Gray UTIA NEAP Team Leader

Transcription

1 Matthew J. J Gray, Gray UTIA NEAP Team Leader Katherine E. Edwards, William B. Sutton, Douglas g C. Osborne, Heath M. Hagy, g Gabriel D. Upchurch, Zhimei Guo University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries

2 Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) o Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards d (SFFAS) 29 classifies easements as Stewardship Lands o SFFAS 29 requires that NRCS account for the condition of stewardship lands Provided by John Glover

3 Monitoring Stewardship Lands Enforcement Management Statutory Obligation: Are Stewardship Lands Meeting National Program Objectives? Provided by John Glover

4 2.3 million ac 13,000 easements WRP: n > 10,000; 1.8 M ac GRP: n = 305; 139,240 ac.

5 Develop cost-effective strategies to monitor, adaptively manage, and minimize non-compliance on NRCS easements NRCS Easement Programs 1. Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) 2. Emergency Watershed Protection Program-Floodplain Easements (EWPP-FPE)Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) 3. Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) 4. Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP) 5. Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP)

6 Oct 2010 Sept 2012 Dr. Matt Gray Team Leader Dr. Katie Edwards Team Supervisor Wetlands Terrestrial Bioassessment Economics GIS Dr. Heath Hagy Dr. Doug Osborne Dr. Bill Sutton Dr. Zhimei Guo Gabe Upchurch, M.S.

7 Easement Programs Division Andree DuVarney Director, EPD John Glover NPMs Land Stewardship Team Leader Land Stewardship Specialists WRP EWPP GRP HFRP FRPP Jessica Groves Barbara Eggers Liz Crane- Wexler Greg Kidd Sharif Branham Abby Letzter

8 Wetlands Reserve Program Protect, restore, and enhance the functions and 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 recharge Are these primary objectives being met? BROAD OBJECTIVES

9 Potentially conflicting objectives

10 Assess the current status and resources allocated for monitoring, management, and enforcement of NRCS stewardship lands. Review monitoring, management and enforcement strategies used by other Federal agencies and organizations. Provide recommendations on monitoring, adaptive management, and enforcement strategies for NRCS easements. Estimate financial and staff resources necessary to implement recommendations for three investment levels. Develop innovative tools for monitoring biological condition and economic return from ecosystem services provided on stewardship lands.

11 (1) Information Gathering Strategies NRCS Manuals and Publications Published Literature National Monitoring and Management Programs (2) Individual id and Group Consultations ti Organizations Geographic Representation Experiences ( ) g g (3) Planning Meetings and Conferences NAWNR AFWA SWCS SAF SEAFWA TWS

12 (1) Review of Approaches Strategies Personnel and Cost Estimates ($/ac) Target Completion Date 30 June 2012 (2) Innovative Monitoring Management Enforcement Biological & Economic Tools Adaptive Decision Framework Preventative Solutions Jan Dec 2011 Jan June 2012 Sept Dec 2011

13 Administrative Elements Compliance (annually) Remote Sensing (RSLs and NGMC) Technical Elements Biological Condition Site Visits Remote Sensing (RSLs) D. Plunk

14 Stage One Stage Two Sage Stage Three Emergent Wetland Forested Habitat t Classification D. Plunk Upland Boundary Infrastructure Planned Restoration (CDSI) Status and Trends of Habitat Types Indicators of Biological Condition and Ecosystem Services

15 Habitat Inventory First Year: Habitat types are delineated and classified using high resolution digital imagery and ancillary data. Subsequent Years: Previous year s inventory is modified based on changes identified in current year s imagery and ancillary data. An initial step to monitoring but biological condition cannot be directly assessed Current acreage of habitat types = Habitat Inventory Compare to previous year s inventory to assess acreage changes, conversions, and causes Compare to implemented restoration to assist in management and as a coarse measure of success Established Programs NRCS National Resources Inventory USFWS National Wetlands Inventory

16 Science Based Agency Inferences on Condition & Adaptive Management Data Biological/Functional Assessments Summers and Gray (in review) AWCC Study on Forested WRP Wetlands

17 SFFAS 29 National Program Target Conditions Objectives High TARGET CONDITIONS Reporting Biological Condition Index KEY Target =GREEN High =YELLOW Identifying Indicators that Track Program Objectives! Low Restoration Gradient (Succession, Management, Compatible Use) Mod =ORANGE Low =RED Inferences on Condition

18 1. Clearly establish monitoring objectives and identify appropriate indicators 2. Establish gradient (restoration and compatible use activities) 3. Designate reference conditions 4. Overall scale defined 5. Determine a sufficient level of data resolution 6. Develop and calibrate rapid assessment tools NEAP Phase I Literature and Expert Opinion NEAP Phase II Data Collection and Analysis

19 Level 1: Landscape Assessments (e.g., remotely-sensed data) - No field component Habitat Inventory - Calibration necessary Level 2: Rapid Field Methods (e.g., rapid assessments) - Field component - Calibration necessary Level 3: Intensive Field Methods (e.g., IBI and HGM approach) - Field Component - Used to Calibrate Levels 1 and 2

