Goals and Objectives in Adaptive Management Joint Session of the EMP-CC and NECC/ECC Meeting Summary February 21-22, 2006 Renaissance Airport Hotel St. Louis, Missouri ATTENDEES The 62 attendees included members of the EMP-CC, NECC, and ECC. A list of those who attended is included on pp. 4-5 of this summary. NOVEMBER SUMMARY The summary of the November 16, 2005 joint meeting was approved as annotated. PRESENTATIONS A. Holly Stoerker explained that the UMRBA is developing a series of issue papers to help guide strategic planning for merging the EMP and NESP legislative authorities. She encouraged EMP-CC and NECC/ECC members to convey their thoughts on the papers to UMRBA representatives or staff. Barb Naramore outlined three new issue papers that address 1) cost sharing for ecosystem restoration, 2) the two programs’ funding frameworks and total cost, and 3) partnership language and funding transfers. Relevant background and, where applicable, options and considerations are included in each issue paper. [Stoerker and Naramore’s PowerPoint slides are attached.] B. Chuck Spitzack provided an overview of the vision, goals, and objectives (VGOs) that have been developed for the UMRS, noting that partners agreed upon the vision during development of the Navigation Feasibility Study. The Science Panel’s draft goals and objectives reflect refinements to work that was also undertaken during the Nav Study and under the EMP before that. He acknowledged that more work needs to be done on human use goals and objectives. Open questions include who will take ownership of the VGOs and how various agencies and organizations will relate to them. [Spitzack’s PowerPoint slides are attached.] C. Dave Galat described the NESP Science Panel’s perspectives on the role of goals and objectives in adaptive management, explaining how the VGOs could underpin a decision framework, ecosystem report card, and goals and objectives hierarchy. He illustrated possible approaches using examples from other ecosystem restoration/management programs. He identified both strengths and outstanding needs related to the UMRS VGOs. [Galat’s PowerPoint slides are attached.]
D. Barry Johnson briefly explained the spatial hierarchy reflected in the draft VGOs. Chuck Theiling reviewed the process through which the draft goals and objectives were developed. Hank DeHaan explained how the goals and objectives might be integrated into the reach planning process and the NESP decision support system. [The PowerPoint slides for Johnson, Theiling and DeHaan are attached.] KEY POINTS OF DISCUSSION Merger Issue Papers •
UMRBA does not have an explicit strategy or timeframe for addressing the merger issues. Instead, the UMRBA’s approach will depend in part on the evolution of WRDA. This may mean that there is an attempt to address priority issues in the initial NESP authorization, or it may mean that any changes are pursued as amendments to the initial NESP authorization.
•
The Corps anticipates that various partners and private contractors will be involved in implementing NESP. Several participants expressed support for including language on partnerships and funding transfers in the NESP authority.
Vision, Goals and Objectives Overview/Intent/Process •
The Corps envisions that the River Council members would ultimately endorse the VGOs, but would not necessarily restructure their agencies and programs around the VGOs. In addition, the River Teams will also be asked to endorse the VGOs for their portion of the system.
•
The Corps intends to share the VGOs (both ecosystem and economic) with the public as part of the post-authorization rollout of NESP.
Examples of Application to Other Programs •
Rick Nelson explained that the Fish and Wildlife Service anticipates that the VGOs would be reflected in its approach to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Endangered Species Act, and Partners for Wildlife Program on the UMRS.
•
Much of the VGOs work in the Science Panel report has its origins in the EMP and the UMRCC/Audubon Working River report. As such, without consciously adopting the VGOs, the EMP has evolved around many of the goals, according to Marvin Hubbell.
Implementation Issues/Questions •
Participants expressed a variety of perspectives on the question of whether the VGOs should be developed and refined through a bottom-up or top-down approach. The need to tailor objectives to suit local realities was emphasized, as was the need for truly systemic thinking. Science Panel members envision a combined approach, noting that both topdown and bottom-up are needed to ensure ownership and accountability.
•
It was generally acknowledged that some goals and objectives will conflict with one another and that all goals and objectives will not be applicable to all portions of the UMRS.
•
There was considerable discussion concerning the number of objectives — i.e., is 46 too many—as well as the complexity and potential cost of operationalizing the objectives using the SMART criteria. 2
•
Setting appropriate targets and answering the question “how much is enough?” will be significant challenges for UMRS ecosystem restoration efforts. Report cards can be a useful tool in documenting progress toward targets, but the inherent complexities of the system and long time frames involved will make it difficult to document the kind of rapid success that decision makers and the public typically seek.
•
Project monitoring will be a major element of tracking progress on project and pool objectives. However, measuring outcomes relative to the more broadly stated reach and system goals and objectives will be more challenging and will require a different approach to monitoring, according to John Barko.
•
Dave Galat cautioned that monitoring efforts should be clearly linked to supplying the information needed to measure progress on the goals and objectives. Without this focus, Galat said monitoring tends to become institutionalized and resistant to change.
•
Ken Lubinski stressed that the VGOs should guide project development and selection. Ecosystem goods and services are positive byproducts of pursuing the VGOs, but should not drive projects.
