of developing trust and shared ownership in OCSRI overall and the monitoring program in particular.

Implementation

Progress toward implementation of the monitoring program has occurred at both organizational and action levels. Work plans and job assignments for participants in the Monitoring Group have been formally adjusted. Short term funding support for monitoring program leadership was secured. Monitoring Issues and Protocol Teams, small groups with representation from the Monitoring Group and subject area experts were formed. These groups evaluate monitoring relative to issues associated with the decline in salmon populations, assess the adequacy of monitoring actions, and continue development of shared monitoring protocols.

The members of the Monitoring Group have responsibility for the ongoing development, evaluation, and adaptation of monitoring Tasks, and of the monitoring elements

organized under the Tasks. They have also developed a process by which the Monitoring Group will make recommendations based on monitoring results to the Inter-agency planning. Changes and development of the monitoring elements of individual agencies are detailed in the State Agency Measures section. Continued efforts to improve integration and coordination of these monitoring elements remains as a major of the Monitoring Group. Highlights of progress relevant to specific programs are included in the discussion of individual tasks.

Structural Changes From the August 1996 Draft Plan

A comparison of this draft to the August 1996 Monitoring Proposal shows the following structural changes:

• Core Area and Index Area Monitoring are combined under a single task. This change emphasizes the core and index areas as focus areas for the most quantitative assessment, research, and adaptive management. Also, by combining the two tasks, and linking monitoring efforts at this level to continued assessment at broader spatial scales, a system for continued development and review of the Core Area concept is established.
• Ocean Conditions Monitoring is identified as a new Task. This recognizes the need for improved coordination with efforts designed to characterize and understand the role of fluctuating ocean conditions on coastal ecosystems and salmon populations.
• Task 11, Estuary Populations and Habitat is expanded to explicitly include Wetland assessment and monitoring.
• Task 14, Coordinate and Facilitate Monitoring is expanded to explicitly include Restoration Actions Reporting and Evaluation.
• Discussion of the Monitoring Program Structure and Organization is updated to reflect changes resulting from the current level of implementation.

Introduction

This description of the monitoring program of Oregon's Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative (OCSRI) outlines the essential components of a strategy to collect and integrate information on the status of salmon populations and factors that influence the quality of their habitat. The objectives of the monitoring effort are to develop accurate information on the status of salmon populations and their habitats, detect declines or increases in abundance, determine the effectiveness of measures designed to improve conditions for salmon, and provide the analysis needed to help develop adaptive management strategies for agencies, private landowners, and individuals with interests in this resource.

The monitoring program proposed to meet these objectives has four primary components:

• currently funded monitoring programs and activities
• established monitoring efforts that require expanded and intensified sampling effort
• new efforts to fill gaps in information and analysis
• an integrated program structure to coordinate projects, synthesize data,
• and provide timely reports

Currently funded programs, such as the surveys of adult coho spawner abundance, provide established and tested protocols for data collection and reporting. Analysis of the spawner survey data, however, also shows an example of the need to expand programs to provide resolution at meaningful regional and biologic scales. Existing monitoring programs within both state and federal agencies provide a starting point for more comprehensive efforts. Both new and expanded programs are needed to provide resolution at appropriate spatial and temporal scales, applying sufficient sampling effort to support scientific confidence in the results.

The OCSRI monitoring effort must also provide program leadership and integration sufficient to insure the quality and availability of information, manage effort and cost, and integrate various monitoring elements within a coherent context of quantifiable objectives. This structure will demonstrate the commitment of the OCSRI process to create an open, scientifically sound, yet flexible process through which state and federal agencies, private and industrial landowners, and watershed associations or local initiative groups can coordinate. Integration of these programs will require establishment of an overall structure to manage dispersed monitoring elements, and report information in a useful fashion. As a whole, the program will contribute to the development an adaptive management strategy based on evaluation and application of monitoring data combined with scientific testing of new approaches.

An effective monitoring program for coastal salmon will require a long-term commitment of money and personnel. For the Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative to succeed, adequate funds will need to be allocated to support both established and new monitoring work and funding must be sustained long enough to allow evaluation in the context of changing climatic, oceanic, ecological, and social conditions. All of the monitoring elements that comprise this effort have high priority, the primary differences between elements are the intensity of sampling effort and the timing for initiation and duration of sampling. Also, because of the integrated nature of the monitoring effort, all of the major tasks and activities are essential as they work together to create scientifically credible assessments. The effort required will be large, and a serious commitment of funds and personnel must be made over an extended time period.

Effective coordination among participating OCSRI groups can help control the cost of a comprehensive monitoring program, particularly by sharing expertise on effective techniques, avoiding duplication of effort, and by providing timely and open reporting of results. Established and funded projects can also provide training and facilitation of voluntary efforts in support of the overall monitoring program, expanding its scope and creating a greater sense of involvement and ownership.

Traditionally, many monitoring programs have been slow to initiate and difficult to sustain. Ineffective monitoring programs result when the biologic, temporal, and spatial scales are too narrowly defined, and when institutional or ownership barriers prevent integrated analysis and application of information. Other problems result when the information is incomplete, inconsistent, or poorly reported. The capacity to initiate and sustain successful monitoring of populations and habitat quality, does not exist within any single agency, corporation, interest group, or individual. The interdisiplinary approach described in this chapter is designed to overcome some of these problems. Success of the OCSRI monitoring effort will require focused leadership and a commitment from participants in many scientific and management disciplines representing multiple interests.

Monitoring is more than the systematic and periodic collection of data, it is the basis for effective adaptive management. Properly supported and implemented, the OCSRI monitoring program will provide an unbiased data set for determining baseline conditions, cause and effect relationships, and trends in conditions over time. Data will also be used to assess current water quality standards and management practices, to determine the effectiveness of restoration activities, and suggest new actions. The monitoring program is an essential component of an overall strategy to improve our management of resources and to restore coastal salmon populations.

The emphasis of the proposed monitoring program is on coho salmon populations, but the approach has application to all of Oregon's salmon species, including steelhead and cutthroat trout. The bottom line of any monitoring program must be a reliable assessment of population numbers, and adequate determination of trends in abundance based on time series information. Equally important, however, is a broad assessment of habitat factors, from the abundance of large woody debris within a stream reach to the cycles of ocean productivity that influence salmon populations.

Overall, each major element that comprises the monitoring program is designed to be flexible and able to accommodate both changes in emphasis and additional input. This is necessary as participants develop their monitoring programs and continue to define their role in the process. Just as we expect to implement management changes in response to new information gathered by monitoring, the monitoring program must also have the capacity to adapt and evolve.

An Hierarchical Approach to Assessment:
Monitoring at the Regional, Watershed, and Site Scales

The distribution of populations and the patterns of habitat characteristics must be described at appropriate spatial scales. This approach to monitoring the status of salmon populations has regional components that are relevant to salmon biology and conservation. At a minimum, the monitoring program will detect these factors at the level of the coho Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU). This monitoring program is designed to meet that objective, and to provide equivalent resolution at the geographic scale of the region or river basin and the population level of the Gene Conservation Group (GCG). At intermediate scales, the program provides a structure for meaningful interpretation of intensive monitoring and experimental studies conducted at the sub-basin and watershed level. Local experimental investigations and restoration actions conducted at the site and reach level will be interpreted as they contribute to changes within the context of watershed, basin and regional classifications. In this way, site prescriptions and watershed analysis can include monitoring components that are imbedded at larger spatial scales, evaluating effectiveness compared to the overall scope of habitat influences.

We have chosen the coho GCG as the fundamental level of organization. The GCG's were identified in the 1995 Biennial Report on the Status of Wild Fish in Oregon as geographic and metapopulation regions that form the basis for assessment, represent an important subdivision of the range of coho within Oregon, and form realistic management units. Originally described as four units, we have created an additional division of the North-Mid Coast GCG. This created the five regional/basin level groups (GCG Regions) as follows:

• North-Mid Coast (Necanicum River to Neskowin River)
• North-Mid Coast (Salmon River to Siuslaw River)
• Mid-South Coast (includes lake basins, Coos and Coquille Rivers
• Umpqua Basin
• South Coast (Cape Blanco to California border)

Monitoring activity in the South Coast GCG must coordinate with California monitoring in the remainder of the Southern ESU.

The assessment of coho populations, habitat conditions, and actions directed at restoration will start at this regional spatial scale. Within these GCG Regions, assessment will also occur at the river basin scale, with appropriate resolution developed for approximately sixteen basins. Across all scales, the major monitoring activities described below are designed to be complementary. While each inventory method or task has a primary purpose, each provides additional information and a context for integrated analysis. For example, where water quality and community assessments occur in the same reach as summer juvenile sampling, adult spawner counts, and habitat surveys, improved understanding of the productivity of different types of habitat and the relationship between adult spawners and subsequent juvenile seeding would result.

The first task of the monitoring program will be to provide a coarse level analysis of these regions and to identify appropriate subdivision of sub-basins, watersheds, stream reaches and sites that comprise the sampling units. In this way, the regional characterizations are supported by more intensive monitoring activities in representative selections of smaller sub-basins and watersheds. Incorporation of monitoring activities at the stream reach or site scale will be aggregated and interpreted within the regional context. The same monitoring activities will be conducted in all regions. The exact number of sample sites and general appropriation of effort will vary in both region and by the particular task. Table 1 provides a summary of the major activities at each of these scales, gives a general idea of sampling intensity, and shows some of the relationships between tasks. Although organized hierarchically, each monitoring task has elements and applications that apply to the other levels.

