Transcript Habitat Action Effectiveness Program for the FCRPS BiOp

Habitat Action Effectiveness
Program for the FCRPS BiOp
1
Briefing Outline
• BiOp requirements for Tributary Habitat RM&E
• Identify the Performance Framework for adaptive
management and the Tributary Habitat Action
Effectiveness Programmatic Approach
• Identify where ISEMP and CHaMP fit within the
approach
• Describe how ISEMP and CHaMP will inform decision
making for “on the ground” habitat actions and priorities
2
FCRPS BiOp Habitat Requirements
• Programmatic Performance - project implementation
commitments and observed physical metrics, tracked
with PISCES.
• Biological Performance Targets – projected changes in
habitat life stage survival associated with existing and
planned habitat actions. Estimated for habitat actions by
local expert panels using a model that estimates
changes in habitat quality.
• RM&E and Adaptive Management RPAs.
• Annual Progress Reports and 3 yr Comprehensive
Assessments and updated 3 year Implementation Plans.
3
Performance Framework
Planning
BiOp RPAs and
Fish Population
Requirements
for No Jeopardy
Programmatic Performance
Objectives
Biological (Fish) Performance
Objectives
Adaptive
Management
BiOp Implementation Plan
F&W Program Project Planning and Funding
Post-Implementation Analysis
Implementation
Hydro
Predators
Tributary
Estuary
Hatchery
Project Implementation
Metrics - Pisces
Biological &
Environmental Metrics –
Regional Data Bases
Programmatic
Implementation
Assessment
Biological Status
& Effectiveness
Assessment
RM&E
Ongoing process
Annual and
Comprehensive
Reports
4
General Strategy to Support the
Performance Framework
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Identify the Management Questions and associated Performance
Metrics.
Develop and implement a Programmatic Approach to Action
Effectiveness Monitoring to answer these management questions
and inform performance metrics.
Coordinate and standardize RM&E with regional agency
programs and manage habitat and fish data to support
assessment needs.
Provide ongoing evaluation of habitat and fish status data to
develop relationships and ultimately integrate these relationships
into lifecycle modeling of climate effects.
Provide annual communication of results to expert panels,
decision makers, and regional sovereigns to guide adaptive
management decisions for habitat actions (e.g. updates on
limiting factors, more/less beneficial types of projects, priority
locations within an ESU or across ESUs).
Assess effectiveness of RME for informing decision making and
identify of any course corrections (e.g. reduction of parameters or
intensity) in 2013, 2016 (Comprehensive Evaluations), and 2018
(end of BiOp term).
5
BA/BiOp Tributary Habitat
Management Questions
• Are tributary habitat actions on track to achieve
expected performance standards and targets?
• What are the relationships between tributary habitat
actions, habitat changes, and fish survival or
productivity increases?
• Which actions are most effective?
• What are the limiting factors or threats preventing
the achievement of desired habitat or fish
performance objectives?
6
Programmatic Approach to Habitat Action
Effectiveness RM&E
The primary components of the approach have been identified in:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
FCRPS BiOp RM&E Plan (2003)
FCRPS BiOp (2004)
Action Agency (AA) Biological Assessment for the 2008 BiOp
BPA comments to the 2009 Fish and Wildlife Program Amendments
The Monitoring and Evaluation and Research Report (2009)
Anadromous Salmonid Monitoring Strategy (2010)
AA/NOAA/NPCC BiOp RM&E Workgroup Recommendations
Report (2009 and 2010).
7
Programmatic Components
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Project implementation and compliance - post implementation
monitoring that includes reporting of physical metrics (in PISCES)
for every project, combined with an independent third party audit
using a subsample of the program.
Fish and Habitat Status and Trend Monitoring - fish-in and fish-out
paired with habitat monitoring for one population per major
population group targeting high-priority habitat action subbasins.
Watershed Level AE research - population level response to
actions at a watershed scale. (IMWs are a type of this research)
Project level AE research – local or reach scale habitat and/or fish
response to actions.
Data Assessments to develop statistics and relationships between
habitat actions and ultimately to incorporate them into lifecycle
modeling.
Standard monitoring protocols and data management practices to
allow combining information in assessments and reporting.
8
Programmatic Approach
Contract Implementation
(Type of RM&E and
Program)
Assessment Inputs
Statistical
Assessments and
Relationships
Results
Informs
Implementation
(Sponsor & COTR)
Compliance & Post
- Implementation
(3rd Party)
Expert Panels
and Progam
Reviews:
Types of
actions/
treatments to
fund.
Project
Metrics
Status and Trend
(Fish VSP)
State and Tribal
Managers
Fish In/Fish Out
(VSP)
Status and Trend
(Habitat Condition)
CHaMP
Habitat Conditions
Action Effectiveness
(Watershed Scale IMW)
ISEMP
Action Effectiveness
(Project/Site Scale)
(PNAMP & TetraTech
Method)
Fish Population
Response to Actions
Site Specific Biological &
Physical Benefits
ANOVA
procedures, ttests, time series,
regression
analyses, and
modeling
Statistics
and
relationships
between
Habitat
Actions,
Habitat
Conditions,
and Fish
Conditions
BiOp and F&W
Program
Reporting and
Adaptive
Management
Improved Habitat
Project
Management
9
Project implementation and
compliance monitoring
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Monitoring of project actions to determine if they were
implemented properly and to document functional
changes over time.
