1 / 41

National Fish Habitat Action Plan

The National Fish Habitat Action Plan Science and Data Strategy. National Fish Habitat Action Plan. Presented to: Midwest National Fish Habitat Workshop June 3, 2008 By: Gary E. Whelan. Overview. National Fish Habitat Science and Data Strategy – Framework Philosophy Components

Download Presentation

National Fish Habitat Action Plan

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. The National Fish Habitat Action Plan Science and Data Strategy National Fish Habitat Action Plan Presented to: Midwest National Fish Habitat Workshop June 3, 2008 By: Gary E. Whelan

  2. Overview • National Fish Habitat Science and Data Strategy – Framework • Philosophy • Components • National Fish Habitat Assessment • Broad Conceptual Overview • Other Key Science and Data Concepts

  3. Historic View of “Habitat” National Fish Habitat Action Plan

  4. Key Tenets • Must address the problems underlying habitat issues, not the symptoms • Must address system process level issues • Must work with a range of others to address these complex issues • Must show real progress in improving aquatic habitat that leads to improved fish populations • Must make strategic investments in habitat • Protect intact healthy systems • Rehabilitate degraded systems • Improve engineered systems

  5. Framework Report Components • What is habitat? • What is the problem? • The Assessment Tool • Classification • Condition • Priorities, priorities… - Helping our partners be more effective • Did we really do anything? The Evaluation Process • The nuts and bolts – The hardware and software to do the job National Fish Habitat Action Plan

  6. Assessment Basis • Systems are nested and hierarchical • Systems can be classified • Processes and their key component/impairments can be classified • Processes are nested and hierarchical • Impairments • Inland and coastal systems must be connected

  7. Classification Horizontal and Vertical Data Summaries

  8. Condition Focus on Key Processes(Emergent Properties) • Connectivity • Hydrology • Channel and Bottom Form • Material Recruitment • Water Quality • Energy Flow in Aquatic Communities National Fish Habitat Action Plan

  9. Condition Model National Fish Habitat Action Plan

  10. Condition Analysis • Build a Habitat Index based on layered (hierarchal) Individual Habitat Variables that can be improved. • Scores within each level averaged • Score each Classified Unit against others in the Classification. • Two Scale Scores Best Theoretical Possible 0 100 Best Currently Available Series of sub-scores that can be improved on

  11. National Assessment Update Cape Fear River - Piedmont National Fish Habitat Action Plan WWF Ecoregions Appalachian Piedmont

  12. WWF Freshwater Ecoregions TNC Ecological Drainage Units (EDUs) National Hydrography Dataset plus (NHD+) Ecologically Sound Framework National Fish Habitat Action Plan

  13. NFH Assessment Spatial Hierarchy- Vertical Summary Reaches/watersheds (2,592,348) WWF Freshwater Ecoregions (45) TNC EDUs (244)

  14. NFH Assessment Basic Units (NHD+) • Available nationwide • Reach definition • Watershed boundary • Local vs network watershed • Watershed characteristics National Fish Habitat Action Plan

  15. Horizontal Summary Prototype - Stratifying Streams Based on Size Strategy for stream size stratification: Drainage area (km2) • Headwaters: ≤ 10 • Creeks: 10 ~ 100 • Small Rivers: 100 ~ 1,000 • Medium Rivers: 1,000 ~ 10,000 • Large Rivers: 10,000 ~ 25,000 • Great Rivers: > 25,000 National Fish Habitat Action Plan

  16. Number and % of Reaches in Each Stratum 58% 26% 10% 4% 1% 1%

  17. Criteria for Selecting Data • Covering all or most of conterminous U.S. • Consistently collected or developed • Meaningful for assessing fish habitat National Fish Habitat Action Plan

  18. Active Mines - USGS 2001 Forest Canopy Road Density - NOAA SPARROW Nutrients - USGS National Inventory of Dams 2001 Impervious Surfaces 2001 National Land Cover STATSGO Soil data - USDA 1992 National Land Cover 2000 Water Use Estimates EPA 303d 2000 Population Density – NOAA 2002 Agriculture Census of U.S Toxic Release Inventory – EPA Impaired and Threatened Waters – EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System – EPA Treatment, Storage, Disposal facilities - EPA Fish Passage Decision Systems - US FWS NFH Assessment Environmental Databases

  19. NFH Assessment Fish Data NAWQA data - USGS EMAP and REMAP data – EPA Total 2329 samples Other resources National Fish Habitat Action Plan

  20. How Done? Assigning Attributes to Local Watersheds • GIS programming • 17 databases and 80 attributes • Processing units: regions National Fish Habitat Action Plan 1 2 3

  21. EDU Summary of Human Disturbances - Cape Fear River National Fish Habitat Action Plan • Urban • Cattle • Mine • Agriculture • Population • Road density • Total P yield • Imperviousness

  22. Human Disturbances by EDUs • Urban • Cattle • Mine • Agriculture • Population • Road density • Total P yield • Imperviousness National Fish Habitat Action Plan

  23. Human Disturbances by Ecoregions National Fish Habitat Action Plan • Urban • Cattle • Mine • Agriculture • Population • Road density • Total P yield • Imperviousness

  24. National Fish Habitat Assessment • On target – Oct Deliverables • Prototype – Rivers model in lower 48 states • 14 datasets • Only complete datasets • Plan – Lakes, Coastal, HI, AK • Others and prioritization • Scoring issues with lakes • Assessment improvement • Partial databases incorporation • Maps

