Ecological Management Action Plans
[ Up ] [ EM-1 ] [ EM-2 ] [ EM-3 ] [ EM-4 ] [ EM-5 ] [ EM-6 ] [ EM-7 ] [ EM-8 ] [ EM-9 ] [ EM-10 ] [ EM-11 ] [ EM-12 ] [ EM-13 ] [ EM-14 ] [ EM-15 ] [ EM-16 ] [ EM-17 ] [ EM-18 ]
EM-13 Contaminated Sediment Database
EVALUATION METHODS
Components of Plan
EM-13 establishes a GIS data layer for locations of known and probable
contaminated sediments in BTES.
Interrelationships Among Components
Locations of contaminated sediments are available in databases
of LDEQ, LDNR, EPA, NOAA, USACOE, and academic institutions. Identification
of contaminant ‘hot spots’ was included as part of "Status
and Trends of Eutrophication, Pathogen Contamination, and Toxic
Substances in the Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine System" (Rabalais
et al. 1995). GIS databases that would be appropriate for inclusion
of the data layer are 1) the GIS developed in collaboration by LDNR
and NBS/SSC, 2) the GIS for LDEQ water quality monitoring subsegments,
and 3) the GIS for characterization of nonpoint source pollution
(LSU, Remote Sensing and Image Processing Laboratory).
•. This Action Plan overlaps with the goals of EM-8 to develop
a geographic database of nutrient, bacteria, and toxic contaminant
sources (point and nonpoint), and EM-18 (Centralized Data Sets).
There is a potential linkage with the database of petroleum and
petroleum fluids spills to be developed under EM-9.
•. Agencies with needs for the information to be catalogued
are LDEQ, LDNR, EPA, and USACOE, and the data base will serve as
a resource for CWPPRA.
•. BTMC will 1) create a central repository for the sediment
contaminant data, and 2) facilitate communication and cooperation
among agencies with data and with needs for database. Funding source
is not identified.
Documentation of Plan Implementation and Success
This Action Plan is not conducive to monitoring in the traditional
sense of data collection and analysis (e.g., water quality monitoring),
but rather a tracking of the timely implementation of the Action Plan
and the eventual usefulness of the GIS data layer. As such, the monitoring
is designed to determine whether such a database was developed, whether
it provides accurate data, and whether it proves useful (i.e., resource
managers use it). Specific examples of plan implementation time line
landmarks for this Action Plan are proposed below. They can be expanded
or modified, should be reviewed periodically, and should be amended
as appropriate.
Work group of cooperating agencies is formed, source of funding
is identified and secured, a project team is identified and responsibilities
outlined, and a detailed time line for the project is established
(months 0-2).
An appropriate existing GIS is identified to be supplemented with
the data layer (months 3-4).
•. Appropriate databases for the data layer are identified (months
5-7).
•. Sources of information on probable contaminated sites are
identified and assessed (months 5-7).
•. Methods for updating data layer are developed (months 8-10).
Appropriate databases for the geographic system are compiled and
incorporated into a GIS (end of year 1).
Reporting components of GIS data layer are developed (end of year
1).
•. Develop plans for publicizing existence of database (end
year 1).
Relevant agencies (e.g., LNDR Coastal Restoration Division, LDEQ,
USACOE, and EPA) are able to access and use the geographic database
to determine locations and severity of contaminated sediments (years
2-10).
Continue publicizing database (years 2-10).
•. Continue updating database (years 2-10).
Minimization of contaminant redistribution (i.e., knowledge of
contaminated sediments redirected resource management decisions
(years 2-10).
Methods
Measurable parameters
The activities of various agencies outlined above in implementing the
plan will be monitored for indicators such as:
Personnel commitments to development of database.
•. GIS data layer is operable (after developmental phase).
•. Increased agency awareness of the database.
•. Increased agency usage of the database.
•. GIS data layer accessible to targeted users.
•. GIS data layer is user-friendly for multiple agency personnel.
Resource managers cite the use of the database and cite how the
data were incorporated into resource management decisions.
Data collection methods
The monitor will contact the various agencies involved in the implementation
of the plan and the eventual use of the database to gather data (examples
below) that will be incorporated into a monitoring report:
Check-off system according to time line of project as landmark
dates are encountered and project objectives are met.
Person-months of involvement of various agency personnel as documented
by the implementor.
•. Tracking of data entry updates and modification.
List of users of GIS data layer as maintained by implementor, including:
computer time,
¨ . examples of output, and
¨ . comments made by users as to
applicability of data to their specific needs.
Project monitor can access the GIS data layer and determine locations
and severity of contaminated sediments.
Review of coastal restoration plans to determine whether the database
was accessed and used.
•. Review of dredging plans to determine whether the database
was accessed and used.
Sample design and statistical methods
There are no relevant sample designs or statistical analyses for the
evaluation of plan implementation.
