Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Performance Measures <br /> <br />In looking over the performance measures that have been developed for each objective <br />and sub-objective, I have a few questions: <br /> <br />o How did you select the performance measures? <br />o Will Roundtable participants have input on them? <br />o Who will do the measuring/monitoring? <br />o The measures for the environmental objective as presented are limiting and <br />subjective.. I don't see how they will provide meaningful information in their <br />current form, and yet there exists an excellent opportunity to perform "adaptive <br />management" if appropriate measures are selected and monitoring tools are <br />utilized (adaptive management is an approach advocated by The Nature <br />Conservancy and others in working towards multi-disciplinary, collaborative <br />ecological watershed management - the Endangered Fish Recovery Program <br />offers an example).. Is there a way to provide more quantitative measures based <br />on, for example: <br />o percentage of streams within the project's "footprint" whose flows are <br />affected (e..g. restored and/or diminished); <br />o number of water quality parameters that show an improvement or <br />degradation (could focus on a suite of parameters that have close <br />connections to flow such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, nutrients); <br />o use of certain indices to measure change (e.g.. the EPT index is commonly <br />used to provide an overall measure of stream health as related to macro <br />invertebrate species composition); <br />o the number of ecosystem services (e.g. floodplain, filtration, wildlife <br />habitat, recreation) that are enhanced or degraded; <br /> <br />If the performance measures don't carry a common reference and acceptance at <br />the local level and within the scientific arena, I'm afraid they won~t be meaningful <br />or effective. <br />