Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

Participants Jim Geiselman_ Chris Jordan_ Jen Bayer_ Steve Leider by panniuniu

VIEWS: 2 PAGES: 5

									                                 IMW MEETING NOTES

PNAMP Intensively Monitored Watersheds Subgroup of the Effectiveness
Monitoring Workgroup

Meeting: 9-3, January 19, 2006, Gifford Pinchot National Forest Office, Vancouver

Participants: Jim Geiselman (BPA), Chris Jordan (NMFS), Jen Bayer (PNAMP), Steve
Leider (WA GSRO), Jill Leary (LCREP), Steve Waste (NPCC), Deb Konnoff (USFS),
Michael Newsom (BOR), Andy Yost (ODF), Steve Katz (NMFS), Liz Dent (ODF), Jeff
Rodgers (ODFW), Eric Gilbert (ODFW), Bill Ehinger (WA ECY), Amy Simmons (OSU)


Introduction (Steve Leider) Note: This is only the second meeting devoted entirely to
IMW issues (first was January 2005).

The IMW Plan was completed April 2005, and is now addressing the first phase of the
multi-phase implementation plan.
Q: is network “closed”? How do additional ideas get included? USFS has several historic
monitoring efforts that are not reflected in Plan.
A: not closed, do have criteria for addressing inclusion as part of the IMW network.

Review of Plan
As a refresher, Leider presented the IMW PPT that was made to the PNAMP Steering
Committee in April 2005 (PNAMP strategy context, criteria, network, implementation
plan, next steps). That PPT is available on the PNAMP website.
Q: how do limiting factors play into criteria for IMW selection; how does watershed size
(related to limiting factors) fit into criteria?
A: text of Plan addresses concept of limiting factors but not necessarily well reflected in
criteria for inclusion
Q: has analytical approach been defined for how data resulting from IMWs will answer
questions; how will data be assembled; need to do this to establish “proof of concept”
A: not more than what’s in Plan; hope to hear progress from folks actually working in the
identified IMWs later in this meeting.

Review of Next Steps as Outlined in 2005-2006 Workplans (from the IMW Plan
PNAMP 2005)
 Market IMW strategy
 Host IMW summit
 Describe each IMW in more detail
 Overlay results from classification exercise & assess gaps
 Provide analytical design and analytical support
        o Individual and meta-scale for PNW
 Pursue clustering of restoration and protection projects in IMWs (helpful information
   for NPCC and other project selection processes)
 Coordinate with data workgroup to identify and address data access and sharing
   issues (first, why share what data; then what are hurdles; what don’t we have)
   (linkages to NED Workshop)
 Funding assistance
 Report to executive network


                                             1
Implementation Plan (excerpted from the IMW Plan PNAMP 2005)
The action plan outlined below identifies key tasks using a phased strategic approach.
Implementing in phases will allow IMWs identified in initial work to be further reviewed
and analyzed, and changes will be made to refinements or modify subsequent phases.

Phase 1: identify and evaluate initial IMWs guided by and in the context of stated policy
and technical criteria and classification information
   1. describe initial IMW opportunities based on criteria
   2. stratify/classify PNAMP area
   3. review placement of initial IMWs in context of criteria and classification
   4. identify preliminary limits to extrapolation of results based on initial opportunities
   5. assess and review policy implications of Phase 1 IMW network with Executives

Phase 2: review/refine initial IMW selection criteria as needed, including changes in
policy context, possible refinement of policy-relevant statistical and other criteria (e.g.,
number of IMWs per target strata; meta-design and analyses; timeframes)
    1. identify gaps in coverage consistent with refined criteria
    2. identify and prioritize candidates to address gaps
    3. perform scoping or feasibility analyses, etc as needed
    4. identify final IMW priority candidates
    5. identify work needs for subsequent phases
    6. assess and review policy implications of Phase 2 IMW work with Executives

Phase 1 and beyond: (ongoing implementation and integration of IMW products)
 o support development and refinement of experimental designs for individual IMW
    efforts
 o support development of cross-network design guidance and implementation
 o identify/expand collaborators and partners
 o identify technical and policy gaps in implementation of current and/or new IMWs
 o identify funding needs and assist development of funding strategies
 o bring policy issues to the attention of the PNAMP Steering Committee and
    Executive Network

PNAMP IMW products:
   Host annual IMW reviews (separately, or as part of larger PNAMP information
     exchange efforts) to (1) summarize progress, (2) identify key results, and (3)
     identify and address coordination issues within the PNAMP IMW network, and
     regarding other PNAMP activities (project effectiveness monitoring, status and
     trend monitoring, etc). This may include coordination those performing focused
     studies in watersheds outside the PNAMP IMW network.
   PNAMP IMW Implementation Reports




