ࡱ>  ɀ\p WOCAT DIR Ba==-x<&8X@"1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1<Arial1Arial1QTahoma1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1 Arial1Arial1Arial"$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)!"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\)""$"#,##0.00_);\("$"#,##0.00\)'""$"#,##0.00_);[Red]\("$"#,##0.00\)7*2_("$"* #,##0_);_("$"* \(#,##0\);_("$"* "-"_);_(@_).))_(* #,##0_);_(* \(#,##0\);_(* "-"_);_(@_)?,:_("$"* #,##0.00_);_("$"* \(#,##0.00\);_("$"* "-"??_);_(@_)6+1_(* #,##0.00_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)0.0                + ) , *      C C C@ @ A@ @   @ @   @ @   @ @   @ @   @ @    @ @     @ @  @ @ @ @  @ @ @ @   * * @ @  @ @  @ @  p       @ @ @ @  @ @         Normal_testv4ce`IObj & Indicators[Monitoring Plan]Sheet3pDocuments and SettingsdsalzerMy Documents_CMGC4 PilotsResults_Alices DirectoryUS Workbooks Workbooks_NJ_Pine_Barrens_CAP_v4b_3_23_05.xlsHome ViabilityStress,Source (1)Summary Strategies Monitoring UserGuide ResourcesTargetsMenusScoringArchive TranslateListPivot DataTablesModule3Module4Module6Module8Y ZPlanned Very HighZOngoingHighZ-MediumZ LowZ -  Rank;  Status;TbZ  M3 A@@   FIncrease number of acres/tracts following Ag Water Plan by 50% by 2014*Proximity of Riparian to agricultural landIncrease size or connect X% of identified forest patches in Central Hardwood Joint Venture's identified Large Forest Block GIS layers>Increase the number of mussel communites (beds) by 50% by 2009Mimic More Natural Flow RegimeNumber of low-head dams@Size, Location & Composition of Riparian - Trees, Shrubs & Grass0Minimize effects of existing impervious surfacesNumber of RC&D meeting attendedNumber of workshops offeredaPlant 25 or more native bluegrass species on 300 acres over 3 years of Bluegrass Savanna WoodlandRed-headed WoodpeckerbRe-introduce rare, threatened and endangered mussel species to the South Fork of the Licking River-Remove 25% of existing low-head dams by 2014 Number of low-head dams removedMiles of free-flowing riverjRestore a minimum of 50 feet of riparian on 50% of the mainstem, Stoner and Hinkston over the next 5 yearsRecruitment success5Width of Riparian Zone adjacent to agricultural lands>Restore fire regime to 25% of fire adapted communities by 2014*Number of county ownership layers obtained0Number of fire training courses offered per year3Number of workshops for landowers provided per year"Stop expansion of invasive aliens *Percentage of watershed with aliens mapped4Examples of CAP Objectives and monitoring indicatorsBKey Attribute References by Target (w/ current indicator status);Threat References by Target (w/ current indicator status) ObjectivesMethodsPriorityStatusFrequency and TimingLocation Who monitors Annual CostFunding SourceUpper Clinch and Little RiverTdevelop sewage management plans for rural areas receiving water lines in each county<TSS, turbidity, conductivity, ammonia, chlorophyll A, toxicsNnumber of sewer line funding applications by localities and planning districts[fence cattle out of 75 miles of stream during the next 10 years with at least 50 ft buffersmiles of fenced riparian zone/feet of stream fronted by conservation easementaget 5 counties in program area to develop comprehensive growth plans and zoning districts by 20155number of localities actively working on growth plans3funding available to localities for growth planninggidentify sites and mitigation plans for high accident-mussel assemblage locales throughout Clinch basin2accident hot-spots with improvement plans in place)additions to HazMat response capabilities6implement prescribed fire on 30 acres per year by 2015number of fire plans developedBCondition of representative native herbaceous layer within patches1increase mussel densities 25% at 4 shoals by 2015.% of animals < 5 yrs old in viable assemblages8number of juveniles released by all propagation partnersNplant trees on 450 acres of abandoned or unforested surface mine lands by 2015-acres of mined land replanted in native trees(funding secured to accomplish replantingrealize a Brusven index score of 2 or greater in the ones place and 4 or less in the tenths place at eight mussel shoals in the Clinch River and 3 in the Powell River by the year 2015#Brusven index, penetrometer readingriparian zone structuremfeet of eroding stream bank effectively restored and not eroding for at least 3 yrs after project completiondreduce accidental and unauthorized mining related water releases into surface streams by 50% by 20150reduce water column sediment load by 40% by 2021)Bering Sea - E5S at the ecoregional leveln1: Climate Change: A genetically viable, healthy population of polar bears will persist in the Bering Sea. APolar bear body weight, physiological parameters, blood chemistryPolar bear population size/Sea ice extent, location, timing, and structureDSeabird population and productivity (murres, cormorants, kittiwakes))Walrus blubber thickness, blood chemistry2: Lack of Scientific Knowledge/Data: By 2020 the primary oceanographic and climate processes of the Bering Sea and the factors that drive marine mammal, seabird and fish population fluctuations are well understood by the science community. Sea otter adult/pup ratios*Female fur seal trip distance and duration%Northern fur seal bull and pup counts2Northern fur seal pup weights and starvations/year&Steller sea lion adult/juvenile countsNWhale population and regulatory status (Gray, Fin, Sperm, Right, Orca, Beluga)3a: Commercial Fisheries: Incidental Take of Seabirds and Marine Mammals: Reduce the number of albatross caught in longlines & nets by 50% by 2010 in US waters and by 2015 in Russian waters. bycatch rates by species&Short-tailed albatross incidental take3b: Commercial Fisheries: Incidental Take of Seabirds and Marine Mammals: By 2006, determine if incidental take outside of Bering Sea fisheries is a factor in pinniped declines. 3c: Commercial Fisheries: Habitat Damage: Eliminate use of habitat-damaging fishing gear in key coral & sponge gardens, other living substrates, and known crab nursery areas in Alaska by 2015 and in Russia by 2020. Coral and sponge bycatch amount3d: Commercial Fisheries: Prey competition: By 2010 research will have established whether or not competition between birds/marine mammals and fisheries is a significant factor limiting populations and recovery of seabirds and marine mammals. *BSAI Steller sea lion adult/juvenile count3di: Objective: By 2015 in Alaska (2020 in Russia), there are no commercial fishing boats found in key marine mammal and seabird feeding areas during relevant seasons. 3dii: Objective: By 2015 in Alaska (2020 in Russia), there are at least X metric tons of forage fish (e.g., squid, herring, juvenile pollock, sandlance, etc.) available to support food needs throughout marine mammal and seabird life cycles.(Pollock biomass as % of unfished biomass3e: Overfishing: By 2015 (AK) & 2025 (Ru), no commercial fish stocks are overfished, stocks currently classified as overfished are  recovering or  recovered and stocks currently classified as  recovering have recovered. Marine Trophic Index (MTI)Overfished stocks;Salmon escapement, harvest, and bycatch in sentinel streams3f: By-catch: By 2010 in Alaska by-catch does not exceed 5% of total harvest for any stock and does not exceed 5% of the total biomass of the bycatch species. 6Percentage of streams meeting salmon escapement goals 3g: Fisheries Management: The management paradigm for fisheries in the Bering Sea is ecosystem-based, habitat-focused and precautionary by 2015 in Alaskan waters and by 2020 in Russian waters. +Hatchery fish as percent of overall returns4a: Oil Spill: By 2010, all oil spills > 100 gallons near key seabird colonies and marine mammal rookeries/haulouts have on-the-ground cleanup and containment response within 12 hours. Shipwreck response time4b: Oil Spill: By 2010, trace oil in selected Bering Sea harbors (St. Paul, St. George, Dutch, Adak, Akutan, Russian towns) will not exceed XX ppm. 5a: By 2010, eradicate introduced predators & grazers from 5 islands totaling 150,000 acres in the outer Aleutian Islands. By 2050, there are no introduced predators or grazers on islands in the Bering Sea. ^Presence of rats on specified islands; presence/absence of rats in traps based on FWS protocol{5b: By 2010, all boat groundings and potential groundings will have on-the-ground rat prevention response within 12 hours.<5c: Marine invasives never get a foot-hold in the Bering Seaj6a: Salmon Ranching and Farming: By 2050, no salmon farms will have been established in the Bering Sea. 6b: Salmon ranching and farming: By 2010, hatchery fish will not exceed XX% of total returns within a statistical area (in AK) and equivalent region in Russia. 7a: Overhunting: By 2010, Alaska and Chukotka will have scientifically-mana< ged, sustainable, subsistence harvests for polar bears and walrus. [7b: Overhunting: By 2015, polar bear poaching in Chukotka and Alaska will be eliminated. 8: Marine Debris: By 2010, northern fur seal entanglement rates in Pribilof Islands, Bogoslof Island, and the Commander Islands <1% of females.3Percent of female northern fur seals entangled/year9a: Vessel Traffic: The Northern Shipping Route, if opened, is managed according to an international management plan that includes fully-funded spill prevention & response, invasive species prevention, avoidance of sensitive sites & other measures. 6Integrated Strategy #1: Pribilof Island CollaborativeIntegrated Strategy #2: A comprehensive network of protected areas in sensitive and productive marine and coastal zones will be in place and fully supported by 2050.eIntegrated Strategy #3: Establish a community-based monitoring and action network in the Bering Sea.]Integrated Strategy #4: Site-based action at platform sites: Pribilof and Commander IslandsSacramento RiverYBy 2010 increase riparian habitat acreage along the mainstem of the river to 35,371 acresE% of the 150 meander belt that is currently in conservation ownership;% of the 150 meander belt that is currently natural habitatN% of the historical riparian zone that is currently in conservation ownership D% of the historical riparian zone that is currently natural habitat ,% cover of mapable weeds in natural habitats2% cover of native understory vegetation in forestsFBy 2010 restore 25 miles of river meander and floodplain connectivity dacres of floodplain hydraulically connected to river flood at 2, 10, 25, 50, 100, 200, 500 yr floodsmeters of riverbank with riprapbank swallow abundanceWarea of floodplain hydraulically connected to the river that is <1 m relative elevationWarea of floodplain hydraulically connected to the river that is > 3m relative elevationcarea of floodplain hydraulically connected to the river that is between 1 and 3m relative elevation{By 2010, ensure conservation lands and waters are managed and monitored in an effective, coordinated, collaborative manner.5% of agencies with adequate management plans in place=% of easements that have up to date terms and EDRs completed XAdequacy of multi-agency forums for coordinating management and monitoring activities /% of diverted flow that is adequately screened 3% of stream diversions that are adequately screened@number of days of the year when tempertaure requirements are metxBy 2010, establish a comprehensive monitoring program to measure the health of conservation targets in the Project area lviability component of the workbook has been completed sufficiently well to invite peer review from experts =presentations have been given and papers have been published Dexternal funding has been secured to continue support for monitoringNproposals have been submitted to fund TNC involvement in additional monitoringYBy 2010, remove passage barriers on __ miles of tributary streams above the project area rmiles of salmonid steams that anadramous fish can access without encountering passage barriers (wiers, dams, etc.)HBy 2010, restore ecosystem flows within an adaptive management frameworkYFrequency with which there are flows sufficient to support upstream/downstream migrationscnumber of years per decade with flow events of sufficient magniture to mobilize the river's bedloadchannel meander migration rateXDegree to which innundation patterns support native species use of off-channel habitats bwillingness of agencies responsible for regulating flows to institute ecological flow prescription StrategiesBabeldaob Stategy#Objectives and Indicators Objectiveu1. By 2015, all new developments shall comply with sustainable land use and forest management plans in all 10 states. Indicator.Number of communities that have land use plans:Number of communities that are implementing land use plans% of historical coverNative species density% Change in Insect Assemblages*Presence/absence of invasive plant species2. By 2015 a network of protected areas that supports local community resource needs, contains 75% of ecologically important areas, and includes at least 100 square miles has been established in Babeldaob.