Northeast Monitoring &

Performance Reporting
Framework

Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference

Galloway, NJ
April 27-30, 2008
Today’s Session
• Overview
Patricia Riexinger, Director, Division of
Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources,
NYSDEC
• Framework Development Process
Dan Brauning, PA Game Commission
• Status Measures
Jon Kart, VT Fish & Wildlife Dept
• Effectiveness Measures
Ron Essig, USFWS Federal Assistance
• From Plan to Implementation
Tracey Tomajer, NYSDEC
Wildlife Action Plans:
Statewide Conservation
Blueprints
• Action Plans not just
for Fish & Wildlife
Agencies
• Require the
participation of local,
regional and state-
wide agencies, NGOs,
municipalities,
individuals and more
• Beyond states: Action
Plans adopted by
DOD, NRCS, USGS,
The Great Promises of State
Wildlife Grants & Wildlife Action
Plans

State Wildlife Grants

“The nation’s core
program for keeping
wildlife from becoming
endangered”
Wildlife Action Plans
“Keeping common
species common”

Great promises lead to…

Great Expectations of State
Wildlife Grants & Wildlife Action
Plans

USFWS, Interior Dept,

Congress, & Office of
Management &
Budget expect
success…and
cost efficiency

How will success

be measured?
 Wildlife Action Plan:
Monitoring Requirements
(Element 5)
How the #^!!**%!!
are we going to
monitor all these Just count
species? nests!
• Status of Species
of Greatest
Conservation
Need
• Status of SGCN
Habitats
• Effectiveness of
Conservation
Northeast Monitoring &
Performance Reporting
Framework
Who: NE Association of F&W Agencies (13
states +DC)
Funding: 2006 NFWF Regional Implementation
Grant
Project Leader: NYDEC
Goal: Enable NEAFWA states to report, at a
regional scale, on the status of SGCN and their
habitats and measure the effectiveness of
conservation actions to meet State Wildlife
Grants/Action Plans
Vision of the Regional
Framework
Develop standardized
monitoring and measurement
protocols that:
• Are suitable, practical, and
cost-effective indicators of
effectiveness of SGCN
conservation
• Use existing data sets and
monitoring programs
• ID data gaps and data
collection & management
standards
Why Monitoring &
Performance Reporting
The Framework will not replace current
state-based SWG and Action Plan monitoring
or performance reporting. However…

Status Measures: Provide regional context

for the problems inherent in fish and wildlife
conservation—and thereby show the need
for substantive, permanent wildlife funding.
Effectiveness Measures: Help Fish &
Wildlife agencies demonstrate the degree to
which funds are spent effectively toward
desired resource outcomes.
Additional Benefits to
a Regional Framework
• Speak with a common voice across
programs and states
• Share costs of data collection and analyses
• Increase sample sizes and the power to
detect changes in populations or condition
• Put resource assessment and management
in larger context
• Standardize reporting
Who Are the Framework’s
Audiences?

• Decision makers
(e.g., Congress, Fed
Agencies)
• State program
directors and
managers
We are explicitly NOT targeting managers of
specific projects and sites.
Final Products
• Framework: An outline of how the
Northeast States can track effectiveness
of conservation actions on SGCN targets
over time using standard Measures of
Effectiveness and Status
• Model Report to Decision Makers: A
mockup of what annual reports might
look like
• Process Report: A brief report about
the process we developed and used for
other regions that might be interested
Two Types of Information
Needs: Status and
Effectiveness
Status Questions
1. How is the wildlife we care about doing?
2. How are threats to fish changing?

Effectiveness Questions
3. Are our conservation actions having their
intended impact?
4. How can we improve our actions?
Two Types of Information
Needs: Status and
Effectiveness
Status Questions
1. How are the fish we care about doing?

