From headwaters to ocean…

1. From headwaters to ocean… Building the capacity of coastal watershed councils to address aquatic invasive species Paul Heimowitz - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Region Linda Jauron-Mills - Oregon State Univ., Marine Resource Management program

2. 5mm Aquatic invasions from the watershed perspective… • Watersheds as a “new” frame of reference for aquatic ecosystem management • Aquatic invasions as an indicator and linkage for watershed and estuarine health

3. The role of watershed councils • Growing local force in watershed planning and restoration • Over 500 groups in California, Oregon, and Washington • Primary invasive species focus is control/removal of riparian weeds

4. Putting invasive species on the watershed council radar screen…

5. West Coast evaluation • 2003 assessment of protocols, watershed group reports, and survey of watershed coordinators • Results will help steer future development of guidance and training

6. Watershed Group Efforts: • Assessment- “How healthy is our Watershed?” • Action Plan- “What will we do to improve it?” • Monitoring- “Have we improved it?”

7. Project targets • Review of protocols and guidelines used by west coast watershed groups • Perform needs survey of watershed coordinators in California, Oregon, and Washington

8. Kevin Anderson, PSWQAT Henry Lee III, US EPA Deb Merchant, For the Sake of Salmon Ken Bierly, OWEB Erin Williams, USFWS Roger Buttermore, USFWS Scott Smith, WDFW Susan Ellis, CDFG Mark Sytsma, PSU Advisory Committee

9. Description of Document Review Target Documents Search Tool developed Document Review

10. Cal Fish and Game Bioassessment Worksheet, North Coast watershed Assessment Program Methods Manual (State of California Resources Agency), Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Assessment Manual San Francisco Estuary Institute’s monitoring tool EPA “Estuarine &Coastal Marine Waters: Bioassessment and Biocriteria Technical Guide” Washington Forest Practices Board “Standard Methodology for conducting Watershed Analysis” USFW Aquatic Habitat Assessment-Common Methods Documents reviewed included:

11. Overview of Document Review Results • Most references found referred to a short list of riparian weeds • “Non-native animals usually grouped • No document reviewed had a specific segment regarding Aquatic Nuisance Species • Prevention, control and eradication segments seldom found in documents

12. Description of Watershed Group Survey • Watershed groups diverse entities • 70 surveys were mailed out to watershed groups in California, 26 to groups in Oregon, and 57 to groups in Washington

13. Preliminary Survey Results • General awareness of ANS in watershed tends to be low • Education and training regarding ANS viewed by Watershed Coordinators as being helpful to watershed groups

14. Conclusions • ANS are of concern to watershed groups • Existing guidance to watershed groups lacks much helpful information regardingANS monitoring, control, and prevention • Groups welcome support via trainings, etc • Due to the diverse array of watershed groups responding, results may translate to other regions beyond the west coast

15. What’s next… • National Sea Grant funding to Oregon Sea Grant to develop ANS support to watershed groups • Guidance materials • Training workshops • Pilot programs ($15K)

16. Acknowledgements Funding provided by the Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, Holt Educational Fellowship, Oregon Sea Grant, and Oregon State University Extension Service.  Special thanks to Molly Engle, Oregon State University; Mark Sytsma, Portland State University; Deb Merchant, For the Sake of the Salmon; Erin Williams and Roger Buttermore, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Kevin Anderson, Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team; Scott Smith, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; Susan Ellis, California Fish and Game; Henry Lee, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Ken Bierly, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board for providing support to this project.