1 / 55

Agency Needs for Project Monitoring

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.

armen
Download Presentation

Agency Needs for Project Monitoring

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. Agency Needs for Project Monitoring Brooke Budnick Senior Fish Technician, PSMFC DFG Coastal Restoration Monitoring and Evaluation Program

  2. California Department of Fish and GameCoastal Restoration Monitoring & Evaluation Fisheries Restoration Grants Program Qualitative Monitoring of Fisheries Habitat Restoration

  3. 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

  4. FRGP Project Types

  5. Qualitative Monitoring Team

  6. We are responsible for…Qualitative Effectiveness Monitoring • Data collection & management • Protocol review & field testing • Providing training

  7. Purpose of qualitative monitoring

  8. PERMIT COMPLIANCE 100% Implementation monitoring 10% Effectiveness monitoring

  9. 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

  10. Results of monitoring 2004-2006

  11. 100% implementation monitoring is leading to… Thorough documentation of project implementation Greater accountability and involvement by DFG contract managers Increased quality of contract language

  12. >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

  13. 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.

  14. The Protocols • Project, site & feature location • Photo documentation • Qualitative evaluation checklists

  15. Documenting Project Locations • Essential • Time consuming • Challenging

  16. 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?

  17. Location Documentation Solutions • Moving toward… • accepting the easiest and most cost effective methods • trying not to duplicate work • heavier reliance on GIS

  18. Photographic Monitoring • Important • Time consuming • Challenging

  19. Photographic Monitoring Challenges • Monumented photo points or opportunistic photos? • Where to store photos? • How to share photos? • Standardize protocol?

  20. Solutions? • Simplify • Be flexible • But, what do with all those photos?

  21. Qualitative Monitoring Protocol based on design developed by UC Berkeley Center for Forestry (Harris, et. al) Revised by Coastal Restoration Monitoring and Evaluation Program

  22. Qualitative Monitoring Protocol Pre-treatment Effectiveness • What are current site conditions? • What are the goals of the feature?

  23. 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):

  24. When to conduct pre-treatment monitoring?

  25. Qualitative Monitoring Protocol Implementation • Was the feature implemented as “approved”? • As-built condition? • Assign individual & overall ratings. • Summarize performance measures.

  26. 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

  27. How to get 100% implementation monitoring?

  28. Qualitative Monitoring Protocol Post-treatment Effectiveness • What are the current site conditions? • Did the feature achieve the defined goals? • Assign individual and overall ratings.

  29. 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?

  30. When to conduct post-treatment monitoring?

  31. Relating the phases of monitoring…

  32. Instream Restoration Monitoring

  33. “Fish Passage at Stream Crossings”

  34. “Fish Passage Improvement at Barriers”

  35. “Fish Screening of Diversions”

  36. “Instream Habitat Restoration”

  37. “Streambank Stabilization (non-bioengineered)”

  38. “Bioengineered Streambank Stabilization”

  39. “Streamflow Treatments”

  40. Riparian Restoration Monitoring

  41. “Revegetation Treatments”

  42. “Vegetation Control”

  43. “Land Use Treatments”

  44. Upslope Restoration Monitoring

  45. “Stream Crossing Decommission”

  46. “Road Segment Decommission”

  47. “Stream Crossing Upgrade”

  48. “Road Segment Upgrade”

  49. “Erosion Control/ Slope Stabilization”

More Related