2. How are threats to wildlife changing?

How Did We Get Here?
• NY took administrative lead
• Formed steering committee
• Hired contractor
• Conducted 2 workshops
• Formed working groups to
recommend status and
effectiveness measures
• Drafted Report
• Solicited and integrated feedback
from all involved in process
• Finalized Report
Framework Steering
Committee
• Tracey Tomajer – NYS Dept Environmental
Conservation
• Jon Kart – VT Fish & Wildlife Department
• Dave Day – PA Fish & Boat Commission
• Dan Brauning– PA Game Commission
• Steve Fuller – NH Fish & Game
• Becky Gwynn – VA Dept Game Inland Fisheries
• George Matula – ME Dept Inland Fisheries/Wildlife
• Jonathan Mawdsley – Heinz Center
• Brian Stenquist – Organization of Wildlife Planners
• Dan Lambert – American Bird Conservancy
• Genevieve Pullis-Larouche – US Fish & Wildlife
Service
• Dave Chadwick – Association of Fish and Wildlife
Development Steps
Vetting With
Who & “Expert”
Many
How Selection
Practitioners

All Possible
What Final Set
Indicators

First Second
Meeting Meeting
Development Steps

Who & Selection By “Experts”

How Practitioners Refine

Initial Final
What
Indicators Set

First Second
Meeting Meeting
Overview of Workshops
Workshop 1: June 2007
• Goals: Identify targets, indicators and data
sources to measure the species and habitat
status and the effectiveness of conservation
actions
• Participants: 10 of 13 NE states, USFWS,
NGOs – 45 people in all
Workshop 2: September 2007
• Goals: Review working group results,
finalize products, develop outreach
strategies
• Participants: Steering Committee
Status Measures:
Initial Workshop Exercise
What 8 “conservation targets” would you
select to represent the fish and wildlife
resources of the Northeast?
• Ecosystems
• Communities
• Species
Two Types of Information
Needs: Status and
Effectiveness
Status Questions
1. How are the fish we care about doing?

2. How are threats to wildlife changing?

 Grass & Regionally Fresh- Fresh Highly
Forests MANAGED
Shrub Significant
REGIONALLY
water
FRESHWATER
Unique
UNIQUE Streams
FRESHWATER
Migratory
HIGHLY Lakes
LAKES & &
FORESTS GRASSLANDS SIGNIFICANT STREAM AND

Lands INCLUDED
AND
SHRUBLANDS SGCN
SGCN (NOT
IN
WETLANDS
wetlands Habitats
HABITATS IN
NORTHEAST Rivers
RIVER
SYSTEMS
MIGRATORY
SGCN Ponds
SPECIES
PONDS

HABITATS)
Deciduous / Lakes and
mixed forest Wetlands Caves & Large Migratory pond
Woodcock Special karst order bats communities
species streams
High problems
elevation Unique
Wetlands Cold water Diadromous Lakes &
coniferous Open Highly Habitats / stream fish ponds
forest uplands imperiled small patch communities
species
Forests Lakes &
Wetlands Caves and Regional
Grasslands Riverine
Allegheny functions (eg ponds
mines ecosystems
Mature wood rat linkages ,
forests Functional connectivity)
Grassland Freshwater
nontidal Freshwater Rivers &
Early Therres et mussels
habitat wetlands mussels streams
succession al. 1997 Birds
al forests species
Freshwater High Lakes
Shrublands Coldwater
Northeast wetlands elevation
Pitch pine (managed ) streams
endemic (many types) habitat
forest
species
High Stream and
Shrub /scrub Freshwater elevation
Early riparian
grasslands Amphibians wetlands that habitat
successional habitat
support
forest
SGCN Rocky
habitats Coldwater
Older (surface and streams
growth subsurface )
forest

Large High
contiguous elevation
forest communities

Coniferous Natural
forest (all grassland
stages)

Hardwood
forest (all
stages)
Status Measures:
Our Initial Eight Targets
1. Forests
2. Freshwater Stream and River Systems
3. Freshwater Wetlands
4. Highly Migratory Species
5. Lakes and Ponds
6. Regionally Significant SGCN
7. Unique Habitats in Northeast
(caves/karsts, rocky habitats, barrens,
alpine, waterfalls)
8. Managed Grasslands & Shrublands
Developing Indicators Using Key
Ecological Attributes (e.g. Highly
Migratory Spp)
Key Indicator Existing
Ecological Data Sources
Attribute
Corridors, Migratory abundance Radar analysis
stop-over of bird, bat, fish & Lepidoptera
habitats Lepidoptera species society
Tower & # bird, bat kills from
Power-line powerlines
conflicts(non
Distant Presence/absence of - MAPS
NE) habitat particular migratory - eBird
bird species at key - State Point
locations Counts
Commercial fishing - NMFS
rates - State agencies
- NMFS
# of fish returning to - Interstate
freshwater systems
Proposed Status Measures:
1. Forests Target
Indicator Existing Data Sources
Areal extent (by type & USFS FIA
reserve status)
Forest composition & USFS FIA
structure by seral stage
Forest fragmentation LU/LC product (e.g., NLCD)
index
Forest bird population Breeding bird surveys
trends
Acid deposition index Acid deposition modelers
Proposed Status Measures:
2. Streams and Rivers Target
Indicator Existing Data Sources
Percent Impervious Surface NLCD 2001
Distribution & Pop Status of State agencies
Native Eastern Brook Trout
Stream connectivity (length USFWS National Fish
of open river) and number Passage Program
of blockages
Index of biotic integrity State agencies
Distribution
(IBI) and population USGS-Aquatic Nuisance
status of non-indigenous Species program
aquatic species
Status Measure Report for
Targets
Two Types of Information
Needs: Status and
Effectiveness
Status Questions
1. How are the fish we care about doing?

