Upload
hoangdieu
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Matthew J Gray UTIA NEAP Team LeaderMatthew J. Gray, UTIA NEAP Team Leader
Katherine E. Edwards, William B. Sutton, Douglas C. Osborne, Heath M. Hagy, g g
Gabriel D. Upchurch, Zhimei Guo
University of Tennessee Institute of AgricultureDepartment of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory g yBoard (FASAB)o Statement of Federal Financial
A ti St d d (SFFAS) 29 Accounting Standards (SFFAS) 29 –classifies easements as “Stewardship Lands”Lands
o SFFAS 29 requires that NRCS account for the “condition” of stewardship lands
Provided by John Glover
Monitoring
Stewardship
Lands
ManagementEnforcement
Statutory Obligation:
Are Stewardship Lands Meeting National
Provided by John Glover
Are Stewardship Lands Meeting National Program Objectives?
• 2.3 million ac• 13,000
WRP:n > 10,000; 1.8 M acGRP:
easements
n = 305; 139,240 ac.
Develop cost-effective strategies to monitor, adaptively manage, and minimize non-compliance on NRCS easements easements
NRCS Easement Programs1. Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)g ( )2. Emergency Watershed Protection Program-Floodplain
Easements (EWPP-FPE)Grassland Reserve Program (GRP)3. Grassland Reserve Program (GRP)
l h ( )4. Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP) 5. Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP)
Oct 2010 – Sept 2012
Dr. Matt Gray
Oct 2010 Sept 2012
Dr. Katie EdwardsTeam Leader Team Supervisor
Wetlands Terrestrial Economics GISBioassessment
Dr. Heath Hagy Dr. Doug Osborne
Dr. Bill Sutton Dr. Zhimei Guo Gabe Upchurch, M.S.
Easement Programs Division
Andree DuVarney
Director, EPD
John Glover
NPMsLand Stewardship Team Leader
Land Stewardship Specialists
WRP EWPP GRP HFRP FRPPGreg Kidd
Sharif Branham
Abby LetzterJessica Groves Barbara
EggersLiz Crane-
Wexler
Wetlands Reserve ProgramWetlands Reserve ProgramProtect, restore, and enhance the functions and
values of wetland ecosystems
1 Habitat for migratory birds and other
values of wetland ecosystems
1. Habitat for migratory birds and other wetland-dependent wildlife
2. Protection and improvement of water quality
3. Floodwater attenuation and groundwater rechargerecharge Are these primary objectives being met?
BROAD OBJECTIVES
Potentially conflicting objectives
Assess the current status and resources allocated for monitoring, management, and enforcement of NRCS g, g ,stewardship lands.
Review monitoring, management and enforcement strategies used by other Federal agencies and organizationsstrategies used by other Federal agencies and organizations.
Provide recommendations on monitoring, adaptive management, and enforcement strategies for NRCS easements easements.
Estimate financial and staff resources necessary to implement recommendations for three investment levelsimplement recommendations for three investment levels.
Develop innovative tools for monitoring biological condition and economic return from ecosystem services provided on t d hi l d stewardship lands.
(1) Information Gathering Strategies• NRCS Manuals and Publications
(2) I di id l d G C lt ti
• Published Literature• National Monitoring and Management Programs
(2) Individual and Group Consultations
Organizations ExperiencesGeographic Representation
(3) Planning Meetings and Conferences( ) g g• NAWNR • AFWA
• SWCS • SAF
• SEAFWA • TWS
(1) Review of Approaches Target (1) Review of Approaches• Strategies
• Personnel and Cost Estimates ($/ac)
Target Completion Date
30 June 2012
(2) Innovative
Monitoring Management EnforcementMonitoring Management Enforcement
Biological & Economic
T l
Preventative Solutions
Adaptive Decision
F kTools Framework
Jan – Dec 2011 Jan – June 2012 Sept – Dec 2011
Administrative Elements Technical ElementsAdministrative Elements Compliance (annually) Remote Sensing (RSLs and
NGMC)
Technical Elements Biological Condition Site Visits
Remote Sensing (RSLs)NGMC) Remote Sensing (RSLs)
D. Plunk
Stage One Stage Two Stage ThreeStage One Stage Two S age ee
Emergent Wetland
Forested
H bit tHabitatClassification
D. Plunk Upland
BoundaryInfrastructurePlanned Restoration
Indicators of Biological Condition and
Ecosystem Services
Planned Restoration(CDSI) Status and Trends of
Habitat Types
Habitat InventoryFirst Year: Habitat types are delineated
Current acreage of habitat types Habitat
Habitat Inventory
ypand classified using high resolution digital imagery and ancillary data.
