Download
1 / 55
550 likes | 657 Vues
Agency Needs for Project Monitoring. Brooke Budnick Senior Fish Technician, PSMFC DFG Coastal Restoration Monitoring and Evaluation Program. California Department of Fish and Game Coastal Restoration Monitoring & Evaluation Fisheries Restoration Grants Program.
E N D
Agency Needs for Project Monitoring Brooke Budnick Senior Fish Technician, PSMFC DFG Coastal Restoration Monitoring and Evaluation Program
California Department of Fish and GameCoastal Restoration Monitoring & Evaluation Fisheries Restoration Grants Program Qualitative Monitoring of Fisheries Habitat Restoration
FRGP Monitoring • Qualitative Monitoring • bbudnick@dfg.ca.gov • bcollins@dfg.ca.gov • Quantitative Monitoring • Under review • Validation Monitoring • http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nafwb/pubs.html
We are responsible for…Qualitative Effectiveness Monitoring • Data collection & management • Protocol review & field testing • Providing training
PERMIT COMPLIANCE 100% Implementation monitoring 10% Effectiveness monitoring
Permitting Agencies • Army Corps of EngineersSection 404 permit • NOAA Biological Opinion • USFWS Biological Opinion • Relies on Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund performance measures • State Water Resources Control BoardSection 401 permit
100% implementation monitoring is leading to… Thorough documentation of project implementation Greater accountability and involvement by DFG contract managers Increased quality of contract language
>10% effectiveness monitoring isleading to… Permit compliance More detailed and specific project goals Pre- and Post-treatment visits Interest in the protocol by NOAA, CCC, and grantees
Our qualitative monitoring has useful but limited application • Can detect trends in restoration effectiveness within the FRGP program. • Those trends can inspire and direct quantitative monitoring studies.
The Protocols • Project, site & feature location • Photo documentation • Qualitative evaluation checklists
Documenting Project Locations • Essential • Time consuming • Challenging
Location Documentation Challenges • How to define project, site and feature? • Who will document locations of sites and features? • When to document location of features? • If and when we can deviate from the protocol? • How will we provide training at the level required by the protocol?
Location Documentation Solutions • Moving toward… • accepting the easiest and most cost effective methods • trying not to duplicate work • heavier reliance on GIS
Photographic Monitoring • Important • Time consuming • Challenging
Photographic Monitoring Challenges • Monumented photo points or opportunistic photos? • Where to store photos? • How to share photos? • Standardize protocol?
Solutions? • Simplify • Be flexible • But, what do with all those photos?
Qualitative Monitoring Protocol based on design developed by UC Berkeley Center for Forestry (Harris, et. al) Revised by Coastal Restoration Monitoring and Evaluation Program
Qualitative Monitoring Protocol Pre-treatment Effectiveness • What are current site conditions? • What are the goals of the feature?
Example of Pre-treatment Questions 2. Current level II habitat type: FLT, POO, RIF, OTH 3. Maximum residual water depth in treatment area (ft): 4. Is change in habitat type a goal of the feature? a. Targeted level II habitat type: FLT, POO, RIF, OTH 5. Is increasing max. water depth in the treatment area a goal of the feature? a. Targeted maximum residual depth (ft):
Qualitative Monitoring Protocol Implementation • Was the feature implemented as “approved”? • As-built condition? • Assign individual & overall ratings. • Summarize performance measures.
Example of implementation questions 5. Was the feature placed in the approved position? a. Placement: LBK, MDC, RBK, SPN, OTH 6. Was the feature oriented as approved? a. Orientation: DNS, MUL, PRL, PRP, UPS, OTH 7. Were approved materials used for the feature? a. Materials: CON, LWD, MTL, NTR, OFR, RTW, VEG, WOO, OTH
Qualitative Monitoring Protocol Post-treatment Effectiveness • What are the current site conditions? • Did the feature achieve the defined goals? • Assign individual and overall ratings.
Example of Post-treatment Questions 6. Current level II habitat type: FLT, POO, RIF, OTH 7. Maximum residual water depth in treatment area (ft): a. Maximum residual depth associated with the structure (ft): 8. If a goal, did the feature create the targeted instream habitat type? 9. Were there any unintended effects on the habitat type? 10. If a goal, did the feature increase max. water depth in the treatment area? a. Did the feature achieve the targeted maximum residual depth? 11. Were there any unintended effects on the water depth?