•
Tim Schlagenhaft expressed concern that, at present, there appears to be some disconnect between the draft VGOs and the pool planning efforts. For example, he noted that the plan for Pool 18 does not include a major focus on floodplain restoration, though isolation of the floodplain is widely acknowledged to be a significant limitation in the area. Chuck Theiling said this reflects very real practical constraints in Pool 18, noting that two very large levee districts dominate the Iowa side of the pool. In the near term, there simply are not options to work with willing landowners to enhance connectivity, according to Theiling. Dave Galat suggested that, in such an instance, the practical constraint should be acknowledged to clarify why the pool plan does not fully align with the VGOs.
•
Tim Schlagenhaft emphasized the need to consider priorities among the goals. Hank DeHaan suggested that evaluation criteria tailored to the individual reach plans will help with project prioritization. He said this would be more fruitful than trying to set system scale priorities.
Economic/Human Use Goals and Objectives •
While the vision statement and first tier goal emphasize both economic and ecological sustainability, more detailed economic and human use goals and objectives have yet to be developed for the UMRS.
•
In the past, it has been difficult to engage economic stakeholders in UMR management on a consistent, ongoing basis. Engaging communities and citizens, with their economic and ecological concerns, in river management beyond the most local scale is also challenging. Drawing on adaptive management efforts elsewhere in the country, Dave Galat emphasized the need to provide accessible opportunities for the public and stakeholders to be involved on a regular basis, even though participation levels will not always be where we would like them.
•
Participants discussed various options and processes for working with interested agencies and stakeholders on the economic/human use goals and objectives.
•
The Corps will facilitate discussion and clarification of goals and objectives for navigation through NESP — “Navigation Adaptive Management.”
3
EMP-CC and NECC/ECC Joint Meeting Attendance List February 21-22, 2006 Charles Barton Susan Smith John Barko Rich Worthington Don Powell Rebecca Soileau Jeff DeZellar Kevin Bluhm COL Duane Gapinski Teresa Kincaid Roger Perk Marvin Hubbell Chuck Spitzack Ken Barr Jack Carr Kevin Landwehr Mark Cornish Karen Hagerty Nicole McVay Hank DeHaan Chuck Theiling Mike Thompson Brian Markert Thomas Keevin Brian Johnson Claude Strauser Kathy Kornberger Mike Sullivan Al Fenedick Bill Franz Larry Shepard Charlie Wooley Dick Steinbach Karen Westphall Rick Nelson Bob Clevenstine Jon Duyvejonck David Ellis Mike Jawson Linda Leake Barry Johnson Jennifer Sauer Ken Lubinski
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVD U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVD U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, R&D, RET U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, HQ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVP U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVP U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVP U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVP U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVR U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MVS U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mark Twain U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mark Twain U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, RIFO U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, RIFO U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, RIFO U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey, UMESC U.S. Geological Survey, UMESC U.S. Geological Survey, UMESC U.S. Geological Survey, UMESC U.S. Geological Survey/TNC
4
Rick Mollahan Butch Atwood Martin Konrad Mike Steuck Tim Schlagenhaft Janet Sternburg Bob Hrabik Dru Buntin Gretchen Benjamin Mark Beorkrem Barry Drazkowski Christine Favilla Catherine McCalvin Todd Strole Dave Galat T. Kevin O’Donnell Holly Stoerker Dave Hokanson Barb Naramore
Illinois Department of Natural Resources Illinois Department of Natural Resources Iowa Department of Natural Resources Iowa Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Missouri Department of Conservation Missouri Department of Conservation Missouri Department of Natural Resources Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Mississippi River Basin Alliance St. Mary’s University Sierra Club The Nature Conservancy The Nature Conservancy University of Missouri University of Missouri Upper Mississippi River Basin Association Upper Mississippi River Basin Association Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
5
Eleven Issues
Process
Complete
Future of LTRMP
Complete
Ecosystem restoration program authority
Feb 06
Cost sharing
Feb 06
Total price tag
Feb 06
Annual vs. total funding authority
Feb 06
Funding transfer
Feb 06
Partnership provisions
May 06
The role of “advisors”
May 06
Reports to Congress
May 06
Comparable progress provisions
May 06
Goals and performance measures
Issue #3 Cost Sharing for Ecosystem Restoration
What we have heard so far…. Add an Issue --- Partnership Language Issue Paper #1 LTRMP
Prefer Option A --- Revise NESP legislation to incorporate LTRMP authority Consider a new option --- Interpret NESP legislation to include LTRMP
Issue Paper #2 Authority for Ecosystem Restoration
The Issue… EMP has well-established cost sharing provisions governing 1st costs and O&M Under NESP, a somewhat different framework would apply What are the differences? are the two approaches compatible? is one preferred over the other?
No comment
EMP Legislative Provisions 1st costs of construction are 100% Federal for projects that: 1. 2. 3.
Steering Committee UMRBA, EMP-CC, NECC/ECC Meetings Comments to UMRBA representatives or staff Consider comprehensive proposal in August 2006 UMRBA recommendation
are on lands managed as a national wildlife refuge, benefit federally threatened or endangered species, or provide benefits that are determined to be national
All other HREPs require 35% non-Federal share for construction O&M is sole responsibility of agency that manages the project lands Repair, rehabilitation, and replacement provisions are somewhat uncertain
2004 Report to Congress COE & partners revisited EMP cost sharing provisions: 1. 2.
3. 4.