2. How are threats to wildlife changing?

Two Types of Information
Needs: Status vs Effectiveness
Effectiveness Questions
3. Are our conservation actions having their
intended impact?

4. How can we improve our actions?

Effectiveness of What?

Should we report on the effectiveness

of:
• State Wildlife Grants?
• Wildlife Action Plans?
(i.e., any initiative, regardless of
funding, that was informed by the
Wildlife Action Plans.)
• Both?
Effectiveness of What?

Decision:
– At least SWG-funded initiatives
– Perhaps a few illustrative Action Plan-
inspired initiatives
Rationale:
– With the resources available, it is only
practical to track SWG-funded initiatives
– Direct relationship between federal
funds and actions taken
Our Recommendations

• Adopt results chain tool for, at a

minimum, a select set of actions and use
these to show how results roll up across
the Northeast
• Adopt a set of common data
standards so that projects collect and
share a common set of data, using
standard field names and standard
classifications
Why Results Chains?

• Results chains lay out assumptions about

how a team believes an action will help
them achieve their conservation target
• These assumptions provide a basis for
measuring effectiveness
• Making assumptions explicit helps teams
identify appropriate indicators of not only
ultimate impacts, but also interim
outcomes
 Results Chains Examples:
Gating Bat Caves

Increased
Gating caves
and mines bat
populations

KEY

Conservation Direct Threat Intermediate

Action
Target Result Results
 Results Chains Examples:
Gating Bat Caves

Increased
Gating caves
and mines ? bat
populations

KEY

Conservation Direct Threat Intermediate

Action
Target Result Results
 Results Chains Examples:
Gating Bat Caves

Reduced Increased
Gating caves
and mines ? disturbance
by humans
bat
populations

Reduced
? disturbance
by feral cats

KEY

Conservation Direct Threat Intermediate

Action
Target Result Results
 Results Chains Examples:
Gating Bat Caves

i # breaches

Reduced Reduced Increased

Gating caves human disturbance
and mines bat
access by humans populations

i # bats
Reduced Reduced
access by disturbance
feral cats by feral cats i # juveniles

i # distinct cat
tracks
KEY

Conservation Direct Threat Intermediate

Action
Target Result Results
 Results Chains Examples:
Piping Plover Nest Protection

i # breaches
Increased
Reduced Reduced plover
Protecting human disturbance
Nesting Sites nesting
access by humans
success

i # eggs
Reduced Reduced
access by disturbance
predators by predators i # juveniles

i # of disturbed nests
KEY

Conservation Direct Threat Intermediate

Action
Target Result Results
Results Chains Examples:
Generic Species Protection

Reduced Reduced Increased

Predator human disturbance
Exclosure SGCN
access by humans populations

Reduced Reduced
access by disturbance
predators by predators

KEY

Conservation Direct Threat Intermediate

Action
Target Result Results
Mockup of Effectiveness
Report
 Results Chains Examples:
Dam Removal Strategy
# stream miles of
habitat improved ??