*Square miles of protected terrestrial areaTPercentage of sites from the list of Ecologically Important Areas that are protectedLPercentage of survey respondents reporting positive perceptions of their CAs2Dollars generated directly from Conservation Areas7Number of jobs created directly from Conservation Areas`3. By 2015, hunting and harvesting of all species of concern are at or below sustainable levels.4. By 2010, the amount of native vegetation burnt by uncontrolled or illegal fires annually is reduced by 50% of current levels.5. Strengthen Multidisciplinary Team - By January 2006 hire or dedicate one staff personnel from among the team to be dedicated to land use planning and raise the capacity of existing staff to understand and support land use planning.6. Strengthen Multidisciplinary Team - Increase direct communication with and involvement of the BOA staff in land use planning and forest management planning activities.7. Community and Constituency Support - Raise political support for the establishment and mgmt of land use planning, forest mgmt planning, and protected areas through targeted development and implementation of education and social marketing plans.See Report by River Partners for their survey methodology. Also see the methods proposed in a November 2004 proposal submitted to CALFED ERP that included a component of VELB and elderberry monitoring.lSee River Partners report, plus additional sites TBD sufficient to have representation for the project area.River Partners (Chico, CA) has done some monitoring as has Teresa Talley and Marcel Holyoak (UCD). Both groups have proposed additional monitoring, the latter under a Project led by TNC.{$192,000 was requested for a 3-yr TNC/UCD study of VELB and Elderberry. Products will include more than this one indicator.See Report by River Partners for their survey methodology. Also see the methods proposed in a two November 2004 proposals submitted to CALFED ERP that included a components of VELB and elderberry monitoringIn a report done by River Partners to the FWS in 2004, it was found that 3.9% (299) of the 7,600 elderberry shrubs surveyed at restoration sites had exit holes. In general, older restoration sites had a higher percentage of shrubs with holes that younger shrubs.S% of main-channel habitat that is bordered by a natural habitat that is >500 m deep[main-channel aquatic habitat -Landscape Context: Landscape pattern (mosaic) & structureMterrestrial riparian habitat -Threat: Conversion to agriculture or silviculture main-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Conversion to agriculture or silviculture songbirds (resident and migratory) -Threat: Conversion to agriculture or silviculture anadromous fishes -Threat: Conversion to agriculture or silviculture@Inexpensive if orthorectified aerial photos (15K) are obtained V% of off-channel habitats that are surrounded by natural uplands that are > 500 m deepZoff-channel aquatic habitat -Landscape Context: Landscape pattern (mosaic) & structureLterrestrial riparian habitat -Threat: Conversion to agriculture or silviculture off-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Conversion to agriculture or silviculture songbirds (resident and migratory) -Threat: Conversion to agriculture or silviculture anadromous fishes -Threat: Conversion to agriculture or silviculture6this could be done with GIS analysis of aerial photos. Every 5 yrs This has never been done before.oanadromous fishes -Condition: Depredation & parasitism (7% of the diversions in the entire Central Valley)Zanadromous fishes -Threat: Construction and operation of drainage or diversion systemsIsee entries for similar indicator (% of flow that is adequately screened)DFG/ FWSterrestrial riparian habitat < -Size: Size / extent of characteristic communities / ecosystems (11,222 acres are in fee title within the 150 meander belt. This equals 31%. )Pheadwater mussel assemblage -Condition: population structure and recruitment2-increase mussel densities 25% at 4 shoals by 2015estandard mussel sampling techniques using substrate excavation. Performed in conjunction with VDGIF.% open during leaf on>mainstem riparian vegetation zone -Condition: Canopy coverh-identify sites and mitigation plans for high accident-mussel assemblage locales throughout Clinch basincompile data from VDOT.,Acreage greater than 300 m from nearest edgeHbird community -Landscape Context: Extent of interior forest habitatO-plant trees on 450 acres of abandoned or unforested surface mine lands by 2015Mimplement protocol of Dr. Burger using soil ripping and native tree planting.collect information on the additional resources available to first responders for HazMat calls based on state funding daa and local fire dept. information.headwater mussel assemblage -Landscape Context: substrate quality riffle fish community -Landscape Context: substrate qualityP-realize a Brusven index score of 2 or greater in the ones place and 4 or less in the tenths place at eight mussel shoals in the Clinch River and 3 in the Powell River by the year 2015 -reduce accidental and unauthorized mining related water releases into surface streams by 50% by 2015 -reduce water column sediment load by 40% by 2021Emeasure Brusven index and penetrometer readings at identified shoals.HColony counts at known caves and number of caves supporting rare speciesbats -Size: Population sizeLCondition of representative native herbaceous layer per site characteristicsSsouthern Appalachian matrix forest -Condition: Native Herb Species Composition Rmainstem riparian vegetation zone -Condition: Native Herb Species Composition 7-implement prescribed fire on 30 acres per year by 2015measure herb layer in 1/100th hectare plots in burned area and reference control areas. Compare data for statistical differences in species diversity, species composition, and percent aggressive woody speciesDistance between patches]mainstem riparian vegetation zone -Condition: Connectivity among communities & ecosystems-realize a Brusven index score of 2 or greater in the ones place and 4 or less in the tenths place at eight mussel shoals in the Clinch River and 3 in the Powell River by the year 2015 -reduce water column sediment load by 40% by 2021compile data for stream restoration projects from all partner agencies and perform GIS calculation of feet of stream bank restored.\-fence cattle out of 75 miles of stream during the next 10 years with at least 50 ft bufferscompile data for conservation easements from all partner organizations and performe GIS calculation of feet of stream protected)frequency of river levels above bank fullKmainstem riparian vegetation zone -Landscape Context: Hydrologic regimeb-get 5 counties in program area to develop comprehensive growth plans and zoning districts by 2015Ltrack funding available from state budgets to localities for growth planningvtrack cumulative funding from investors for carbon sequestration or other tree planting mine land reclamation efforts. IBI score;riffle fish community -Condition: Assemblage structure Land use in recharge zoneslsignificant karst biota -Landscape Context: Hydrologic regime -Landscape Context: Temperature regimemedian monthly flow?riffle fish community -Landscape Context: Hydrologic regimeG-fence cattle out of 75 miles of stream during the next 10 years with at least 50 ft buffers -realize a Brusven index score of 2 or greater in the ones place and 4 or less in the tenths place at eight mussel shoals in the Clinch River and 3 in the Powell River by the year 2015 -reduce water column sediment load by 40% by 2021mGather data from all partner organizations and perform GIS calculation of miles of stream fenced from cattle.&number of caves or entrances destroyed-bats -Landscape Context: cave destruction>Number of connected Continguous Forest Patches > 15,000 Acres fsouthern Appalachian matrix forest -Landscape Context: Connectivity among communities & ecosystemsNumber of contiguous patches of intact forested slope to cliff riparian zones of mainstem rivers. Minimum patch size: 1500 acres.emainstem riparian vegetation zone -Size: Size / extent of characteristic communities / ecosystemsnumber of dead bats foundbats -Condition: predation>Cumulative tally of fire plans from all partner organizations.;Data from Mussel Recovery Group on mussels released by siteU-develop sewage management plans for rural areas receiving water lines in each countynumber of species;significant karst biota -Condition: habitat degradation/percent of juveniles leaving maternity colonies)bats -Condition: adequate recruitmentPeriodic bird count databbird community -Condition: Species diversity -Size: Relative and absolute population sizes7PH, Temperature, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, DO, Conductivity5significant karst biota -Condition: Water QualityGphysical or habitat barriers to movement between suitable habitat areasheadwater mussel assemblage -Landscape Context: habitat connectivity riffle fish community -Landscape Context: habitat connectivityPresence of expected native tree and shrub species per site characteristics, and balanced distribution of individual species occurances.southern Appalachian matrix forest -Condition: Native Tree and Shrub Species Composition mainstem riparian vegetation zone -Condition: Native Tree and Shrub Species Composition HPresence of human debris in or draining to sinkhole and/or cave entranceOsignificant karst biota -Landscape Context: Contaminant and nutrient inputsGpresence or absence of viable assemblages at suitable habitat locationsRheadwater mussel assemblage -Size: Size / extent of characteristic communitiesfRelative abundance and variability of potential forest communties within forest patches > 15,000 acresTsouthern Appalachian matrix forest -Landscape Context: Forest patch heterogenityOriparian condition within 2 miles of known roosting sites and hibernacula caveskbats -Landscape Context: suitable foraging habitat in close proximity to roosting sites and hibernaculaheadwater mussel assemblage -Landscape Context: allochthonous input riffle fish community -Condition: Allochthonous Input-realize a Brusven index score of 2 or greater in the ones place and 4 or less in the tenths place at eight mussel shoals in the Clinch River and 3 in the Powell River by the year 2015Assess riparian zone structure from remote imagery sources to determine categories of tree covered, shrub covered, grassed, or bare."Sinkhole Vegetation in buffer zone8significant karst biota -Landscape Context: Air flow"time since logged; time since firesouthern Appalachian matrix forest -Landscape Context: Disturbance regime mainstem riparian vegetation zone -Landscape Context: Disturbance regimeOTree Size (DBH and Height) Variability within representative sampling locationsOsouthern Appalachian matrix forest -Condition: Vertical Structure of ForestAheadwater mussel assemblage -Landscape Context: water quality-develop sewage management plans for rural areas receiving water lines in each county -realize a Brusven index score of 2 or greater in the ones place and 4 or less in the tenths place at eight mussel shoals in the Clinch River and 3 in the Powell River by the year 2015 -reduce accidental and unauthorized mining related water releases into surface streams by 50% by 2015 -reduce water column sediment load by 40% by 2021[Secure DEQ water quality sampling data for analysis of nitrogen and ammonia concentrations.4TSS, Turbitidity, Conductivity, Amonia, Chorophyll A;riffle fish community -Landscape Context: Water Quality6TSS, Turbitidity, Conductivity, Amonia, Chorophyll A 1< Visitation Rates@significant karst biota -Condition: Disturbance/accessiblityXAerial extent and timing of pack ice (km2) over shelf; winter maximum and summer minimumCSea Ice Ecosystem -Landscape Context: Sea ice habitat integrity-Amount (km2) of multi-year ice vs. annual ice6amount (pounds) of corals and sponges in trawl bycatch[Coral/sponge Gardens -Size: Size, extent, and architechture of coral/sponge communities+Baleen whale (krill feeder) population sizeBeluga population size,Whales -Size: Population size & dynamics^-3d: Commercial Fisheries: Prey competition: By 2010 research will have established whether or not competition between birds/marine mammals and fisheries is a significant factor limiting populations and recovery of seabirds and marine mammals. -3di: Objective: By 2015 in Alaska (2020 in Russia), there are no commercial fishing boats found in key marine mammal and seabird feeding areas during relevant seasons. -3dii: Objective: By 2015 in Alaska (2020 in Russia), there are at least X metric tons of forage fish (e.g., squid, herring, juvenile pollock, sandlance, etc.) available to support food needs throughout marine mammal and seabird life cycles. -3g: Fisheries Management: The management paradigm for fisheries in the Bering Sea is ecosystem-based, habitat-focused and precautionary by 2015 in Alaskan waters and by 2020 in Russian waters. 