“managed as a refuge” = both Service-owned and GP lands managed by Service or a State Administration policy has been not to approve T&E or national benefits projects as 100% Federal; partners not pursuing Case-by-case consideration of HREPs on other Federal lands Mutually agreed upon rehabilitation will be cost shared according to original project construction (consistent with LCA/PCA)
1
NESP Legislative Provisions 1st costs of construction are 100% Federal if the project: 1. 2. 3.
is located below the ordinary high water mark or in a connected backwater, modifies the operation of structures for navigation, or is located on federally owned land
All other projects require 35% non-Federal share for construction OMRR&R is sole responsibility of agency that manages the project lands or the structure being modified Major rehab following a major flood event would be cost shared according to the original first cost allocation
Conclusions NESP’s cost sharing provisions should be the preferred approach 1. 2.
support broader range of projects should help address some of the limitations we’ve encountered with EMP
Discussion Cost sharing has limited the type, scale & location of HREPs NESP’s scope of 100% Federal ≈ lands & waters most directly affected by the navigation project & makes work on COE structures feasible O&M provisions are similar, but NESP explicitly addresses RR&R
Issue #4 Funding Framework and Total Cost The Issue… EMP framework = annual funding authorization with no sunset NESP framework = total authorized sum with no time limit Assuming integration: how do we mesh the two frameworks? how should the total costs of ecosystem restoration work under the EMP & NESP be combined?
EMP Framework & Costs
NESP Framework & Costs
Annual appropriations authorization of $33.52M (covers HREP, LTRMP, & ITAC) Perpetual authorization—i.e., no sunset or total dollar cap
House & Senate legislation would authorize $1.58B for ecosystem restoration No time limit or cap on annual appropriations, but
Exception—$350,000 for ITAC only through FY 09
Max of $226M for fish passage Max of $43M for dam point control Max of $35M annually for land acquisition Single project limit of $25M (except fish passage & dam point control)
2
Background on EMP EMP annual authorization based on estimates developed in 1981 Adjusted for inflation in 99 WRDA Partners considered a total cost option in 97 RTC; concluded annual authorization was more compatible with continuing program authority 6-year reporting cycle = opportunity to advise Congress of needed adjustments
Background on NESP Alternative packages of measures evaluated in Feasibility Study Alternatives were nested (A-E); over 50 yrs, costs ranged from $0 to $8.4B COE’s recommendation = D*
Legislation follows COE recommendation, but no timeframe for 1st increment; separate authorization required for any additional increment
Options for Total Cost
Options for Funding Framework A.
Retain the EMP’s annual authorization and NESP’s total cost authorization
D.
B.
Shift the EMP to a total cost authorization Modify the NESP legislation to authorize annual funding for the first increment of ecosystem restoration measures
E.
C.
c. 1,000 projects and 1st costs of $5.72B over 50 yrs 15-yr 1st increment of 225 projects and $1.58B
F.
Maintain authorization for combined cost of current EMP and proposed NESP Add funding to NESP ecosystem restoration for costs related to long term monitoring Do not seek to retain any portion of EMP funding authority
Considerations
Considerations
Flexibility—probably maximized with total cost authorization and no fixed timeframe Predictability—probably maximized with annual funding authorization Inflation—potential implications for both fixed annual and total cost authorization
Timeframe—what’s the timeframe of primary concern? Complicated by uncertainty re future opportunities to modify the authorization Identifying & justifying total costs—an increasing focus of the Administration and Congress Reality of appropriations process—we’re no strangers to the potential disparity between authorization and appropriation; may be more of an issue as the aggregate authorization grows
3
Issue #5 Partnership Language & Funding Transfers The Issue….. EMP & NESP are both programs the COE implements in partnership with other Federal agencies and the States But the underlying legislation differs on partnership and associated funding transfers What is needed/most appropriate?
EMP Legislative Provisions Specifically directs COE to implement various aspects of EMP in consultation with DOI, States, and UMRBA Authorizes interagency agreements for funding transfers to DOI Authorizes cooperative agreements with UMRBA
NESP Legislative Provisions No consultation provisions, except one directing the COE to develop a project ranking system with an Advisory Panel No language explicitly authorizing funding transfers via interagency agreements, cooperative agreements, etc.
Background & Context EMP’s partnership language
Background & Context NESP & partnership
COE’s initial implementation has taken a partnership approach Rep. Kind’s partnership amendment to NESP authority was rejected by House Rules Committee—possibly in part due to concerns with limiting the Secretary’s authority
Set tone for COE’s collaborative implementation Highly valued by the States Supports concept of separating science functions from management agency Has enabled USGS to reduce assessment against pass thru money to States Service relies more on Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Background & Context EMP’s funding transfer provisions have facilitated transfers (USGS for LTRMP & UMRBA for EMP-CC support services) Absent any specific provisions, NESP would be bound by the Economy Act, which permits transfers between Federal agencies, but is:
cumbersome, not designed for ongoing interagency relationships, and not viewed as substitute for direct NESP language on fund transfers
Existing procurement regulations are probably more workable for transfers to non-Federal entities
4
Options A. B.
C.
Amend NESP to require consultation, similar to EMP Amend NESP to authorize funding transfers via interagency agreements and/or cooperative agreements Do not modify the NESP legislation—rely instead on generally applicable laws & regulations to govern partnerships & funding transfers under NESP
Considerations Necessity—where does partnership and/or funding transfer language rank on the spectrum from “helpful” to “essential”? Jurisdictional issues—potential for multiple committee referrals or other procedural complications Preferential treatment—directing specific relationships and funding arrangements may raise concerns Who?—if partnership or transfer language is added, which parties should be named?