  25. National Fish Habitat Assessment • Coastal Component • Logically can be done • CAF bridge • CMEC – Hierarchical and can be used in Great Lakes • NatureServe/NOAA System • Focus on inshore systems not 3D systems • Need resources • Strategy correct National Fish Habitat Action Plan

  26. Other Assessment Science Updates • Reporting scale issues • National vs. Partnership Report • Can not go down in scale with data • Will provide table of where data is available and usable • AK • Databases • Prioritization • SWAP objectives need to be into FONS • Project • Monitoring data • Surrogates Variables • Preferred variables - data not available • Committee agreed with surrogate variables in assessment • Link variables to fish • EBKT Joint Venture approach is a possibility National Fish Habitat Action Plan

  27. Other Assessment Science Updates • Modeled data • Stressor analysis • Plans to Stressor Planning Meeting – Spring 2008 • Request for data partnerships • USCOE, NRCS, NOAA– River Forecast Center, Snow Data • Fish distribution databases • Reporting Scales for Assessment • EDUs • State • Congressional Districts • Physiographic Units • Federally Owned Lands • Future Assessment – 2015 • Need to put structures to conduct future assessments and needed improvements • Care and feeding funding National Fish Habitat Action Plan

  28. Assessment Budget Concern • Need to fully act on budget • Concern with losing institutional knowledge • Critical to act to ensure completion by 2010 • Decreased credibility • Data loss • Momentum loss • Behind because of delayed budgeting • Interim support from USFWS and USGS • Request to AFWA for state support • Suggested $12,000 per state National Fish Habitat Action Plan

  29. Other Science and Data Concepts Cape Fear River - Piedmont National Fish Habitat Action Plan WWF Ecoregions Appalachian Piedmont

  30. Priorities, Priorities, Priorities…….. • Many, many already exist in a myriad of places but none can be found • Web-accessible GIS Database will be designed but there will be a time lag • Data Sources • State Wildlife Action Plans • Recovery Plans • River Planning Documents • Other Priorities • State • Federal agencies • Tribal agencies

  31. Prioritization Tool • Map all priorities – Web accessible • Two Scoring Approaches • Individual Project • System score • Times a priority • Likely investment return • State fisheries agency priority • Classified Unit • Unit score • Number of priorities • Number of groups • Total investment return • Number of state fisheries agency priorities • Take both tools through a final index • Likelihood of success • Approach – Protection, Rehabilitation or Re-engineering • Socioeconomic National Fish Habitat Action Plan

  32. Did we really do anything? The Evaluation Component • Since 1990, $14-15 billion spent on habitat project and only 10% evaluated • Lost many opportunities to improve • Key is to use evaluation as a learning tool • Critical to have a layered evaluation and quality control program • One size does not fit all • Different roles at different scales • How to best accomplish

  33. Scaled Evaluation Approach • Key Scale Components • Local - Project Effectiveness – Scored against Regional Partnership Goals for habitat and species • Regional - Cumulative within Region • Develop Regional Goals using threat, situation and viability data • Scored against classified unit scores – Did we move the habitat ball? • Summed Species Success • Each project identifies target species • Did they go up or down vs. baseline National Fish Habitat Action Plan

  34. Scaled Evaluation Approach • Key Components • National • National Goals and Targets • Coordinate tracking and metrics among Regional Partnerships • Synthesize all evaluations and scores from Regional Partners • National Fish Habitat Assessment

  35. Nuts and Bolts • Four Data Systems • State of Fish Habitat Reporting System • Progress toward NFHI Goals Tracking System • NFHI Habitat Projects Priorities Data System • NFHI Restoration Projects Data System • Interactive Web-based GIS System • Critical to have a single entity responsible for database hardware and software • Oversight board for system development and operation with initial issues • Data transfer and dealing with distributed data • Web services • Scaling issues • Integration of regional data National Fish Habitat Action Plan

  36. Science and Data Committee Roles Cape Fear River - Piedmont National Fish Habitat Action Plan WWF Ecoregions Appalachian Piedmont

  37. Future Committee Roles • Develop guidance for Partnerships • Use of assessment • Data guidance • Monitoring – Critical component • Assist in Partnership Selection Process • Assist in development of improved guidelines • Boundary development • Project selection process National Fish Habitat Action Plan

  38. Future Committee Roles • Develop guidance for Partnerships • Use of assessment • Data guidance • Monitoring – Critical component • Assist in Partnership Selection Process • Assist in development of improved guidelines • Boundary development • Project selection process National Fish Habitat Action Plan

  39. Future Committee Roles • Develop guidance for Partnerships • Use of assessment • Data guidance • Monitoring – Critical component • Assist in Partnership Selection Process • Assist in development of improved guidelines • Boundary development • Project selection process National Fish Habitat Action Plan

  40. Future Committee Roles • Develop guidance for Partnerships • Use of assessment • Data guidance • Monitoring – Critical component • Assist in Partnership Selection Process • Assist in development of improved guidelines • Boundary development • Project selection process National Fish Habitat Action Plan

  41. Thank You! Visit www.fishhabitat.orgfor more information Gary E. Whelan Michigan DNR whelang@michigan.gov 517-373-6948 National Fish Habitat Action Plan

More Related