habitat types = Habitat Inventory
Compare to previous
Subsequent Years:
Compare to previous year’s inventory to assess acreage changes, conversions, and causes
Subsequent Years: Previous year’s inventory is modified based on changes identified in current
’ i d
Compare to implemented restoration to assist in management and as a coarse measure of
year’s imagery and ancillary data.
success
Established ProgramsAn initial step to monitoringNRCS National Resources InventoryUSFWS National Wetlands Inventory
An initial step to monitoring but biological condition
cannot be directly assessed
Science Based Agency
Inferences on Condition& Adaptive Management
Data Summers and Gray (in review)
AWCC Study onBiological/Functional
Assessments
AWCC Study on Forested WRP
Wetlands
National Program Objectives
Target ConditionsObjectives
SFFAS 29High ReportingTARGET CONDITIONS
Biological Condition Index Hi h YELLOW
Target =GREEN
Identifying Indicators
KEY
Index High =YELLOW
Mod =ORANGEIndicators that Track Program
Objectives! Low
Low =RED
Restoration Gradient(Succession, Management, Compatible Use) Inferences on
Condition
1. Clearly establish monitoring objectives and identify appropriate indicators
2. Establish gradient (restoration and compatible use activities)
3. Designate reference conditions
4. Overall scale defined4. Overall scale defined
5. Determine a sufficient level of data resolution
6. Develop and calibrate rapid assessment tools
NEAP Phase I NEAP Phase IILiterature and Expert Opinion
Data Collection and Analysis
NEAP Phase I NEAP Phase II
Level 1: Landscape Assessments (e.g., remotely-sensed data)
- No field component Habitat Inventory- Calibration necessary
Level 2: Rapid Field Methods Level 2: Rapid Field Methods (e.g., rapid assessments)
- Field component- Calibration necessary
Level 3: Intensive Field Methods Level 3: Intensive Field Methods (e.g., IBI and HGM approach)
- Field Component- Used to Calibrate Levels 1 and 2
Level 3: Index of Biological Integrity (IBI)
Level 2: Rapid assessment method
d C lib i
Level 1:
and IBI Calibration
Increasing Timeand Resources
Decreasing Data Quality
Level 0.5:
Remote Sensing Inventories and IBI Calibration
Level 0.5:Qualitative monitoring
NRCS
Design Should Include: Core 1: National Objectives
• Multiple Reporting Tiers
• Core Indicators
• Flexibility (e.g., indicators based
j
Core 2: Regional ObjectivesFlexibility (e.g., indicators based on objectives)
• Probabilistic sampling design (e.g., GRTS) Core 3: State/Local Objectives
• Stratification to permit reporting at multiple levels
Easement Sampling:
All/
Core 1 Core 2 Core 3
All/ Subsample
Reporting Mechanisms
Qualitative Assessment
Compliance Monitoring
GeoObserver Pilot
Compliance Monitoring
CDSI Conservation Desktop d IT A hit t
Current NRCS Strategy
Q
Developing NRCS Strategy
GeoObserver Pilot
Administrative DataOn-site Remote
S i
and IT Architecture
Strategies Sensing Strategies
Geospatial Data
L l 1Easement Scale
Quantitative Assessment
L l 1
Geospatial Assessment
Planned/Implemented
Ecological Data
Level 1
Level 2
Assessment (Level 1)
Easement Scale Assessment (Level 1)
Full Rapid Assessment (Level 2)
Easement Scale
Level 1
Level 2
Restoration (Level 1)
Planned/Implemented Restoration (Level 1)
Current Easement Land Cover (Level 2)
Planned/Implemented
Level 3
Easement Scale Assessment (Level 1)
Full Rapid Assessment (Level 2)
Index of Bio. Integrity (Level 3)
Ecological Condition Monitoring
Level 3
Planned/Implemented Restoration (Level 1)
Current Easement Land Cover (Level 2)
Landscape Metrics (Level 3)
Economic Valuation of Ecosystem ServicesEcosystem Services
Economic Target
Conditions
High Dr. Zhimei GuoDr. Don Hodges
ValueHigh
L Low
Moderate(Indicators)
Restoration Gradient
Low
Market:Non-market:
Timber, Carbon Sequestration, Hunting LeasesWater Quality, Wildlife Habitat, Bird Watching
Market ecosystem services (e.g., timber, hunting lease):
Market price Social value
Non-market ecosystem services (e.g., carbon i li )sequestration, water quality):
Non-market Valuation
Revealed StatedRevealed preference
Stated preference
Spatial & TemporalAnalysis
(Nelson et al. 2009)
Existing literature
CEAP Research
NEAP Pilot Studies
Data and Biological &Economic Models
BiologicalCondition
Economic Return
Evaluation of NEAP Stages 2 and 3 strategies Evaluation of NEAP Stages 2 and 3 strategies◦ Stage 2: Remote Habitat Classifications (East RSL)◦ Stage 3: On-site Monitoring Indicators
16 WRP easements in eastern North Carolina◦ Enrollment Range: Sep 1996 – Dec 2010◦ Enrollment Range: Sep. 1996 – Dec. 2010◦ Acreage Range: 35 – 1,435 acres
Timeframe: September 2011 – June 2012
Stage 2: Verification of Remote Habitat Classifications◦ Evaluate different resolutions of digital imagery◦ Evaluate classification systems (Cowardin Anderson Evaluate classification systems (Cowardin, Anderson,
NVCS)◦ Evaluate different levels of ancillary data and observer
experience
Stage 3: On-site Monitoring Indicators◦ Evaluate selected indicators of biological condition and
compare with literature valuesC ll t ll d d t i di t◦ Collect seasonally-dependent indicators
◦ Evaluate EPA National Wetland Condition Assessment (NWCA) and USA Rapid Assessment Methods
Joint Objectives◦ Identify linkages between Stages 2 and 3◦ Estimate costs associated with strategies
September 11 April 30 May 15Aug 22
Pilot Study Data Collection
September 11Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies Meeting
November 5Annual Meetings of TWS and SAF
April 30Complete Pilot Study Image
Analysis
May 15Begin Pilot
Faunal Surveys
2011
August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.