5
Upper Mississippi River System (UMRS) Vision, Goals, Objectives & Strategies Presentation To
EMPCC – NECC/ECC Chuck spitzack NESP Regional Project Manager
UMRS Vision Goals Objectives • Adaptive Management • Collaboration • Communication • Decision Support
February, 2006 One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
UMRS
UMRS
Vision Goals Objectives
Vision Goals Objectives
• Vision: To seek long-term sustainability of the economic uses and ecological integrity of the Upper Mississippi River • Goals for Ecosystem Sustainability • Goal(s) for Human Use
One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
• Objectives align with goals • Accounting system for ecosystem objectives • Human use objectives • Navigation objectives
One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
UMRS
UMRS
Vision Goals Objectives
Vision Goals Objectives
• Strategies for Integrated Management of UMRS
Vision
• Define and progress toward the desired future condition of the ecosystem using science-based adaptive management
Ecosystem Goals & Objectives
• Define and progress toward the desired future condition of the navigation system using an adaptive approach • Work to achieve compatibility between ecosystem sustainability and navigation, and with other uses • Identify and communicate effects of natural inputs and management actions on the condition of the ecosystem, on navigation channel maintenance, and on flow One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
Human Use Goals & Objectives
Strategies for Integrated Management of the UMRS
One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
1
Adaptive Management of the UMRS Problem Assessment Adjust
Design
UMRS Vision Goals Objectives • Whose VGOs are they? • How do organizations relate to them?
Continue Evaluate
Implement Monitor
One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
Process for Regional Endorsement of Vision Goals Objectives • River Council initiates consideration of VGOs • VGOs developed through collaboration • Shared with other forums operating in the UMRS for understanding & comment • Shared with the Public • Presented to UMRBA for comment & support • Endorsed by River Teams and River Council One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
2
NESP Science Panel Perspective on the Role of Goals & Objectives in Adaptive Management NEEC/ECC & EMP-CC Joint Workshop System Goals and Objectives 22 February 2006, St. Louis, Missouri David L. Galat U. S. Geological Survey Cooperative Research Units University of Missouri
Problem Statement “Current practice (of environmental management) too often involves little time allocated to identifying and agreeing upon program objectives. Frequently, a few obvious objectives are hastily noted, and then most of the effort is devoted to data gathering, scientific research and analysis.” K. H. Reckhow Environ.Tox. & Chem. 13:1901, 1994
Role of Goals & Objectives in Adaptive Management Goals: 1.
Review science for establishing objectives in resource management and adaptive decision making
2.
Illustrate how goals and objectives are employed in other high profile biodiversity conservation situations
3.
Provide a lead in to status of NESP goals and objectives
Role of Goals & Objectives in Adaptive Management – Vision Statement “A vision provides the first step in integrating social values, scientific knowledge and management experience in a multi-party system”. K. H. Rogers River Res. Applic. 22:269, 2006
“A vision only becomes useful when it is translated into reality. When everyone is focused on the common needs and values embodied in a broad consensus vision, the template for converging with reality exists” K. H. Rogers River Res. Applic. 22:269, 2006
River Restoration in the United States: Evaluating Effectiveness The National River Restoration Science Synthesis Working Group* The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
*How Is Restoration Success Defined? Stakeholder Success Aesthetics Economic Benefits Recreation Education
Most Effective Restoration
nsf Ecological Success Guiding image exists Ecological improvement Self-sustaining No lasting harm done Assessment completed
* M. A. Palmer, E.S. Bernhardt, J.D. Allan, G. G. Alexander, S. Brooks, J. Carr, S. Clayton, C. Dahm, J. Follstad-Shah, D.L. Galat, S. Gloss, P. Goodwin, D. D. Hart, B. A. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, G.M. Kondolf, P. S. Lake, R. A. Lave, J.L. Meyer, T.K. O’Donnell, L. Pagano, E. Sudduth.
Learning Success Scientific contribution Management experience Improve methods
*Palmer et al. (the NRRSS working group). Standards for ecologically successful restoration J. Applied Ecology 42:208, 2005
1
Ecological success criteria
Role of Goals & Objectives in Adaptive Management
1. A guiding image a dynamic ecological endpoint identified a priori and used to guide the restoration
“Without an operational definition of the desired endpoint, effective management is unlikely”
• Describes the dynamic, healthy river that could exist at a site • Pragmatic enough to recognize what is achievable • Can be accomplished in a variety of ways:
R. Constanza Ecosystem Health, 1992
His t
els od lm a u t ep on nc ini Co Op ert p Ex
Re fer
enc e
Main Channel communities
ori c
site s
al I nfo r
ma tio
n
Palmer et al. . J. Applied Ecology 42:208, 2005
Floodplain communities
Goals & Objectives Provide a Central Element of Effective River Rehabilitation & Adaptive Management
A Decision Framework For Environmental Analysis Identify:
“The specification of goals for restoration projects is frequently described as the most important component of a project, because it sets expectations, drives the detailed plans for action, and determines the kind and extent of post-project monitoring.”
