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