Recommendations for staffing and implementation of individual tasks and elements within tasks remain as stated in the August 1996 draft. These recommendations have often been modified and adjusted as part of agency budget development and program prioritization.

Regional Characterizations

Task 1: Stratified Probability Sampling Design. We propose to combine elements of a true probability sampling design with stratification based on basin geomorphic and salmon population characteristics. This approach will provide the framework for all other monitoring activities. The sampling design will require a preliminary, coarse level regional characterization and analysis of coastal basins that includes information on vegetation, land use, drainage networks, road networks, topography, geomorphology, and salmon abundance and distribution.

The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) has well developed protocols for selecting sites designed to evaluate the state of surface waters based on a probabilistic design. This approach, essentially a multi-scaled grid overlying a regional map, results in an unbiased sample of sites spread across the area of interest. This type of sampling design has clear advantages in the to ability to make statistically valid characterizations of physical and biologic conditions. However, when only a limited number of samples can be collected from within heterogeneous subregions, the ability to create a representative sample may be restricted.

Stratified sampling designs attempt to be more representative by collecting data from within groups based on "important" factors. For stream habitat evaluation, stratification of sites within regions can be effectively based on type of channel confinement, channel slope or gradient, and the watershed area using a combination geographic analysis and stream channel surveys of (Moore et al. 1991, Montgomery et al. 1995). This approach must be combined with strata based on knowledge of the general distribution of fish species within the region. A successful stratified approach depends on good information on the spatial characteristics of each strata and an understanding of processes that influence the spatial distribution.

A combined stratified probability, design will allow an efficient application of increased sampling effort focused at strata within each of the five GCG Regions. The developers of the EMAP probability approach (represented by Phil Larsen and Steve Paulson, Corvallis EPA) have worked with the OCSRI monitoring program both in sampling design and statistical interpretation. The ability to generate a stratified approach based on basin characterizations currently resides or is in the process of development on Geographic Information Systems located in the State Services Center of the Water Resources Department, the Oregon Department of Forestry, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and at Oregon State University. Stream channel classifications can be obtained from ODFW Research Section Aquatic Inventory project and from assessments made by USFS and BLM.

Phil Kaufman, OSU Dept. of Fish and Wildlife/Corvallis EPA and Steve Ralph, Seattle EPA have participated in discussions to combine probability designs with methods to stratify regions. Additional assistance is available from USFS PSW, Oregon State University and Humboldt State University to apply approaches to quantifying regional measures of fish abundance within a habitat context. Much discussion has focused on issues of pre-stratification versus post-stratification of the probability design. As a practical matter, and as the need to proceed with sampling efforts develops, future evaluation will focus on evaluation of the most appropriate approach.

The modified Stratified Probability approach will be directly applied to assessments specifically designed to characterize status of coho populations at the regional scale. These assessments include juvenile population sampling, spawner surveys, and measures of upstream and downstream movement specific to life history stage. The selection process will also consider incorporation of sites with long term records and others with ongoing sampling.

Recommendations: Create a quantitative assessment and sampling design workgroup to develop a comprehensive sampling plan, and to provide additional analysis and feedback throughout the monitoring period.

Progress: Corvallis EPA lab has created maps showing candidate sampling locations based on probability sampling techniques. Different densities of sampling sites can be developed as appropriate to different sampling projects. The creation of candidate sampling sites has not been stratified but, the selection process included a weighting factor to avoid overrepresentation of small channels. Coordination/Related Programs: FEMAT Aquatic Conservation Strategy Monitoring Team is working with OCSRI to develop an integrated sampling approach.

Cost: Will rely heavily on participation based on modification of work plans. Additional funds 50-100K will be needed for travel, per diem, and GIS computer analysis. Additional funding may be needed to support refinement of the statistical design and analysis.

Time frame: Significant preliminary agreement on this topic is complete at the time of this draft proposal. A combination of probability selection within population and geographic strata is currently employed by the SRS Spawning Surveys (ODFW). Full identification of strata and identification of sampling sites for all components of the monitoring proposal can be completed by June, 1997.

Task 2: Stream Biotic Condition and Ambient Water Quality. Although direct measures of salmonid abundance and habitat quality are important components of the monitoring program, these measures must be supported by more comprehensive assessments of aquatic biota and water quality. This type of assessment is needed to obtain basic information about the status, productive capacity, and limiting conditions in watersheds. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has two programs that address this issue, Ambient Water Quality Monitoring and the Index of Biotic Condition and Stream Condition Assessments.

The Ambient Water Quality Monitoring program should be maintained to provide basic water chemistry and temperature information. The main purpose of ambient monitoring is to look at trends in chemical parameters within and between sites over a long time period. Water samples are currently collected from 30 reference sites sampled quarterly and an additional 20 sites sampled eight times per year. The network of potential sampling sites can be expanded in accordance with the Stratified/Probability design with protocols standardized and made available to OCSRI participants.

DEQ has also adopted new temperature and dissolved oxygen standards that are designed to be more protective of cold water species like salmon. This includes a standard for intergravel dissolved oxygen in spawning areas to protect egg and fry incubation.

The Index of Biotic Condition and Stream Condition Assessments are developed from a sampling protocol that measures channel characteristics, invertebrate communities, water chemistry, riparian plant communities, and fish communities. The selection of sites and sampling methods are based on modifications of the federal (EPA and Regional Ecosystem Office) EMAP and REMAP protocol. The condition of these communities can point to watershed problems that would go undetected by other data. For example, a loss of cold water invertebrate or fish taxa can identify temperature problems within a watershed. Or an increase in sediment tolerant taxa can point to sedimentation problems. These data can identify problems early, before salmon stocks are significantly impacted.

These assessments are designed to look at trends in stream conditions over the long-term. This means that the sample sites are resampled at a 3 to 5 year interval and changes in the overall condition of streams in a region evaluated. These studies will also be used to evaluate differences in BMP's. For example, if streams on state lands consistently have poorer conditions than on federal lands, then state land use practices could be reevaluated.

Finally, these studies will be used to set more appropriate biological water quality standards. Regionally based biological standards are in development for DEQ to implement over the next five years. This sampling, particularly as linked to salmon core areas (see below) will play an important role is setting and applying biological standards.

Recommendations: Expand existing program to include the following.
- Index of Biologic Conditions
100 Sites within "core and index areas"; 30 to 35 sampled annually
300 stratified probability selected sites; 75-100 sampled annually
(resampling at 3-5 year intervals)
- Ambient Water Quality
100 sites sampled 8 times per year
20 Intergravel Dissolved Oxygen monitoring sites: 10 from core areas and 10 stratified probability selected.
20 diurnal survey sites using continuous monitoring equipment for pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and conductivity.
- Juvenile salmonid sampling would be coordinated with ODFW, federal, and private OCSRI participants to be done at the same sites identified above.

Progress: Implementation of this program is included in ODEQ budget proposals and details of monitoring projects are included in the State Agency Measures Section. Results from ambient water quality sampling will be shared with planning efforts focused on channel restoration. Priorities for instream work will be adjusted according to these results.



Coordination/Related Programs:
Water Resources gauging station installations, points of diversion, groundwater studies, artificial barriers monitoring, and hydrographic training.
Oregon Department of Forestry stream temperature monitoring.
GWEB young citizens monitoring teams.
Watershed associations: fisher programs.
Soil and Water Conservation Districts

Cost:
Index of Biological Condition - 130 sites per year (260 per biennium) 520K per biennium (2xNRS3 and 2xNRS2 positions)
Ambient Water Quality - 320K per biennium
Intergravel Dissolved Oxygen - 40K per biennium
Diurnal Continuous Monitoring - 50K first year for equipment, 40K per biennium for personnel.

Time frame:
Index of Biologic Condition - Currently funded through Federal Grants. 1996 is the last year for Coast Range funding. Continued funding is proposed in ODEQ's CSRI budget.
Ambient Monitoring - Currently funded at 50 sites per year (300 samples). Will need increased funding to expand program to 80 samples per year.
Intergravel Dissolved Oxygen and Diurnal Continuous Monitoring are new programs.

Task 3: Summer Juvenile Abundance. Annual summer surveys for juvenile coho are proposed to assess utilization of freshwater habitat. Summer juvenile surveys provide an estimate of the level of seeding and utilization of habitat potential. A proposed benchmark for full seeding for coho is 1.5 fish/m2 of appropriate stream habitat within a basin. Additional juvenile sampling will allow evaluation and refinement of this benchmark relative to habitat conditions characteristic of different natural disturbance and management regimes. Determining the relative seeding level is an important component of evaluating the effectiveness of habitat restoration projects. Combined with adult sampling, juvenile surveys enable better predictions of recruitment rate and reduce the reliance on highly variable and uncertain egg to parr survival rates.