Riverine
habitat
improved

Fish access to Native fish

Dam removal Natural stream upstream Fish return in
strategy Dam removed flow restored habitat #s sufficient to populations
breed increased
restored

Flow rate Breeding success Abundance of

Presence of historic species
of key fish
Sedimentation ? historic species
populations
Abundance of
native species

KEY

Conservation Direct Threat Intermediate

Action
Target Result Results
 Results Chains Examples:
Research on Development
Impact

KEY

Conservation Direct Threat Intermediate

Action
Target Result Results
 Conservation Actions to Focus
On
(adapted from IUCN-CMP
Actions)
1.1 Site/Area Protection 3.1 Species
1.2 Resource & Habitat Management
Protection 3.2 Species Recovery
2.1 Site/Area Management 3.3 Species Re-
Introduction
2.2 Invasive
2.3 Habitat Species
& Natural Process Control
2.3Restoration
Habitat & Natural 4.2 Training
Process Restoration 4.3
Awareness/Communic
2.3 Habitat & Natural Process Restoration
2.3.1 Land clearing/prescribed burns ations
2.3.2 Plantings for SGCN management
2.3.3 Dam removal/fish passage
2.3.4 Lake/impoundment restoration
Our Recommendations

• Adopt results chain tool for, at a

minimum, a select set of actions and use
these to show how results roll up across
the Northeast
• Adopt a set of common data
standards so that projects collect and
share a common set of data, using
standard field names and standard
classifications
Why Common Data Standards?
The Problem
• Conservation practitioners are using &
gaining experience with different actions
every day
• Much of what they learn is either never
written down or shared beyond their
organization
• Tools needed to support collaboration &
learning:
 identify people with relevant experience
 facilitate sharing information and expertise
within and across organizations
 summarize and roll-up actions across different
A Solution – Database of
Actions:
TNC ConPro is One Example
Conservation of Bear Habitat
Search Finds 12 Projects

Threat of hunting of bears

Can Call Up Basic Project Info:
Project Description
Can Call Up Basic Project Info:
Threat Summary
Can Retrieve Basic Project Info:
Desired Outcomes & Actions

710,000
Can Also Generate Standard
Reports for Management
Purposes
Today Many Nascent Databases
• TNC and WWF project databases *
• Conservation Evidence sites *
• ConserveOnline *
• ESRI Conservation Geo-Portal *
• Multi-Lateral Banks (IABIN) *
• Blackwell Scientific database *
• Rainforest Alliance EcoIndex
• Park databases
• etc.
* = group we have recently spoken with
One Example of a Database
Extending the Actions
Database to Multiple
Organizations
• A hodge-podge of incompatible databases
would be of limited utility beyond one
organization
• In a perfect world, we’d have one common
database where practitioners and
managers store and share data for their
projects
• Since this is not politically realistic, we
need, at a minimum, to develop common
data standards to communicate across
projects and roll up results
Common Data Standards
Instead of One Mega Database
• Common Data Fields – The data needed
for each action and/or project.
• Database Access Rights – The terms
that participating databases must agree
upon for mutual exchange of information.
• Search Portal – The requirements for a
portal that users can employ to search all
participating databases.
Broad Categories for
Common Data Fields
• Basic Project Info – Name, location,
contact info, political district, references
for more info
• Action Info– Type, scope, scale, cost,
objectives, targets, threats, other factors
• Monitoring Info– Experimental design,
indicators, methods, monitoring info
 Example of Common Data
Fields
Actions/Strategies designed to reach a
project’s objectives and ultimate
conservation goals. For example using
herbicide to treat an invasive species, or
setting
Field up a protected
Priority area.
Type Comments
Action Type 4 list Single selection; Based on IUCN-CMP
Actions Classification, Level 2
Action Name 4 text Equivalent of IUCN-CMP Level 3
Action Scale 3 text Scope of the action
Action Cost 3 text Cost per action (per year if needed)
Objective(s) 2 text The specific objectives that project
wants to achieve with the action
Action Detail 2 text Additional description of action
Entering the Bat Gating
Strategy
Into the Database
Field Priority Type Comments

Action Type 4 list 3.1 Species Management

Action Name 4 text Gating Bat Caves
Action Scale 3 text Gates put on 10 caves
Action Cost 3 text $5000/per cave initial; $2000/yr
ongoing
Objective(s) 2 text By the end of 5 years, eliminate
disturbance of roosting bats by
people and by feral cats
Action Detail 2 text This action implemented by state
park staff in conjunction with…..
Applying These Standards to
NEAFWA & State Effectiveness
Work
• Each state collects standard information
about all conservation actions
– SWG funded
– Maybe, eventually, Action Plan inspired
• Data housed in databases (state, regional,
national?) and linked by standard metadata
and search capabilities
• Framework/NEAFWA provides indicators for
key common strategies
So What?
• How does this apply to me?
• What can I do?
• Let’s talk about it....
Next Steps To Implementation
• Seek approval from Directors
• Identify and support staff to lead state efforts
• Implement the Framework
• Secure needed resources
• Develop data collection instructions
• Determine data management structure
• Complete Framework components
• Review and Modify target indicators if necessary
• Adapt the Framework & continue implementing
Next Steps To Implementation

