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-17 Zebra Mussel Monitoring and Control
EVALUATION METHODS
Components of Plan
EM-17 proposes a zebra mussel task force and monitoring
program specific to BTES as well as a fostering and expansion of existing
zebra mussel programs.
Interrelationships Among Components
1. The Lower Mississippi River Zebra Mussel Task
Force has as its primary mission the monitoring of the spread of the
zebra mussel (Louisiana Sea Grant College Program, USFWS, other agencies,
scientists, industry representatives). The USACE is responsible for
research and technology development concerning the environmentally
sound control of zebra mussels at public facilities, and monitors
their facilities for zebra mussel infestations. The National Sea Grant
College Program has a centralized information repository for zebra
mussel information at Cornell University Cooperative Extension Service,
and the National and Louisiana Sea Grant College Programs sponsor
multiple research programs on the mussel. The Louisiana Sea Grant
College Program and the USFWS jointly sponsor the lower Mississippi
River Newsletter.
2. No lead implementor (other than ‘state’)
identified. Various state and federal agencies could assist in plan
implementation. The BTES Zebra Mussel Task Force, once, established,
will assume leadership for this action plan implementation. Cooperative
funding should be sought from USACE, USFWS, NOAA, LCES, LDWF, EPA,
and industry.
3. [Not sure how this differs from existing zebra
mussel programs, other than a task force specific to BTES, or how
it proposes to work in parallel with existing programs or what it
proposes to do differently as an ‘expansion’.]
Documentation of Plan Implementation and Success
Monitoring for this AP includes assessing the timely
implementation of the components of the AP, and the eventual success
of implementation (i.e., task force formed, monitoring established,
and zebra mussel programs fostered). The first component is not conducive
to monitoring in the traditional sense of data collection and analysis
(e.g., water quality monitoring), but rather a tracking. The monitoring
of implementation is designed to determine whether a functional task
force is formulated, and whether a monitoring program for zebra mussels
is developed specifically for the BTES and estuarine conditions. Eventual
project success can be monitored with an analysis of data such as presence/absence
of zebra mussels and the environmental conditions under which they were
encountered. Eventually, given the presence of zebra mussels, a more
frequent collection of data will be established. The Action Plan monitoring
is also designed to determine whether the BTES zebra mussel task force
enhances and expands upon existing zebra mussel programs, and whether
it results in useful knowledge concerning control technologies and beneficial
uses. A time line developed jointly by the funding agency and the implementor(s)
will provide the basis for the monitor to assess plan implementation.
Because of the multiple components, interactions of components, and
involvement of several agencies, a more detailed time line should be
developed to track the progress of the development of the plan. Examples
of time landmarks are:
1. Implementor is identified (months 0-1).
2. Work group of cooperating agencies is formed,
project team is identified and responsibilities outlined, and detailed
time line for the project is established (months 0-2).
3. Funding is secured within agencies (months 3-4).
4. BTES Zebra Mussel Task Force is established (months
5-6).
5. Lead implementor for the BTES zebra mussel task
force is identified (end of year 1).
6. Existing network of scientists is strengthened
to ensure prompt transfer of technical data within the BTES (end of
year 1).
7. A monitoring plan for zebra mussels within BTES
is established (months 7-8).
8. Relevant state agencies incorporate veliger monitoring
into routine sampling protocols, as well as inspections for adults
on hard substrates (months 7-8).
9. BTES and its zebra mussel task force is an active
participant in the 1997 international meeting (end of year 1).
10. Newsletter is continued (years 1-10).
11. Annual zebra mussel workshop, including technology
transfer, is held (years 2-10).
12. Veliger and adult zebra mussel monitoring is
continued (years 2-10).
13. Information is disseminated on control technologies
(years 2-10).
14. New control technologies are developed through
mussel control research and development program (years 2-10).
15. New control technologies are incorporated in
facility construction and operation (years 4-10).
16. Beneficial uses research and development is initiated,
funded, implemented (years 4-10).
17. Beneficial use technology is marketed (years
6-10).
Methods
Measurable parameters
The activities of various agencies outlined above in
implementing the plan will be monitored for indicators such as:
1. Zebra mussel task force is operable (after developmental
phase).
2. Veliger and adult monitoring components are part
of state agency sampling protocols.
3. Increased personnel (several agencies) devoted
to participation in task force and in monitoring programs.
4. Research programs and communication avenues are
expanded.
5. Centralized information repository.
6. Distribution maps of veligers and adults.
7. Compilation of ancillary environmental data for
known incidences of veligers and adults.
8. Research and monitoring results are incorporated
into communications.
9. Research results are incorporated into actual
management of zebra mussels.
Data collection methods
The monitor will contact the various agencies involved
in the implementation to gather data (examples below) that will be incorporated
into a monitoring report:
1. Check-off system according to time line of project
as landmark dates are encountered and project objectives are met.
2. Lists of cooperating agencies, their activities.
3. Compilation of cooperating agencies time commitments
to monitoring project.
4. Publication schedule of newsletter, table of contents.
5. Agendas from annual workshops and technology transfer
meetings.
6. Descriptions of new and/or expanded communication
avenues.
7. Data compilations from veliger and adult monitoring
programs, including distribution maps.
8. Assessment of environmental conditions under which
veligers and adults were collected.
9. Diagrams of information networks, with names,
agencies, addresses, electronic mail addresses.
10. Summaries of control technology research results.
11. Summaries of beneficial use research results.
12. List of users of research results and comments
made by users as to applicability of data to their specific needs.
13. Project monitor can access the centralized information
repository and use the data.
Sample design and statistical methods
There are no relevant sample designs or statistical
analyses for the evaluation of plan implementation.
Cost estimates
Estimate one-half person-month per year. Including
salary, fringe, incidental costs, and indirect costs = $4,000 per year
(no inflation). Modifications in monitoring plan (see below) should
result in modifications of cost. Costs of veliger and adult monitoring
programs to be incorporated in the budgets of the relevant state agencies.
Implementation of Monitoring
Monitor
Since implementor is not identified, but likely to
be an agency, a monitor selected by BTMC would be appropriate. Should
BTMC become the implementor (as may be the case for the BTES zebra mussel
task force), 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.
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
1. Quarterly reports to BTMC shall provide suitable
components, such as:
a. Check-off of project landmarks according to
the project time line.
b. Compilation/assessment of cooperating agency
time commitments and activities.
c. Assessment of accessibility, reliability, and
usefulness of the information in the centralized repository.
d. Assessment of status of implementation.
2. 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.
3. In addition to the evaluation of the technical
accomplishments of the project, the monitor shall:
a. identify problems observed during the reporting
period and their potential causes;
b. predict the short- and long-term consequences
of the problems;
c. recommend actions to address the problems, as
well as a potential implementor(s);
d. 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.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
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:
1. Collection of information in an objective and
systematic manner.
2. Use of qualified and experienced personnel.
a. Independent Third Party with no vested interest,
not a BTNEP employee.
b. Chosen by work group of cooperating agencies
in collaboration with BTMC.
c. Knowledgeable about zebra mussels, relevant
educational efforts, and various programs concerning their control.
3. Application of standard formats for quarterly
reports.
4. Maintenance of a quarterly schedule.
5. Consistent and timely review of monitoring reports
by BTMC.
[ 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 ]
|