Summer juvenile surveys provide context and apply to other issues, including life history and genetic variability, and water quality. For example, we know that the run of coho into the Rogue basin consists of a fairly small number of fish in relation to the size of the basin. Aquatic habitat surveys suggest that there are many miles of rearing habitat available, but the analysis does not account for the fact that many areas may be uninhabitable due to summer water temperatures or other water quality issues. In this case, juvenile abundance may be dependent on factors other that the potential for seeding based on the productive capacity of overwinter habitat.

The summer abundance surveys can provide samples for genetic analysis, avoiding duplication of field work. Patterns of juvenile abundance, studied over time and in the context of, climate, ocean conditions, and disturbance events, provide insights into the importance of life history variability. Understanding genetic variability and monitoring of genetic components of populations is currently impaired by the small sample sizes available for genetic analysis. Patterns of juvenile abundance and examples of life history variability may suggest variable genetic characteristics. Full expression of genetic and life history patterns are likely to be seen only when populations are much higher than present levels. Monitoring juvenile populations is critical to the ability to detect changes in abundance that may signal corresponding changes in genetic and life history potentials.

Summer juvenile surveys are a comparatively inexpensive, broad based method that can provide useful information at several levels. Juvenile sampling efforts have particular value when cutthroat trout and steelhead are considered in addition to coho salmon. A large number of juvenile surveys are currently conducted by ODFW district and research personnel, USFS, BLM, Oregon State University, and privately contracted crews. Locations with long records of abundance sampling (Alsea River Study streams for example) will be identified and prioritized for continued evaluation. Locations for additional surveys will be identified using the Stratified Probability framework. Extra attention may need to be applied to Regions with few existing surveys.

Winter juvenile fish surveys will be conducted in selected streams and reaches to coordinate with intensive habitat evaluations and spawner surveys (see Task 4 and Task 5 below).

Much of the new sampling can conducted through the addition of seasonal field personnel. However, to assure application of standardized field procedures, quality control, and consistent reporting, a level of supervision and coordination must be developed. Also, this level of sampling is much greater than presently exists. We recommend that calibrated snorkel counts, conducted at the reach level, be used as a standard approach.

The project leader for juvenile sampling would have responsibility to providing summary data in electronic, geo-referenced form. This project should function as a clearing house for juvenile fish distribution and abundance information collected by all participants in OCSRI. This project could also provide coordination, data sharing, and mapping for the upstream fish distribution surveys conducted by ODFW and ODF. In addition to the need for summer population data to detect abundance trends, this information provides essential support for other components of OCSRI, particularly adaptive approaches to establishing new spawner escapement goals and for fishery management.

Recommendations:
- Identify historical and ongoing juvenile sampling efforts (all OCSRI participants).
- Coordinate with other monitoring tasks to eliminate duplication and to provide technical and field support. For example, 100K savings could be realized in the Index of Biologic Condition budget could be realized through coordination with this project.
- Combine with other monitoring tasks to sample approximately 60 reaches in each Region.
- Support one NRS3 project leader, one NRS2 assistant project leader, seasonal field aides.

Costs: Approximately 300K per biennium for supervision and coordination.
200K per biennium for additional field crews (90K identified for Southern ESU sampling in ODFW budget memo)
Additional contributions from cooperators

Time frame: Various sampling programs currently conducted by ODFW fish districts, USFS and BLM, and in OSU long term studies. Coordination of these efforts completed by spring 1997. Selection of all new sites and standardization of methods complete before start of 1997 field season. Continued annual sampling.

Task 4: Stream Channel and Habitat Assessments. Primarily conducted by ODFW Aquatic Inventory Project and USFS Region 6 Level II Stream Surveys, stream channel habitat and riparian surveys provide basic monitoring information at multiple scales of analysis. Quantitative stream habitat information is needed to evaluate habitat quality, estimate juvenile coho seeding levels, develop and calibrate habitat based escapement models, and to expand the applicability of abundance and habitat relationships to all coastal regions. The associated riparian surveys provide assessment of the future contribution of riparian trees to large woody debris, identify areas that may be important for the maintenance of beaver populations, and areas that may benefit from hardwood conversions. On agricultural lands, riparian surveys identify the contribution of shrubs and trees to stream shade and may be useful in determining the effectiveness of efforts to improve riparian conditions conducted under SB1010.

Between 1990 and 1996, over 6,500 miles of stream habitat surveys have been conducted by ODFW's Aquatic Inventory Program. This information, combined with some USFS Region 6 Level II surveys, has been used to prioritize restoration efforts and was also important in defining salmon "core area" habitats for the OCSRI. This extensive collection of information was made possible by cooperation and support from private landowner associations, other agencies, and groups. Most notably, the Oregon Forest Industries Council, the Umpqua Basin Fisheries Initiative, Oregon's Restoration and Enhancement Program, the Oregon Department of Forestry, and the US Bureau of Land Management provided major support. Additional cooperators include USDA Forest Service PNW Research, Coos Watershed Association, and several soil and water conservation districts.

Despite this large effort, many streams in coastal basins have not been surveyed. An ongoing program of stream channel and riparian condition surveys is needed to:

• Refine the identification and support further analysis of "Index Monitoring" and "Core Area" monitoring sites while continuing to sample populations, habitat, and water quality.
• Provide assessment of land use and habitat relationships in areas underrepresented in the current sampling, especially agricultural lands.
• Develop better understanding of winter habitat characteristics and dynamics.
• Improve sampling design and increase the generality of more intensive monitoring efforts to demonstrate relationships with general characteristics of watersheds.

Application of ODFW Aquatic Inventory and USFS Level II Surveys provide information on fish distribution, assessment of stream habitat condition, and analysis of several key indicators of habitat quality. These stream surveys are particularly suited to evaluate, across several spatial scales (reach, stream, and basin), abundance and quality of large woody debris, surface substrate, pool frequency and quality, off-channel and refugia habitats, floodplain connectivity, and channel condition. Recent surveys also characterize the abundance, size classes, and species distribution of riparian trees. In addition, well documented and geo-referenced surveys allow analysis of the location and potential impact of water diversions, push up dams, natural and anthropogenic barriers to fish migration, and the age and extent of streamside landslides and debris torrents.

Stream channel and habitat assessments are a key component of watershed analysis, are used to help prioritize areas for conservation and restoration, and provide many of the key indicators of habitat quality. Both state and federal assessment programs need to apply additional effort to synthesize stream channel and riparian habitat characteristics at the basin and regional level. Greater coordination between agencies is needed. Pilot assessments are occurring some basins (ODFW and ODF in the Yaquina for example) and need to be expanded.

Continued stream channel assessments are part of USFS and BLM Pacfish monitoring programs. ODFW continues to support permanent Aquatic Inventory Staff but funding for new field work is contingent on Restoration and Enhancement Board allocations and contract support from ODF, BLM, USFWS, Industrial Forest Landowners groups, and other sources.

Recommendations:
- Stabilize funding for field crews, include winter and summer habitat surveys.
- Prioritize future surveys to support overall monitoring efforts, fill in gaps in coverages, and fit with the Stratified Probability Sampling design.
- Accelerate the integration of stream survey data with geographical analysis.
- Continue to work toward compatible protocols and systems to share data among agencies and interested groups.
- Develop concepts of habitat performance relative to broad scale patterns of disturbance history and management impacts. Consider temporal patterns of habitat quality as discussed in Reeves et al. 1995.

Progress:
ODFW's Habitat Analysis and Restoration Project has completed summaries of key habitat variables for all surveys in coastal basins. Frequency distributions showing the length of stream in different habitat classes provide a comprehensive characterization of current status. Variables plotted include: percent gravel in riffles, percent fines in riffles, shade, abundance of large woody debris, riparian conifer and hardwood size class abundance, width/depth ratio, etc. This information will be used by the Physical Habitat Team of the Monitoring Group to develop quantitative goals for habitat conditions. Combined with ongoing habitat assessments, this approach will monitor changes in habitat condition. Information is summarized at the level of basin, ecoregion (EPA regions and subregions), and gene conservation group. Further explanation of the approach and examples of habitat quality frequency distributions are in Appendix I.



Several inter-agency meetings, directed by OCSRI staff, have led to greater coordination between USFS, BLM, and ODFW survey efforts. USFS Region 6 stream survey protocols for 1997 have several changes that will increase compatibility.



Commitments for continued channel and riparian assessments, including goals for comprehensive stream coverage, including resurveys of monitor trends in habitat factors, are detailed in the State Agency Measures section.



Coordination/Related Programs:
- Several BLM management units coordinate directly with ODFW to contract surveys. Further expansion and coordination of the joint BLM/ODFW is under discussion.
- BLM Properly Functioning Condition assessments.
- Rogue Council of Governments channel assessment and analysis
- OSU Extension Riparian Monitoring Procedure
- Fisher programs in Tillamook, Lincoln, Lane, Douglas, Coos, and Curry counties.



Costs: - Ongoing program in USFS. ODFW currently funds project management and analysis staff.
- 400K per biennium needed to fund seasonal field crews for ODFW program.



Time frame: Established and ongoing programs. Repeat surveys to identify flood impacts were the emphasis of 1996 field season. Identification of important, unsurveyed streams needs to be completed, particularly in salmon core area subbasins.

