neafwa for eval

8/14/2019 Neafwa for Eval

1/75

Northeast Monitoring &Performance Reporting

Framework

Northeast Fish and Wildlife ConferenceGalloway, NJ

April 27-30, 2008


2/75

Todays Session

OverviewPatricia Riexinger, Director, Division ofFish, Wildlife and Marine Resources,NYSDEC

Framework Development ProcessDan Brauning, PA Game Commission

Status Measures

Jon Kart, VT Fish & Wildlife Dept Effectiveness Measures

Ron Essig, USFWS Federal Assistance

From Plan to ImplementationTracey Tomajer, NYSDEC


3/75

Wildlife Action Plans:Statewide Conservation

Blueprints Action Plans not just

for Fish & WildlifeAgencies

Require theparticipation of local,regional and state-wide agencies, NGOs,municipalities,individuals and more

Beyond states: Action

Plans adopted byDOD NRCS USGS


4/75

The Great Promises of StateWildlife Grants & Wildlife Action

Plans

State Wildlife GrantsThe nations coreprogram for keepingwildlife from becomingendangeredWildlife Action PlansKeeping commonspecies common

Great promises lead to


5/75

Great Expectations of StateWildlife Grants & Wildlife Action

Plans

USFWS, Interior Dept,Congress, & Office of

Management &Budget expectsuccessandcost efficiency

How will success

be measured?


6/75

Status of Speciesof GreatestConservation

Need Status of SGCN

Habitats

Effectiveness of

Conservation

How the #^!!**%!!are we going tomonitor all these

species?Just count

nests!

Wildlife Action Plan:Monitoring Requirements

(Element 5)


7/75

Who: NE Association of F&W Agencies (13states+DC)

Funding: 2006 NFWF RegionalImplementationGrant

Project Leader: NYDEC

Goal: Enable NEAFWA states to report, at aregional scale, on the status of SGCN and theirhabitats and measure the effectiveness ofconservation actions to meet State Wildlife

Grants/Action Plans

Northeast Monitoring &Performance Reporting

Framework


8/75

Vision of the RegionalFramework

Develop standardizedmonitoring and measurementprotocols that:

Are suitable, practical, andcost-effective indicators ofeffectiveness of SGCNconservation

Use existing data sets andmonitoring programs

ID data gaps and datacollection & managementstandards


9/75

Why Monitoring &Performance Reporting

The Framework will not replace currentstate-based SWG and Action Plan monitoringor performance reporting. However

Status Measures: Provide regional contextfor the problems inherent in fish and wildlifeconservationand thereby show the need

for substantive, permanent wildlife funding.Effectiveness Measures: Help Fish &Wildlife agencies demonstrate the degree towhich funds are spent effectively toward

desired resource outcomes.


10/75

Additional Benefits toa Regional Framework Speak with a common voice across

programs and states

Share costs of data collection and analyses

Increase sample sizes and the power todetect changes in populations or condition

Put resource assessment and management

in larger context Standardize reporting


11/75

Who Are the Frameworks

Audiences?

Decision makers

(e.g., Congress, FedAgencies)

State programdirectors andmanagers

We are explicitly NOT targeting managers ofspecific projects and sites.


12/75

Final Products

Framework: An outline of how theNortheast States can track effectivenessof conservation actions on SGCN targets

over time using standard Measures ofEffectiveness and Status

Model Report to Decision Makers: Amockup of what annual reports mightlook like

Process Report: A brief report aboutthe process we developed and used for

other regions that might be interested


13/75

T T f I f i


14/75

Status Questions

1. How are the fish we care about doing?

2. How are threats to wildlife changing?

Two Types of InformationNeeds: Status andEffectiveness


15/75

How Did We Get Here?