• all management objectives • attributes to measure achievement of those objectives • feasible management actions that might be implemented to meet objectives
J. E. Ehrenfeld Restoration Ecology 8:2-9, 2000
Reckhow, K. H. Environ. Tox. & Chem. 13: 1910, 1994
Proposed Ecosystem Report Card Framework M.A. Harwell et al. BioScience 49: 543, 1999
Goals
“The objectives of a problem under study are perhaps most effectively identified through the process of constructing an objectives hierarchy”
Essential Ecosystem Characteristics Water Quality
Biological Integrity
Hydrology
Ecological Processes
Disturbance
Ecological Endpoints
Stressor Endpoints
Ecological Measures
Stressor Measures
Science
Societal values
Objectives & Sub-Objectives
Habitat Quality
Establish a Goals & Objectives Hierarchy
Keeney & Raiffa Decisions with multiple objectives, 1976
“A good model for achieving convergence is that of an Objectives Hierarchy which decomposes the vision into achievable targets for ecosystem K. H. Rogers River Res. Applic. 22:269, 2006 management”
2
Establish a Goals & Objectives Hierarchy
Essential structure of an objectives hierarchy which incorporates societal values and scientific endpoints into the description of a ‘desired state’ for ecosystem management Societal Values
Vision
Objective 1
Objective 2
Sub-obj 1
Sub-obj 2 Etc.
Institutional Goals T. H. Tear et al. BioScience 55:835, 2005
Role of Goals & Objectives in Adaptive Management
Objective 3
Sub-obj n
Etc.
Conservation Goals
Rogers & Biggs Freshwat. Biol. 41:439, 1999
Scientific Endpoints
Role of Goals & Objectives in Adaptive Management
Fundamental principles for advancing the science of objective setting in conservation Principle
Description
State clear goals
Well-defined, unambiguous statements that are brief, yet visionary, and are used as the basis for more specific objective setting.
Define measurable objectives
Measurable by some standard scale (e.g., number or percent) over time (e.g., months or years) and space (e.g., a political or ecological region).
Separate science from feasibility
Science alone must drive the process for setting objectives. Once set, feasibility may then be considered to evaluate the likelihood of achieving the stated objectives.
Follow the scientific method
Build on previous knowledge, conduct and document a transparent repeatable process, document assumptions, quantify sources of error, subject findings to peer review. Document sources of information, highlight weaknesses/information gaps, suggest ways to improve through further research or improving the process through subsequent iterations.
Anticipate change
As objective setting is a science, expect objectives to change as knowledge and science change; employ the concepts of adaptive management.
Tear et al. BioScience 55:835, 2005
Tear et al. BioScience 55:835, 2005
Role of Goals & Objectives in Adaptive Management
1. Define Problem
2. Select Goals & Objectives
Cal-Fed Bay-Delta Program
6 Standards for Setting Measurable Objectives 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Use the best available science Provide multiple alternatives Set objectives for both short and long time periods Incorporate the “three Rs”: representation, redundancy and resilience Tailor the objectives to the biological system of interest Evaluate errors and uncertainties Tear et al. BioScience 55:835, 2005
6. Assess, Evaluate, Adapt
5. Monitor
3. Prepare Conceptual Models
4. Initiate Restoration Actions
Strategic Plan for Ecosystem Restoration
July 2000
3
Cal-Fed Bay-Delta Program
Florida Everglades Goals and Objectives for the C&SF Restudy Goal: Enhance Ecologic Values •Increase the total spatial extent of natural areas •Improve habitat and functional quality •Improve native plant and animal species abundance and diversity
Goal: Enhance Economic Values And Social Well Being •Increase availability of fresh water (agricultural/municipal & industrial) •Reduce flood damages (agricultural/urban) •Provide recreational and navigation opportunities •Protect cultural and archeological resources and values
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
The 13 Thematic Concepts include:
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan – Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project
1. Regional Storage Within the Everglades Headwaters and Adjacent Areas 2. Lake Okeechobee Operational Plan 3. Everglades Agricultural Area Storage 4. Water Preserve Areas 5. Natural Areas Continuity 6. Water Supply and Flood Protection for Urban and Agricultural Areas 7. Adequate Water Quality for Ecosystem Functioning 8. Spatial Extent and Quality of Other Wetlands 9. Invasive Plant Control 10. Aquifer Storage and Recovery 11. Protection and Restoration of Coastal, Estuarine, and Marine Ecosystems 12. Conservation of Soil 13. Operation and Management of the C&SF Project and Related Lands
Structure of the GCDAMP
Secretary of the Interior
Designee
Adaptive Management Work Group
Technical Work Group
GCMRC
Independent Review Panel(s)
4
Colorado River Ecosystem Management Objectives
GCMRC’s Approach to Ecosystem & Adaptive Management 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
Protect or improve the aquatic foodbase so that it will support viable populations of desired species at higher trophic levels. Maintain or attain viable populations of existing native fish Restore populations of extirpated species, as feasible and advisable. Maintain a naturally reproducing population of rainbow trout above the Paria River, to the extent practicable and consistent with the maintenance of viable populations of native fish. Maintain or attain viable populations of Kanab ambersnail. Protect or improve the biotic riparian and spring communities, including threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat. Establish water temperature, quality, and flow dynamics to achieve GCDAMP ecosystem goals. Maintain or attain levels of sediment storage within the main channel and along shorelines to achieve GCDAMP ecosystem goals. Maintain or improve the quality of recreational experiences for users of the Colorado River ecosystem, within the framework of GCDAMP ecosystem goals. Maintain power production capacity and energy generation, and increase where feasible and advisable, within the framework of GCDAMP ecosystem goals. Preserve, protect, manage, and treat cultural resources for the inspiration and benefit of past, present and future generations. Maintain a high quality monitoring, research, and adaptive management program.
