1 / 13

Summary of Recommendations: Peer Review of FY 13 Science Workplan

Summary of Recommendations: Peer Review of FY 13 Science Workplan. Trinity River Restoration Program Preliminary Fiscal Year 2013 Science Workplan. SAB Comments on Peer Review of FY 13 Science Workplan . SAB expressed “overall ” endorsement of the peer review findings

blanca
Télécharger la présentation

Summary of Recommendations: Peer Review of FY 13 Science Workplan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Summary of Recommendations:Peer Review of FY 13 Science Workplan Trinity River Restoration Program Preliminary Fiscal Year 2013 Science Workplan

  2. SAB Comments on Peer Reviewof FY 13 Science Workplan SAB expressed “overall” endorsement of the peer review findings SAB expressed common themes across entire TRRP assessments/workplan External/independent Panel developed recommendations specific to fisheries related monitoring activities and assessments

  3. Common Themes Hypothesis-based conceptual models are missing for all the major subsystems. First priority is to update these, including: geomorphology, fish populations and riparian processes The workplan does not make the link between the IAP objectives and the proposed program of work sufficiently The “core” activities of an adaptive management program should be integrated in the TRRP

  4. Common Themes Panel could not identify the “core” components of a program-wide adaptive management framework Current plan development and work proposal system is not sufficient to support the TRRP’s adaptive management needs Insufficient analysis and interpretation “basic strengthening of the analysis, interpretation, and adaptive management core of the Program” is needed

  5. Common Themes A key component of a programmatic adaptive management framework for the TRRP are predictive models. Lack of integration and identified linkages among monitoring, analyses, interpretation, and subsequent revised management actions. There is not sufficient indication that monitoring information has been, or will be used to improve management actions A programmatic Decision Support System is needed

  6. SAB Summary “The Program should improve the (workplan) process by requiring proposals to include better documentation, focus on specific IAP objectives, and identify linkages to other workplan activities, using the Peer review guidance to build a science supported management program”

  7. Fisheries Specific Findings and Recommendations “While substantial resources are devoted to analysis of the quantification of habitats created via rehabilitation (Activity 13-4), the most compelling evidence (of progress towards Program goals)should arise from measures of size of the naturally produced runs (Activity 13-5) and resultant outmigrating smolts (Activity 13-6). Protocols must be developed and tested to accurately measure the natural production of anadromous salmonids

  8. Fisheries Specific Recommendations Sufficient long-term monitoring data (harvest, escapement, juvenile outmigration) exist that a model of anadromous salmonid population dynamics could be developed and incorporated in the AEAM framework.

  9. Fisheries Specific Panel Findings Are there deficiencies in the overall program of work? Need for a more complete, explicit, and active link among, hypotheses, monitoring, synthesis, interpretation and revision of management plans. Develop a model of anadromous salmonid population dynamics

  10. Fisheries Specific Panel Findings Are there projects (activities), or subordinate tasks, that should be elevated or lowered in priority? Activity 13-4 (FishHabitat) should be integrated with activities 13-3, 13-12, and 13-26 (Physical assessments) Activity 13-6b (Myxospore monitoring) should be lowered Activity 13-15 (Fry Density) should have same priority as other salmonid monitoring (Activities 13-4 through 13-6) Essential (core) elements of a comprehensive fish monitoring program were identified

More Related