                                               2
Discussion:
 need someone at the steering wheel;
 need to clarify what is meant by funding assistance, and what opportunities exist;
 need to understand the implications of some IMWs continuing for specific (individual
   agency) needs, and be able to plan for using information;
 gap analysis (what we need for various ESU/limiting factors v. opportunities for info
   gathering from IMW);
 some suggested the need for clarification of the specific benefits of IMWs (will
   motivate better support by potential partners), via an explicit demonstration
   (modeling/simulation) of what is to be gained by taking IMW approach vs other
   approaches (could also identify tradeoffs). For example, what can and cannot
   be learned by the IMW approach? Contrast with other approaches (e.g., LTER,
   model watersheds, distributed effectiveness research). Simulations or
   modeling could better articulate how we can learn from our cumulative work.
   BPA is working on a step-down approach;
 note the reality that implementation has occurred in some cases without the
   benefit of demonstration simulation. These will continue forward with or
   without additional PNAMP coordination, demonstrations.
 should clarify that IMW monitoring designs includes deliberate manipulation in
   addition to monitoring (in at least some cases). Need to elevate the IMW
   testing concept (item above) into the policy/decision making realm; a
   demonstration via simulations and interpretation could help better explain the
   essential nature of this type of monitoring of effectiveness of actions;
 how can we scope out tackling this as a project? There seemed to be
   agreement in principle (that the effort might help some entities), but more
   informative detail is needed for some folks to ascertain their levels of interest.
   How to proceed?
   ACTION: Chris Jordan will work on drafting an approach for the effort for
   routing to the subgroup for further discussion and fleshing out.
 OSU Watershed Research Cooperative goal is similar to IMW and may present an
   emerging coordination opportunity (we need to learn more about this)


2. Landscape Classification Project Update (Chris Jordan)
Chris Jordan presented a PPT update on his ongoing classification work as it relates to
IMW plan (e.g., extrapolation of results, identification of gaps in IMW coverage), that was
made to the IMW subgroup in January of 2005.

X Jen will post Chris Jordan’s talk on the PNAMP website

Classification plans for 2006: map for first process (immutable layer) will be complete
this year, with technical information included in the WA IMW report this spring/summer,
with targeted completion of documentation by the end of 2006.

Link to fish responses will be tied to the processes relationships. Use of classification for
our IMW efforts will also relate to policy, species, and other overlays regarding priorities.
Chris welcomes comments, suggestions.

Deb Konnoff: similar task underway USFS R6: looking for associations that may help
explain differences in stream inventory. Brett Roper is leading this exercise.


                                             3
3. IMW Status Reports/Updates
          a. Washington - Bill Ehinger provided an overview of IMW efforts in
             Washington via PPT (X Bill will send his PPT to Jen who will post it on the
             PNAMP website). Emphasized were efforts in experimental IMW clusters
             in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Skagit (estuary), with limited discussion of
             clusters of IMW streams in Hood Canal and Lower Columbia IMW. A
             progress report is being prepared that should be completed this spring. It
             will include study plans for all of the IMWs he is working on. After review
             by the Washington’s Independent Science Panel a complete report is
             expected by the end of summer.

           b. Oregon (phone) - Jeff Rodgers reported on efforts in Oregon coastal life
              cycle monitoring sites, which have been active since 1998. They are
              working on a restoration plan, including what monitoring should be done.
              A new OWEB effectiveness monitoring coordinator is coming on board
              that should lead to improved coordination of IMW efforts in Oregon.

              Liz Dent provided an overview of progress in the Trask River, where
              emphasis is on evaluations of headwater stream responses to forest
              management, both in situ and downstream effects. The timeline is being
              worked out, but generally should involve calibration (‘08), treatments (’09-
              ‘10), and post-treatment (through ’13). A draft of this effort is in progress
              and should be completed soon.

              Amy Simmons briefly outlined work in Hinkle Creek, which also
              emphasizes forest management (as outlined above for the Trask). A 2-
              year calibration phase will be followed by treatments in ’07-’09, with
              project activities through ’11. She also noted that the OSU Watersheds
              Research Cooperative is doing some IMW-related work.

           c. California (no report)

           d. Columbia River - Chris Jordan provided an update on activities in the
              Wenatchee, Entiat, John Day and Lemhi. Emphasis in the Wenatchee is
              related to supplementation activities, with much less attention to
              restoration projects at this time. The Entiat is a potential watershed scale
              “treatment” aiming at larger scale impacts from multiple projects. The
              complexities of the John Day present various IMW-related opportunities
              (e.g.,, Upper South Fork “control” and Lower SF “treatment”; Middle Fork
              presents options but there is nothing active there at this time. Emphasis in
              the Lemhi is related to ongoing deliberations associated with the HCP
              (management of the hydrograph; planned reconnections). Access to
              products and documentation of the above exist and will be available via
              Chris’s website soon. ACTION: Chris will share the web link with
              Steve and Jen ASAP.

              Michael Newsom briefly outlined work in the Methow subbasin, which is
              slated for review by the Independent Science Review Panel this spring.




                                            4
               All of the above Columbia Basin efforts are associated with federal pilot
               RME projects.

NEXT STEPS:
 Consider options for an IMW summit or workshop that would bring together the
  various policy and technical folks involved in IMW efforts across the PNAMP area to
  address (what our vision for the role of IMWs is; what is being done that fits our IMW
  concept; where are efforts most consistent; and where would flexibility be needed for
  efforts to better fit with the IMW concept). This could include sorting out relationships
  to PNAMP/CSMEP practitioner’s workshop scheduled for this spring, relationships to
  the Effectiveness Monitoring Workshop being planned by Oregon, or an altogether
  separate IMW event.
  ACTION: Steve Leider will coordinate with Jen to see how this might best be
  accomplished.

   Initiate development of an IMW collaboration demonstration/simulation effort that
    would include elucidating the scientific basis for IMW large-scale experimentation,
    and improve scientific/technical communication of needed technical refinements and
    policy relevance.
    ACTION: Chris Jordan will work on drafting an approach for the effort for
    routing to the subgroup for further discussion and fleshing out.

   Work toward preparation of a PNAMP IMW implementation progress report this year.




                                             5

								
To top