Ken DzinbalMonitoring Program Manager

Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program

Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program

• Who/what is “PSEMP”

• Monitoring inventory and gap analysis

• Puget Sound “Vital Signs” – regional context

https://sites.google.com/a/psemp.org/psemp/

PSP created in 2007 • Coordinate efforts to restore Puget Sound• Lead science and recovery planning, and set priorities• Provide tracking, accountability, and reporting

Action Agenda Biennial Science Work Plan

“State of the Sound” reports

PSEMP does:

PSEMP created in 2011:

Governed by a Charter adopted by the Leadership Council

Charter describes a semi-independent collaboration of monitoring entities and interests

Coordinate monitoring and build partnerships

Build a monitoring framework that supports the Action Agenda and recovery goals

Evaluate progress towards recovery of Puget Sound

Stormwater

Toxics

Marine Waters Salmon

Forage Fish and Food Web

Freshwater Modeling

NearshoreTerrestrial

Rock Fish Other… Other… Other…

Steering Committee

Work Groups

Mammals

Birds

PSEMP Steering Committee membersAs of January, 2015

San Juan LIOLummi TribeWa Dept of AgricultureUS EPANOAA NWIFCUSGSWa Dept of Natural ResourcesKennedy/Jenks (business consultant)Nisqually TribeWest Central LIOSeattle Audubon

Pierce CountyCity of Everett Washington Sea Grant Boeing CompanyUniversity of WashingtonKing County Seattle City LightWa Dept of Ecology Mason County FuturewiseWa Dept of Fish and Wildlife

PSEMP Work Group membersAs of January 2015

> 350 total work group members across 12 current work groups• Scientists, technical experts, monitoring program managers,

data users, others

> 200 “active” members (i.e. attend >50% of meetings)

Collaborative network of monitoring agencies and organizations

Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program

• Independent agencies conduct monitoring and manage funding, aligned with their statutory mandates

• PSP does not fund or conduct monitoring

• EPA funds PSEMP (PSP) staff for coordination

• PSEMP operates through collaboration, coordination, and persuasion

• Focus on:• Sharing results; building partnerships• Collaborations and coordination

Who is monitoring what, and why?

Is current monitoring able/sufficient to track the Vital Sign indicators and targets?

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

12 Vital Signs with data for all indicators 6 Vital Signs with missing or poor data

3 Vital Signs with no data

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

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Chinook

Steelhead

Comparison of Chinook and Steelhead Scores By Geographic Region Of Puget Sound

“Steelhead population monitoring is dramatically deficient.."

Gaps “Beyond the Vital Signs” – late 2013

Just a partial list, for example:

Need biological samples of adult herring (for age/size/genetics)

Conduct zooplankton surveys

Status & trend monitoring of salmon habitat at the watershed scale

Implement monitoring recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Ocean Acidification

Flow monitoring in small streams

Define presence and persistence of current urban and agricultural use pesticides

Expand steelhead spawner abundance surveys into areas having little or no monitoring

Improve fine scale circulation and water quality predictions in bays and inlets

Measure abundance and distribution of ESA-listed adult and juvenile rockfishes

> 150 gaps “beyond the vital signs” were identified

What to do?

Prioritization of Monitoring Gaps

Workgroup Monitoring

Gaps

Steering CommitteeCompilation

Sub-committeePrioritization

Science Panel

Review

Leadership Council

Approval

June August October November December

Funding Strategy

Prioritized Monitoring

Gaps

EffectivenessFramework

Watershed Adaptive

Management and Monitoring

Plans

Pressures Assessment

IndicatorsIntegrate into current prioritization process

• Steering Committee debated ranking criteria

• Choosing 5-10 “highest-priority” gaps was considered, but misrepresented the actual breadth of gaps

• Used a decision-model process to identify ranking criteria - But lots of push back on the results (decision criteria are not absolute; may be contextual or arbitrary)

*Effectiveness monitoring was recognized as a separate “gap”

PSEMP Monitoring Gaps

Mea

sura

bilit

y

Stra

tegi

c In

itiat

ives

Wor

k Gr

oup

Coun

t

Read

ines

s

Leve

ragi

ng

Data

cont

inui

ty

Cost

Total

NOTE: The following monitoring gaps are NOT RANKED

1

Design a comprehensive study focused on evaluating causes for the decline (and limiting recovery) of Cherry Point herring (SCIENCE SUPPORT)

2Collect biological samples of adult herring (age/size/genetics)

3 Conduct zooplankton surveys

4

Conduct icthyoplankton surveys (esp for estimating abundance of sand lance, other forage fishes and rockfish)

5Monitor predator diets (predator fishes, seals, birds)

6

Conduct Sound-wide, seasonal (systematic) field surveys of forage fish (and jellies) for diversity, abundance, and other attributes

Ranking Criteria

• What constitutes a priority “gap” depends first on policy questions. Dedicated funding provisos, legal mandates, & opportunities also interfere.