National Research Council Downstream, 1999
Colorado River Ecosystem Management Objectives
Vision Statement (Upper Mississippi River Summit 1996) “To seek long-term sustainability of the economic uses and ecological integrity of the Upper Mississippi River System”
First Tier Goal (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987; adopted by Upper Mississippi River Summit 1996; endorsed by UMRBA and 1997 Joint Governors’ Proclamation) “The balance of economic, environmental, and social conditions so as to meet the current and future needs of the Upper Mississippi River System without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs”
Second Tier Goals (adapted from Grumbine 1994, UMRCC 1995) •Maintain viable populations of all native species in situ •Represent all native community types across their natural range of variation •Restore and maintain evolutionary and ecological processes •Integrate human uses and occupancy within these constraints
Third Tier Goals (adapted from Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee 2001) •Improve water quality for all uses •Reduce erosion and sediment impacts •Restore a more natural main channel, floodplain, tributaries, bluff prairies & woodlands •Restore a more natural hydrology •Increase backwater connectivity with the main channel •Increase side channel, island, shoal, and sand bar habitat •Minimize or eliminate dredging impacts •Sever pathways for exotic species introductions/dispersal •Improve native fish passage at dams
Objectives for UMR-IWW Ecosystem (Lubinski & Barko 2003, ENV Report 52) 81 Ecological objectives and needs statements within 5 essential ecosystem characteristics (EECs): biogeochemistry, geomorphology, hydrology, habitat, and biota
TOP DOWN
Vision Statement
Vision Statement
(Upper Mississippi River Summit 1996)
(Upper Mississippi River Summit 1996)
“To seek long-term sustainability of the economic uses and ecological integrity of the Upper Mississippi River System”
“To seek long-term sustainability of the economic uses and ecological integrity of the Upper Mississippi River System”
First Tier Goal
First Tier Goal
(World Commission on Environment and Development 1987; adopted by Upper Mississippi River Summit 1996; endorsed by UMRBA and 1997 Joint Governors’ Proclamation)
(World Commission on Environment and Development 1987; adopted by Upper Mississippi River Summit 1996; endorsed by UMRBA and 1997 Joint Governors’ Proclamation)
“The balance of economic, environmental, and social conditions so as to meet the current and future needs of the Upper Mississippi River System without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs”
“The balance of economic, environmental, and social conditions so as to meet the current and future needs of the Upper Mississippi River System without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs”
Second Tier Goals (Grumbine 1994; adopted by UMRCC 1995) •Maintain viable populations of all native species in situ •Represent all native ecosystem types across their natural range of variation •Restore and maintain evolutionary and ecological processes •Integrate human uses and occupancy within these constraints
Third Tier Goals
Second Tier Goals (Grumbine 1994; adopted by UMRCC 1995) •Maintain viable populations of all native species in situ •Represent all native ecosystem types across their natural range of variation •Restore and maintain evolutionary and ecological processes •Integrate human uses and occupancy within these constraints
Third Tier Goals
(Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee 2001)
(Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee 2001)
•Improve water quality for all uses •Reduce erosion and sediment impacts •Restore natural floodplain •Restore natural hydrology •Increase backwater connectivity with the main channel •Increase side channel, island, shoal, and sand bar habitat •Minimize or eliminate dredging impacts •Sever pathways for exotic species introductions/dispersal •Improve native fish passage at dams
•Improve water quality for all uses •Reduce erosion and sediment impacts •Restore natural floodplain •Restore natural hydrology •Increase backwater connectivity with the main channel •Increase side channel, island, shoal, and sand bar habitat •Minimize or eliminate dredging impacts •Sever pathways for exotic species introductions/dispersal •Improve native fish passage at dams
Objectives for UMR-IWW Ecosystem (Lubinski & Barko 2003, ENV Report 52) 81 Ecological objectives and needs statements within 5 essential ecosystem characteristics (EECs): biogeochemistry, geomorphology, hydrology, habitat, and biota
Objectives for UMR-IWW Ecosystem (Lubinski & Barko 2003, ENV Report 52)
BOTTOM UP
81 Ecological objectives and needs statements within 5 essential ecosystem characteristics (EECs): biogeochemistry, geomorphology, hydrology, habitat, and biota
5
Role of Goals & Objectives in Adaptive Management Current Status of NESP STRENGTHS: • Stakeholder driven • Vision statement & goals are well articulated • Objectives are hierarchical
Role of Goals & Objectives in Adaptive Management
Current Status of NESP
“Reviewing progress at objective setting for the UMRS vision statement relative to these guidelines is reassuring in that we are progressing in the right direction. However areas for improvement remain” Barko & Johnson Environmental Science Panel Report, 2005 (draft)
• SMART criteria for achieving objectives
Role of Goals & Objectives in Adaptive Management - Current Status of NESP FUTURE NEEDS: • Are 46 ecological objectives too many? • Work with PDTs to refine criteria • Need to better define, “how much is enough”? • Improve linkages among objectives indicators, monitoring, evaluation, and report card • Continue to refine objectives as new information becomes available • Integrate ecological, economic, and social G&Os
Role of Goals & Objectives in Adaptive Management “Pragmatism is fundamental to designing a parsimonious set of achievable ecosystem endpoints and criteria with which to measure their achievement” “Karr & Chu (1997) warn against the proliferation of complex monitoring programs and emphasize the need to focus on the central components of a clearly defined management agenda.” K. H. Rogers Conservation Ecology 2(2):R1, 1998
6
Scales of Goals & Objectives
Spatial Hierarchy System
LTRMP Pool 4
NESP Pool 5
LTRMP Pool 8
Systemic LTRMP Pool 13
Floodplain Reach
Floodplain Reach NESP Pool 18
Pool/Reach
LTRMP La Grange Pool
Navigation Pool/Reach or Refuge
LTRMP Pool 26
Local Projects NESP Harlow Reach
Individual Projects
LTRMP Open River Reach
Systemic Goals & Objectives Ecological
Floodplain Reach Goals & Objectives Systemic Æ Floodplain Reach
• Restore and maintain viable native ecosystem types and
Upper Impounded
Open River
populations across their range of natural variation with the UMRS
• Increase area of deep water in offchannel areas
• Increase habitat diversity in main channel (shallow areas?, pallids?)