Cost estimates
Estimate one person-month for year 1 and one-half person-month for
years 2-10. Including salary, fringe, incidental costs, and indirect
costs = $8,000 for year 1, and $4,000 for subsequent years (no inflation).
Modifications in monitoring plan (see below) should result in modifications
of cost.
Implementation of Monitoring
Monitor
Since BTMC is the proposed implementor for this Action Plan, an outside
monitor not selected directly by BTMC is desirable. The combined work
group of representatives of the cooperating agencies should agree to
an outside monitor who will then be contracted by BTNEP. A monitor will
prepare reports to be submitted to BTMC. Although individuals involved
in the implementation of the Action Plan may prefer a team member to
monitor the project, usually a Third Party offers the best option as
the responsible individual for the monitoring. Independent reviewers
should be free of vested interests, historic commitments, unrestrained
by mission statements, and free from personnel or budgetary actions.
The implementor and cooperating agencies will provide the project monitor
with data products listed above for subsequent assessment of accuracy
and incorporation into reports. The monitor should interact directly
with each cooperating agency to determine their level of commitment
and activities for the various reports. Success of the monitoring strategy
depends on the commitment of participating agencies and individuals
to make monitoring an integral part of the CCMP and to provide the Action
Plan monitor with the data required to develop reports to BTMC.
Reporting schedule
The monitor will prepare quarterly reports. Reports will be submitted
not less than 15 days prior to a regularly scheduled meeting of the
BTMC. The party responsible for the monitoring should be available to
discuss the report at the meeting if requested to do so by the BTMC.
Monitoring reports will also be provided to the agencies or institutions
participating in implementation. Interim reports can be prepared by
the monitor at any time to draw BTMC attention to significant problems,
delays, etc.
Guidance for monitoring reports
Quarterly reports to BTMC shall provide suitable components, such
as:
Check-off of project landmarks according to the project time
line.
¨ . Assessment of cooperating agency
contributions.
¨ . Compilation of users and comments
from users.
¨ . Description of publicity materials.
¨ . Assessment of accessibility,
reliability, and usefulness of the GIS data layer.
¨ . Assessment of relevant agency
use of data layer in resource management decisions.
Technical details may be included in the report, in a presentation
suitable for the Scientific Technical Committee and/or BTMC. A summary
of the report shall be less than one page and be suitable for presentation
to and understanding by the general public.
•. In addition to the evaluation of the technical accomplishments
of the project, the monitor shall
identify problems observed during the reporting period and
their potential causes;
¨ . predict the short- and long-term
consequences of the problems;
¨ . recommend actions to address
the problems, as well as a potential implementor(s);
¨ . identify a time frame for accomplishment
of the recommendations.
Review of monitoring reports
The BTMC shall receive the quarterly reports. The BTMC shall discuss
the monitoring document and take actions it feels appropriate with regard
to the implementation of the Action Plan.
Modification of monitoring plan
BTMC may at the end of any annual cycle change the periodicity or components
of the monitoring reports if it feels the frequency or components of
reports are inappropriate to keep abreast of the project. Changes in
the independent reviewer can be made after any annual cycle, but only
with the knowledge and participation of the work group of cooperating
agencies, the independent reviewer, and BTMC.
QA/QC
Quality assurance/quality control in the usual sense of precision and
reliability of data collection does not apply to most of the monitoring
plan for this Action Plan, since the monitor is tracking the development
and implementation of a series of programs and regulations. Certain
features of quality assurance, however, can be applied to aspects of
the monitoring plan:
Collection of information in an objective and systematic manner.
Use of qualified and experienced personnel.
Independent Third Party with no vested interest, not a BTNEP
employee.
¨ . Chosen by work group of cooperating
agencies in collaboration with BTMC.
¨ . Knowledgeable about contaminated
sediment issues, databases, GISs, resource management agency
decision processes.
Application of standard formats for quarterly reports.
•. Maintenance of a quarterly schedule.
•. Consistent and timely review of monitoring reports by BTMC.
References
Rabalais, N.N., Q. Dortch, D. Justic, M.B. Kilgen, P.L. Klerks, P.H.
Templet, R.E. Turner, B. Cole, D. Duet, M. Beacham, S. Lentz, M. Parsons,
S. Rabalais, and R. Robichaux. 1995. Status and Trends of Eutrophication,
Pathogen Contamination, and Toxic Substances in the Barataria and
Terrebonne Estuarine System. BTNEP Publication #22. Thibodaux,
LA: Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program.
[ Up ] [ EM-1 ] [ EM-2 ] [ EM-3 ] [ EM-4 ] [ EM-5 ] [ EM-6 ] [ EM-7 ] [ EM-8 ] [ EM-9 ] [ EM-10 ] [ EM-11 ] [ EM-12 ] [ EM-13 ] [ EM-14 ] [ EM-15 ] [ EM-16 ] [ EM-17 ] [ EM-18 ]
|