1. Approval of Directors with the

expectation that NEAFWA states will
implement the Framework collaboratively
with their own state monitoring and
performance measure programs
• State staff help educate Directors about
the Framework and seek Director support
for Framework implementation.
Next Steps To Implementation

2) Identify and support staff to lead state

efforts
• In consultation with the Wildlife Diversity
Technical Committee (WDTC), identify and
support state-level staffing needs to
ensure leadership in state-level program
monitoring and performance reporting for
Wildlife Action Plans and SWG programs.
Next Steps To Implementation

3) Implement the Framework

Although we could spend a lot of time
“perfecting” the Framework, it is
important to move into actual
implementation via:
• States: Collect data specified in the
Framework.
Use results chains in SWG project
development
• NEAFWA: Adopt a set of common actions
for results chain applications. Develop
Next Steps To Implementation
4) Secure needed resources (financial;
staff)
at the Regional level to support the States:
• NEAFWA’s Regional Conservation Needs (RCN)
grant program:
- TNC project summarizing the conservation
status of
habitat and species targets
- Request for a Regional Framework Coordinator
to help states

• Other potential funding sources (e.g., SWG

Competitive Grants, National Fish & Wildlife
Foundation)
Next Steps To Implementation
5) Develop instructions
for data collection
Framework appendices
provide draft monitoring
plans for status and
effectiveness measures.
Some additional guidance
may be needed to ensure
that implementation staff
understand next steps.
Next Steps To Implementation

6) Determine data management

structure:
It will be important to have an initial idea
of how the region will collect, manage, and
report on data. Once NEAFWA members
implement the Framework, it will become
clearer whether the chosen data
management structure will work or
whether some other arrangement is
needed.
Next Steps To Implementation
7) Complete Framework
Components:
• Managed Grasslands and Shrublands
target
• Regionally Significant SGCN
NEAFWA will need to form working
groups for these targets, identify
indicators, and develop monitoring plans
for those indicators.
Looking ahead: Expand the Framework
to include coastal and marine targets
Next Steps To Implementation
8) Review and Modify target
indicators if necessary
• Identify additional indicator similarities
and overlaps across targets and
determine if we can further reduce
redundancies and simplify data
collection.
• Review target indicators based on
feedback from Framework reviewers
Next Steps To Implementation
9) Adapt the Framework & Continue
Implementing
Based on what we learn, it will be important
to modify the Framework where necessary
and continue with implement
implementation.
This is an ongoing step that should be
continuously revisited.
Final Products
• Framework: An outline of how the
Northeast States can track status of
targets and effectiveness of conservation
actions over time
• Model Report to Decision Makers: A
mockup of what annual reports might
look like
• Process Report: A brief report about
the process we developed and used for
other regions that might be interested
The Framework

The Framework will not replace state-based

SWG and Action Plan monitoring or
performance reporting. However…
The Framework will provide regional
context for the problems inherent in fish and
wildlife conservation—and thereby show the
need for substantive, permanent wildlife
funding.

The Framework will help Fish & Wildlife

agencies demonstrate that funds are spent
effectively toward desired resource
The Bottom Line
The development of this regional
Framework is a first for state Fish &
Wildlife agencies.
It’s a powerful tool for resource
conservation.
We now have a coalition of NEAFWA
members, partners, stakeholders,
and scientific experts to move this
Framework and other collaborative
projects forward.
Let’s work together to implement
and adapt the Framework to best fit
our needs and the realities under
Websites

• Regional Conservation Needs Grant

Program http://rcngrants.org/index.shtml

• Northeast Monitoring/Reporting Project

http://rcngrants.org/regional_monitoring.shtml

• Northeast Habitat Classification/Mapping

Project

http://rcngrants.org/habitat_classification.shtm