NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS AUGUST 2005 RECENT EFFORTS TO MONITOR ANADROMOUS ONCORHYNCHUS SPECIES IN THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL REGION: A COMPILATION OF METADATA Sarah Helmbrecht David A. Boughton NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-381 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Fisheries Science Center NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), organized in 1970, has evolved into an agency which establishes national policies and manages and conserves our oceanic, coastal, and atmospheric resources. An organizational element within NOAA, the Office of Fisheries is responsible for fisheries policy and the direction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). In addition to its formal publications, the NMFS uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum series to issue informal scientific and technical publications when complete formal review and editorial processing are not appropriate or feasible. Documents within this series, however, reflect sound professional work and may be referenced in the formal scientific and technical literature. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS This TM series is used for documentation and timely communication of preliminary results, interim reports, or special purpose information. The TMs have not received complete formal review, editorial control, or detailed editing. AUGUST 2005 RECENT EFFORTS TO MONITOR ANADROMOUS ONCORHYNCHUS SPECIES IN THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL REGION: A COMPILATION OF METADATA Sarah Helmbrecht1 and David A. Boughton2,3 1 University of California, Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 2 Fisheries Ecology Division, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, 110 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 ([email protected]) 3 Corresponding author NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-381 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere National Marine Fisheries Service William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Abstract......................................................................................................................................... ii Part 1: Collection of Metadata................................................................................................ 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 1 Methods....................................................................................................................................... 2 Summary Results ........................................................................................................................ 8 Part 2: Brief Summaries of Monitoring in Each ESU..................................................... 16 Overview................................................................................................................................... 16 Chinook salmon, Southern Oregon/Northern California ESU ................................................. 18 Chinook salmon, Upper Klamath-Trinity ESU ........................................................................ 20 Chinook salmon, California Coastal ESU ................................................................................ 22 Chinook salmon, no specific ESU ............................................................................................ 24 Coho salmon, Southern Oregon/Northern California Coastal ESU.......................................... 26 Coho salmon, Central California Coast ESU............................................................................ 28 Coho salmon, no specific ESU ................................................................................................. 30 Steelhead, Klamath Mountain Province ESU........................................................................... 32 Steelhead, Northern California ESU......................................................................................... 34 Steelhead, Central California Coast ESU ................................................................................. 36 Steelhead, South-Central California Coast ESU....................................................................... 38 Steelhead, Southern California ESU......................................................................................... 40 Steelhead, no specific ESU....................................................................................................... 42 Part 3: Detailed Listing of Monitoring Efforts ................................................................. 43 Overview................................................................................................................................... 43 Key to coastal HUC names referenced in Part 3....................................................................... 45 Chinook salmon, Southern Oregon/Northern California ESU ................................................. 46 Chinook salmon, Upper Klamath-Trinity ESU ........................................................................ 50 Chinook salmon, California Coastal ESU ................................................................................ 60 Chinook salmon, no specific ESU ............................................................................................ 73 Coho salmon, Southern Oregon/Northern California Coastal ESU.......................................... 74 Coho salmon, Central California Coast ESU.......................................................................... 100 Coho salmon, no specific ESU ............................................................................................... 117 Steelhead, Klamath Mountain Province ESU......................................................................... 118 Steelhead, Northern California ESU....................................................................................... 131 Steelhead, Central California Coast ESU ............................................................................... 150 Steelhead, South-Central California Coast ESU..................................................................... 166 Steelhead, Southern California ESU....................................................................................... 178 Steelhead, No specific ESU .................................................................................................... 195 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 197 Sources of Information ......................................................................................................... 198 Correspondents (Contributors of metadata)............................................................................ 198 Written sources of metadata.................................................................................................... 200 i Abstract In the coastal zone of California, recent efforts to monitor salmon and steelhead populations are insufficient for assessing extinction risk, which by law must be done at the scale of entire ESUs (Evolutionarily Significant Units). Recent efforts tend to be conducted at a smaller scale, and are not useful for assessing risk because 1) they are not co-ordinated with one another, and 2) they are designed for other purposes. To assess risk, it is necessary to make and implement a monitoring plan; and to make a plan, it is useful to have an understanding of where these recent efforts are taking place, what data they are collecting, and why. Therefore, we collected this information. We identified recent monitoring efforts, and collected descriptive information (metadata) for 270 monitoring efforts, where a unit “effort” is defined as a data-collection effort conducted on a particular ESU by a particular organization using a consistent study design for each life stage monitored. As expected, recent monitoring efforts are quite diverse in design and intent. Notably, geographic consistency is quite low—some basins get monitored intensively, whereas for many others data gets collected sporadically (opportunistically) or not at all. Randomized-sampling—necessary for statistical inference—was popular at the reach scale (i.e., habitat units within reaches), but not at the basin scale (i.e., reaches within basins). Study designs tended to fall into two categories—“snapshots” in which a large number of basins are concurrently monitored for 1 or 2 years (usually with low-density, non-random sampling within basins); and “time-series” in which a basin is chosen for logistical reasons or to address a specific management concern, and then monitored over the long term. Overall, the diversity of sampling designs and field methods is likely problematic for ESU-scale risk assessment. We provide a list of the 270 efforts, and maps of where they are being conducted, as a resource for stakeholders interested in recent efforts to monitor salmon and steelhead in the coastal zone. ii Salmonid Monitoring Metadata 1 Part 1: Collection of Metadata Introduction The coastal region of California is inhabited by three anadromous species of Oncorhynchus, and in most parts of the coastal region one or more of these species is currently listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered