Measure for Measure

1
Measure for Measure Tracking and Evaluating
Watershed Protection, Restoration, and
Management Tina Swanson Senior Scientist
2

• Habitat and species protection, restoration and
  management will require
• Carefully targeted habitat restoration
• Broad-scale rehabilitation
• of ecosystem function
• Community support and involvement

3
Adaptive Management is the preferred
approach 1. Identify restoration or recovery
goal. 2. Design restoration or recovery plan
based on available scientific understanding of
the system and hypotheses. 3. Implement plan,
monitor restoration or recovery targets,
evaluate results. 4. Revise plan based on
results of monitoring and evaluation. 5. Repeat
Steps 2, 3 and 4 as necessary to achieve goal.
4
Adaptive Management can be hampered by lack of
suitable INDICATORS or performance measures to
monitor the STATUS of the restoration or
recovery target or PROGRESS towards the goal.
5

• The Bay Institutes
• Ecological Scorecard
• uses Indicators to
• Describe ecological, biological and management
• conditions and trends
• Evaluate environmental response to restoration
  or
• management efforts
• Inform adaptive management
• Inform the public and policy makers of progress
  in
• restoration efforts

6
Ecological Scorecard San Francisco Bay
Index The Year in Water 2003 Next Indicators
of ecosystem condition for the Sacramento and San
Joaquin basins Indicators for Bay tributary
stream habitat condition Both reports are
available at www.bay.org
7
MANAGEMENT
Stewardship (water use, pollution reduction,
monitoring)
ENVIRONMENT
PEOPLE
Water Quality
Fishable- Swimmable- Drinkable
Habitat
Flow
FISH and WILDLIFE
Food Web
Fish
Shellfish
8
Indicator Evaluation Measured values compared to
Reference Conditions Reference
Conditions historical conditions restoration
goals biological objectives Index
calculated as the average (GPA) of the
component indicators scores
Excellent A 4
Good B 3
Fair C 2
Poor D 1
Very Poor F 0
9
San Francisco Bay Index 2005
10
2005 Habitat Index
11
Habitat
1997
1850
12
Regional differences Tidal Wetland Habitat( of
historical area)
30 Grade D/C-
21 Grade D
15 Grade D-
1997
1850
13
2005 Food Web Index (phytoplankton, zooplankton)
14
Regional differences Phytoplankton
Grade D
Grade C
Grade B
Grade B
15
2005 Shellfish Index (crabs, shrimp)
16
Regional differences Shrimp
Grade B
Grade B
Grade A
Grade D
17
2005 Fish Index (abundance, diversity, species
composition)
18
Regional differences Fish abundance
Grade F
Grade D
Grade B
Grade A
19

• How is San Francisco Bay doing?
• Is it getting better or worse?
• Ecological health of the Bay varies regionally
• Upstream areas are in poor conditions stable
• or declining
• Downstream areas are in fair conditions stable
• or improving
• How is San Pablo Bay doing?
• Overall ecological condition fair (Grade
  C)
• Opportunities to substantially improve
  conditions
• Threatened by deteriorating conditions
• upstream

20
MANAGEMENT
Stewardship (water use, pollution reduction,
monitoring)
ENVIRONMENT
PEOPLE
Water Quality
Fishable- Swimmable- Drinkable
Habitat
Flow
FISH and WILDLIFE
Food Web
Fish
Shellfish
21
Partnership for a Healthy Bay