NY took administrative lead Formed steering committee

Hired contractor

Conducted 2 workshops

Formed working groups torecommend status andeffectiveness measures

Drafted Report Solicited and integrated feedback

from all involved in process

Finalized Report


16/75

Framework SteeringCommittee

Tracey Tomajer NYS Dept EnvironmentalConservation

Jon Kart VT Fish & Wildlife Department

Dave Day PA Fish & Boat Commission

Dan Brauning PA Game Commission

Steve Fuller NH Fish & Game Becky Gwynn VA Dept Game Inland Fisheries

George Matula ME Dept Inland Fisheries/Wildlife

Jonathan Mawdsley Heinz Center

Brian Stenquist Organization of Wildlife Planners Dan Lambert American Bird Conservancy

Genevieve Pullis-Larouche US Fish & WildlifeService

Dave Chadwick Association of Fish and Wildlife


17/75

All Possible

Indicators

Expert

Selection

Vetting WithMany

Practitioners

First

Meeting

Second

Meeting

Final Set

Who &

How

What

Development Steps


18/75

Experts

Refine

Selection By

Practitioners

First

Meeting

Second

Meeting

Initial

Indicators

Final

Set

Who &

How

What

Development Steps


19/75

Overview of Workshops

Workshop 1: June 2007 Goals: Identify targets, indicators and data

sources to measure the species and habitatstatus and the effectiveness of conservation

actions Participants: 10 of 13 NE states, USFWS,

NGOs 45 people in all

Workshop 2: September 2007 Goals: Review working group results,

finalize products, develop outreachstrategies

Participants: Steering Committee


20/75

Status Measures:Initial Workshop Exercise

What 8 conservation targets would youselect to represent the fish and wildliferesources of the Northeast?

Ecosystems Communities

Species

T T f I f ti


21/75

Status Questions

1. How are the fish we care about doing?




22/75


23/75

Status Measures:Our Initial Eight Targets

1. Forests

2. Freshwater Stream and River Systems

3. Freshwater Wetlands

4. Highly Migratory Species5. Lakes and Ponds

6. Regionally Significant SGCN

7. Unique Habitats in Northeast(caves/karsts, rocky habitats, barrens,alpine, waterfalls)

8. Managed Grasslands & Shrublands

D l i I di t U i K


24/75

Developing Indicators Using KeyEcological Attributes (e.g. HighlyMigratory Spp)

KeyEcologicalAttribute

Indicator ExistingData Sources

Corridors,stop-overhabitats

Migratory abundanceof bird, bat, fish &Lepidoptera species

Radar analysisLepidoptera

society

Tower &Power-lineconflicts

# bird, bat kills frompowerlines

Distant (nonNE) habitat

Presence/absence ofparticular migratory

bird species at keylocations

Commercial fishingrates

# of fish returning tofreshwater systems

- MAPS- eBird

- State PointCounts- NMFS- State agencies- NMFS

- Interstate


25/75

Proposed Status Measures:1. Forests Target

Indicator Existing Data Sources

Areal extent (by type &

reserve status)

USFS FIA

Forest composition &structure by seral stage

USFS FIA

Forest fragmentationindex

LU/LC product (e.g., NLCD)Forest bird population

trends

Breeding bird surveys

Acid deposition index Acid deposition modelers


26/75

Proposed Status Measures:2. Streams and Rivers Target

Indicator Existing Data Sources

Percent Impervious Surface NLCD 2001

Distribution & Pop Status of

Native Eastern Brook Trout

State agencies

Stream connectivity (lengthof open river) and numberof blockages

USFWS National Fish

Passage Program

Index of biotic integrity

(IBI)

State agenciesDistribution and populationstatus of non-indigenousaquatic species

USGS-Aquatic Nuisance

Species program


27/75

Status Measure Report forTargets

Two Types of Information


28/75

Status Questions1. How are the fish we care about doing?




29/75

Effectiveness Questions3. Are our conservation actions having their

intended impact?

4. How can we improve our actions?

Two Types of InformationNeeds: Status vs Effectiveness


30/75

Effectiveness of What?

Should we report on the effectivenessof:

State Wildlife Grants?

Wildlife Action Plans?(i.e., any initiative, regardless offunding, that was informed by the

Wildlife Action Plans.)Both?