Task 5: Spawner Abundance Surveys. Expansion of ODFW Stratified Random Surveys of adult coho abundance in spawning habitat is needed to provide adequate precision for estimates of adult coho abundance at the regional and basin levels, rather than the current program that provides a coast wide estimate. It is essential to have the ability to predict escapement levels with confidence in each of the Regions based on coho Gene Conservation Groups. Although the current program has a strong emphasis on coho salmon, the potential to evaluate steelhead and chinook spawning abundance is inherent in this proposal. Evaluation of these species could be achieved primarily by extending the duration of the survey season and by identifying additional stream reaches appropriate to the spawning requirements of steelhead and chinook.

Based on an analysis of the variability in spawner counts, increasing the number of random spawning surveys from 200 to approximately 430 will increase the precision of adult estimates sufficiently to evaluate both increases or decreases in abundance within each of the GCG Regions and major basins. The additional sampling will be directed at sites identified by the Stratified Probability design (Task 1). Adjustments in sampling effort will be needed based on the need to focus on stream reaches utilized by spawning salmon.

In addition to improved estimates of abundance, the spawning surveys will provide resolution to questions of hatchery straying rates, establishment of habitat seeding benchmarks, and provide samples for genetic analysis.

Recommendations:
- Increase the number of random spawner surveys to approximately 430.
- Maintain Standard Surveys where they contribute to other monitoring efforts.
- Coordinate with "Index Area" and "Core Area" monitoring.
- Add one new NRS3 and one NRS1 to help establish new surveys and supervise crews.



Progress: Funding from NMFS allows increased sampling in the Rogue Basin, South Coast GCG for the 1996-1997 spawning season. NMFS also funded additional spawning surveys, scale collection, and analysis for streams in the Tillamook basin. This work will provide additional information on the degree of hatchery-native fish interactions in that basin.



Coordination/Related Programs:
- Supplemental Spawning surveys have been conducted by local ODFW, USFS, and BLM districts, watershed associations, private landowners, and landowner initiative groups such as the North Coast Stream Project.
- Standardized protocols are under development by the Monitoring Group Fish Population Team for use by these and other voluntary efforts. Agreement to use the standardized protocols, combined with a quality assurance program, will allow data from the voluntary efforts to expand the scope of the Spawner Abundance Surveys.
- Fisher programs coordinated through SWCD.



Costs: Approximately 340K per biennium for coho only. Expansion to steelhead and chinook would add approximately 180K per biennium. First year costs included in ODFW's OCSRI budget memo.

Time frame: Ongoing program.. Full implementation of expanded sampling will occur in 1997-1998 pending funding.

Task 6: Genetic and Life History Monitoring. We recognize the need for genetic monitoring to support gene conservation strategies. Additional investigations of life history variability, and factors that limit the capacity to express that variability, are also needed. The objectives of a genetic monitoring program would include the ability to:

- further refine of ESU and GCG boundaries
- investigate the appropriateness GCG boundaries relative to concepts of metapopulation structure and distribution
- detect introgression between hatchery and wild populations
- detect genetic drift in hatchery populations and small wild populations
- test new techniques of genetic evaluation, especially non-lethal approaches tailored to small population units.

Life history investigations would emphasize interactions with variability in ocean conditions and freshwater habitats. This would provide context for interpreting interactions between habitat, marine conditions, and climate change. Genetic and life history patterns, and potential patterns, in coho and other salmon species represent population responses to variability in physical conditions that can be used to provide an integrated perspective on coastal ecosystems throughout the North Pacific.

To a degree, both genetic and life history investigations have significant limitations as they attempt to make inferences based on populations at depressed levels.

No genetic analysis studies are being conducted in 1996. ODFW conducted sampling to measure the percentage of hatchery fish in natural spawning populations of the Tillamook Basin. NMFS has provided funds to initiate a program of additional sampling and analysis.

Recommendations:
- Additional benchmarks that monitor phenotypic diversity (life history diversity) of the coho salmon populations should be developed (e.g., Healey and Prince 1995).
- Support investigation coho metapopulation structure through coordination with Tasks 2, 3 & 9 (Biotic Condition, Juvenile Sampling, and Core and Index monitoring) and identification of small populations in marginal habitats.

Coordination/Related Projects:
Ken Currens (WDNR), Carl Schreck (OSU) - genetic and phenotypic variability
Dan Bottom (ODFW) - life history variability
Kathryn Kostow (NMFS) - genetic sampling

Task 7: Fish Propagation Monitoring. ODFW has existing programs that maintain good accountability of hatchery practices and provide records of other efforts (primarily the Salmon and Trout Enhancement Program, STEP) to supplement fish production. Changes in hatchery practices are a key component of ODFW's contribution to the OCSRI strategic plan. This includes hatchery stock selection criteria. Other examples of data collected include: adult returns to each facility, eggs taken, numbers of juveniles released, size and timing of releases, and stocking and "hatch box" production conducted by STEP volunteers. Records of adults taken and juveniles released are also maintained for private hatcheries.

Reports of propagation status for each facility, particularly documentation of changes in hatchery practices related to OCSRI, will be made to all participants of the monitoring team.

Recommendation: Maintain current program and improve sharing and access to data. A research position that coordinates hatchery information with the coded wire tag recovery database is currently backfilling program leader position and should be reclassed to NRS3 level.

Progress: ODFW is developing and improving access to fish propagation databases.

Costs: Fill data management position and reclass research biologist to appropriate level, approximately 30K per biennium.

Timeframe: Ongoing activities. Existing program is in process of reorganization.

Task 8: Harvest Monitoring. ODFW has existing programs that adequately document harvest of salmon and other species, both recreational and commercial. In addition to landing records, the Harvest Management program also monitors encounter rates and provides estimates of hooking mortality. This program provides the estimates of incidental mortality of coho salmon that result from the conduct of other fisheries.

Recreational and commercial troll salmon sampling including effort counts from May 1 through October 31 (seasons may start as early as April 15; some state waters fisheries may continue through November). Probable genetic stock identification sampling of some chinook seasons, localized requests for monitoring of lower estuary chinook and marked coho seasons, and updating the annual report on ocean salmon fisheries.

In 1998, all returning adult hatchery coho will be fin clipped. It is possible that some selective fisheries (or a "test fishery") may be adopted to allow harvest on fin clipped hatchery coho. This would undoubtedly result in increased effort by the fishing community, and would require the use of special sampling equipment (electronic wands) to detect the presence of coded wire tags. The OSM Program would need to increase seasonal sampling staffing to accommodate the new workload. Staffing increases would be directly related to the season structures outlined in the coming years regulation packages adopted by the Pacific Fishery Management Council.

Research studies are proposed that will identify sport fishing gear and techniques that select for chinook salmon and avoid coho salmon. Other studies will evaluate hook-and-release mortality rates.

Recommendation: Monitoring aspects of these programs are established in the Marine Program Section of ODFW. Eric Schindler, Ocean Salmon Management (OSM) Program, is the Sampling Project Leader.

Sub-Basins, Watersheds, and Streams

Within each of the sample regions based on the GCG, and in addition to the distributed sampling activities described above, more intensive monitoring of selected habitats and populations is needed. A combination of index monitoring and core area monitoring covers both "representative" areas and areas with the "best or better" conditions within a GCG Region. This process can identify the sub-basins with the greatest potential for positive responses to restoration efforts. The methods employed at this level comprise essential elements of a watershed assessment process that can be applied to areas with multiple ownership's. Sub-basins, watersheds, and streams are the natural units to apply more intensive monitoring, careful habitat assessments, watershed analysis, and adaptive management. Applying additional effort at this level, and sustaining that effort, will result in the development of a coast wide network of index and reference sites that include estuaries, floodplains, and forest basins.

Task 9: "Core Area" and "Index Area" Monitoring of Habitat and Populations.

These tasks, "Salmon Core Area" and "Index Monitoring" were identified separately in the draft monitoring plan. Further development of these tasks, influenced by the peer review and public comment process, made it apparent many elements were similar. Combining the tasks is intended to create a system of paired watersheds that will become focal points of for intensive evaluation monitoring and research. The link between core or index area monitoring activities and the assessments at regional scales will occur through common data elements collected at each level and by imbedding the core and index areas into a larger system of landscape and watershed analysis (Task 15).

For further discussion of the core area concept, including a description of the ongoing process of revision, see Section 22, Process for Revision of Core Area Maps.

As originally developed, Index Monitoring exhibited strong support for fisheries management needs with less emphasis on characterization of populations and habitats outside of core areas. As the Core Area concept has developed, it has become apparent that an understanding of their relationship to other sub-basins within each GCG is needed. By combining the tasks, but allowing flexibility of emphasis, greater resolution of habitat and population issues should be developed at these spatial scales.

Index area monitoring and core area monitoring are designed to compliment each other and add to the resolution of the overall monitoring effort. Essentially, monitoring these areas will provide an index of population and habitat factors as they integrate the influence of habitat enhancement efforts, adaptive management of riparian areas, ocean conditions, and harvest strategies.

A fundamental component of the emerging OCSRI strategies for salmon restoration is the identification of essential "Core Area" habitats. This process represents an evolution of developing restoration strategies as it incorporates elements of "source" and "recovery" watersheds (Nickelson et al. 1993), "Aquatic Diversity Areas" (Natural Production Committee, Oregon AFS 1993) Aquatic Conservation Strategy "Key Watersheds" (FEMAT 1993, ROD 1994) and the "Bradbury Process" for prioritizing protection and restoration efforts (Bradbury et al. 1995). As appropriate to each salmon species, these areas provide the best habitat and have the highest relative abundance of salmon within a basin. A description of the core area mapping process and maps of draft core areas within each coastal basin are in a separate section of the OCSRI Science Team Attachment.

