Event Title

Session D3 - Fish Passage Monitoring, What’s really going on out there?

Location

UMass Amherst

Event Website

http://fishpassage.ecs.umass.edu/Conference2012/

Start Date

5-6-2012 4:25 PM

End Date

5-6-2012 5:00 PM

Description

Currently, research indicates an overall lack of monitoring on a broad scale for fish passage projects. Projects, in general, are completed and interested parties seem to move to the next project site, without investigating and validating the results of their previous efforts. Although fish passage restoration work continues to be carried out on-the-ground, how certain are we that each project has produced the expected results? Monitoring our work is crucial to ensuring we achieve our project goals and continue to expand the science and knowledge relating to fish passage. Fish passage work is ongoing around the country, much of which is, in part, funded through U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) programs like the National Fish Passage Program, the National Fish Habitat Partnership, or the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. It is important to the long term success of federal programs such as these that monitoring be carried out, as it provides the opportunity for inspired success stories and accountability through the assessment of work completed. But how often is this done, and, when monitoring is completed, what form does it take? Working nationally with our counterparts in the Service, we present the quantitative and qualitative results of a survey intended to investigate the scale and scope of monitoring completed over the past three years through federal programs like those listed above. Example questions asked include: “what projects did your office/program engage in over the last 3 years,” “what types of restoration projects have you monitored by taking physical measurements and/or performing aquatic studies,” “when monitoring is performed, who is it performed by and how is the Service involved.” Each respondent was asked to answer several questions relating to specific projects and the level and types of monitoring performed over that period at his/her field station. Ultimately, these survey results will help us better understand monitoring as it is currently being done through Service-funded programs. This work is also intended to serve as a baseline or jumping off point in an effort to expand monitoring and utilize or improve the science in relation to fish passage barrier removal.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Jun 5th, 4:25 PM Jun 5th, 5:00 PM

Session D3 - Fish Passage Monitoring, What’s really going on out there?

UMass Amherst

Currently, research indicates an overall lack of monitoring on a broad scale for fish passage projects. Projects, in general, are completed and interested parties seem to move to the next project site, without investigating and validating the results of their previous efforts. Although fish passage restoration work continues to be carried out on-the-ground, how certain are we that each project has produced the expected results? Monitoring our work is crucial to ensuring we achieve our project goals and continue to expand the science and knowledge relating to fish passage. Fish passage work is ongoing around the country, much of which is, in part, funded through U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) programs like the National Fish Passage Program, the National Fish Habitat Partnership, or the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. It is important to the long term success of federal programs such as these that monitoring be carried out, as it provides the opportunity for inspired success stories and accountability through the assessment of work completed. But how often is this done, and, when monitoring is completed, what form does it take? Working nationally with our counterparts in the Service, we present the quantitative and qualitative results of a survey intended to investigate the scale and scope of monitoring completed over the past three years through federal programs like those listed above. Example questions asked include: “what projects did your office/program engage in over the last 3 years,” “what types of restoration projects have you monitored by taking physical measurements and/or performing aquatic studies,” “when monitoring is performed, who is it performed by and how is the Service involved.” Each respondent was asked to answer several questions relating to specific projects and the level and types of monitoring performed over that period at his/her field station. Ultimately, these survey results will help us better understand monitoring as it is currently being done through Service-funded programs. This work is also intended to serve as a baseline or jumping off point in an effort to expand monitoring and utilize or improve the science in relation to fish passage barrier removal.

http://scholarworks.umass.edu/fishpassage_conference/2012/June5/51