9Contact NMFS National Marine Mammal Lab for annual countsannual in fallSeattleSteve MacLean, TNC-3a: Commercial Fisheries: Incidental Take of Seabirds and Marine Mammals: Reduce the number of albatross caught in longlines & nets by 50% by 2010 in US waters and by 2015 in Russian waters. -3c: Commercial Fisheries: Habitat Damage: Eliminate use of habitat-damaging fishing gear in key coral & sponge gardens, other living substrates, and known crab nursery areas in Alaska by 2015 and in Russia by 2020. 4This is reported annuallt by NMFS from observer dataannualNMFS - Auke Bay Lab in Juneau??Cormorants: % breeding pairs producing chicks, population countfSeabirds -Condition: Combined long term means (5 yr rolling average) for productivity & population4Cormorants: three year rolling average both species 3Pinnipeds -Landscape Context: Prey availability-2: Lack of Scientific Knowledge/Data: By 2020 the primary oceanographic and climate processes of the Bering Sea and the factors that drive marine mammal, seabird and fish population fluctuations are well understood by the science community. -3d: Commercial Fisheries: Prey competition: By 2010 research will have established whether or not competition between birds/marine mammals and fisheries is a significant factor limiting populations and recovery of seabirds and marine mammals. -3di: Objective: By 2015 in Alaska (2020 in Russia), there are no commercial fishing boats found in key marine mammal and seabird feeding areas during relevant seasons. -3dii: Objective: By 2015 in Alaska (2020 in Russia), there are at least X metric tons of forage fish (e.g., squid, herring, juvenile pollock, sandlance, etc.) available to support food needs throughout marine mammal and seabird life cycles. - Etc....Contact Rolf REam at NMMLrData for this indicator are collected sporadically in special research projects rather than as on-going monitoringNMML - SeattleFin whale population sizeGray whale population size"Harbor seal population growth rate/Pinnipeds -Size: Population size & dynamics-3g: Fisheries Management: The management paradigm for fisheries in the Bering Sea is ecosystem-based, habitat-focused and precautionary by 2015 in Alaskan waters and by 2020 in Russian waters. -6a: Salmon Ranching and Farming: By 2050, no salmon farms will have been established in the Bering Sea. -6b: Salmon ranching and farming: By 2010, hatchery fish will not exceed XX% of total returns within a statistical area (in AK) and equivalent region in Russia. Methods need refinement; likely compare records on hatchery returns and compare with overall estimated Bering Sea harvest and escapement.Annual in fall,ADFG reports - probably published on the webTNC Salmon Director?>Kittiwake: % breeding pairs producing chicks, population count/Kittiwakes: 5 year rolling average both species:Location, size, diversity of corals and sponges in bycatch=Pelagic Fish -Condition: Sustainabilty of Pollock fishery-3e: Overfishing: By 2015 (AK) & 2025 (Ru), no commercial fish stocks are overfished, stocks currently classified as overfished are  recovering or  recovered and stocks currently classified as  recovering have recovered. -3g: Fisheries Management: The management paradigm for fisheries in the Bering Sea is ecosystem-based, habitat-focused and precautionary by 2015 in Alaskan waters and by 2020 in Russian waters. Review annual Stock Assessment (e.g., Livingston, P. A. 2003. Trophic Level of the Catch, Ecosystem Considerations Chapter, Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA.) Annual reportNMFS Seattle; available on web Steve MacLean;Murres: % breeding pairs producing chicks, population count+Murres: 3 year rolling average both speciesNearshore species populationABottom Dwelling Fish & Crab -Size: Population size & dynamicsNFS bull countsNFS pup weight]-2: Lack of Scientific Knowledge/Data: By 2020 the primary oceanographic and climate processes of the Bering Sea and the factors that drive marine mammal, seabird and fish population fluctuations are well understood by the science community. -3b: Commercial Fisheries: Incidental Take of Seabirds and Marine Mammals: By 2006, determine if incidental take outside of Bering Sea fisheries is a factor in pinniped declines. -3d: Commercial Fisheries: Prey competition: By 2010 research will have established whether or not competition between birds/marine mammals and fisheries is a significant factor limiting populations and recovery of seabirds and marine mammals. -3di: Objective: By 2015 in Alaska (2020 in Russia), there are no commercial fishing boats found in key marine mammal and seabird feeding areas during relevant seasons. - Etc....Review NMML reports2Annual counts for bulls, every other year for pupsNMML - Available on webNorthern fur seal bull countsNorthern fur seal pup counts8Call Rolf Ream at NMML. Review reports produced by NMMLannually collected data'NMML Seattle - likley availabile on WebNumber (%) NFS pup starvations#Number (%) NFS pup starvations/yearNumber (%) pup starvationsLNumber of northern fur seal caught incidentilly in commercial fisheries/yearOrca population size8Review annual Stock Assessment (SAFE) document from NMFSavailable on line-8: Marine Debris: By 2010, northern fur seal entanglement rates in Pribilof Islands, Bogoslof Island, and the Commander Islands <1% of females.eMonitored annually by NMFS and St. Paul tribal government. Get data from tribal ECO office and NMML annually in fallCAll St. Paul and NMML, Seattle2Pelagic Fish -Size: Population size & dynamics-3f: By-catch: By 2010 in Alaska by-catch does not exceed 5% of total harvest for any stock and does not exceed 5% of the total biomass of the bycatch species. review ADFG escapement reports for selected streams in western AK. [Need to ID sentinel streams. Need to see if there is anything comparable in Russia.]%Data from ADFG Comm Fish in AnchorageSalmon Program Dir. @ TNC?;Sea Ice Ecosystem -Landscape Context: Prey availabilityo-1: Climate Change: A genetically viable, healthy population of polar bears will persist in the < Bering Sea. Need to better develop methods; find out how data collected by hunters is coallated and summarized. Talk to Scott Schliebe, FWS. AnchoragePolar bear den surveys7Sea Ice Ecosystem -Size: Population size & dynamicsPollock biomass'Pelagic Fish -Size: Pollock biomass-3dii: Objective: By 2015 in Alaska (2020 in Russia), there are at least X metric tons of forage fish (e.g., squid, herring, juvenile pollock, sandlance, etc.) available to support food needs throughout marine mammal and seabird life cycles. -3g: Fisheries Management: The management paradigm for fisheries in the Bering Sea is ecosystem-based, habitat-focused and precautionary by 2015 in Alaskan waters and by 2020 in Russian waters. !review annual SAFE report by NMFSpopulation counts=Sea Otter -Condition: Population structure & recruitment P-5a: By 2010, eradicate introduced predators & grazers from 5 islands totaling 150,000 acres in the outer Aleutian Islands. By 2050, there are no introduced predators or grazers on islands in the Bering Sea. -5b: By 2010, all boat groundings and potential groundings will have on-the-ground rat prevention response within 12 hours.<Work with Art Sowls, Vernon Byrd at USFWS to develop methodsPresence/absence of ratsRight whale population size1Salmon bycatch of runs bound for sentinel streams%Salmon escapement at sentinal streams-3e: Overfishing: By 2015 (AK) & 2025 (Ru), no commercial fish stocks are overfished, stocks currently classified as overfished are  recovering or  recovered and stocks currently classified as  recovering have recovered. -3f: By-catch: By 2010 in Alaska by-catch does not exceed 5% of total harvest for any stock and does not exceed 5% of the total biomass of the bycatch species. Need to ID sentinel streams, then data for harvest and escapement should be available from ADFG Comm Fish Division for Alaska. Getting bycatch data may be more difficult. Data for Russian stocks will also be problematicADFG office in Anchorage*Salmon harvest of runs in sentinel streamsWork with USGS or USFWS toi develop an annual monitoring method for this indicator. Should be able to get processed satellite data and overlay bathymetry.MData sources are likely Geophysical Institute at UAF or USGS-BRD in Anchorage/Sea Otter -Size: Population size & dynamics-2: Lack of Scientific Knowledge/Data: By 2020 the primary oceanographic and climate processes of the Bering Sea and the factors that drive marine mammal, seabird and fish population fluctuations are well understood by the science community. +Contact Angie Doroff at USFWS in Anchorage. Extensive documentation at USFWS-1: Climate Change: A genetically viable, healthy population of polar bears will persist in the Bering Sea. -2: Lack of Scientific Knowledge/Data: By 2020 the primary oceanographic and climate processes of the Bering Sea and the factors that drive marine mammal, seabird and fish population fluctuations are well understood by the science community. -3d: Commercial Fisheries: Prey competition: By 2010 research will have established whether or not competition between birds/marine mammals and fisheries is a significant factor limiting populations and recovery of seabirds and marine mammals. -3di: Objective: By 2015 in Alaska (2020 in Russia), there are no commercial fishing boats found in key marine mammal and seabird feeding areas during relevant seasons. - Etc....MReview summary tables in annual Alaska Maritime NWR Seabird Monitoring Report,annual, report posted to the web by DecemberData compiled at AMNWR in HomerShelf break species populationShelf species population8-4a: Oil Spill: By 2010, all oil spills > 100 gallons near key seabird colonies and marine mammal rookeries/haulouts have on-the-ground cleanup and containment response within 12 hours. -5b: By 2010, all boat groundings and potential groundings will have on-the-ground rat prevention response within 12 hours.4Methods need development. Data likely kept by USCG.annual summaryqGet US numbers from USFWS. Bycatch numbers in Russia are not available; need to develop data collaction methods.%Contact USFWS in Anchorage (contact?);Steve MacLean, TNC; WWF-Ru for Russian incidental take data(Speices biomass as % of unfished biomassSperm whale populationSperm whale population size-2: Lack of Scientific Knowledge/Data: By 2020 the primary oceanographic and climate processes of the Bering Sea and the factors that drive marine mammal, seabird and fish population fluctuations are well understood by the science community. -3d: Commercial Fisheries: Prey competition: By 2010 research will have established whether or not competition between birds/marine mammals and fisheries is a significant factor limiting populations and recovery of seabirds and marine mammals. -3di: Objective: By 2015 in Alaska (2020 in Russia), there are no commercial fishing boats found in key marine mammal and seabird feeding areas during relevant seasons. -3dii: Objective: By 2015 in Alaska (2020 in Russia), there are at least X metric tons of forage fish (e.g., squid, herring, juvenile pollock, sandlance, etc.) available to support food needs throughout marine mammal and seabird life cycles.=Review Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report from NMFSAnnual, available late fall)Available on the web or via NMML, SeattleTory line use in Russiaf-1: Climate Change: A genetically viable, healthy population of polar bears will persist in the Bering Sea. -2: Lack of Scientific Knowledge/Data: By 2020 the primary oceanographic and climate processes of the Bering Sea and the factors that drive marine mammal, seabird and fish population fluctuations are well understood by the science community. mUSFWS collects data on harvested walruses on an ongoing basis. Work with Joel Garlich-Miller to access data.Through USFWS regional office NReview annual Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Report available from NMFSAnnual, late fall0Report available on web or through NMML, SeattleTBD-HighPlannedunknown Very HighOngoingAnnualMediumNoLow?6Detailed monitoring plan completed? (date + citation) 7Last updated summary/ analysis report (date + citation) Monitoringv-1. By 2015, all new developments shall comply with sustainable land use and forest management plans in all 10 states.Upland Forest -Size: Forest cover Mangrove Forest -Size: Mangrove forest area Freshwater Wetland -Size: Total wetland area Beach and Strand System -Size: strand vegetation coverE-1. By 2015, all new developments shall comply with sustainable land use and forest management plans in all 10 states. -2. By 2015 a network of protected areas that supports local community resource needs, contains 75% of ecologically important areas, and includes at least 100 square miles has been established in Babeldaob.