The core areas will become the foundation of adaptive management and recovery efforts at a regional level. Draft core areas have been identified for each salmon species, the core areas selected for intensive monitoring in each GCG Region will be chosen using Stratified Probability procedures (Task 1). Comprehensive evaluation of the core areas is essential to evaluate the effectiveness of these activities. Many core areas will be identified in each GCG Region. The following monitoring will be applied to a subset of the core areas, with the level of sampling (number of sites) appropriate to each monitoring activity:

Index monitoring will be conducted at sites chosen to be representative of habitat and fish abundance conditions within each GCG Region. Representative designation will be based on a combination of Stratified Probability sampling and stratification based on habitat and coho abundance. A total of ten will be selected based on Region and drainage area characteristics in each of the five coastal GCS. It is important to sample "representative" habitats to track changes in fish abundance and habitat characteristics both within and between regions, particularly as this information is used to evaluate escapement, juvenile seeding, egg to smolt survival, and ocean survival. The sampling design for index monitoring also provides essential information on freshwater and marine survival rates needed to establish and interpret escapement goals. Monitoring activities include:

Population Evaluation:

• Summer abundance of juvenile salmonids. Used to track general trends in juvenile abundance and to evaluate the seeding level of habitats. Linked to Task 3 - 30 to 60 sites.
• Adult spawner abundance. Intensive application of spawning ground surveys, sufficient to provide meaningful estimate of spawning population within selected core and index areas. Linked to Task 5 - applied to 2-6 paired areas in each GCG Region
• Adult movement. At centralized trapping or weir sites, record movement of all adults into the sub-basin. Supplements spawning ground counts. Two paired areas in each GCG Region.
• Smolt outmigration, production. Smolt trapping. Combined with summer abundance data, provides an estimate of over winter survival. Combined with spawner abundance three years later, provides an estimate of ocean survival. Two paired areas in each GCG Region

  Habitat Assessment:

• Summer stream habitat surveys, channel assessment, and riparian evaluation of previously unsurveyed streams. Linked to Task 4, priority assessment for all coho core areas and priorities for stream types underrepresented in Aquatic Inventory and Habitat Analysis Project databases.
• Winter stream habitat surveys. Evaluate winter carrying capacity. Linked to Task 4, applied to 2-6 paired coho areas in each GCG Region.
• Evaluation of instream and riparian restoration and enhancement activities. Road and culvert surveys.
• Temperature monitoring.
• Establish permanent channel reference stations. Channel cross section and longitudinal surveys.

  Watershed Assessment

• Pilot watershed assessments targeted on selected core and index areas.
• Integrate with Task 13, Watershed Assessment for Mixed Ownerships.
• Evaluate water quality, disturbance, channel condition, and other indicators of habitat condition. Use NMFS draft Matrix of Pathways and Indicators and
• ODFW's Habitat Factor Analysis and Benchmarks.
• Consider adaptive management options to treat possible problems.
• Maintain best core areas as reference sites.

First year expenses for this project will be higher than subsequent years because significant investment in equipment will be needed. Seven to fourteen downstream migrant traps, four or five floating weirs, and snorkeling equipment will be needed. We believe it is essential to incorporate this project into the monitoring plan to track future gains or losses in coho populations and to assess fish harvest and habitat impacts in watersheds both within and outside the Salmon Core Areas.

This project will add four biologist positions and seasonal habitat and summer population crews, and seasonal spawning survey and winter habitat crews. The estimate is for startup and implementation costs for the 1997-99 biennium. Salmon population monitoring will continue each year. Habitat, and watershed evaluation and monitoring in subsequent years would be staggered, reevaluating the core areas at 5 to 10 year intervals.

Recommendations:
- Conduct adult spawner surveys with supervision from Stratified Random Survey program staff.
- Establish and fund monitoring in core areas.
- Fund NRS3x2, NRS2x3, and seasonal biologist positions
- New program but will be supported by other ongoing monitoring efforts



Progress: Several sampling efforts (smolt and adult trapping, stream channel assessments) have been funded for 1997 through cooperative agreements.



Coordination/Related Projects: Some costs of habitat assessment and watershed assessment will be shared with other monitoring elements. Expansion of program to additional core and index areas possible through cooperative efforts of USFS, BLM, and private landowner groups.



Cost: Minimum costs of approximately 750K first year 500K in subsequent years. First year funding requested in ODFW budget memo.



Time frame: Full or "phased in" implementation starting in 1997, contingent on funding.

Task 10: Ocean Conditions. Oregon has very limited capacity to evaluate ocean conditions. Current efforts are comprised of measurements of mean monthly sea temperature at Charleston and the monthly upwelling index for 420 and 450 north latitude as obtained from Oregon Marine Institute of Biology and NMFS, respectively.

Coordination/Related Programs: PNCERS proposal for research and monitoring of coastal ecosystems.
Need to assign lead person to develop links to marine sampling.

Task 11: Estuary and Riverine Wetland Populations and Habitats. Monitoring salmon populations and habitat use in coastal lakes and estuaries, again developed at the level of the Gene Conservation Group, will contribute to the understanding of other factors that influence coho, chinook, and cutthroat abundance. While not definitive themselves, the estuary studies are important to maintaining a comprehensive approach. River basins and sub-basins associated with coastal lakes and well developed estuary habitats may be important contributors to coho production, particularly when ocean conditions are poor. Information from these studies will help test this observation and provide insight into adaptive salmon life history patterns. This project will; integrate results from estuary evaluations with other monitoring activities, especially core area monitoring, coordinate with existing sampling programs conducted in estuaries and lakes, and develop methods to estimate smolt survival rates from the time they leave natal streams to time of ocean entry.

Recommendations:
- Initiate population evaluations in five coastal lakes and estuaries.
- Reconstruct historic habitat conditions and life history types in selected estuaries and compare with current conditions and life histories
- Monitor the use of selected salt marsh restoration sites (Salmon River Estuary project) by juvenile salmonids. Evaluate the efficacy of dike removal as a means for salmonid habitat restoration.
- Obtain wetland inventory information from Oregon Division of Land Conservation and Development. Develop sampling protocol to evaluate effectiveness of restoration actions and projects.
- Assign task to Monitoring Group Issues Team to develop
- Update inventory of coastal wetlands DLCD and DSL

Progress:
Salmon River Estuary Study started with independent grant funds. Study examines biotic and physical responses in a system of estuarine wetlands restored at intervals. Contact, Dan Bottom, ODFW Research Corvallis, OR 541/737-7641.

Coordination/Related Projects:
EPA-Corvallis PNW Ecosystem Research Consortium project "Estuarine Landscape Structure Interaction with Ecosystem Processes, Si Simenstad Univ. Washington 206/543-7185.
Tillamook Bay National Estuary Project
Lower Columbia National Estuary Project
Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystem Regional Study (PNCERS)
OSU Extension Sea Grant Program - Jim Good 541/737-3504

Cost: Salmon River Estuary Program is new project. Requires project leader, NRS3, and summer field crews.
Approximate cost: 160K partial funding requested in ODFW memo budget.

Time frame: Salmon River portion may start in 1997, additional sites contingent on funding.

Task 12: Forest Practices Monitoring/Federal Watershed Assessments.

The current Forest Practices Act monitoring program evaluates the implementation of Best Management Practices on state and private forest lands. Focus elements include; sediment and temperature monitoring, assessment of flood effects, and evaluation of riparian management measures.

Oregon Department of Forestry: Forest Practices Monitoring current programs:
-temperature monitoring
-flood impact assessment
-hardwood conversions
-compliance monitoring
-hydrologic changes
-sediment inputs from roads and road drainage systems
-culvert monitoring for fish passage
-long term large woody debris recruitment studies

New proposals for ODF include increasing the authorization to use other funds to cooperatively study issues of small stream protection, mass wasting, and cumulative effects. Assessment and monitoring on state forest lands is proposed.

Additional details and actions related to forest practices monitoring in Section 13, State Agency Measures.

See Section 15, Federal Agency Workplans

BLM Medford, Roseburg, Eugene, Salem, and Tillamook Districts.

Have conducted stream channel surveys, watershed analysis, and developed monitoring programs.

USFS Region 6, Siuslaw, Umpqua, and Rogue National Forests

Have conducted stream channel surveys, watershed analysis, and developed monitoring programs.

Task 13: Watershed Assessment for Mixed Ownerships. OCSRI monitoring staff will coordinate with the Oregon Department of Forestry, Oregon State University, USFS, and BLM to develop a watershed analysis approach that can be applied to mixed ownership's. The assessments provide the capacity to evaluate results in the context of NMFS's draft Matrix of Pathways and Indicators, and to develop more dynamic systems of evaluation. In addition to applying results from OCSRI assessment and monitoring activities, additional data layers including: stream temperature, stream discharge, vegetation coverage, land use, road inventories, and disturbance history will be considered. The combined habitat and population data will be used to evaluate habitat models, refine escapement goals, and demonstrate adaptive management designed to improve restoration activities.

