Bash, Jeff. 1999. Survey of stream restoration and fisheries enhancement monitoring in Washington State. M.S.
This study examined a perceived shortcoming in the evaluation of stream restoration and fisheries enhancement projects in Washington State. While the goal of many of these projects is to improve or restore stream health, projects may not be monitored or evaluated over time to determine if this goal is being met. This problem is important for natural resource management, as 1) restoration and enhancement efforts have become a main thrust of the state's efforts to address salmonid decline and 2) significant funds have and will continue to be earmarked for these projects.
Project managers of stream restoration and fisheries enhancement projects were the target population for a mail survey that assessed monitoring status, project type, project goals, funding type, collection of baseline data, and use of biological, chemical, and physical measures. Study participants (N=94) were randomly drawn from recipients of hydraulic project approvals (HPAs) issued by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife in 1997.
Results showed 44% of respondents identified their project status as "monitoring"; 53% of respondents reported the use of biological, physical, and chemical measures to evaluate their project. Salmonid surveys were the most commonly used evaluation measure (62% of those who used measures, N=50).
Factor analysis revealed four distinct goal types associated with restoration and enhancement projects: 1) restoration/ecological; 2) political/outreach; 3) fisheries; and 4) engineering. The goal of "long-term monitoring," which did not load onto any of the four factors, was analyzed separately.
The collection of baseline data was significantly related to two of the goal types, "engineering" and "long-term monitoring". Respondents who scored high in the engineering category were less likely to report collection of baseline data. Conversely, respondents scoring high in the long-term monitoring goal type were more likely to collect baseline data. Projects with an engineering focus are often providing restoration or enhancement as part of required mitigation. Therefore, project managers may be less likely to emphasize future monitoring, as long as the mitigation requirements have been met.
The use of biological, physical, or chemical measures for monitoring projects was also explored. A relationship was revealed between three goal types and use of measures. These goal types included restoration/ecological goals, fisheries goals, and long-term monitoring. Respondents scoring high in each of these goal types were more likely to report the use of biological, physical, or chemical measures to monitor their project. Projects emphasizing these goals may have long term interest in determining if their projects are achieving desired ecological objectives.
Organization type (e.g., local, state, and federal government, non-governmental organizations, and businesses) and funding levels did not appear to significantly impact the collection of baseline data or use of measures to evaluate project. Survey participants cited lack of funding, staff, and support of property owners as primary barriers to monitoring and evaluation of their projects.
In addition to the surveys, four case studies were conducted: two with respondents who scored high in the engineering goal type, and two high scorers from the restoration/ecological goal type. The engineering project managers supported the findings of the survey by indicating that monitoring for habitat restoration and enhancement is secondary to the engineering of the project. The level of regulatory requirements appeared to dictate the level of monitoring performed by these two organizations.
Project managers focused on restoration/ecological goals appeared to have more interest in the effectiveness of their restoration or enhancement activities. The different objectives of these two organizations (restoration of watershed processes vs. replenishment of fish stocks) appeared to shape the level of monitoring performed by each organization.
Management implications were discussed for four main areas; project monitoring, evaluation, improvement of the HPA process, and dissemination of monitoring results. Items for consideration by managers in regard to monitoring included:
- appropriateness of objectives/monitoring measures
- need for long-term monitoring
- development of funding specifically for monitoring
- methods for encouraging or requiring monitoring
- implementation and quality of project monitoring
Information gained from this study may help those managing and funding projects to better understand the current strengths and limitations of evaluation of these projects, and allow them to adjust their policies accordingly.