% of historical forest area,High Limestone Forest -Size: Forest areaas designed by Dr. Olsen4Streams and Lakes -Condition: insect assembleges!CPUE for mangrove crabs and clamsDMangrove Forest -Condition: Shellfish and crustacean populations8Density of fruitbats, crocodiles and Micronesian pigeonsFHunted Species of Concern -Size: Population size of hunted species-2. By 2015 a network of protected areas that supports local community resource needs, contains 75% of ecologically important areas, and includes at least 100 square miles has been established in Babeldaob.Upland Forest -Condition: Bird species composition Freshwater Wetland -Condition: Bird species composition expected in wetland habitat High Limestone Forest -Conditio< n: Bird Species composition!Presence of endemic plant species1Savanna -Condition: Plant species compositionSan Miguel/Dolores Riverj(1) By 2006, eradicate tamarisk and other woody invasives from the San Miguel River and major tributaries.A% of mainstem and main tributaries dominated by native vegetation$Miles of San Miguel River controlledvHigh quality (A or B) occurrences of each of the rare riparian communities is found within the San Miguel River systemv(2) Through 2013, prevent reestablishment of tamarisk through annual monitoring and maintenance level control efforts.% resprouting in treated areask(3) By 2009, eradicate any populations that are found of Colorado Weed list A species (purple loosestrife).BPresence of invasive species that can significantly change systems(4) By 2008, at least 2 other priority landscapes in the Southwest have begun woody invasive eradication projects based on lessons learned at the San Miguel Project site.]number of other groups that begin tamarisk eradication projects (within and outside the area)(5) By 2013, an operational flow regime exists at McPhee Dam that is sufficient to protect water dependent targets (warm water fishery and riparian systems).Dolores River hydrograph=MOU in place to implement flow prescriptions on Dolores River&population size of flannelmouth sucker:population size of flannelmouth sucker and bluehead sucker!population size of roundtail chub(6) By 2006, all new water projects will take into account key elements of the San Miguel River flow regime that are needed to protect aquatic and riparian biodiversity.San Miguel River hydrograph$Identification of new water projects(7) By 2013, key public and private lands of the Lower Dolores River and surrounding areas (specific locations to be selected) are protected and managed so as to conserve key ecoregional targets.`land area of conservation targets under special designation that is compatible with biodiversity;% of key private lands that are under conservation easementmiles of roads and pipelines areal extentQHigh Quality (Condition rank) viability of needed Gunnison sage grouse occurrence"fire regime departure from natural#Fragmentation of ecological systems=Quality of rare plant, animal and plant community occurrences*hydrograph on streams with hanging gardens>high quality occurrences of the hanging garden plant community(8) Through 2013, no oil and gas roads or pads will be located within rare plants or plant community occurrences. If oil and gas drilling does occur, the work will minimize impacts to biodiversity.@high quality occurrences of 3 needed plant community occurrencesGhigh quality (occurrence ranks) needed 5 rare plant species occurrences7high quality occurrences of Dolores River skeletonplant7High quality (EO rank) occurrences of the kachina daisy%High quality occurrence of gray vireoo(9) By 2013, X acres (TBD) in at least 2 viable Gunnison prairie dog colonies are under full protection status.%Number of viable prairie dog coloniesGHigh quality (occurrence ranks) needed Gunnison prairie dog occurrencesNumber of active nestsSouth Fork Licking RiverhCreate 5 new cane (100 acres of cane) patches of greater than 1,000 acres (matrix) over the next 5 yearsAcres of managed matrixAcres of Cane Brakes<Cane Insect Community -Papaipema sp 5 (Rare Cane Borer Moth)Swainson's WarblerCreate management agreements with neighboring landowners totalling 10,000 acres of diverse quail habitat (grass, edge, woods, crops) Quail numbers7acres of managed breeding habitat for Northern Harriers`Develop IBI for use in the South Fork of the Licking River relating to fish and mussel diversity)Embeddedness as a result of sedimentationEEducate developers/county officials BMPs for construction/development=Percentage of developers in the watershed attending workshops.Number of county officials attending workshopsGriffith Woods RestorationPresence of trees/grasses+Patch size and location of breeding habitat!# Acres managed as open woodlands:Identify locations of mussel beds and associated diversity'% species with recruitment over 5 yearsWater Quality testingJSan Miguel River System -Threat: Crop production practices -Threat: Development of roads or utilities -Threat: Primary home development Lower Dolores River System -Threat: Crop production practices -Threat: Development of roads or utilities -Threat: Primary home development Desert Shrubland -Threat: Crop production practices -Threat: Development of roads or utilities -Threat: Primary home development Sagebrush Shrubland -Threat: Crop production practices -Threat: Development of roads or utilities -Threat: Primary home development5-(7) By 2013, key public and private lands of the Lower Dolores River and surrounding areas (specific locations to be selected) are protected and managed so as to conserve key ecoregional targets. -(9) By 2013, X acres (TBD) in at least 2 viable Gunnison prairie dog colonies are under full protection status.Identify key tracts of private land for easements; Collect GIS information on easements and maintain a current database of easements; DAnnually update easements other than TNC; TNC updated as they happenWork with GIS person to maintain data; SM Program Manager responsible for gathering information from other groups i.e. San Miguel CountyGIS operation budgeteSan Miguel River System -Condition: native riparian vegetation (tamarisk map - dominated by natives and > 20 miles treated) -Size: length of native riparian vegetation (tamarisk map - dominated by natives and > 20 miles treated) Lower Dolores River System -Condition: native riparian vegetation -Size: length of native riparian vegetation.San Miguel River System -Threat: Invasive/alien species -Threat: Operation of drainage or diversion systems -Threat: SWSI - new water projects Lower Dolores River System -Threat: Invasive/alien species -Threat: Operation of dams or reservoirs -Threat: SWSI - new water projects-(1) By 2006, eradicate tamarisk and other woody invasives from the San Miguel River and major tributaries. -(2) Through 2013, prevent reestablishment of tamarisk through annual monitoring and maintenance level control efforts. -(3) By 2009, eradicate any populations that are found of Colorado Weed list A species (purple loosestrife). -(5) By 2013, an operational flow regime exists at McPhee Dam that is sufficient to protect water dependent targets (warm water fishery and riparian systems). -(6) By 2006, all new water projects will take into account key elements of the San Miguel River flow regime that are needed to protect aquatic and riparian biodiversity.terrestrial riparian habitat -Threat: Conversion to agriculture or silviculture songbirds (resident and migratory) -Threat: Conversion to agriculture or silvicultureSimple GIS tabulation)150 meander belt btw Red Bluff and Colusa%Minimal if coverages are kept current(Last calculations were done in May 2004.`terrestrial riparian habitat -Size: Size / extent of characteristic communities / ecosystemsStraightforward GIS exercisemTNC?, DWR?, UCD?, CSUC? various groups have been involved in the past and have proposed work into the future.:Inexpensive if orthorectified aerial photos are obtained ^The CSUC GIC did a mapping of land cover based upon May, 1999 aerials. We have the coverages.bterrestrial riparian habitat -Size: Size / extent of characteristic communities / ecosystems (22,170 acres are in fee title within the historical riparian zone. This equals 12%. An additional 9,631 acres are in conservation easement in this zone, however, these acres were not included in the total used to calculate this indicator (see comments )Greco provided the map of the historical riparian zone as determined from the Holmes et al. 1913 soil map. I clipped it to define our project area boundaries. Some GIS analyses of land in conservation ownership was done by Dave Jukkola, based upon data laye< rs that he has assembled from various agencies and land management entities. 22,170 acres are in fee title within the historical riparian zone. This equals 12%.GIS analyses of land in conservation ownership was done by Dave Jukkola in summer '04, based upon data layers that he has assembled from various agencies and land management entities.terrestrial riparian habitat -Size: Size / extent of characteristic communities / ecosystems (23,557 acres are in habitat (inludes public and private ownership of both remnant and revegetated habitat) within the historical riparian zone. This equals 13 %.)Greco provided a map of the historical riparian zone as determined from the Holmes et al. 1913 soil map. I clipped it to define our project area boundaries. GIS analyses of land cover in May 1999 was done by the CSUC GIC based upon interpretation of aerial photos. Note that the entire historical riparian zone was not surveyed for riparian veg in 1999 (that is the flight lines did not cover this zone in its entirety, however we can be pretty certain that the flight lines captured all the existing riparian as the land further from the river, that was not photographed, has all been cleared for agriculture. GIS analyses of land in natural habitat was done by Dave Jukkola, based upon data layers that he assembled from various agencies and land management entities. 21999 aerials were used to generate current status.% woody spp basal area that is composed of native spp; % stem density that is composed of native spp; importance values for native vs nonnative woody plant spp;terrestrial riparian habitat -Threat: Invasive/alien species songbirds (resident and migratory) -Threat: Invasive/alien speciesForest inventory survey methodologies currently employed by Dave Wood for sampling in mixed riparian forests should be drawn from to assign and calculate metrics. Dave's sampling has taken place priimarily in mixed riparian forests thus far, although some has also taken place in oak woodlands. Metrics selected here as indicators should probably from the same for these two community types.cSee Wood's report, plus additional sites TBD sufficient to have representation for the project areaCSUC, Dave Wood's labCheck w Dave WoodhCALFED has provided funds for monitoring of this in the past, and additional monitoring into the future.See 2003 Reports to TNC by Dave Wood: 1) The Distribution and Composition of Woody Species in Riparian Forests along the Middle Sacramento River; and 2) Pattern of Woody Species Establishment on point Bars on the Middle Sacramento River. These are posted on the Sac R Portal website. These reports by Wood (2003) are appendices to the Final Report to CALFED by TNC entitled Managemnet and Monitoring Recommendations for Floodplain Habitats of the Beehive Bend Subreach (RM 164-178), Sacramento River, CA. Posted on the Sac R Portal website. Cabundance of red-eared sliders in off-channel areas (more is worse)Aoff-channel aquatic habitat -Size: Population size & dynamics?off-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Invasive/alien speciesPopulation size of red-eared sliders may be readily estimated by surveying basking turtles with binoculars and /or spotting scopes. Turtles may also be trapped and individually marked for more detailed monitoring. ATBD. Sufficient sites to have representation for the project area7Dawn Wilson from CSUC did previously. No one currently.%Total off channel survey cost = $____Results of some turtle monitoring on the river are presented in Golet, Wilson and others (2003) Using science to evaluate restoration efforts and ecosystem health on the Sacramento River Project./abundance of river otters in main channel areasBmain-channel aquatic habitat -Size: Population size & dynamicsmain-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Construction and operation of drainage or diversion systems -Threat: Dam construction and operationYet to be determined; FWS refuge staff have expressed an interest. Monitoring of this type is listed as a goal in their CCP for the River Refuge.&Total main channel survey cost = $____RUnknown if any survey data have been collect for this species in the Project Area.-abundance of waterbirds in main channel areasbasic boat-based surveying methodology. 2 observers (one on each side), 1 pilot, 1 recorder. locations of all observations to be recorded in a GPS.Are there any prexisting data?/abundance of waterbirds in off-channel habitatsoff-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Construction and operation of drainage or diversion systems -Threat: Dam construction and operationAre there any preexisting data?6abundance of western pond turtles in off-channel areasjBasking tutles can be surveyed with binoculars or spotting scopes. Turtles can also be trapped and markedDawn Wilson of CSUC monitored previously. She moved to AZ. Germano at Cal State U Bakersfield has done turtle work in the SJ Valley.[terrestrial riparian habitat -Landscape Context: Landscape pattern (mosaic) & structureterrestrial riparian habitat -Threat: Levees disconnecting river from floodplain off-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Levees disconnecting river from floodplain main-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Levees disconnecting river from floodplain songbirds (resident and migratory) -Threat: Levees disconnecting river from floodplain anadromous fishes -Threat: Levees disconnecting river from floodplainG-By 2010 restore 25 miles of river meander and floodplain connectivity there are various methods for calculating this. See the comments box (step 8) in the viability wizard for this indicator for a discussion of some of these.oYet to be determined. ACE COMP study did so previously. PWA is interested in doing some of this in the future.`The ACE COMP study Technical Studies Documentation report, December 2002, has some info on this.-amount of gravel removed from inchannel mines>main-channel aquatic habitat -Size: Community architectureyearly*All tributaries in the entire project areaYet to be determined.2Apparent adult survival for Black-headed Grosbeakszsongbirds (resident and migratory) -Size: Population size & dynamics (62% from 1995 to 2000 (81% from 1993 to 1995) )rMethods are presented in: Gardali, T., and N. Nur. In prep. Site-specific survival estimats of Black-headed Grosbeaks and Spotted Towhees at four sites in the Sacramento Valley. In Gardali et al. (editors) Monitoring landbirds in the Sacramento Valley. PRBO Conservation Science unpublished report, 4990 Shoreline Highway, Stinson Beach, CA 94970; tgardali@prbo.org.bSee PRBO 2004 final report, plus additional sites TBD sufficient to represent entire project area.PRBO Conservation Scienceh$260,000 was requested for monitoring birds for 3 yrs. Products other than indicators will be produced. PRBO's final report (Gardali et al. Monitoring landbirds in the Sacramento Valley. PRBO Conservation Science unpublished report, 4990 Shoreline Highway, Stinson Beach, CA 94970; tgardali@prbo.org) has monitoring plan recommendations at its end.Gardali, T., and N. Nur. In prep. Site-specific survival estimats of Black-headed Grosbeaks and Spotted Towhees at four sites in the Sacramento Valley. In Gardali et al. (editors) Monitoring landbirds in the Sacramento Valley. PRBO Conservation Science unpublished report, 4990 Shoreline Highway, Stinson Beach, CA 94970; tgardali@prbo.org. See first the details reported in the Viability table comments. +Apparent adult survival for Spotted Towheeszsongbirds (resident and migratory) -Size: Population size & dynamics ( 25% from 1995 to 2000 (60% from 1993 to 1995))Mappropriate parameters from CA State Water Resources Control Board's database[main-channel aquatic habitat -Condition: water quality (chemistry and other parameters)off-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Crop production practices main-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Crop production practices anadromous fishes -Threat: Crop production practices<sufficient sites to have representation f< or the project area#aquatic macrophyte species richnessKoff-channel aquatic habitat -Condition: Species composition / dominanceBoff-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Crop production practices}Methods of past work on the Sacramento River are briefly summarized in Morken and Kondolf 2003 oxbow evolution report to TNC.YSee Morken report, plus additional sites TBD sufficient to represent entire project area.Gudrun Bournette has done work previously on the Sacramento River. Also Eliska Rejmankova is a UC Davis prof that specializes in aquatic macrophytesGudrun Bournette's work on the Sacramento River is summarized in Morken and Kondolf 2003 oxbow evolution report to TNC, and also in email correspondence from her on the topic. Warea of floodplain hydraulically connected to the river that is < 1m relative elevationACE computed elevation for use in their hydraulic modeling in the COMP Study. UCD (Greco/Larsen) proposed more of it recently to CALFED. b$253,131 to quantify this indicator plus others in proposed TNC/Greco/Larsen 3 yr monitoring pgm. No. But we have developed technical study specifications for how LIDAR should be used to generate the topographic data. Greco is working on a ms that describes how relative elevation is calculated. See the 2004 proposal submitted to CALFED ERP by TNC/UCD/PRBO for some details.COMP study analyzed 1997 data. The ACE COMP study Technical Studies Documentation report, December 2002, has some info on this. terrestrial riparian habitat -Threat: Levees disconnecting river from floodplain songbirds (resident and migratory) -Threat: Levees disconnecting river from floodplain)area of forest in the "high" height classSterrestrial riparian habitat -Size: Presence of key communities or seral stagesXSee Greco report, plus additional sites TBD sufficient to represent entire project area.Greco lab at UCD-Greco summarized this based upon 1997 aerials(area of forest in the "low" height class+area of forest in the "medium" height class4area of geomorphic floodplain surfaces < 5 years old>terrestrial riparian habitat -Size: Community architectureterrestrial riparian habitat -Threat: Dam construction and operation -Threat: Shoreline stabilization main-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Dam construction and operation -Threat: Shoreline stabilization anadromous fishes -Threat: Shoreline stabilizationChange through time has been examined by looking at aerial photogrtaphs in Greco's Landscape Analysis Lab. Greco has floodplain age data for the entire project area. )Eric Larsen and Steve Greco at UC Davis. AThrough 1997. See Greco's reports Historical channel mapping from aerial photography of the Sacramento River, Colusa to Red Bluff 1870-1920, and 1937-1997. See also the UCD MS thesis by A. Fremier 2003 Floodplain Age Modeling Techniques to analyze channel migration and vegetation patch dynamics on the Sacramento River.5area of geomorphic floodplain surfaces > 10 years old7area of geomorphic floodplain surfaces 5 - 10 years oldRmain-channel aquatic habitat -Size: Presence / abundance of keystone species (9,590 pairs in 2003. The entire project area (Red Bluff to Colusa) is surveyed, however, the estimate DFG produces is is for Redding to Colusa. To get this they add 1,290 pairs for the Red Bluff to Redding stretch to the total surveyed reach (Red Bluff )terrestrial riparian habitat -Threat: Shoreline stabilization main-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Shoreline stabilization songbirds (resident and migratory) -Threat: Shoreline stabilization anadromous fishes -Threat: Shoreline stabilization?Swallows are surveyed from the FWS jet boat with dual counters.2Red Bluff to Colusa (Redding to Colusa previously)DFG/FWSSome details are provided in the annual status reports by Schlorff to the DFG Director. Also see Schlorff's 1997 article "Monitoring Bank Swallow Populations on the Sacrameto River: A Decade of Decline". Transactions if the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 33:40-48.cBrief 2003 status report was completed by Schlorff. 2004 survey completed, report not yet received.bat species richnessZterrestrial riparian habitat -Condition: Species composition / dominance (10 species)Gsee Ecological Indicators report by Stillwater Sciences and UCB (2003).mSee Stillwater UCB report, plus additional sites TBD, sufficient to have representation for the project area.qUC Berkeley researchers (Bill Rainey, Dixie Pierson w/ Stillwater sciences) have done the monitoring in the past.Check w Bill Rainey*benthic macroinvertebrate Impairment Indexoff-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Shoreline stabilization main-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Shoreline stabilizationThe rating definitions will come from an Impairment Index that is developed from a Predictive Modeling exercise that is being done by DFG's ABL, under Jim Harrington and Peter Ode's direction. By early 2005 Jim Harrington's group should have publications out that describe both the Predictive Modeling approach and the field sampling protocol that is a merging of EMAP and the CA protocol lJim Harrington and staff (Pete Ode and Andy Rehn) of the Aquatic Bioassessment Lab of DFG at Rancho Cordova publications are due out to describe both the Predictive Modeling approach and the field sampling protocol that is a merging of EMAP and the CA protocol None yet availableBlack-headed Grosbeak abundanceesongbirds (resident and migratory) -Size: Population size & dynamics (0.69 ( 0.0554) birds/ha)PRBO's final report (Gardali et al. Monitoring landbirds in the Sacramento Valley. PRBO Conservation Science unpublished report, 4990 Shoreline Highway, Stinson Beach, CA 94970; tgardali@prbo.org). See first the details reported in the Viability table comments. #terrestrial riparian habitat -Threat: Dam construction and operation -Threat: Shoreline stabilization off-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Dam construction and operation -Threat: Shoreline stabilization main-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Dam construction and operation -Threat: Shoreline stabilization songbirds (resident and migratory) -Threat: Dam construction and operation -Threat: Shoreline stabilization anadromous fishes -Threat: Dam construction and operation -Threat: Shoreline stabilizationI-By 2010, restore ecosystem flows within an adaptive management frameworkEric Larsen at UC Davis. channel sinuosityCmain-channel aquatic habitat -Condition: Community architectureCommon Yellowthroat abundancehsongbirds (resident and migratory) -Size: Population size & dynamics ( 0.1766 ( 0.0266) birds/ha)terrestrial riparian habitat -Threat: Conversion to agriculture or silviculture -Threat: Invasive/alien species songbirds (resident and migratory) -Threat: Conversion to agriculture or silviculture -Threat: Invasive/alien speciesmoff-channel aquatic habitat -Landscape Context: Hydrologic regime - (timing, duration, frequency, extent)off-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Construction and operation of drainage or diversion systems -Threat: Dam construction and operation anadromous fishes -Threat: Construction and operation of drainage or diversion systems -Threat: Dam construction and operation*TBD. All areas deemed necessary to monitory-By 2010, establish a comprehensive monitoring program to measure the health of conservation targets in the Project area off-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Construction and operation of drainage or diversion systems -Threat: Dam construction and operation main-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Construction and operation of drainage or diversion systems -Threat: Dam construction and operation anadromous fishes -Threat: Construction and operation of drainage or diversion systems -Threat: Dam construction and operation~Frequency with which there are flows sufficient to support upstream/downstream migrations and to innundate beneficial habitatscanadromous fishes -Landscape Context:< Hydrologic regime - (timing, duration, frequency, extent)<Late fall run chinook salmon spawner population (escapement)Yanadromous fishes -Size: Population size & dynamics (8,265 in 2003 (26,976 in 2002))main-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Construction and operation of drainage or diversion systems -Threat: Dam construction and operation anadromous fishes -Threat: Construction and operation of drainage or diversion systems -Threat: Dam construction and operation-All necessary locations to sample entire run._Bob Keno at the Native andaromous fish and watershed branch (DFG) does this on an annual basis.main-channel aquatic habitat -Landscape Context: Soil / sediment stability & movement (total for reach 2: 30,039 meters total for reach 3: 55,587 