• Work groups asked to chose the “top 5” gaps within their topic areas

• This produced a final list of 56 monitoring gaps (July 2014)

• Gaps were subsequently classified into 3 policy categories:1) Gaps directly supporting the Vital Sign indicators2) Gaps that support one of the Partnership’s three strategic initiatives

(habitat, shellfish and stormwater)3) Gaps related to other scientific priorities (e.g., ocean acidification)

Category Estimated Annual Cost*1) Gaps in 9 Vital Signs: $2.3M

2) Gaps that support one of the Partnership’s three strategic initiatives:• Stormwater (21 gaps identified) $7.3M• Habitat (24 gaps identified) $5.3M• Shellfish (14 gaps identified) $2.9M

3) Gaps addressing other scientific priorities • Ocean acidification (9 gaps) $2.3M• Climate change (12 gaps) $2.9M• Food web dynamics $1.8M• Species status $6.8M* gaps and costs include overlaps so are NOT additive!

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

• PSP used the PSEMP Gap Analysis and forwarded a $2.7M budget request to the Governor to fill Vital Sign monitoring gaps. (PSP’s highest priority budget request!)

• Governor’s Office reduced the total request but included ~$1.04M in his proposed biennial budget to fill gaps in 6 Vital Signs and modestly augment effectiveness monitoring

• An additional $3M is proposed for WDFW to improve monitoring for toxics in fish (also a Vital Sign)

WOW!

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

• Over 30 scientists and their teams

• Dozens of organizations

1. Ken Balcomb, Center for Whale Research2. Scott Berbells, Washington Department of Health3. Bob Carey, The Nature Conservancy4. Randy Carman, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife5. Paul Cereghino, NOAA6. Christopher Clinton, Washington Department of Ecology7. Pete Dowty, Washington Department of Natural Resources8. Maggie Dutch, Washington Department of Ecology9. Leska Fore, Puget Sound Partnership10. Stuart Glasoe, Washington Department of Health11. Alana Knaster, Puget Sound Partnership12. Ken Koch, Washington Department of Ecology13. Christopher Konrad, U.S. Geological Survey14. Christopher Krembs, Washington Department of Ecology15. Adam Lindquist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife16. Julie Lowe, Washington Department of Ecology

17. Dayv Lowry, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife18. Alex Mitchell, Puget Sound Partnership19. Scott Pearson, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife20. Paul Pickett, Washington Department of Ecology21. Kenneth B. Pierce Jr., Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife22. Puget Sound Recovery Implementation Technical Team (RITT)23. Mindy Roberts, Washington Department of Ecology24. Mindy Rowse, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration25. David St. John, Puget Sound Partnership26. Hugh Shipman, Washington Department of Ecology27. Fred Short, Washington Department of Natural Resources28. Kurt Stick, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife29. Kari Stiles, Puget Sound Partnership30. Markus Van Prause, Washington Department of Ecology31. Dave Ward, Puget Sound Partnership32. Jim West, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife33. Jo Wilhelm, King County

Freshwater Quality Index

Streamflow trends

Marine WQ Index

New Shoreline Armoring (rate)

Eelgrass Trends

Toxics in Fish

Sediment Chemistry Index

Herring

Chinook Spawners

No trend;

Total numbers << targets

One last thing…

Annually since 2011

An unprecedented, collaborative summary of annual monitoring results focused on Puget Sound’s marine waters:

climate and weatherocean conditionsriver inputsseawater temperaturesalinity, nutrients, dissolved oxygenocean acidificationphytoplankton and spring bloombiotoxins, bacteria and pathogens, shellfish birds, mammals, forage fishand more. ..

http://www.psp.wa.gov/downloads/psemp/PSmarinewaters_2014_overview.pdf