Industrial Forest and other private landowners have participated in watershed assessments both independently and as participants in watershed associations and councils. The monitoring program activities will support these watershed assessments as the data is made available. A primary goal will be to facilitate this type of assessment, providing support and assistance to non-governmental landowners. This approach acknowledges the experience and expertise of the landowners and has potential for greater efficiency and lower cost of data collection. Consistent protocols and formats for data reporting, combined with development of quality control procedures, will improve the utility of the assessments.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service has a process to develop Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) that uses an analysis similar to a watershed assessment. HCPs have been completed or are ongoing at several sites including: 1) Weyerhaeuser Millicoma and Willamette tree farms, 2) Elliot State Forest, and 3) Northwest Oregon State Forest Lands.

Recommendation:
Establish full time monitoring staff position to develop watershed assessment protocols and to coordinate with existing state, private, and federal programs.

Progress:
A Watershed Assessment Issues Team has been formed as part of the Monitoring Group. This team (led by Willa Nelson USFWS with representatives from NMFS, private industry, and watershed associations) has begun a compilation of assessment efforts and will development recommendations.

The Southwest Province Interagency Committe is developing information systems and support for assessments in the Rogue and Umpqua Basins (Appendix III).

Costs: Fund one NRS3 position, supplies and support; 160K per biennium.

Time frame: Development of program completed by summer 1997. Coordination and evaluation of ongoing assessments fully implemented by winter 1998.

Stream Reaches and Sites

A great many activities that are conducted at the stream reach or site level contribute to the OCSRI effort. Many of the actions outlined by agencies in their State or Federal Measures apply at the stream and site level but are collected throughout the coastal region. Examples of these actions include, tracking and compliance monitoring, evaluation of habitat projects, and documentation of culvert replacement or road improvement. A program structure is required to place site and reach level monitoring or assessment into a meaningful context at higher levels of classification.

It is equally important to develop a system to evaluate the negative impact of failures to protect stream habitats and fish populations. Chemical spills, filling of wetlands, road drainage system failures, and other impacts are usually documented by the responsible agencies. An integrated monitoring approach requires shared access to this information.

Another issue is assurance that the information reported to the OCSRI staff either as general information updates, or as specific actions, be accurate, timely, and verifiable. The credibility of all aspects of the monitoring program, compliance, implementation, and effectiveness, will depend on the quality of information provided.

Currently, participating OCSRI agencies make progress reports to the Governor every two weeks. Continued reporting from the agencies should be made to the Monitoring Program Leader for distribution to the Monitoring Issue Teams. Part of the responsibilities of that position will be implement quality assurance procedures that evaluate the reliability of information reported. The program may have elements analogous to those used in contract laboratory settings that do analysis of samples collected in the field. Checks on both the technical precision of the analysis and on the effectiveness of procedures designed to deal with errors are needed. The importance of quality control is repeatedly stressed in monitoring literature. Simple awareness that some quality assurance program exists is frequently cited as important to the integrity of any monitoring activity.

Task 14: Coordinate and Facilitate Monitoring - Reporting and Evaluation of Restoration Projects and Actions. The capacity to process and assimilate the input from all the existing and proposed monitoring activities that will be conducted at the stream reach and site level is a fundamental goal of the overall monitoring strategy. A secondary goal is to create an awareness of the scope of efforts among all participants, as well as a shared sense of understanding and accountability.

The following examples of OCSRI management measures have monitoring components that illustrate the need to provide coordinated and reliable information that can be used to evaluate both long term and short term effects..

Beaver management. Promote the use of beaver to restore coho habitat. Identify the types of stream reaches, riparian habitat, and valley characteristics that support beneficial beaver populations. Need to monitor distributions of beaver and beaver activity, records of beaver harvest, inventory of habitats. Proposed for funding by ODFW

Cooperative habitat restoration efforts. A system to develop and maintain a information system that describes the type, location, and purpose of various habitat restoration projects is needed. ODFW has designed and implemented habitat restoration projects in cooperation with coalitions of landowners and interest groups (North Coast Stream Project), watershed associations, Oregon Department of Forestry, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, county governments, and individual landowners. A systematic accounting of these activities will help to coordinate funding and action, and contribute to evaluation of their effectiveness. Some inventory has been conducted by the Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board, the Oregon Forest Resources Council, and some watershed associations. An integrated system is needed to create a comprehensive record of projects on state, federal and private lands, develop a consistent monitoring protocol, avoid multiple requests for information, and to provide centralized access to the information. (ODFW, ODF, USFS, BLM, watershed councils, private landowners)

Habitat project monitoring. The North Coast Stream Project, project monitoring and evaluation. Funded as a graduate thesis through 1997. (Oregon Wildlife Heritage Foundation, ODFW, University of Washington). Similar monitoring efforts need to be established for all coastal districts, integrated with watershed plans.

1996 Flood Impact Assessment. Focus on channel morphology, fish habitat, salmonid populations, and upslope processes. Channel assessment includes an evaluation of LWD movement, size, and location and will enable informed management decisions regarding reintroduction of LWD deposited above and away from stream channels. Upslope monitoring includes an evaluation of effectiveness of standards for road design. Channel (ODF, ODFW)

Implementation of surface water temperature management plans, 303(D) list priorities for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). (DEQ)

Impacts of combined animal feeding operations. (ODA)

Upstream Fish Distribution Surveys. The upstream distribution of fish has been investigated in many coastal subbasins. In general, this assessment has resulted in increased stream protection as new information demonstrates that fish are found higher in drainages than was presumed. A cooperative protocol (ODFW and ODF) has been developed and implemented. Continued funding for this program is in jeopardy.

Fish passage, culvert maintenance and assessment, and prioritization process for culvert replacement. Reconnecting wetland and off channel habitats isolated by road fill. (ODOT, ODFW, ODF)

General authorization for instream work, record of compliance and effectiveness. (Division of State Lands)

Privately funded monitoring and assessment efforts. Several industrial forest landowners have implemented comprehensive monitoring and watershed assessments. These efforts need to be acknowledged, encouraged, and incorporated into the overall monitoring efforts and the information shared.

Irrigation withdraws, screening projects, water right applications. (ODFW, Water Resources)

Push-up dams. Location and impact. (ODSL)

Riparian protection, development set-backs, Goal 5 implementation. Coastal wetland inventories. Status of essential salmonid habitat. (Department of Land Conservation and Development).

Senate Bill 1010 implementation and effectiveness of Coastal Zone pilot basins. Oregon Department of Agriculture.

Support for Monitoring Tasks. Some elements of the monitoring plan could be implemented with assistance from Industrial landowners, watershed associations, smaller landowners, and individuals. Opportunities for broad participation and involvement need to be identified. (OCSRI staff)

Other examples and more details on these projects are in Section 13, State Agency Measures.

Improvement in data reporting, development of standardized protocols, and coordination among groups is needed before the pieces of information collected at this level can be combined to give a picture of the cumulative impact on processes at watershed, basin, or regional levels. Additional actions that will require monitoring components are identified in the OCSRI Management Actions Plan.

Recommendations:
- Include representatives from each agency or group with significant monitoring activities on the Monitoring Team.
- Examine monitoring tasks and determine which elements could be conducted by non-governmental groups or individuals to support and extend the scope of investigations. Explore possibilities to reduce costs.
- Examine the role of Oregon State Police to assist in compliance monitoring.
- Fund NRS4 to coordinate reporting of monitoring activities and to implement quality control measures. This position should be technically oriented, filled by scientist with good understanding of policy.
- Fund additional support staff to (NRS2x2) to collect, coordinate, and report on monitoring efforts. Feed results of this effort directly to Monitoring Group for inclusion in agency efforts to evaluate effectiveness of projects.
- Support research directed at evaluation of project effectiveness for such activities as salmon carcass placement, beaver enhancement, wetland restoration, hardwood conversions, and instream structures.

Cost: Approximately 220K per biennium for monitoring staff. Additional staff may be needed depending on extent of distributed efforts.

Time frame: Start immediately concurrent with announcement release of OCSRI comprehensive plan. Shift funds and reassign work to support coordination. Request new funding to maintain program.

Integrated Synthesis and Distribution of Results

Task 15: Information Collection and Sharing: Develop and maintain digital and geographic databases. Considerable effort will be needed to provide timely and useful summaries of monitoring data collected by each of the preceding tasks. Analyzing and utilizing the information collected by these proposed activities will require additional management support. Project leaders assigned to each monitoring task will develop their own summaries, but consistent and structured protocols for reporting to monitoring staff will also be required.

The best application of much of this information is likely to be provided using geographic information systems (GIS). Most agencies participating in OCSRI have GIS capability. However, because of the amount of new information collected, and because of the need to use this information in the context of regional geomorphic, climate, disturbance, land use, and biologic regimes, GIS capability dedicated to the monitoring effort is needed. This position may reside in any of the participating agencies, but the person in the position must combine GIS expertise with a well developed understanding of all concepts influencing salmon populations.

Much of the basic information used to establish Stratified Probability sampling designs for each Task will also be utilized to interpret and present context for the monitoring results. Sampling design and integrated synthesis will be components of the Quantitative Assessment Program (see Program structure and Organization below).