meters grand total: 85,626 meters)Gterrestrial riparian habitat -Threat: Shoreline stabilization off-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Shoreline stabilization main-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Shoreline stabilization songbirds (resident and migratory) -Threat: Shoreline stabilization anadromous fishes -Threat: Shoreline stabilizationDWRUanadromous fishes -Size: Size / extent of characteristic communities / ecosystemsZ-By 2010, remove passage barriers on __ miles of tributary streams above the project area ATBD. Entire network of rivers and streams that sustain salmonids.:anadromous fishes -Condition: Water / soil temperature-By 2010, ensure conservation lands and waters are managed and monitored in an effective, coordinated, collaborative manner. -By 2010, restore ecosystem flows within an adaptive management frameworkDFGEnumber of Pacific Lamprey migrating past the Red Bluff diversion dam Fanadromous fishes -Size: Population size & dynamics ( 53 in 2002)main-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Conversion to agriculture or silviculture -Threat: Dam construction and operationRed Bluff Diversion DamFWSnumber of snag aggregationsmain-channel aquatic habitat -Size: Community architecture (1414 snag aggregations between RM 144 and 244, or broken down by reach: 649 in SRCAF reach 2 RM 195-244, and 765 in SRCAF reach 3.)terrestrial riparian habitat -Threat: Shoreline stabilization main-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Shoreline stabilization anadromous fishes -Threat: Shoreline stabilizationwmain-channel aquatic habitat -Landscape Context: Hydrologic regime - (timing, duration, frequency, extent) (guess)Anumbers of outmigrating winter-run juvenile salmonids (JPI index)`anadromous fishes -Size: Population size & dynamics (~6.5 million in 2003; (8.1 M in 2002))2Gaines and Poytress 2003 report on 2002 brood yearNA<proportion of pond turtle population in various sex classes goff-channel aquatic habitat -Condition: Population structure & recruitment (26% female, 84% male)=proportion of pond turtle population in various size classes `off-channel aquatic habitat -Condition: Population structure & recruitment (90% are adults)%All areas deemed necessary to monitorSong Sparrow abundancegsongbirds (resident and migratory) -Size: Population size & dynamics (0.0299 ( 0.0142) birds/ha)Songbird species richnessysongbirds (resident and migratory) -Condition: Species composition / dominance (Mean was 16 in 2001 (28 in 2000). )Spotted Towhee abundancefsongbirds (resident and migratory) -Size: Population size & dynamics (1.019 ( 0.0509) birds/ha)QSpring run chinook salmon spawner population (escapement) in Mill and Deer Creeksanadromous fishes -Size: Population size & dynamics (4,185 in 2003 [1,426 in Mill Cr. and 2,759 in Deer Cr.]; (3,779 in 2002 [1,594 in Mill and 2,185 in Deer ]). )main-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Construction and operation of drainage or diversion systems anadromous fishes -Threat: Construction and operation of drainage or diversion systemsITotal nest survival (Mayfield [1975] Estimate) for Black-headed Grosbeaksesongbirds (resident and migratory) -Condition: Depredation & parasitism (52% from 1993 to 2000 )CTotal nest survival (Mayfield [1975] Estimate) for Lazuli Buntings.esongbirds (resident and migratory) -Condition: Depredation & parasitism (11% from 1993 to 1997 )BTotal nest survival (Mayfield [1975] Estimate) for Spotted Towheesesongbirds (resident and migratory) -Condition: Depredation & parasitism (23% from 2001 to 2003 );total number and area of backwater sites of different types_off-channel aquatic habitat -Size: Size / extent of characteristic communities / ecosystemsoff-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Dam construction and operation main-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Dam construction and operationLimm/Singer at UCD?9Winter run chinook salmon spawner population (escapement)Zanadromous fishes -Size: Population size & dynamics (8,218 in 2003; (7,441 in 2002).)Yellow Warbler abundancegsongbirds (resident and migratory) -Size: Population size & dynamics (0.0147 ( 0.0095) birds/ha)Yellow-breasted Chat abundancehsongbirds (resident and migratory) -Size: Population size & dynamics ( 0.0465 ( 0.0054) birds/ha)TNCLterrestrial riparian habitat -Condition: Species composition / dominance@terrestrial riparian habitat -Threat: Invasive/alien speciesZ-By 2010 increase riparian habitat acreage along the mainstem of the river to 35,371 acres Every 5 yrs.Entire Project AreaGreco lab plus others TBD.$102,500 was requested in a TNC/UCD proposal for new orthorectified high resolution aerial photos, IKONOS images and to cover mapping and ground truthing. "proposed to CALFED ERP on Nov 2004No. but see 2004 CALFED ERP proposal submitted by TNC/PRBO/UCD for methods and additional info on this activity, including how this info is to be incorporated into a larger monitoring program.Uterrestrial riparian habitat -Condition: Species composition / dominance (30.7%)eMonitoring methodologies are detailed in Holl and Crone 2004 (Journal of Applied Ecology 41:922-933).see Holl et al ms.4UCSC restoration ecologist and professor Karen Holl.Check w Karen HollNo. However, the methods have been flushed out in the initial survey. The CSUC proposal presents this effort as part of a larger monitoring program, as did a TNC proposal submitted (but unfunded) in 2002. Table 2 from Holl and Crone 2004 (Journal of Applied Ecology 41:922-933), presents values that I used to calculate this indicator. To do so I took the mean % native cover for the older restoration sites (9.7%) and the mean for the reference (remnant habitat) sites (50.7%) which came out to: 30.2%. It would probably be better to weight the two habitat types by there actual representation in the project area, but I didn't do this. |-By 2010, ensure conservation lands and waters are managed and monitored in an effective, coordinated, collaborative manner.AnnuallyMinimal#No, but there probably isnt a need.sanadromous fishes -Condition: Depredation & parasitism (75% of the diverted flow in the entire Central Valley)'off-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Construction and operation of drainage or diversion systems main-channel aquatic habitat -Threat: Construction and operation of drainage or diversion systems anadromous fishes -Threat: Construction and operation of drainage or diversion systemsDFG tracks this somehow... Consult with the Anadramous Fish Screen Team: Bill O'Leary USBR, Rick Wantuck NMFS, George Heise DFG, Katie Witts DFG Katie Witts (916 227-2333 and cell: 916-708-2333) of DFG's Fish Screens and Fish Passage Pgm of Rancho Cordova manages a database for DFG on diversions and passage barriers. When I asked Katie about indicator ratings for status of screening and passage barriers she suggested I speak with Tom Schroyer, DFG, (916)445-0008, who works some w CALFED to come up with milestones for their programs.Katie also suggested I speak w Martina Koller who is with Pacific States Marine Fisheries and was one of the people trying to put together a multi-agen< cy (DFG, CALTRANS, Forest Service, DWR, etc) fish passage assessement database. Her phone is (916)397-3937 and email is mkoller@dfg.ca.gov. Funds to put this web-based database together were apparently lost to some degree as the state budget was cut.?Only expense is to for us to track down info compiled by othersfNot sure where DFG gets funds to do this. Funding to further develop the database was apparently lost.UnknownWitts manages a database for DFG on diversions and passage barriers. It has GIS and associated tabulated data which is dff file that could be loaded into Excel or Access. She sent the database. It has info for all diversions as to whether or not they are screened, and if so to what criteria (e.g., does it meet specs for preventing splittail entrainment, steelhead entrainment, etc). It also has lots of info in a comment field (planned screen installations, etc). Katie said that there are not any good recent reports available on the status of fish screens or passage barriers for the Sac Watershed. The ones that are available are all old and out of date. B% of elderberry shrubs with 1 or more VELB exit holes <2 years oldhterrestrial riparian habitat -Size: Population size & dynamics (3.9% at surveyed restoration sites)wterrestrial riparian habitat -Threat: Conversion to agriculture or silviculture -Threat: Invasive/alien speciescShrubland/Grassland Communities -Landscape Context: Connectivity among communities & ecosystemsLBluegrass Savanna/Woodland -Condition: Keystone Functional Groups/Guilds-Identify locations of mussel beds and associated diversity -Increase the number of mussel communites (beds) by 50% by 2009 -Restore a minimum of 50 feet of riparian on 50% of the mainstem, Stoner and Hinkston over the next 5 yearsbPresence/absence of key grassland wildlife species (shrikes, grasshopper sparrow, bobolink, etc..)BShrubland/Grassland Communities -Condition: Grassland Wildlife-Increase number of acres/tracts following Ag Water Plan by 50% by 2014 -Increase the number of mussel communites (beds) by 50% by 2009 -Restore a minimum of 50 feet of riparian on 50% of the mainstem, Stoner and Hinkston over the next 5 years-Create management agreements with neighboring landowners totalling 10,000 acres of diverse quail habitat (grass, edge, woods, crops)k-Restore a minimum of 50 feet of riparian on 50% of the mainstem, Stoner and Hinkston over the next 5 years0Recruitment/ New native growth after disturbanceEBluegrass Savanna/Woodland -Landscape Context: Seed Bank Dynamics:Bluegrass Savanna/Woodland -Size: MInimum Dynamic Areab-Plant 25 or more native bluegrass species on 300 acres over 3 years of Bluegrass Savanna Woodland-Mimic More Natural Flow Regime -Restore a minimum of 50 feet of riparian on 50% of the mainstem, Stoner and Hinkston over the next 5 yearsSmallmouth Bass9South Fork Aquatic System -Condition: Water chemistry"soft mast vs hard mast recruitment7Large Forest Blocks -Condition: age (forest health)=Cane Brakes -Condition: Keystone Functional Groups/Guildsi-Create 5 new cane (100 acres of cane) patches of greater than 1,000 acres (matrix) over the next 5 yearsTime interval of disturbanceBShrubland/Grassland Communities -Condition: Disturbance Regimewater quality measurementsuMussel Assemblage -Condition: Sediment Regime/ Habitat South Fork Aquatic System -Condition: Sediment RegimeMussel Assemblage -Threat: Non-BMP Crop production practices -Threat: Non-BMP Livestock Production Practices Fish Assemblage -Threat: Non-BMP Crop production practices -Threat: Non-BMP Livestock Production Practices Bluegrass Savanna/Woodland -Threat: Non-BMP Crop production practices Shrubland/Grassland Communities -Threat: Non-BMP Crop production practices -Threat: Non-BMP Livestock Production Practices South Fork Aquatic System -Threat: Non-BMP Livestock Production Practices Cane Brakes -Threat: Non-BMP Livestock Production Practices Running Buffalo Clover -Threat: Non-BMP Livestock Production PracticesUtilize GIS to examine topos and aerial photography to determine where existing riparian zones are and then overly where existing agricultural fields are; Stress analysis or flyover 3Every 2-5 years for the flyover or GIS when updated)Mainstem and headwaters of the South Fork(TNC/Partners? DOT, EKP, Volunteer PilotsLFull set of Indicators (Effectiveness and Status for subset of CAP projects)Babeldaob, PalauYearly transect surveys in IBAsUpland Forest -Threat: Large-scale commercial developments (golf courses, hotels, etc.) -Threat: Road construction -Threat: Urban development Mangrove Forest -Threat: Large-scale commercial developments (golf courses, hotels, etc.) -Threat: Road construction -Threat: Urban development Freshwater Wetland -Threat: Large-scale commercial developments (golf courses, hotels, etc.) -Threat: Road construction -Threat: Urban development Streams and Lakes -Threat: Large-scale commercial developments (golf courses, hotels, etc.) -Threat: Road construction -Threat: Urban development Beach and Strand System -Threat: Large-scale commercial developments (golf courses, hotels, etc.) -Threat: Urban development Savanna -Threat: Large-scale commercial developments (golf courses, hotels, etc.) -Threat: Road construction -Threat: Urban development Hunted Species of Concern -Threat: Urban developmentvUse existing maps and remote sensing to map baseline and then use updated digital imagery (before 2015) to map changesUpland Forest -Threat: Road construction Mangrove Forest -Threat: Road construction Freshwater Wetland -Threat: Road construction Streams and Lakes -Threat: Road construction Savanna -Threat: Road constructionKIncorporate revenue generation tracking and reporting into management