20 Level 3: Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) Increasing Time and Resources Level 2: Rapid assessment method and IBI Calibration i Level 1: Remote Sensing Inventories and IBI Calibration Decreasing Data Quality NRCS Level 0.5: Qualitative monitoring

21 Design Should Include: Multiple Reporting Tiers Core Indicators Flexibility (e.g., indicators based on objectives) Probabilistic sampling design (e.g., GRTS) Core 1: National Objectives Core 2: Regional Objectives Core 3: State/Local Objectives Stratification to permit reporting at multiple levels Easement Sampling: Core 1 Core 2 Core 3 All/ Subsample

22 Compliance Monitoring Reporting Mechanisms Compliance Monitoring Qualitative Assessment GeoObserver Pilot Current NRCS Strategy CDSI Conservation Desktop and IT Architecture t Developing NRCS Strategy On-site Strategies Administrative Data Geospatial Data Remote Sensing Strategies Quantitative Assessment Ecological Data Geospatial Assessment Level 1 Easement Scale Assessment (Level 1) Planned/Implemented Restoration (Level 1) Level 1 Level 2 Easement Scale Assessment (Level 1) Full Rapid Assessment (Level 2) Planned/Implemented Restoration (Level 1) Current Easement Land Cover (Level 2) Level 2 Level 3 Easement Scale Assessment (Level 1) Full Rapid Assessment (Level 2) Ecological Condition Monitoring Planned/Implemented Restoration (Level 1) Current Easement Land Cover (Level 2) Level 3 Index of Bio. Integrity (Level 3) Landscape Metrics (Level 3)

23 Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services Economic Value High Dr. Zhimei Guo Dr. Don Hodges Target Conditions High (Indicators) Moderate Low Low Restoration Gradient Market: Non-market: Timber, Carbon Sequestration, Hunting Leases Water Quality, Wildlife Habitat, Bird Watching

24 Market ecosystem services (e.g., timber, hunting lease): Market price Social value Non-market ecosystem services (e.g., carbon sequestration, water quality): Non-market Valuation Revealed preference Stated preference

25 Spatial & Temporal Analysis (Nelson et al. 2009)

26 CEAP Research Existing literature NEAP Pilot Studies Data and Biological & Economic Models Biological Condition Economic Return

27 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 Dec Acreage Range: 35 1,435 acres Timeframe: September 2011 June 2012

28 Stage 2: Verification of Remote Habitat Classifications Evaluate different resolutions of digital imagery 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 values Collect seasonally-dependent d 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

29 Aug 22 Pilot Study Data Collection September 11 April 30 May 15 November 5 Association of Fish Complete Pilot Begin Pilot Annual Meetings and Wildlife Study Image Faunal Surveys of TWS and SAF Agencies Meeting Analysis August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July p October 22 Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Meeting December 23 Second Interim Report Due Mngt/Enforcement Review NRCS and others Preliminary biological and economic models February 28 Complete Pilot Study Image Classification July 1 NEAP Final Report Final Recommendations & Cost Estimates Final (Draft) Assessment Tools Proposed Sampling Designs and Implementation Strategies Final Phase II Proposal

30 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 RSLs Change Detection of Habitat Types

31 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 Biological Remote sensing Economics Improve estimates of monitoring costs Final Deliverables: Suite of Models (Core 1, 2, and 3) (Monitoring Program) Economic Return Models Recommended Sampling Designs Final Cost Estimates and Adaptive Mngt

32 Build and Calibrate Assessment Tools Conservation Effects Assessment Project CEAP National Easement Assessment Project NEAP Make Predictions on Conservation Effects

33 Phase II: WRP 6 Study Sites 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) MAV Great Lakes Midwest Great Plains Carolinas West Coast 40 sites / yr for 2 yrs

34 Phase II: EWPP 2 Study Sites 1) Midwest 2) Great Plains 40 sites / yr for 2 yrs

35 Phase II: GRP 4 Study Sites 1) Kansas 2) WY/MN 3) East (pasture) 4) Texas (rangelands) 40 sites / yr for 2 yrs

36 Mutual Data Uses: CEAP/NEAP Phase II CEAP NEAP Quantify the environmental effects of conservation practices and programs Provide the science base needed to enrich conservation planning, implementation, management decisions, and policy Conservation benefits from easements (under-represented) d) Monitoring strategy applicable to other conservation programs Quantify biological condition of NRCS easements Provide the science base for adaptively managing NRCS conservation easements Expertise to assist with development of nationwide condition assessments Preliminary data to standardize bioassessment and ecosystem valuation models

37 July 2012 January 2013 June 2016 NEAP Phase I CEAP/NEAP CEAP/NEAP Final Final Report Studies Begin Reports and Release RFP Recommendations Oct 2012 June 2015 Oct 2016 Selection of NEAP Data Analyses NRCS Easement Funded Proposals Completed; Inventory and Estimated Program Monitoring Program Costs Delivered Launched

38 Questions?? t