• Increase habitat diversity in impounded areas
• Increase acreage of off-channel aquatic habitat (with specific features?)
• Increase aquatic vegetation above Lake Pepin
• Increase connection of river to floodplain (how much?)
• Develop more natural hydrograph
• Develop more natural hydrograph
• Increase diversity in forest trees
• Increase diversity in floodplain LC
• Nitrogen?
• Reduce delivery of N to LMR by 35% by 20??
• Restore and maintain natural hydrologic, geomorphic, and chemical processes at levels that provide appropriate habitat diversity and maintain critical ecosystem functions • Reduce delivery of N to LMR by 35% by 20?? Human uses • Achieve and maintain capability for multiple human uses within the river corridor and floodplain
Pool/Reach Goals & Objectives Systemic Æ Floodplain Reach Æ Pool/Reach Pool 5 • Increase area of perennial vegetation (drawdown) • Increase habitat diversity in impounded area (dredging and island construction)
• Recreation?
• Recreation? (boat ramps?)
Individual Project Goals & Objectives Systemic Æ Floodplain Reach Æ Pool/Reach Æ Project PDT picks specific G & O’s from tables and matrices (as in Science Panel Report or DSS) that relate to: - local needs - higher level goals
• Restore delta of Zumbro River • Nitrogen delivery • Topographic diversity and forest composition
1
NECC/ECC & EMP-CC Joint Workshop – System Goals and Objectives 22 Feb, 2006, St. Louis, Missouri
Process for Establishing Standardized UMR-IWW Site Specific Environmental Objectives 1. Compile existing stakeholder Objective data. 2. Standardize data / develop Obj. GIS database.
What are the goals and objectives and how did we get here?
3. Distribute Objectives to stakeholders for review. 4. Conduct stakeholder workshops. 5. Use stakeholder comments to generate Objective GIS database.
Chuck Theiling USACE - MVR
Rock Island District
6. Conduct technical expert panel review.
Rock Island District
Establishing Goals (Tiered Goals) for Integrated River Planning Level of Goal
Scale
Vision
Sustainability of System Components
Goals
Broad Qualitative Integrated and Adaptable
Objectives
Quantitative Local to Regional Component Specific
Rock Island District
Existing Stakeholder Objectives:
Existing Stakeholder Objectives: Habitat Needs Assessment
Rock Island District
Existing Stakeholder Objectives: Pool Plans
HNA (Quantitative): System-wide Habitat Needs Create or restore: 1,700 acres of main channel habitat 27,000 acres of secondary channel habitat 55,500 acres of contiguous backwater 24,000 acres of isolated backwater habitat 24,000 acres of island habitat Rock Island District
Rock Island District
1
Existing Stakeholder Objectives:
MMR Side Channel Plan
Existing Stakeholder Objectives: Stone Dike Alteration Study Lower Illinois River – Alton Pool Illinois River Ecosystem Restoration Draft Fact Sheet (Cochran & Miller 2001)
Rock Island District
UMRCC “Working River” Goals: Improve water quality for all uses Reduce erosion and sediment impacts Restore natural floodplain Restore natural hydrology Increase backwater connectivity with main channel Increase side channel, island, shoal, and sand bar habitat Minimize or eliminate dredging impacts Sever pathways for exotic species introductions/dispersal Improve native fish passage at dams
400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50
ds
th er
Bir
O
Ba ck w
Pla
nt s
0 W at er C
>2,600 site-specific Environmental Objectives
Rock Island District
at er D ep th W at er Le ve C l on ne ct iv Aq ity ua tic Ar Te ea rre s st ria lA La re nd as C ov er /U se
Environmental Objective Atlas Maps
to bluff
Number of Objectives
Rock Island District
• Objectives are bluff
la rit y
• • • • • • • • •
Navigation Study
Fi sh
Maple Island (RM 198.5 – 200.8) Rock Island District
Objective Class Pools 1-11
Rock Island District
Pools 12-22
Pool 24-Ohio R.
IL Waterway
Rock Island District
2
1st Science Panel Review • The objectives identified collaboratively for the UMRIWW are grouped by Essential Ecosystem Characteristics: water quality, hydrology and river hydraulics, geomorphology, habitat, and biota. • The objectives cover a wide range of ecological conditions both within the mainstem river corridors and throughout the river basin. • The list of objectives is long, befitting the scale and complexity of the UMR-IWW; many of the objectives require further refinement to make them practical and quantitative. • Condensed >2,600 site-specific objectives to 81 systemwide objectives. Rock Island District
2nd Science Panel • Further refine, clarify and integrate the ecosystem goals and objectives provided by stakeholders and condensed by the 1st Science Panel. • Identify how ecosystem goals and objectives can be integrated into the adaptive ecosystem management process Rock Island District
Science Panel Results • Objectives were refined and made more practical and quantitative by reviewing each relative to a list of 20 questions. • Further refined by identifying the applicable spatial and temporal scales, linking them to: management actions, action agencies, potential geographic ranges of application, performance indicators, monitoring activities and ecosystem services (DSS structure). • The list of 81 objectives was reduced to 46. • Objectives can be made quite specific for project level planning using SMART criteria (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound).