plans?Track number of communities through Community Visioning Process>Incorporate job tracking and reporting into management plans lCreation and updating of a list of EIAs., tracking of percentage based on maps and legislation for new areasLYearly simple survey of 10% of people in communities with Conservation AreasJUse maps and legislation to create a baseline and to track area of new CasRunning Buffalo Clover -Landscape Context: Connectivity among communities & ecosystems Large Forest Blocks -Size: Characteristic Ecological Communities and Seral StagesvBluegrass Savanna/Woodland -Threat: Inappropriate Fire Regime (planned) -Threat: Invasive/alien species (planned) Shrubland/Grassland Communities -Threat: Inappropriate Fire Regime (planned) -Threat: Invasive/alien species (planned) Running Buffalo Clover -Threat: Inappropriate Fire Regime (planned) -Threat: Invasive/alien species (planned))-Increase size or connect X% of identified forest patches in Central Hardwood Joint Venture's identified Large Forest Block GIS layers -Plant 25 or more native bluegrass species on 300 acres over 3 years of Bluegrass Savanna Woodland -Restore fire regime to 25% of fire adapted communities by 2014*# of protected self-sustaining populations6Running Buffalo Clover -Size: MInimum Dynamic Area+% of invasives within 1 mile of RBC habitat<Running Buffalo Clover -Condition: Quality of understory?Mussel Assemblage -Size: Population structure & recruitment;-Identify locations of mussel beds and associated diversitySimilar to Embeddedness:Cane Brakes -Size: Size/extent of characteristic comm.Bluegrass Savanna/Woodland -Threat: Inappropriate Fire Regime -Threat: Non-BMP Crop production practices -Threat: Non-BMP Livestock Production Practices-Create 5 new cane (100 acres of cane) patches of greater than 1,000 acres (matrix) over the next 5 years -Create management agreements with neighboring landowners totalling 10,000 acres of diverse quail habitat (grass, edge, woods, crops) -Plant 25 or more native bluegrass species on 300 acres over 3 years of Bluegrass Savanna Woodland -Restore < a minimum of 50 feet of riparian on 50% of the mainstem, Stoner and Hinkston over the next 5 yearsEDriving/Flying watershed approximating cane locations and patch sizesLate Fall/Early spring TNC/PartnersCShrubland/Grassland Communities -Size: Harrier Breeding HabitatBluegrass Savanna/Woodland -Threat: Inappropriate Fire Regime -Threat: Invasive/alien species -Threat: Non-BMP Livestock Production Practices-Create management agreements with neighboring landowners totalling 10,000 acres of diverse quail habitat (grass, edge, woods, crops) -Plant 25 or more native bluegrass species on 300 acres over 3 years of Bluegrass Savanna WoodlandfDesignate three 10,000 acre blocks and visit them to determine disturbance regime is every three yearsOnce per year - late summerTNC, KDFWR, EKUhShrubland/Grassland Communities -Landscape Context: MInimum Dynamic Area for Northern Bobwhite Quail-Create 5 new cane (100 acres of cane) patches of greater than 1,000 acres (matrix) over the next 5 years -Plant 25 or more native bluegrass species on 300 acres over 3 years of Bluegrass Savanna Woodland!Aquatic Index of Biotic IntegrityMussel Assemblage -Condition: Size/extent of characteristic fish comm. Fish Assemblage -Condition: Size/extent of characteristic fish comm.Mussel Assemblage -Threat: Low-Head Dams Fish Assemblage -Threat: Low-Head Dams South Fork Aquatic System -Threat: Low-Head DamsSame as embeddedness8Cane Brakes -Landscape Context: Minimum Dynamic Area)Bluegrass Savanna/Woodland -Threat: Construction/Development -Threat: Inappropriate Fire Regime -Threat: Non-BMP Livestock Production Practices Cane Brakes -Threat: Construction/Development -Threat: Inappropriate Fire Regime -Threat: Non-BMP Livestock Production Practices-Create 5 new cane (100 acres of cane) patches of greater than 1,000 acres (matrix) over the next 5 years -Create management agreements with neighboring landowners totalling 10,000 acres of diverse quail habitat (grass, edge, woods, crops) -Plant 25 or more native bluegrass species on 300 acres over 3 years of Bluegrass Savanna Woodland -Restore a minimum of 50 feet of riparian on 50% of the mainstem, Stoner and Hinkston over the next 5 years -Restore fire regime to 25% of fire adapted communities by 20146Survey insect communities in restored cane communities4Once per year - Early October (Julian and Joe Black) ContractorgDecent populations of Cane, Running buffalo clover, oak-ash savanna, walnut-buckeye and maple-bitternut\Bluegrass Savanna/Woodland -Size: Characteristic Ecological Communities and Seral Stagesdistance between blocksWLarge Forest Blocks -Landscape Context: Connectivity among communities & ecosystems"Distance between riffles and poolsASouth Fork Aquatic System -Landscape Context: Water chemistry0Diversity and abundance of forest interior birds+Diversity and abundance of invasive exoticsKMussel Assemblage -Condition: Quality of substrate at known mussel beds -Develop IBI for use in the South Fork of the Licking River relating to fish and mussel diversity -Identify locations of mussel beds and associated diversity -Restore a minimum of 50 feet of riparian on 50% of the mainstem, Stoner and Hinkston over the next 5 yearsEApply standard Habitat Assessment procedures (DOW) involving IBI workOnce a year - Be sure it is tied in to DOW water quality cycle (every five years) They will monitor every 5 years and we do it in the interim years13 - 5 Reaches containing known mussel populations/Private contractors/Cooperators/Watershed WatchTownsend Creek EPA 319-Longitudinal Connectivity (Distance b/n dams)rFish Assemblage -Landscape Context: Flow Regime South Fork Aquatic System -Landscape Context: Flow Regime.-Remove 25% of existing low-head dams by 2014 x-Educate developers/county officials BMPs for construction/development -Minimize effects of existing impervious surfaces?-Restore fire regime to 25% of fire adapted communities by 2014-Mimic More Natural Flow Regime1-Minimize effects of existing impervious surfaces(Parasitized nests (Brown-headed Cowbird)FLarge Forest Blocks -Size: Least Amount of Edge (square or circle)+Cane Brakes -Threat: Forestry practices#-Stop expansion of invasive aliens `Percentages of matrix mix for interspersion & patch size (use literature and fragstats)(indices)Landscape and local monitoring of woody invasives removal project for San Miguel tamarisk removal project. Dolores River information does not need to be as precise, and methods need to be determined.landscape scale - baseline mapping was completed in 2001; followup in 5-10 years; local monitoring is planned for 2004 and 2005 with followup in 5 year increments for San Miguel+San Miguel River System (and Dolores River)PContract - landscape scale; contract and interns for local scale for San Miguel;$40,000 every 5 years; TNC will be applying for grant funds for baseline monitoring; will need $20,000 everytime landscape monitoring needs to be repeated for San Miguel project; ja draft monitoring plan has been written that details the methods; also grant proprosals provide details; {San Miguel River System -Threat: Invasive/alien species Lower Dolores River System -Threat: Invasive/alien species-(2) Through 2013, prevent reestablishment of tamarisk through annual monitoring and maintenance level control efforts. -(3) By 2009, eradicate any populations that are found of Colorado Weed list A species (purple loosestrife).+count number of resprouts after treatment; 9Annually for at least 5 years after control efforts begintreatment sites TNC interns(SM operations budget - intern staff timea more detailed plan has been written and is on file at TNC office. Also detailed in grant proposals for complete funding of SM tamarisk control monitoring program.CO Plateau Cliff and Canyon -Size: Size of system (not mapped - 186 mile river corridor much of which is canyon) PJ & Ponderosa Pine Woodland -Size: Size of system (3 patches all over 100,000 acres) Montane-mixed shrubland/grassland mosaic -Size: Size of system (over 60,000 acres total of 7 patches of 4 types; all patches over 5000 acres except 1 - montane grassland) Desert Shrubland -Size: Size of system (greasewood - 3500 acres; salt desert - 20,000 acres) Sagebrush Shrubland -Size: Size of system (3 patches of 30,000 acres) High elevation forest/alpine mosaic -Size: Size of system (more than 100,000 acres with connected lands outside watershed)Lower Dolores River System -Threat: Development of roads or utilities -Threat: Primary home development Sagebrush Shrubland -Threat: Development of roads or utilities -Threat: Primary home development-(7) By 2013, key public and private lands of the Lower Dolores River and surrounding areas (specific locations to be selected) are protected and managed so as to conserve key ecoregional targets.ZUse GIS to track the size of each of the neccessary occurrences of these ecological systemThis mapping was done in ecoregional planning; may be repeated in 5 years when SRM and Colorado Plateau ecological systems are reevaluated entire siteEcoregional planning team part of ecoregional plan updatesSRM and Colorado Plateau ecoregaional plans have detailed descriptions of how the ecological systems were evaluated; SRM goals update that is available from conserveonline.org has details about determining which occurrences are necessaryLower Dolores River System -Landscape Context: Surface Water Flow Regime of Lower Dolores River (Hydrograph shape is significantly altered - 75% of water transported out of basin)Lower Dolores River System -Threat: Invasive/alien species -Threat: Operation of dams or reservoirs -Threat: Operation of drainage or diversion systems -Threat: SWSI - new water projects-(5) By 2013, an operational flow regime exists at McPhee Dam that is sufficient to protect water dependent targets (warm water fishery and riparian systems).< obtain the hydrograph from USGS=obtain annually to assess progress toward desired flow regime Dolores RiverUSGS$SM/Water program operations budget; `A desired flow regime must be developed using ESWM methods then compared to existing flow regime@Montane-mixed shrubland/grassland mosaic -Landscape Context: Fire Area-Intensity Regime Desert Shrubland -Landscape Context: Fire Area-Intensity Regime Sagebrush Shrubland -Landscape Context: Fire Area-Intensity Regime High elevation forest/alpine mosaic -Landscape Context: Fire Area-Intensity RegimePJ & Ponderosa Pine Woodland -Threat: Fire suppression -Threat: Invasive/alien species Sagebrush Shrubland -Threat: Fire suppression -Threat: Invasive/alien speciesfFRCC - fire regime condition class has been mapped nationally and maps will be refined to region scaleUnclear how often this should be revisited. A baseline should be available in the next few years. Accuracy was an issue with the national scale especially on shrublands. USFS? MapsPJ & Ponderosa Pine Woodland -Condition: Intactness of ecological systems Montane-mixed shrubland/grassland mosaic -Condition: Intactness of ecological systems Desert Shrubland -Condition: Intactness of ecological systems Sagebrush Shrubland -Condition: Intactness of ecological systems High elevation forest/alpine mosaic -Condition: Intactness of ecological systemsPJ & Ponderosa Pine Woodland -Threat: Development of roads or utilities -Threat: Oil or gas drilling -Threat: Primary home development -Threat: Recreational vehicles Montane-mixed shrubland/grassland mosaic -Threat: Development of roads or utilities -Threat: Oil or gas drilling -Threat: Primary home development -Threat: Recreational vehicles Desert Shrubland -Threat: Development of roads or utilities -Threat: Oil or gas drilling -Threat: Primary home development -Threat: Recreational vehicles Sagebrush Shrubland -Threat: Development of roads or utilities -Threat: Oil or gas drilling -Threat: Primary home development -Threat: Recreational vehicles-(7) By 2013, key public and private lands of the Lower Dolores River and surrounding areas (specific locations to be selected) are protected and managed so as to conserve key ecoregional targets. -(8) Through 2013, no oil and gas roads or pads will be located within rare plants or plant community occurrences. If oil and gas drilling does occur, the work will minimize impacts to biodiversity.)GIS analysis of fragmentation - FRAGSTATSyUnclear how often updated data will be available; data may be gathered for this type of analysis for ecoregional measuresGIS - entire matrix occurrence GIS analyst!Measures or GIS operations budgetgSan Miguel River System -Condition: riparian community composition and diversity (most are A or B);San Miguel River System -Threat: Invasive/alien speciesk-(1) By 2006, eradicate tamarisk and other woody invasives from the San Miguel River and major tributaries.OAssess the quality of rare plant community occurrences