31/75

Decision:

At least SWG-funded initiatives

Perhaps a few illustrative Action Plan-

inspired initiativesRationale:

With the resources available, it is only

practical to track SWG-funded initiatives Direct relationship between federal

funds and actions taken

Effectiveness of What?


32/75

Our Recommendations

Adopt results chain tool for, at aminimum, a select set of actions and usethese to show how results roll up across

the Northeast Adopt a set ofcommon data

standards so that projects collect andshare a common set of data, using

standard field names and standardclassifications


33/75

Why Results Chains?

Results chains lay out assumptions abouthow a team believes an action will helpthem achieve their conservation target

These assumptions provide a basis formeasuring effectiveness

Making assumptions explicit helps teamsidentify appropriate indicators of not onlyultimate impacts, but also interimoutcomes


34/75

Results Chains Examples:Gating Bat Caves

Gating caves

and mines

Increased

batpopulations

KEY

Direct ThreatResult

IntermediateResults

ActionConservation

Target


35/75


Gating caves

and mines

Increased

batpopulations?

KEY

Direct ThreatResult

IntermediateResults

ActionConservation

Target


36/75


Gating caves

and mines

Reduceddisturbanceby humans

Increased

batpopulations?

Reduceddisturbance

by feral cats

?

KEY

Direct ThreatResult

IntermediateResults

ActionConservation

Target


37/75


Gating caves

and mines

Reducedhumanaccess


Increased

batpopulations

Reduceddisturbance

by feral cats

Reducedaccess by

feral cats

i # breaches

i # distinct cattracks

i # bats

i # juveniles

KEY

Direct ThreatResult

IntermediateResults

ActionConservation

Target


38/75

Results Chains Examples:Piping Plover Nest Protection

Protecting

Nesting Sites

Reducedhumanaccess


Increased

plover

nestingsuccess

Reduceddisturbance

by predators

Reducedaccess by

predators

i # breaches

i # of disturbed nests

i # eggs

i # juveniles

KEY

Direct ThreatResult

IntermediateResults

ActionConservation

Target


39/75

Results Chains Examples:Generic Species Protection

Predator

Exclosure

Reducedhumanaccess


Increased

SGCNpopulations

Reduceddisturbance

by predators

Reducedaccess by

predators

KEY

Direct ThreatResult

IntermediateResults

ActionConservation

Target

oc up o ec veness


40/75

oc up o ec venessReport


41/75

Results Chains Examples:Dam Removal Strategy

Native fish

populations

increased

Natural streamflow restored

Dam removalstrategy

Dam removed

Fish access toupstreamhabitat

restored

Fish return in#s sufficient to

breed

Riverine

habitat

improved

Presence of

historic species

Abundance of

historic species

Abundance of

native species

Flow rate

Sedimentation ?

Breeding success

of key fish

populations

# stream miles of

habitat improved??

KEY

Direct ThreatResult

IntermediateResults

ActionConservation

Target

Results Chains Examples:


42/75

Results Chains Examples:Research on DevelopmentImpact

KEY

Direct Threat

Result

Intermediate

Results

Conservation

TargetAction


43/75

On(adapted from IUCN-CMP

Actions)1.1 Site/Area Protection

1.2 Resource & Habitat

Protection

2.1 Site/Area Management

2.2 Invasive Species Control

2.3 Habitat & NaturalProcess Restoration

3.1 Species

Management

3.2 Species Recovery

3.3 Species Re-Introduction

4.2 Training

4.3

Awareness/Communications

2.3 Habitat & Natural Process Restoration

2.3.1 Land clearing/prescribed burns

2.3.2 Plantings for SGCN management

2.3.3 Dam removal/fish passage

2.3.4 Lake/impoundment restoration

2.3 Habitat & Natural Process

Restoration


44/75

Our Recommendations

Adopt results chain tool for, at aminimum, a select set of actions and usethese to show how results roll up across

the Northeast Adopt a set ofcommon data

standards so that projects collect andshare a common set of data, using

standard field names and standardclassifications


45/75

Conservation practitioners are using &gaining experience with different actionsevery day

