Nonroutine Adaptive Management & Evaluating EAHCP
Native Vegetation Restoration in the Comal and San
Marcos Systems
Nathan Pence
EAHCP Program Manager
Joint Committee Meeting
December 17, 2015
EAHCP Adaptive Management
References
Funding and Management Agreement (FMA)
§7.6.2. Nonroutine AMP Decisions
§ 7.12. Procedures for Nonroutine AMP Decisions
§ 7.12.1. Submission of Proposals
§ 7.12.2. Science Committee Review
§ 7.12.3. Stakeholder Committee Review
§ 7.12.4. Implementing Committee Decision
EAHCP Adaptive Management
AMP Decision Definitions
Routine AMP - Decisions involving ongoing, day-to-day matters related to the management and
administration of Phase I Conservation Measures, and Phase II Conservation Measures implemented
through the Strategic AMP Decision Process. Routine AMP Decisions include modifications to a
Phase I Conservation Measure or to a Phase II Conservation Measure implemented through the
Strategic AMP Decision Process, that do not require a Permit Amendment.
Nonroutine AMP - Decisions relating to Conservation Measures which are not Routine AMP
Decisions or Strategic AMP Decisions.
Strategic AMP - Decisions relating to selection of Phase II Conservation Measures to be undertaken
by the Parties during Phase II.
Nonroutine Adaptive Management
Examples
Nonroutine AMP includes, but is not limited to, decisions to:
(a) make modifications to any Phase I Conservation Measure or to any Phase II Conservation
Measure implemented through the Strategic AMP Decision Process that require a Permit
Amendment;
(b) discontinue any Phase I Conservation Measure regardless of whether the decision requires
a Permit Amendment;
(c) discontinue any Phase II Conservation Measure regardless of whether the decision
requires a Permit Amendment;
(d) make any substantial alteration of the Biological Goals or Biological Objectives;
(e) implement or decline to implement an Additional Conservation Measure proposed by the
Service.
Nonroutine Adaptive Management
Process Overview
Step 1.
Identification of an
issue, concern,
and/or challenge
Implementing
Committee
Science
Committee
Subject
Matter
Experts
PM or
Permittee
Seeks
Input
Step 2. Information
and data gathering
on topic
Research
Analysis
Step 3. Submission
of an Adaptive
Management
Proposal
Nonroutine Adaptive Management
Process Overview
Step 4. Committee
Review Process
Step 5. Change to
Management—
Methodology,
Clarification, Minor or
Major Amendment
Nonroutine Adaptive Management
Formal Proposal Process
A Proposal may be brought forward by the
PM, any Party, the IC, or any 3 Members of
the Stakeholder Committee
•
•
•
•
•
•
Description of proposed adaptation
Rationale for adaptation
Associated M&M measures
References (as attachments)
Prior Committee consideration
Submitting entity(s) signature
Nonroutine Adaptive Management
Process Overview
Step 4. Committee
Review Process
Step 5. Change to
Management—
Methodology,
Clarification, Minor or
Major Amendment
Nonroutine Adaptive Management
Committee Roles & Process
Step 4.1. Science
Committee
PROPOSAL
Review of Proposal for
Adaptive Management
Step 4.3. Implementing
Committee
Review of Proposal for
Adaptive Management
RECOMMENDATION
DECISION
Step 4.2. Stakeholder
Committee
Review of Proposal for
Adaptive Management
Step 5. Change to
Management—
Methodology,
Clarification, Minor or
Major Amendment
Nonroutine Adaptive Management
EAHCP Committee Roles
1.
Science: Convened by Program Manager as soon as practicable to discuss the draft
proposal, develop a SC schedule, and identify any resources or studies necessary to
provide its evaluation and recommendation (“evaluation report”).
2.
Stakeholder: Convened within 14 days* of draft proposal receipt. Again convened within
14 days from receiving the SC report. Seeks consensus recommendation (minimum 3/4
majority for adoption). Has 60 days from first meeting to submit “recommendation
report” to the Program Manager, who forwards to IC and USFWS.
3.
Implementing: Convened within 14 days of receiving the SH recommendation report.
EAHCP Adaptive Management
Vegetation Restoration
1. Vegetation
Restoration & Flowsplit Management
issues identified
2.1 Scope of Work
for Study of Issues
in Comal and San
Marcos Developed
2.2
Recommendations?
Study findings?
