Science Advisory Report 2019/042

Science advice on operational guidance on functional monitoring: Surrogate metrics of fish productivity to assess the effectiveness of mitigation and offsetting measures

Summary

• Success of any monitoring program relies on the development of a clear purpose and objective, informed by well-defined, scientifically based questions articulated at the outset. Three hierarchical levels for monitoring of mitigation, offsetting or restoration measures (hereinafter referred to as management measures) have been previously described, which range along a continuum from a simple assessment of compliance with standards, through to an assessment of function, culminating with the establishment of effectiveness at achieving quantitative fish productivity goals.
• For the purposes of this document, functional monitoring is defined as a science-based, scaled-down version of effectiveness monitoring that relies on surrogate metrics of fish productivity to assess whether management measures provide expected conditions suitable for fish to carry out their life processes.
• The purpose of functional monitoring is to provide a relatively rapid and objective science-based assessment of the performance of the management measure, beyond simple compliance with design/construction standards, but where implementing a full and more costly effectiveness monitoring program may not be required or feasible.
• Functional monitoring is most appropriate for situations where there is some understanding of the performance of management measures and the chosen surrogate metrics in the given ecological context.
• Functional monitoring may also be applied after effectiveness monitoring to provide longer term confirmation of function.
• A synthesis of multiple functional monitoring assessments of similarly applied management measures across a range of sites can increase understanding of the effectiveness of such measures, potentially improving both the site evaluation and program evaluation.
• A recommended framework (Figure 4) is presented to establish the steps used when planning functional monitoring at a given site or type of project. These steps are:
1. Determine specific objective of functional monitoring program.
2. Select appropriate indicators/metrics.
3. Choose appropriate sampling design.
4. Collect and analyze data using the appropriate standardized approach.
5. Assess whether management measures meet objectives based on functional monitoring data.
6. Record data and outcomes in database for future program learning.
• The first step in the functional monitoring framework is to establish objectives (i.e., site and/or program evaluation) of the monitoring program. Pathways of Effects diagrams are conceptual models of how in-water activities could lead to ecosystem changes and could be used to help identify functional monitoring objectives; these objectives should be quantitative and linked to fish productivity.
• The sampling design of the functional monitoring program can take a range of forms; six types of sampling designs were discussed and attributes describing when each may be most appropriate are provided (Table 1). Variability, heterogeneity, replication, minimum information requirements, and other practical limitations must be considered.
• All sampling designs require a comparator; different designs have different comparators (see body of document for details). The collection of “pre-project” data is recommended.
• The most appropriate indicators vary as a function of the specific project and sampling design; Table 2 provides examples of indicators potentially suitable for functional monitoring. Selection of indicators should consider the following criteria;
• Whether indicators are related to the expected outcome (e.g., macrophyte cover related to creation of a marshland/wetland) and quantitatively linked to fish productivity.
• Whether indicators are correlated and if so, consider whether measurement of additional indicators provides unique information (e.g., nutrients and chlorophyll a are often positivity correlated but nutrients provide information on the availability of nutrients for primary production whereas chlorophyll a provides information on how the nutrients are used through photosynthetic rates).
• How variable the indicators are over time and space (e.g., water depth in rivers can vary daily and is influenced by weather).
• How reliably the indicators can be measured (e.g., visually assessing sediment composition can have high bias).
• Whether thresholds for success in a relevant context exist (e.g., minimum thresholds for eel-grass density or oxygen concentrations).
• Functional monitoring sampling designs should follow well-established protocols where they exist. Recommendations on specific sampling designs and protocols for a given metric are not provided as these are widely available (e.g., AFS Standard Methods, see Appendix 2).  
• Analyses of resulting data are design dependent and should be considered at the design stage to ensure appropriate spatial and temporal replication and interpretation. Setting decision criteria for determining whether the results of a functional monitoring program indicate success should be established a priori. These decision criteria should be regionally relevant and could be developed following a longer term effectiveness monitoring program.
• While a single checklist for all types of projects is not possible, a common checklist style approach is considered feasible to use to gather functional monitoring data if the same type of impact/management measure and sampling design is used across projects.
• A tiered checklist approach is recommended to provide some degree of national standardized data collection while remaining flexible. Tier 1 would provide the most national commonality across projects; tier 2 would provide project-specific commonality; tier 3 would allow for regional specificity, for example:
1. Basic information (e.g., information often gathered for compliance monitoring including georeferenced location, area of habitat altered by activity, type of habitat, type of management measure, etc.),
2. Information for all functional monitoring of a given type of management measure (e.g., culverts), and
3. Site/project/region/habitat specific information, to be elaborated with FPP & Science at the regional scale.
• While functional monitoring will in most cases provide site specific information about a given management measure, when taken together, results from multiple functional monitoring projects could be used to inform the evidence basis for future FPP advice and program development. Some degree of standard data collection and reporting will facilitate future collation and comparison of functional monitoring data.
• As results of functional monitoring on a particular type of management measure accumulate, power analyses can be conducted to identify the number of additional projects and the degree of precision and accuracy needed to address the overarching question of consistency of success in future meta analyses. Cautions should be employed when conducting meta analysis across designs since effect sizes will vary depending on design and may not be directly comparable.
• Effectiveness monitoring and functional monitoring can work together:
• Effectiveness monitoring can help establish decision criteria (e.g., for success) to evaluate the performance of functional monitoring metrics.
• Functional monitoring can extend time series of effectiveness monitoring as less onerous sampling programs may be sustained for longer time scales.
• Functional monitoring could identify the need for effectiveness monitoring in the future if results strongly deviate from expected.

This Science Advisory Report is from the February 26-28, 2018 on Science advice on operational guidance on functional monitoring: Surrogate metrics of fish productivity to assess the effectiveness of mitigation and offsetting measures. Additional publications from this meeting will be posted on the Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Science Advisory Schedule as they become available.

Complete document (PDF, 1,024 KB)

Accessibility Notice

This document is available in PDF format. If the document is not accessible to you, please contact the Secretariat to obtain another appropriate format, such as regular print, large print, Braille or audio version.