Much of what they learn is either neverwritten down or shared beyond theirorganization

Tools needed to support collaboration &learning: identify people with relevant experience facilitate sharing information and expertise

within and across organizations

summarize and roll-up actions across different

Why Common Data Standards?The Problem

A Solution Database of


46/75

Conservation of Bear Habitat

A Solution Database ofActions:TNC ConPro is One Example


47/75

Threat of hunting of bears

Search Finds 12 Projects


48/75

Can Call Up Basic Project Info:Project Description


49/75

Can Call Up Basic Project Info:Threat Summary

i i j f


50/75

710,000

Can Retrieve Basic Project Info:Desired Outcomes & Actions

Can Also Generate Standard


51/75

Can Also Generate StandardReports for ManagementPurposes


52/75

Today Many Nascent Databases

TNC and WWF project databases * Conservation Evidence sites * ConserveOnline * ESRI Conservation Geo-Portal *

Multi-Lateral Banks (IABIN) * Blackwell Scientific database * Rainforest Alliance EcoIndex Park databases

etc.

* = group we have recently spoken with

O E l f D t b


53/75

One Example of a Database

Extending the Actions


54/75

Extending the ActionsDatabase to MultipleOrganizations A hodge-podge of incompatible databases

would be of limited utility beyond oneorganization

In a perfect world, wed have one commondatabase where practitioners andmanagers store and share data for theirprojects

Since this is not politically realistic, weneed, at a minimum, to develop commondata standards to communicate across

projects and roll up results

C D t St d d


55/75

Common Data StandardsInstead of One Mega Database

Common Data Fields The data neededfor each action and/or project.

Database Access Rights The terms

that participating databases must agreeupon for mutual exchange of information.

Search Portal The requirements for aportal that users can employ to search all

participating databases.

B d C t i f


56/75

Broad Categories forCommon Data Fields

Basic Project Info Name, location,contact info, political district, referencesfor more info

Action Info Type, scope, scale, cost,objectives, targets, threats, other factors

Monitoring Info Experimental design,

indicators, methods, monitoring info

Example of Common Data


57/75

Example of Common DataFieldsActions/Strategies designed to reach a

projects objectives and ultimateconservation goals. For example usingherbicide to treat an invasive species, orsetting up a protected area.Field Priority Type Comments

Action Type 4 list Single selection; Based on IUCN-CMPActions Classification, Level 2

Action Name 4 text Equivalent of IUCN-CMP Level 3

Action Scale 3 text Scope of the action

Action Cost 3 text Cost per action (per year if needed)

Objective(s) 2 text The specific objectives that projectwants to achieve with the action

Action Detail 2 text Additional description of action

Entering the Bat Gating


58/75

Entering the Bat GatingStrategyInto the Database

Field Priority Type Comments

Action Type 4 list 3.1 Species Management

Action Name 4 text Gating Bat Caves

Action Scale 3 text Gates put on 10 caves

Action Cost 3 text $5000/per cave initial; $2000/yr ongoing

Objective(s) 2 text By the end of 5 years, eliminatedisturbance of roosting bats bypeople and by feral cats

Action Detail 2 text This action implemented by statepark staff in conjunction with..

Applying These Standards to


59/75

pp y gNEAFWA & State EffectivenessWork

Each state collects standard informationabout all conservation actions

SWG funded

Maybe, eventually, Action Plan inspired Data housed in databases (state, regional,

national?) and linked by standard metadataand search capabilities

Framework/NEAFWA provides indicators forkey common strategies


60/75

So What?

How does this apply to me?

What can I do?

Lets talk about it....


61/75

Next Steps To Implementation

Seek approval from Directors

Identify and support staff to lead state efforts

Implement the Framework

Secure needed resources Develop data collection instructions

Determine data management structure

Complete Framework components Review and Modify target indicators if necessary

Adapt the Framework & continue implementing


62/75

1. Approval of Directors with theexpectation that NEAFWA states willimplement the Framework collaborativelywith their own state monitoring and

performance measure programs

State staff help educate Directors aboutthe Framework and seek Director support

for Framework implementation.