Documents type of action, location, extent of the action,
and the physical/chemical consequences of the project
over time.
Used for programmatic performance tracking.
Supports development and application of Action
Effectiveness Monitoring Designs and Analyses.
Coordinated and standardized implementation metrics
through PNAMP.
Incorporated into PISCES project tracking system.
3rd party evaluation of subset of all actions .
Random sample representative of action categories.
10
Pilot in UC in project 2010-075-00
Fish and Habitat Status and Trends
•
•
•
•
•
•
Measures changes to fish populations and habitat
conditions in space and time.
Fish population monitoring usually includes estimating
fish in (escapement or spawning escapement) and fish
out (smolt abundance).
An an important component of IMWs.
Used by expert panels for identification of limiting
factors, priority habitat actions, and habitat suitability
assessments.
CHaMP habitat metrics and protocols for standard
habitat monitoring.
Specific AMIP and BiOp RPA requirements – one
population per MPG.
11
Watershed Level
Action Effectiveness
• Assesses the effects of actions or suites of actions on
population abundance, productivity, distribution, and
survival.
• Intensively monitored watersheds (IMWs) are a type of
Population-Scale Effectiveness Monitoring.
• Typically uses a before-after (BA) or before-after-controlimpact (BACI) design.
• Inventory and Quality Assessment coordinated with
PNAMP.
12
ISEMP/CHaMP
• This work is linked to the requirements of the 2008/2010
BiOp, and focuses on better informing our habitat actions
and expert panel process between now and 2018.
• Pilot projects started in 2003 as ISEMP Wenatchee,
Methow, and Entiat river basins in the Upper Columbia
River, the Lemhi and South Fork Salmon river basins,
and the John Day River Basin to pilot and test action
effectiveness and status monitoring approaches.
• These pilot projects became the IMW element of the
program, which now covers 9 watersheds. A “lessons
learned” report for 2003-2010 will be compiled and
presented later this year to inform the management
questions, demonstrate progress, and guide decision
makers implementing offsite mitigation habitat projects.
13
ISEMP/CHaMP (continued)
• CHaMP projects provide habitat status monitoring for an
additional 15 watersheds, as identified in 2009 and 2010
BiOp RM&E Recommendations Reports and Skamania
ASMS. CHaMP compliments the IMWs and uses the
same habitat parameters and protocols, but with less
intensity of effort.
• Together, the IMWs and CHaMP projects will cover at
least one population per MPG. Parallel fish population
monitoring for CHaMP watersheds is being implemented
under other projects. This expanded work relies on BiOp
placeholder funds, and will not be increasing further over
time.
14
PNAMP ISTM Project
(Integrated Status and Trend Monitoring)
•
•
•
•
•
Implemented in the Lower Columbia to develop recommendations
to design and implement more coordinated and effective fish
population and aquatic ecosystem monitoring.
Region-wide "master sample" concept for the selection of
sampling locations in the Lower Columbia river area with a webbased master sample tracking and management system.
Address compatibility/comparability of the metrics/attributes
collected by various habitat monitoring programs including,
CHaMP, AREMP/PIBO, EMAP (WA Ecology), ODFW Habitat
Program.
Supporting development of habitat data exchange templates.
A future workshop by PNAMP will discuss data exchange
opportunities for variables that are comparable.
15
Project and Reach Scale
Action Effectiveness
• Local or reach scale habitat and/or fish response to actions
• Needed to assess changes in population responses to a
specific habitat restoration type
• Tetra Tech Protocols- BACI Design
• Not every project
• Third Party, programmatic approach
• Limit to specific action categories
• Coordination and cost share with state programs
• Limit to 10 year studies or less (not every year needed)
16
High
Watershed
Scale AE
Spatial
Scale
Low
Project
Scale AE
Low
Relevance to Population
High
High
Relevance to Action Type
Low
17
Data Management
• Improve access, sharing, and coordination of
fish and habitat monitoring data.
• monitoringmethods.org
• Ongoing Coordinated Assessments Workgroup
Process.
• Developing data exchange templates and data
flow diagrams for VSP Fish Population metrics.
• Next up is habitat metrics DETs.
• Second workshop this spring.
18
ISRP Comments
•
•
•
•
As the ISRP acknowledges, our goal is to strike a balance between good
science and timely, useful information for ongoing habitat management
decisions during the BiOp term (2018).
We agree with the ISRP that this work needs to better identify how the
outputs that will be synthesized from the data collection to inform “on the
ground” management decisions by expert panels and regional sovereigns.
We will work with BiOp RM&E workgroup and project sponsors and will
better describe the statistical analyses, relationships, and useful outputs
that will be provided for decision makers.
We agree with the ISRP that there needs to be more formal communication
of past and future lessons learned from these studies. We will be taking
steps to include annual and cumulative lessons learned components in our
contracts and ESA progress reports going forward.
We will critically review the scope of this monitoring in 2013, 2016, and
finally in 2018 to assess the need and value to management decisions. At
these check-ins, we will revaluate the level of monitoring and number of
parameters going forward to insure useful science-based information for “on
the ground” implementation. Using adaptive management, we will refine the
approach for efficiencies where available. We will compare the
ISEMP/CHaMP approach to results from other similar efforts such as PIBO
and the Washington Watershed approach.
19