This task is an essential component of the monitoring proposal, synthesis and distribution of information is a key function. Capability in GIS and data management exists in most agencies, and some attempts at integration have been made (see Appendix I and Appendix II). Continued support within participating OCSRI agencies, and sufficient funding for the integration component of monitoring program will be needed. Also, the role of this group relative to each participant needs to be established.

In addition to developing basic coverages of geomorphology, climate, historical disturbance, anthropogenic disturbance, and biologic information, the GIS database will also provide a link to monitoring of ocean conditions. Information on upwelling, oscillation indices, and temperature anomalies, is available and can be used to index ocean productivity.

Recommendations:
- Participate actively in cooperative data sharing and GIS programs.
- Develop a focal point of data access within the monitoring program.
- Develop better access to BLM and Forest Service information.

Progress:
Western Oregon ecosystem and data management project. Modeled after the Columbia Basin Project, this effort is combining assessments from USFS, BLM, and ODFW stream channel surveys into a common GIS data base. Supported by USFS PNW Research, ODFW Research, and Siuslaw NF.
Contact: Shaun McKinney, Siuslaw NF, Corvallis

Coordination/Related Projects:
Interior Columbia Basin ecosystem and data management reports, Bruce Rieman,
Intermountain Research Station, USFS: 208/364-4386.

Coastal Landscape Analysis and Monitoring Study (CLAMS), Warren Cohen,
Kelly Burnett PNW Research Station 541/750-7309.

EPA Region 10 Environmental Information Management System, Tom Haad, EPA Seattle, 206/553-6689.

Costs: - Use existing computer network and hardware systems to lower start up costs (i.e. OSU, USFS PNW Research, and ODFW investment in GIS/UNIX network)
- Fund program leader (NRS 4) scientist with experience in habitat, evaluation of salmon populations, and Geographic Information Systems - 160K per biennium.

Timeframe:
- Concurrent with release of OCSRI strategic plan, arrange structure to form a cooperative agreement between participants.

Program Structure and Organization

The monitoring plan must be both broad enough and flexible enough to incorporate changes based on the full development of Oregon's salmon recovery plan. As participating agencies develop plans and budgets related to OCSRI, these new programs need to be evaluated for their contribution to monitoring efforts.

Coordination among agencies, landowners, and other groups is essential to adequately and efficiently collect and analyze information. No formal structure currently exists to provide this function. An effective monitoring program must provide leadership, be accessible to all participants, and provide a basis for sustained effort. Support for adaptive management will take the form of reports of key data elements, analysis of trends and interactions, and evaluation of the net effectiveness of restoration activities.

Monitoring Issue Teams will function within the monitoring program. Initially, these groups will focus on protocol development and sampling method design. This work will allow for a more standardized approach to monitoring that will allow broader participation from local groups, yet maintain quality of information and integration of results. Each of these groups (except Fish Population Team) has been formed and are functioning at the time of this draft. Each team is open for additional participation.

Quantitative Assessment Team
Sampling Design
Methods Development
Database and Geographic Information management
Integrated synthesis and distribution of results methods and protocol development

Fish Population Team
Stratified Random Spawning Surveys
Juvenile abundance surveys
Genetic and life history characteristics
Artificial Propagation
Harvest Management

Physical Condition (Habitat) Team
Stream channel and riparian assessments
Core Area monitoring
Habitat restoration project monitoring and evaluation
Riparian assessments
Substrate
Fish Passage
Instream Structures
Methods and protocol development

Watershed Assessment Team
watershed and sub-basin analysis
Methods and protocol development

Water Quality Team
Stream Biotic Condition Ambient Water Quality
Temperature
Turbidity - Sediment
Dissolved Oxygen
Benthic Invertebrate sampling
Methods and protocol development

Water Quantity Team
Streamflow assessment
Precipitation
Diversions and screening
Push-up dams
Methods and protocol development

Distributed Monitoring Program
Reporting of implementation and compliance monitoring
Quality assurance and control
Habitat Restoration Project Database
Benchmarks to Oregon Progress Board
Coordination with cooperators

Regular reports of monitoring activities conducted by all OCSRI participants will be made by panels representing the following groups:

State Agency Representative Panel
Comprised of monitoring coordinator in each participating Oregon state agency (ODFW, ODF, DEQ, etc.)

Federal Agency Representative Panel
Comprised of monitoring coordinator in each participating federal agency (USFWS, USFS, BLM, EPA, Province Teams, etc.)



Non-government Representative Panel
Comprised of monitoring coordinator or other representative from
Participating watershed councils,
Soil and Water Conservation Districts,
OSU Cooperative Extension Service
Landowners
Conservation organizations
Industry representatives

Monitoring Support for Adaptive Management

Development of a coordinated adaptive management approach will be a key task for the participants in the OCSRI monitoring program. The linkage between monitoring and effective adaptive management must be understood and supported at high administrative and policy levels. The National Research Council (NRC) report ("Upstream: Salmon and Society in the Pacific Northwest", 1995) stressed the importance of institutional changes designed to support meaningful adaptive management, particularly the application of a focused, interdisciplinary approach. The report recommends cooperative management organized at the bioregional level that incorporates stakeholder experience and knowledge, provides incentives for learning and change, and balances interests. Monitoring, within this context, becomes the tool for developing and testing hypotheses concerning management alternatives and the mechanism that tests management approaches over both short and long term time periods.

Adaptive management is not simply a passive strategy that relies on the sum of available information to influence management decisions. Instead, under adaptive management, actions are structured to generate needed information. The limited understanding of salmon and the ecosystems they inhabit requires adaptive management applied to conservation and restoration efforts, that in turn are monitored to assess change and contribute to evolving management strategies.

Part of the responsibilities of the monitoring program leadership and OCSRI monitoring participants will be to establish an adaptive management workgroup. This group will have representatives from management and research, scientists and interest groups, federal and non-federal landowners. The Adaptive Management Workgroup will be responsible for framing environmental management questions, identifying practical alternatives for answering these questions, and suggesting the need for appropriate changes in resource management practices. As management options are considered, the workgroup will formulate questions and apply different approaches to test the response of systems. Monitoring of populations and habitats will provide answers to testable hypotheses. The workgroup needs to explicitly state the basis for the hypothesis, explain the rational behind the management treatment, and maintain a monitoring program that allows feedback for modification of approaches.

Recommendation: Establish Adaptive Management Workgroup
- Include representatives from research and management disciplines
- Include government, non-government, and stakeholder representatives
- Use monitoring information to develop and test management options
- Develop a formal structure to elevate issues identified by monitoring activities to management policy and decision making levels.
- Compile and distribute an annual report on the status of populations and habitats, including progress towars implementate of agency actions and evaluations of effectiveness of actions and policies.
- Incorporate ongoing peer review and the reccommendations of the Independent Scientific Review.

Proposed Timeframe:
Start with formal adoption of OCSRI plan by participants.
Develop a Memorandum of Understanding to be signed by affected federal and state agencies. The MOU will indicate a commitment of staff resources to support the Adaptive Management Group as well as describe a process to consider results of the monitoring program and make appropriate changes in management programs.

Conclusions

Whereas significant progress has been made in implementing a coordinated monitoring program, much work is needed to improve the program as it evolves in the future. For example:

• An explicit, written agreement (such as an MOU) would more clearly demonstrate commitment by federal and state agencies to contribute staff resources, standardize sampling protocols, and improve data sharing processes. Cooperation among state and federal agencies has progressed tremendously in the last six months, but much improvement is still needed. Many traditional agency monitoring efforts, sampling protocols, and data processing systems will need to be modified in order to achieve the overall goals of the coordinated monitoring described here.
• An overall program coordinator position is needed to provide leadership to the coordinated monitoring program. This role will require full-time attention; and will require explicit agreement by all the participating agencies to support the direction of the position.
• The inter-agency monitoring group has not been functioning for a sufficient duration to establish a routine working and communication relationship with the various entities that are cooperating within the OCSRI. For example, results of the monitoring program annual report will need to be communicated to the OCSRI Implementation Team, the Salmon Strategy Team, and The Pacific Salmon coordinating Committee, the (proposed) Independent Scientific Review Group, and stakeholdlers, among others. These relationships are improving over time and may need to be facilitated through explicit processes and time schedules.

The multi-scaled approach outlined in this program is a complicated, ambitious, and necessary effort. The different monitoring intensities and frequencies described are intended to address issues of context and statistically valid interpretations of information balanced against issues of cost and efficiency. No element stands alone. Monitoring of core areas, for example, would be no more that a set of interesting case studies without the broader context of index monitoring, extensive stream habitat studies, indices of stream biologic conditions, and other efforts in adjacent areas. Our ability to develop and test management approaches intended to improve stream habitat, provide functional connection between stream, floodplain, and hillslope processes, and restore salmon populations is dependent on analogous, interconnected, and functional approaches to monitoring.

Operational commitment to adaptive management will be needed to evaluate actions and options across the same spatial, temporal, and biologic scales that define the structure of the monitoring program. A commitment to make policy and management program changes based on adaptive management and monitoring represents the best chance for conservation and restoration of salmon populations and their supporting habitat.