using CNHP methodologiesEvery 10 years rare plant community occurrencesGApproximately 30 occurrences along the San Miguel $8000 every 10 years;QSagebrush Shrubland -Condition: Characteristic Species - Gunnison sage grouseSagebrush Shrubland -Threat: Crop production practices -Threat: Oil or gas drilling -Threat: Primary home development?Number of male sage grouse on leks will be counted every springAnnually in the springsage grouse leks;Sage Grouse working group report has monitoring informationmCO Plateau Cliff and Canyon -Condition: Characteristic Species - Kachina daisy (1 A and 1 B occurrences)?CO Plateau Cliff and Canyon -Threat: Invasive/alien species-(8) Through 2013, no oil and gas roads or pads will be located within rare plants or plant community occurrences. If oil and gas drilling does occur, the work will minimize impacts to biodiversity.EAssess the quality of rare plant occurrences using CNHP methodologiesrare plant occurrences0$500 every 5 years; Annual agreement with CNHP??qPJ & Ponderosa Pine Woodland -Condition: Characteristic Species - rare plants (8 A, 4 B, 4 C and 7 unranked)PJ & Ponderosa Pine Woodland -Threat: Development of roads or utilities -Threat: Oil or gas drilling -Threat: Recreational vehiclesDesert Shrubland -Condition: Characteristic Species - Gunnison prairie dog (C ranked occurrence) Sagebrush Shrubland -Condition: Characteristic Species - Gunnison prairie dog (1 B and 1 C)Desert Shrubland -Threat: Killing - shooting and poisoning -Threat: Plague Sagebrush Shrubland -Threat: Killing - shooting and poisoning -Threat: Plaguep-(9) By 2013, X acres (TBD) in at least 2 viable Gunnison prairie dog colonies are under full protection status.LAssess the quality of Gunnison prairie dog colonies using CNHP methodologiesprairie dog coloniesbPJ & Ponderosa Pine Woodland -Condition: Indicator Species - Gray Vireo (C ranked occurrence)PJ & Ponderosa Pine Woodland -Threat: Fire suppression -Threat: Invasive/alien species -Threat: Oil or gas drilling&100 - 200 randomly placed point counts across the PJCNHP, RMBO or local birderAdditional funding will be needed - $2500 per time; BLM may be doing some of this type of monitoring so costs may be covered or lowered.iPJ & Ponderosa Pine Woodland -Condition: Characteristic Plant Communities (2 BC and 1 B occurrences)PJ & Ponderosa Pine Woodland -Threat: Development of roads or utilities -Threat: Invasive/alien species -Threat: Oil or gas drillingCO Plateau Cliff and Canyon -Condition: Characteristic Species - Dolores River Skeletonplant (2 B; 2 C and 2 unranked occurrences)`CO Plateau Cliff and Canyon -Threat: Invasive/alien species -Threat: Oil or gas drilling,Assess viability using standard CNHP methodsdCO Plateau Cliff and Canyon -Condition: Species Composition/Abundance (1 A and 1 B occurrences)MCO Plateau Cliff and Canyon -Landscape Context: Surface Water Flow RegimenDetermine whether there are any existing stream gauges; if not, only put gauge in if viability suggests threatstreams with hanging gardensUSGS?San Miguel River System -Threat: SWSI - new water projects Lower Dolores River System -Threat: SWSI - new water projects-(6) By 2006, all new water projects will take into account key elements of the San Miguel River flow regime that are needed to protect aquatic and riparian biodiversity."As projects are being contemplatedSan Miguel River System -Threat: Development of roads or utilities -Threat: Invasive/alien species -Threat: Oil or gas drilling -Threat: Recreational use Lower Dolores River System -Threat: Development of roads or utilities -Threat: Invasive/alien species -Threat: Oil or gas drilling -Threat: Recreational use CO Plateau Cliff and Canyon -Threat: Development of roads or utilities -Threat: Invasive/alien species -Threat: Oil or gas drilling -Threat: Recreational use PJ & Ponderosa Pine Woodland -Threat: Development of roads or utilities -Threat: Invasive/alien species -Threat: Oil or gas drilling -Threat: Recreational use Montane-mixed shrubland/grassland mosaic -Threat: Development of roads or utilities -Threat: Invasive/alien species -Threat: Oil or gas drilling -Threat: Recreational use Desert Shrubland -Threat: Development of roads or utilities -Threat: Invasive/alien species - Etc....5GIS - obtain current land status and update as needed.? every 5 years or as updates become available GIS at COFOGIS analysis - GIS manager(live tree density of pinyon and juniper OPJ & Ponderosa Pine Woodland -Landscape Context: Fire Area-Intensity Regime:PJ & Ponderosa Pine Woodland -Threat: Fire suppressionmonitoring plots?? 5 - 10 yearsPJ & Ponderosa Pine Woodland -Threat: Development of roads or utilities -Threat: Oil or gas< drilling -Threat: Primary home development Desert Shrubland -Threat: Development of roads or utilities -Threat: Oil or gas drilling -Threat: Primary home development Sagebrush Shrubland -Threat: Development of roads or utilities -Threat: Oil or gas drilling -Threat: Primary home developmentAs new information is availableGIS COFO-(1) By 2006, eradicate tamarisk and other woody invasives from the San Miguel River and major tributaries. -(2) Through 2013, prevent reestablishment of tamarisk through annual monitoring and maintenance level control efforts.Map areas controlled each yearFAt the end of each control season, identify areas that were controlled=San Miguel project director provides information (GPS or GIS) Staff time GLower Dolores River System -Threat: Operation of dams or reservoirs'Assess progress toward obtaining an MOU Annually? policy issue5San Miguel Project Director and Water Program ManagervCO Plateau Cliff and Canyon -Condition: Actively breeding peregrine falcons (3 B; 2 C and 2 unranked occurrences) Every 5 years!known peregrine falcon nest sites>Lower Dolores River System -Threat: Invasive/alien species-(4) By 2008, at least 2 other priority landscapes in the Southwest have begun woody invasive eradication projects based on lessons learned at the San Miguel Project site.ETrack the number of projects that adopt tamarisk eradication projectsEvery 5 years?0TNC project director contacts Tamarisk coalitionDesert Shrubland -Threat: Killing - shooting and poisoning Sagebrush Shrubland -Threat: Killing - shooting and poisoningLmap and assess size, condition and landscpae context of prairie dog coloniesCNHP?BLower Dolores River System -Condition: Native fish assembledgebLower Dolores River System -Threat: invasive fish -Threat: Operation of dams or reservoirsSample fish in Dolores River Annually??DOW - obtain data; FWS?HSan Miguel River System -Condition: Flannelmouth and bluehead sucker5Lower Dolores River System -Threat: invasive fish#Sample fish in the San Miguel River_Lower Dolores River System -Condition: Roundtail Chub population (610 individuals in 1992)-PJ & Ponderosa Pine Woodland -Condition: Species composition / dominance Montane-mixed shrubland/grassland mosaic -Condition: Species composition / dominance Desert Shrubland -Condition: Species composition / dominance Sagebrush Shrubland -Condition: Species composition / dominanceSan Miguel River System -Threat: Invasive/alien species Lower Dolores River System -Threat: Invasive/alien species CO Plateau Cliff and Canyon -Threat: Invasive/alien species PJ & Ponderosa Pine Woodland -Threat: Invasive/alien species Montane-mixed shrubland/grassland mosaic -Threat: Invasive/alien species Desert Shrubland -Threat: Invasive/alien species Sagebrush Shrubland -Threat: Invasive/alien species High elevation forest/alpine mosaic -Threat: Invasive/alien speciesl-(3) By 2009, eradicate any populations that are found of Colorado Weed list A species (purple loosestrife).Maps are being developed and updated for A list species such as purple loosestrife. Expand efforts to include other high priority and recently discovered (controllable) species1annually updated maps as information is availableAcross the siteKcounty weed managers, land managers, and Colorado Department of AgricultureDOA has funding to focus on list A species. County weed boards and managers are doing some of this work already within operations budgets.San Miguel River System -Other: Biodiversity status Lower Dolores River System -Other: Biodiversity status CO Plateau Cliff and Canyon -Other: Biodiversity status PJ & Ponderosa Pine Woodland -Other: Biodiversity status Montane-mixed shrubland/grassland mosaic -Other: Biodiversity status Desert Shrubland -Other: Biodiversity status Sagebrush Shrubland -Other: Biodiversity status High elevation forest/alpine mosaic -Other: Biodiversity statusbAssess viability using standard CNHP methods. Need to reassess all occurrences that are identified a needed to meet ecoregional goals. At this site, needed occurrences include black swift, American dipper, Western yellow-billed cuckoo, high elevation rare plants, hanging gardens, rare grasslands, and rare riparian communities along the Dolores River.=Every 10 years to feed information up to ecoregional planning3rare birds, plants, and plant community occurrences 500 - 1000#Dolores River riparian occurrences should be reevaluated every 5-10 years; only 5 known occurrences now, but should be more - hard to access area; will probably cost $4000 to reinventory area by floating river and examining tributaries; other occurrences will cost approximately $500 apiece.ySan Miguel River System -Landscape Context: Surface Water Flow Regime of San Miguel River (Natural hydrograph shape)San Miguel River System -Threat: Invasive/alien species -Threat: Operation of drainage or diversion systems -Threat: SWSI - new water projectscGather existing hydrograph information for San Miguel and compare to key elements of the hydrographAnnually gather hydrographintern obtains information from USGS; Tom Iseman and Mallory Dimmitt determine which key attributes or thresholds are important for the San Miguel Riversedimentation regimePSan Miguel River System -Condition: Soil/Sediment Erosion-Deposition Regime Unclear - possibly check to see if sandbars are being created in the lower stretches on the San Miguel River. Low priority unless we suspect this is a problem.GIS GIS manager GIS analysisDOWCNHP x/DAVG\ $9  wW l'$<W(ln,}0n3 57 7:( <=?D9J*]MNOQRUY [ ^LabLfimr~o+9tvN{ M\҉~+֍31% [})q>ˬTEڲ?)^¹' `о5/eO ``_(i B_ e3P SL  !#%*,0 59 3; '@~ESHLlPSY Z ]~_belofsZz e| ~-uz,nvX W% ɀ <D-˰%;  Q  dMbP?_*+%"FS??U} I F} IiFDhhhhhv,, , , , , ,,,,,,vvvhhhh;, #                                             %     &  '@fD ,!;",#,$v%,&,'v(,),*;+,,,-;.,/,0;1,2,3v4,5,6,7,8X9v:,;,<;=,>X?,  ( ! !) " "* # #+ $ $, % %- & &. ' '/ ( (0 ) )1 * *2 + +3 , ,4 - -5 . .6 / /7 0 08 1 19 2 2: 3 3; 4 4< 5 5= 6 6* 7 7' 8 8> 9 9? : :' ; ;< < <@ = =< > >> ? ?*Dl@,ChDhEhFhGH,I,J,K,L,MN,O,P,Q,R,S,T,U,VW,X,YZ,[\,]^,_, @ @' CC DAD E F F G GB H HC I ID J JE K KF L LG M MH N NI O OJ P PK Q QL R RF S SM T TG U UN V VO W WP X XQ Y YR Z ZK [ [S \ \T ] ]U ^ ^V _ _J@D`,a,b,c,dve,f,g,h,i,j,kl,m,n,o,p,q,r,st,u,v,wx,y,z{,|,},~,, ` `K a aL b bF c cM d dW e eV f fJ g gK h hL i iF j jM k kX l lV m mJ n nK o oL p pY q qF r rM s sZ t t[ u u\ v v] w w^ x x_ y y] z z` { {V | |J } }a ~ ~[  KDl,,,,v,v,,;,,;v,;vv;hhhhv  L  \  Y b  c " d  e  f  g  f  c  h  i  a  j  a " k  l m  n " o  p  q  r  s       @D,,Xv,,,v,,,v,v,,,,,,v,,,,,,,,,,                                                  !           Dl,,,,,,,,,,,,v,,,hhhh;,,,,,,;,                        !       !   t    u ! v ! w ! x ! y ! z ! {  | ! }@D,,,,,v,,,,,,vX,,,;X;,,,,,,hhhhv  ~ !  !  !  !         !                                       BX,,,,v,,,, ; , ; , ,;,,,,,;,,,,;,v,;,,                                                                Dl ;!,",#;$,%,&,',(v),*,+,,,-,.,/v0;1,2,3v4,5,6,7,8,9,:,;,<;=,>,?,   ! ! " " # # $ $ % % & & ' ' ( ( ) ) * * + + , , -! - . . / / 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 : : ; ; < < = = > > ? ?Dl@,A,B;C, @ @ A A B B C C <\/D(  ~  <tOXPP?k ]4@tOE gIzm <If planning districts understand the importance of sewer lines in conjunction with water lines, the number of applications for sewer project funding will increase and ammonia levels will decrease in surface waters.< ya w~~  <OXPP? M#]4@OE V$82$C@Q? <Assessed by project reports and GIS tabulation. This goal is cumulative with TNC partners including NRCS, USFWS, and TVA. Collectively, the agencies should be able to achieve this goal.< bffe~~  <m]4@RxE W?`D Qw x<ysources of sediment that are reduced and lower instream sediment measurements indicate the effectiveness of the actions.< ctxvit~~  <\SXPP?LMM]4@\St E PfbLGlWG  C<DNote: Addresses the considerable need for hypothesis-driven research to determine the cause(s) of marine mammal, seabird and fish population declines in the Bering Sea. Provides a platform for broad, integrated ecosystem-scale research in the Bering Sea, could help inform fisheries management and climate change research. < e Croc~~  <SXPP?UMV]4@Sp!E ʞR}9I f <5Assumptions: " Albatross chos