3. Possible
Submission of an
Adaptive
Management
Proposal
EAHCP Adaptive Management
Vegetation Restoration
Vegetation Restoration Issues:
• Success of Plantings
• TWR and Natives regime
• Timeline to achieve Biological Goals
• Operation of Flow-split Infrastructure
EAHCP Adaptive Management
Vegetation Restoration
Utilize Desktop Analysis to:
• Generate information and data for consideration by the EAHCP Implementing
Committee when evaluating potential changes to vegetation restoration through the
EAHCP Adaptive Management process.
• Establish a timeline, with annual goals, to achieve the vegetation restoration
Biological Goals in the EAHCP. This timeline and information will be used in the
preparation of annual work plans by the Permittees.
• Use lessons learned from field experience in the first years of implementation, to if
necessary, modify methodologies and vegetative goals, to achieve the Biological
Goals of the EAHCP.
EAHCP Adaptive Management
Vegetation Restoration
Approach to Analysis
•
•
•
•
San Marcos and Comal Rivers
BIOWEST & Watershed Systems
Co-PIs: Ed Oborny and Thom Hardy
Consensus Approach
(Use PM & SC to resolve outstanding issues)
• Draft report due March 2016; Final Report due May 2016; presentation to IC June/July
2016.
• At IC direction, the SC will be asked to review the final product
EAHCP Adaptive Management
Vegetation Restoration
• Task 1 – Snapshot
• Veg Restoration to Biological Goals
• Planting Methodologies
• Flow- split
• Task 2 – Status Quo
• Timeline
• Are the current Biological Goals Achievable?
• Task 3 – Recommendations
•
•
•
•
Veg Restoration – location, species, amount of
Other conservation measures
Flow-split
Measurement of Compliance (mapping event)
EAHCP Adaptive Management
Vegetation Restoration
Project Timeline
Data and Information Gathering:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Contract Execution (SAV Analysis)
Draft SAV Analysis report
Final SAV Analysis report
SC presentation (endorsement of report)
Permittees w/ Jurisdiction Proposal Discussion
Potential proposal by PM, CoSM, CoNB, TXSTATE
12/04/2015
03/31/2016
06/01/2016
06/12/2016
06/10/2016
06/15/2016
EAHCP Adaptive Management
Vegetation Restoration
Project Timeline
If Routine, then:
• Proposal Submitted
• PM and Party agree – Modification/Implementation
06/15/2016
06/16/2016
If Nonroutine, then:
• Proposal Submitted
• Stakeholder Committee Informed
06/15/2016
06/16/2016*
•
•
•
•
•
06/16/2016
Special Meeting TBD (late June)
08/12/2016
09/15/2016* (2 wks of SC eval report)
10/20/2016* (2 wks of SH report)
IC Updated
Science Committee (informed; resource request)
Science Committee (evaluation report)
Stakeholder Committee (recommendation report)
Implementing Committee (report consideration)
Implementation of changes would be through the 2017 Work Plans and Funding Applications.
EAHCP Adaptive Management
Vegetation Restoration
Project Timeline
If Nonroutine, then:
• Science Committee (evaluation report)
• Stakeholder Committee (recommendation report)
• Implementing Committee (report consideration)
08/12/2016
09/15/2016* (2 wks of SC eval report)
10/20/2016* (2 wks of SH report)
• Change communicated to USFWS
1. Clarification
2. Minor Amendment
3. Major Amendment
November 2016
• Amendments to 2017 Work Plans and Funding Applications
November 2016 or after USFWS response
EAHCP Adaptive Management
Questions?
Nonroutine Adaptive Management
Implementing Committee Actions
1. Change to Biological Goal or Objective? 3. Additional CM? Written approval of all
Parties required, in addition to approval by
Unanimous approval required to direct
the Implementing Committee, to implement.
PM to amend permit thru USFWS;
disapproval requires PM submit written
explanation to USFWS & Stakeholder 4. Discontinuation of a CM? Notwithstanding
the
unanimous
vote
requirement
in
Committee.
Subsections 7.7.5 and 7.12.4.b, a Phase I
Conservation Measure may be discontinued
2. Change to a Conservation Measure
during the Permit Term by an affirmative vote
(CM)? Through the PM or a Party, the IC
of at least three voting members of the
may commence discussion with USFWS on
Implementing Committee if the measure is
proposed change and implement if
not needed to achieve any Biological Goal
approved so long as not less likely to
or Biological Objective.
achieve
the
Biological
Goals
or
Objectives as the original CM.
5. Right of Protest. The right of any Stakeholder
3. Change requiring Annual Program Budget
increase? Requires IC and EAA BoD
approval.
Committee member to protest any Permit
Amendment under consideration by the
Service is recognized.