References

Bisson, P.A.; G. H. Reeves, R E Bilby, and R. J. Naiman. 1997. Watershed management and pacific salmon: desired future conditions. 1997. Pp. 447-474 in D J Stouder, P.A. Bisson, and R. J. Naiman (eds.): Pacific salmon and their ecosystems. Chapman and Hall, New York. 685 pp.

Botkin, D., K. Cummins, T. Dunne, H. Regier, M Sobel, and L. Talbot. 1994. Status and future of salmon of western Oregon and northern California. Findings and Options, Executive Summary. The Center for the Study of the Environment.

Bradbury, B., Nehlsen, W., Bottom, D., Moore, K. M., Nicholas, J., Nickelson, T., Heller, D., Hughes, R. M., Beschta, B., and Weaver, B. 1995. Handbook for prioritizing watershed protection and restoration to aid recovery of native salmon. Sake of the Salmon. Gladstone, Oregon. 49 p.

Gilbert, R. O. 1987. "Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring". Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York.

Healey, M. C. and A. Prince, 1995. Scales of variation in life history tactics of Pacific salmon and the conservation of phenotype and genotype. Pages 176-184 in L. L. Nielsen and D. A. Powers (eds.) Evolution and the aquatic ecosystem:

Defining unique units in population conservation, American Fisheries Society Symposium 17, Bethesda, MD.

MacDonnald, L. H., A. W. Smart, and R. C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. EPA 910/9-91-001. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region X, Seattle, Washington.

Montgomery, D. R., G. E. Grant, and K. Sulllivan. 1995. Watershed analysis as a framework for implementing ecosystem management. Water Resources Bulletin 31: 369-385.

Moore, K. M., K. Jones, and J. D. Dambacher. 1991. Aquatic inventory project: methods for stream habitat surveys. Research and Development Section, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Corvallis, Oregon.

National Research Council. 1995. Upstream: salmon and Society in the Pacific Northwest. National Academy Press

Reeves, G. H., L. E. Benda, K. M. Burnett, P. A. Bisson, and J. R. Sedell. 1995. A disturbance-based ecosystem approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater habitats of evolutionarily significant units of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. American Fisheries Society Symposium 17:334-349.

Spence, B. C., G. A. Lomnicky, R. M. Hughes, and R. P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosytem approach to salmonid conservation. Part II: Planning elements and monitoring strategies. Mantec Co. Corvallis, Oregon.

Table 1. Description of the major tasks comprising the monitoring strategy of the Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative. Related tasks may share data or provide/receive direct support from the other task elements.

Scale	Task	Activities	Structure	Related Tasks
Coast wide Regional	#1: Stratified Probability Sampling Design	Geographic, biologic, and stream channel stratification Identify locations of sample sites at multiple scales	Inter agency work groups, include federal and state.	Provides support for all field sampling and monitoring.
Regional	# 2: Stream Biotic Condition and Ambient Water Quality Assessment	Water Chemistry Water temperature Substrate Sampling Invertebrate and vertebrate community analysis Channel geometry	Oregon Department. of Environmental Quality Sites in each of 5 GCG Regions, different sampling levels depending on activity	Juvenile Abundance Spawner Abundance Other measures of water quality.
Regional	#3: Summer Juvenile Abundance	Summer population estimates of coho, steelhead, and cutthroat trout	ODFW, other cooperators 60 reaches in each of 5 GCG Regions	Spawner Abundance Distribution mapping Seeding estimates Harvest strategies Shared Sampling with Tasks 2, 9, 7 and 10
Regional Basin Watershed	# 4: Stream Channel and Habitat Assessments	Habitat structure and quality Analysis using NMFS matrix of "pathways and indicators" Identify restoration opportunities Riparian condition	ODFW, USFS, BLM and others 10-20 streams/year in each GCG Region	Watershed assessments GIS analysis Sampling design Tasks 1, 3, 5, 9,10, and 15
Regional Basin	#5: Spawner Abundance Surveys	Spawning ground surveys and abundance estimates for salmon and steelhead	ODFW currently 200 reaches propose ~430 reaches	Escapement goals Population trends Hatchery/wild interactions Harvest management Tasks 1, 8,9, and 10
Regional	#6: Genetic and Life History Monitoring	(needs development)	ODFW, OSU	Tasks 1, 15
Regional Basin	# 7: Fish Propagation Monitoring	Adult returns to hatchery Juveniles released Survival estimates	ODFW All coastal, and Columbia River coho hatcheries Ongoing program	Tasks 6, 15.
Regional	#8: Harvest Monitoring	Landing records Encounter rates Estimates of incidental mortality	ODFW Coastal fisheries Ongoing program with expansion	Tasks 5, 15.
Basin Watershed	#9: Salmon Core Area Monitoring and Index Area Monitoring	Smolt trapping Juvenile surveys Adult counts and spawning surveys Habitat and watershed assessment	ODFW OSU, USFS, BLM, DOF, and others Paired core area watersheds in each GCG Five to seven sub-basins distributed in GCG's	Tasks 1,2,3,4,5,6,13,15 Supports new fisheries management strategies, escapement goals Adaptive management
Coast wide	#10: Ocean Conditions	Upwelling, variability in production, temperature, etc.	NOAA, OSU Oceanography, others.	All
Basin	#11: Estuary and Wetland Populations and Habitats	Habitat condition and use Estuary survival	NEP, ODFW, OSU (needs development)	Tasks: 1, 15
Basin	#12: Forest Practices Federal Watershed Assessments	Temperature monitoring Riparian assessment Compliance monitoring Watershed analysis	ODF, USFS, BLM, USFS PNW Research ODFW Research	Tasks: 1,13,14,15
Basin	#13: Watershed Assessment for Mixed Ownerships	Watershed analysis stream channel assessment at basin scale, evaluation of restoration efforts	ODF, ODFW, Federal partners	Tasks: 1, 12, 14, 15
Stream Reaches and Sites	#14: Coordinate and Facilitate Distributed Monitoring - Evaluate Effectiveness of Efforts	Applies to actions conducted by all agencies, landowner groups, watershed associations, and individuals	Governor's Natural Resource Staff, all OCSRI participants	Tasks: 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 12,15
Regions, Basins, Stream Reaches, Sites	#15: Information Collection and Sharing	Reports Database distribution Geographic Analysis	All	All

Table 2. Organization, status, approximate funding needs, and suggested timeframe for monitoring tasks of Oregon Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative. Costs are estimates based need on biennium budget and are likely to change as proposals are defined. Cost estimates are not changed from August 1996, draft, CSRI and Agency Budget Requests supersede this summary.

Task	Status	Funding	Positions	Timeframe	Approx. Cost
#1: Stratified Probability Sampling Design	New In development.	Existing Proposed for some Participants	Existing	Starting with adoption of monitoring plan.	$70,000.
# 2: Stream Biotic Condition and Ambient Water Quality Assessment	Ongoing Expanding	Stable Proposed	Existing New 2xNRS3	Ongoing Phase in of new sampling, continue at three year intervals	$150,000 $900,000
#3: Summer Juvenile Abundance	Ongoing Expanding	Existing Proposed	Existing field supervisors New seasonals	Ongoing New sites starting 1997	$500,000
# 4: Stream Channel and Habitat Assessments	Ongoing	Existing Proposed for field staff	Existing field supervisors New seasonals	Ongoing	$400,000
#5: Spawner Abundance Surveys	Ongoing Expanding	Existing Proposed for added field personnel and supervision	Existing mgmt. New NRS3, NRS1, and seasonals	Ongoing New Stratified Random Surveys in 1997	$340,000 (coho) $520,000 (all species)
#6: Genetic and Life History Monitoring	Expanding	(needs development)	Existing management	(needs development)	?
# 7: Fish Propagation Monitoring	Ongoing	Existing	Lost positions. Upgrade NRS2 to NRS3	Ongoing	$20,000
#8: Harvest Monitoring	Ongoing with Expansion	Existing some new	Existing (need details)	Ongoing	(need details from Lawson)
#9: Salmon Core Area and Index Monitoring	New program	Proposed	Change in duties New NRS3x2, NRS2x4, seasonal EBAx6	Begin in 1997 Full program by 1998 then sustained	$750,000 (startup) $500,000(ongoing)
#10: Ocean Conditions Monitoring	Coordinate with existing programs
#11: Estuary and Wetland Populations and Habitats	New programs	Proposed	(needs development)	(needs development)	$260,000
#12: Forest Practices Federal Watershed Assessments	Ongoing Some expansion	Existing	(input from ODF)	Ongoing	(details from ODF
#13: Watershed Assessment for Mixed Ownerships	New program in monitoring group, coordinate with existing.	Proposed	NRS3 Additional staff	Begin with adoption of plan	$160,000
#14: Coordinate and Facilitate Distributed Monitoring	New program	Proposed	NRS4	Begin with adoption of plan	$200,000
#15: Information Collection and Sharing	Expanded, changes in structure	Proposed	NRS4	Begin with adoption of plan	$160,000 or more

Return to top of page.

Appendix

Go to Appendix I - Record of Scoping sessions
Not available at this time
Go to Appendix II - development of Benchmark Values for Evaluation and Analysis
Go to Appendix III - Federal Measures that Support or Coordinate with CSRI Monitoring

Go to Table of Contents page.
Go to Home page.

Created March 4, 1997
Web Page Construction: Janet Demaris (503) 378-3397 x 234