National Fish Habitat Action Plan The National Fish

National Fish Habitat Action Plan The National Fish Habitat Action Plan Science and Data Strategy 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 • National Fish Habitat Assessment • Broad Conceptual Overview • Other Key Science and Data Concepts

National Fish Habitat Action Plan Historic View of “Habitat”

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

National Fish Habitat Action Plan 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

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 coastal systems must be connected

Classification Horizontal and Vertical Data Summaries

National Fish Habitat Action Plan 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 Condition Model Process Impairment Components Sub-components Component Inputs

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 Best Currently Available Series of sub-scores that can be improved on 100

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

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

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

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

National Fish Habitat Action Plan Horizontal Summary Prototype Stratifying Streams Based on Size Strategy for stream size stratification: Drainage area (km 2) • • • 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

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

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

NFH Assessment Environmental Databases 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 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 11. EPA 303 d 12. 2000 Population Density – NOAA 13. 2002 Agriculture Census of U. S 14. Toxic Release Inventory – EPA 15. Impaired and Threatened Waters – EPA 16. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System – EPA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Fish Habitat Action Plan 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

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

National Fish Habitat Action Plan 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

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

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

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