Rock Island District
See handout for itemized objectives.
Rock Island District
3
NESP Use of Goals and Objectives
Navigation And Ecosystem Sustainability Program • Past
Use of Goals and Objectives in NESP
February 2006
– Developed standardized and comprehensive set of UMRS G&Os – G&Os helped structure the Navigation Study Ecosystem Alternatives
• Present – Used by Reach Planning Teams to help identify and refine initial reach objectives, monitoring needs, and restoration alternatives – Used by Science Panel to develop adaptive management program structure
• Future – G&Os will serve as the central linking variable of the UMRS DSS
One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
NESP Use of Goals and Objectives Reach Planning
Reach Planning NESP Project J. UMRS Ecosystem and Restoration Management Plan
DSS Development
One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
Reach Planning Primary Efforts/Products: • Reach-scale planning process • Reach-scale monitoring plan • Initial implementation plan
One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
Reach Planning Relation to Goals and Objectives: • Common starting point and means of consistency between reach teams • Assess information needs • Refine and select priority objectives • Identify appropriate restoration measures • Identify pre and post monitoring needs • Develop restoration alternatives • Select recommended reach implementation plan One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
1
Reach Planning
UMRS DSS What it is: • Information • Databases • Models • GIS • People
One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
DSS
Monito ri Outco ng mes Action s Stresso rs Drivers Object ives
One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
UMRS DSS
UMRS DSS
What it does: • Manage and make use of extensive datasets and knowledge • Refine, link, and apply models • Develop/evaluate restoration alternatives • Track project/program progress • Communicate and learn • Adaptively improve
What it does: • Aids in UMRS ecosystem management and restoration planning
One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
Reach-Scale Planning/Management Monit or Outco ing mes Action s Stress ors Driver s Objec tives One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
• Valuable tool that tracks objectives, actions, and outcomes
One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
Reach-Scale Planning/Management Track Restoration Efforts: Projects Objectives Management Actions Monitoring Activities Objectives attained Ecosystem outputs Lessons learned
One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
2
DSS Development
UMRS DSS
Relation to Goals and Objectives: • Ecosystem Goals and Objectives are central to the DSS • Act as the linking variable “Glue” that connects the DSS component information
Learning and Adaptation
Goals and Objectives
Report Card & Eco Services
Evaluation
One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
UMRS Ecosystem Objectives
SMART Criteria
Indicators
Monitoring
Indicators Objective Number
UMRS Ecosystem Objectives
Indicators
Modify main channel border areas
Area, geometry, substrate type, current velocity in channel border areas
Modify secondary channels
Area, number, geometry, substrate type, current velocity of secondary channels
Modify tertiary channels
Area, number, geometry, substrate type, current velocity, vegetation of tertiary channels
2. Geomorphology 2.1 Modify main channel border areas
Modify main channel border areas in [location], with [characteristics; e.g., depth diversity, slope, shoreline sinuosity, current velocity, substrate type, rate of change] by [year]
2.1
2.2 Modify secondary channels
Modify or create secondary channels in [location], with [characteristics; e.g., depth diversity, number, area, rate of change] by [year]
2.2
2.3 Modify tertiary channels
Modify or create tertiary channels in [location], with [characteristics; e.g., depth diversity, sinuosity, number, area, rate of change] by [year]
2.3
One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
Restoration Measures
Restoration Sequencing
One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
Ecosystem Objectives Objective Number
Restoration Measures
Ecosystem Models
One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
Tracking Performance Alternative D* M anagem ent M easures A daptive M anagem ent C ultu ral R es. M an agem en t & M itigation Forest M an agem en t R eal Estate (35,000 acres in M V R and M V S) Ecosystem M an agem en t an d R estoration M easures Islan d Building Fish Passage 1 F loodplain R estoration 2 W ater L evel M anagem ent B ackw ater Restoration S ide C hannel Restoration W ing D am /D ike A lteration 3 S horeline P rotection
N u m ber of P rojects
15-year Im plem entation P lan
A rea of B enefit (acres)
1,010 91 14 72 15 215 147 64 392
N um b er of P rojects
388,281
225
91,000
23 4 24 15 38 29 19 73
118,756 124,800 14,700 640 38,385
A rea of B enefit (acres)
104,986 23,000 46,056 24,800 2,900 190 8,040
R estoration R espon se M on itroin g an d Evaluation
T otal Program C ost
One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
T otal by M easu re ($m illions)
$136 $26 $38 $146 $980 $151 $209 $177 $87 $177 $82 $29 $68
$136
$5,323
$1,462
One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
3
ASSESSMENT
PLANNING
ASSESSMENT
GOALS & OBJECTIVES MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION
One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
ASSESSMENT
PLANNING
DSS MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION
One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
PLANNING
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT MONITORING
IMPLEMENTATION
One Team: Relevant, Ready, Responsive and Reliable
4