2012
Feb. Mar. Apr. May June Julyp
October 22Southeastern A i ti f
December 23Second Interim
R D
February 28Complete Pilot Study Image
July 1NEAP Final
Association ofFish and Wildlife Agencies Meeting
Report Due Study Image Classification
Report
• Mngt/Enforcement Review• NRCS and others
• Preliminary biological and
• Final Recommendations & Cost Estimates
• Final (Draft) Assessment Tools Preliminary biological and economic models • Proposed Sampling Designs and
Implementation Strategies• Final Phase II Proposal
Testing and calibration of biological condition and economic valuation models at a national scale◦ Easement gradient and reference conditions◦ Regional dependency
Habitat Inventory Pilots◦ All Programs and Regions
All RSL◦ All RSLs◦ Change Detection of Habitat Types
Test sampling framework Test sampling framework◦ EPA NWCA USA-RAM◦ Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified Design◦ Sample size required: Core 1, 2, and 3 indicators◦ Rotational and repeat sampling
Improve training and workload estimates Improve training and workload estimates◦ Biological◦ Remote sensing◦ Economics
Improve estimates of monitoring costsFi l D li blFinal Deliverables: Suite of Models (Core 1, 2, and 3)
Economic Return ModelsRecommended Sampling DesignsFinal Cost Estimates and Adaptive Mngt
(Monitoring Program)
Conservation Effects Assessment Project
CEAPBuild and Calibrate Assessment Tools
Make Predictions on Conservation Effects
National Easement
Assessment Tools Conservation Effects
Assessment ProjectNEAP
Phase II: WRP
6 Study Sites1) MAV2) Great Lakes3) Midwest4) Great Plains5) Carolinas6) West Coast
40 sites / yr for 2 yrs
6) West Coast
Phase II: EWPP
2 Study Sites1) Midwest2) Great Plains
40 sites / yr for 2 yrs
Phase II: GRP
4 Study Sites1) Kansas1) Kansas2) WY/MN3) East (pasture)4) Texas
(rangelands)
40 sites / yr for 2 yrs
Mutual Data Uses:CEAP/NEAP Phase IICEAP/NEAP Phase II
CEAP NEAPCEAP NEAP• Quantify the environmental effects
of conservation practices and • Quantify biological condition of
NRCS easementsof conservation practices and programs
• Provide the science base needed to enrich conservation planning,
NRCS easements
• Provide the science base for adaptively managing NRCS conservation easementsp g,
implementation, management decisions, and policy
• Conservation benefits from t ( d t d)
• Expertise to assist with development of nationwide condition assessments
easements (under-represented)
• Monitoring strategy applicable to other conservation programs
• Preliminary data to standardize bioassessment and ecosystem valuation models
July 2012 January 2013 June 2016July 2012NEAP Phase I Final ReportRelease RFP
January 2013CEAP/NEAP
Studies Begin
June 2016CEAP/NEAP Final
Reports and Recommendations
2012 20172013 2015
2012 2017
Oct 2012 O t 2016
2014 2016
Oct 2012Selection of
Funded Proposals
June 2015NEAP Data Analyses
Completed; Estimated Program
Oct 2016NRCS Easement Inventory and
Monitoring Program Estimated Program Costs Delivered
g gLaunched
Questions??
htt // t dhttp://neap.tennessee.edu