63/75

2) Identify and support staff to lead stateefforts

In consultation with the Wildlife Diversity

Technical Committee (WDTC), identify andsupport state-level staffing needs toensure leadership in state-level programmonitoring and performance reporting forWildlife Action Plans and SWG programs.



64/75

3) Implement the Framework

Although we could spend a lot of timeperfecting the Framework, it is

important to move into actualimplementation via:

States: Collect data specified in theFramework.Use results chains in SWG projectdevelopment

NEAFWA: Adopt a set of common actions

for results chain applications. Develop



65/75

4) Secure needed resources (financial;staff)at the Regional level to support the States:

NEAFWAs Regional Conservation Needs (RCN)grant program:- TNC project summarizing the conservationstatus of

habitat and species targets

- Request for a Regional Framework Coordinatorto help states

Other potential funding sources (e.g., SWGCompetitive Grants, National Fish & WildlifeFoundation)



66/75

5) Develop instructionsfor data collection

Frameworkappendices

provide draft monitoringplans for status andeffectiveness measures.

Some additional guidancemay be needed to ensurethat implementation staffunderstand next steps.



67/75

6) Determine data managementstructure:

It will be important to have an initial idea

of how the region will collect, manage, andreport on data. Once NEAFWA membersimplement the Framework, it will becomeclearer whether the chosen datamanagement structure will work orwhether some other arrangement isneeded.



68/75

7) Complete FrameworkComponents:

Managed Grasslands and Shrublandstarget

Regionally Significant SGCN

NEAFWA will need to form workinggroups for these targets, identifyindicators, and develop monitoring plansfor those indicators.

Looking ahead: Expand the Framework

to include coastal and marine targets



69/75

8) Review and Modify targetindicators if necessary

Identify additional indicator similaritiesand overlaps across targets anddetermine if we can further reduceredundancies and simplify datacollection.

Review target indicators based onfeedback from Framework reviewers



70/75

9) Adapt the Framework & ContinueImplementing

Based on what we learn, it will be important

to modify the Framework where necessaryand continue with implementimplementation.

This is an ongoing step that should be

continuously revisited.



71/75

Final Products

Framework: An outline of how theNortheast States can track status oftargets and effectiveness of conservationactions over time

Model Report to Decision Makers: Amockup of what annual reports mightlook like

Process Report: A brief report aboutthe process we developed and used forother regions that might be interested


72/75

The Framework

The Framework will not replace state-basedSWG and Action Plan monitoring orperformance reporting. However

The Frameworkwill provide regionalcontext for the problems inherent in fish andwildlife conservationand thereby show theneed for substantive, permanent wildlife

funding.

The Frameworkwill help Fish & Wildlifeagencies demonstrate that funds are spent

effectively toward desired resource

Th B tt Li


73/75

The Bottom Line

The development of this regionalFramework is a first for state Fish &Wildlife agencies.

Its a powerful tool for resource

conservation.We now have a coalition of NEAFWAmembers, partners, stakeholders,and scientific experts to move this

Framework and other collaborativeprojects forward.

Lets work together to implementand adapt the Framework to best fit

our needs and the realities under


74/75

Websites

Regional Conservation Needs GrantProgram http://rcngrants.org/index.shtml

Northeast Monitoring/Reporting Project

http://rcngrants.org/regional_monitoring.sh

Northeast Habitat Classification/MappingProject

htt ://rcn rants.or /habitat classification.s
http://rcngrants.org/index.shtmlhttp://rcngrants.org/regional_monitoring.shtmlhttp://rcngrants.org/habitat_classification.shtmlhttp://rcngrants.org/habitat_classification.shtmlhttp://rcngrants.org/regional_monitoring.shtmlhttp://rcngrants.org/index.shtml


75/75

neafwa for eval

Documents