1 / 11

Fish in/Fish out Monitoring - exploring funding options

Fish in/Fish out Monitoring - exploring funding options. DRAFT WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council October 18, 2007. What We’ve Heard. Develop alternatives/options for funding fish in and fish out monitoring that is; Stable (not in jeopardy) Long-term

junius
Download Presentation

Fish in/Fish out Monitoring - exploring funding options

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Fish in/Fish out Monitoring - exploring funding options DRAFT WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council October 18, 2007

  2. What We’ve Heard • Develop alternatives/options for funding fish in and fish out monitoring that is; • Stable (not in jeopardy) • Long-term • Requires less staff/committee effort annually • KCD Board concerns regarding “fit” to fund • WRIA 8 Project sub-committee feedback

  3. What is fish in/fish out monitoring? • For our discussion, we are talking about monitoring Cedar River and Sammamish populations, specifically • Spawner surveys – fish in • Outmigrant smolt trapping – fish out • Juvenile behavior and survival to Locks – fish out Does not include many other biological monitoring/studies/sampling that also occurs

  4. Plan Recommends…..Chapter 6 • Table 6.1 - Minimum Necessary • Smolt trapping – Cedar and Bear • Juvenile migration survival – to Locks – Cedar, Bear and Issaquah (hatchery) • Salmon spawner surveys – Cedar, Bear, Cottage and other tributaries

  5. Biological Monitoring for VSP • Since 1998, we have monitored; • Relative spawner abundance (spawner surveys) • Redd location and number • Fish characteristics (hatchery or natural; size, age, spawning success) – Carcass surveys • Juvenile production/survival to smolt traps • Juvenile behavior and survival to Locks (PIT tagging)

  6. 2008 funding • Total ≈ $401,000 • KCD funding ≈$300,000 • Match from Seattle Public Utilities, Bellevue, King County, MIT, ACOE and WDFW

  7. Funding support historically • Army Corps of Engineers • King Conservation District • WDFW • King County (Wastewater and Water and Land) • Seattle Public Utilities • City of Bellevue • Muckleshoot Indian Tribe • WRIA 8 ILA (starting in 2007)

  8. What is funding landscape? • Need to identify support from potential existing or future fund sources

  9. Alternatives to investigate • 1. Status quo – • KCD project funding with annual Council/KCD allocation and review • 2. Status quo + streamlined process – • e.g., allocation and review is set as programmatic effort by Council and KCD Board. • 3. Maximize match to KCD from existing sources – • WRIA 8 ILA funding/Jurisdictional/Co-managers • Backfill ILA staffing with existing and future lead entity grants • 4. Develop/lobby for other sources of funding – • Puget Sound Partnership?, State (Lead entity or DOE grants), Federal funding through PCSRF?, NEW locally controlled WRIA funding solution

  10. Other Monitoring Other recommended monitoring • habitat status and trends monitoring • project effectiveness monitoring • watershed monitoring Funding for this work has not been identified may come from local grants, local in-kind match, and State-Fed funding

  11. Next steps?

More Related