2004-Current | 2003-2002 | 2001 | Meeting Agendas and Notes
August-September, 2008 (To Be Scheduled)
The RIEC agreed to a set of priority questions that will guide NWFP regional monitoring and research investments over the next decade.
The RIEC decided on NWFP monitoring options to pursue for priority questions including annual cost ceilings.
What is the status and trend of watershed condition? (M-5)
Option C – Watershed stream reach sampling with data integrated within a GIS decision support model. Additional direction: (1) Determine cost to transition PacFish/InFish Biological Opinion (PIBO) monitoring protocol to GIS framework. Want proof of concept on integrating PIBO and the Aquatic Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Program (AREMP) data within GIS decision model framework; (2) Suggest revisions for protocols and design for program; and (3) Senior Managers Group (SMG) to revisit decisions after additional information is available.
What is the status and trend of NSO habitat ? (MR-2)
Option A – Complete range wide habitat in-growth & loss every 10 years on Federal lands. Update habitat loss and change detection every 5 years. Additional direction: Explore how to estimate change in habitat due to losses from fire annually. The FS Remote Sensing Application Center (RSAC) is investigating this.
Did we accomplish planned activities and comply with standards and guides? (M-1)
Option A – Develop recommendations & options for protocols to standardize BLM/ FS annual reporting and mapping of ground disturbing activities including standards, elements to be tracked and costs. Additional direction: Consider including compliance for each mapped activity in database.
What is the status and trend of late-successional old-growth? (M-3)
Option B – Revise protocol to implement Interagency Mapping & Assessment Process (IMAP) program for Oregon, Washington, and California.
What is the status and trend of NSO populations? (M-11)
Option D – Continue current demography studies while evaluating a population survey approach (Option C). Complete transition plan (include options for strata and costs), pilot to test protocol, and peer review in Year 1. Additional direction: Goal is to complete transition in Year 2 to population survey approach, provided that the evaluation shows that the approach is cost effective and satisfies requirements for NSO population monitoring. Review transition plan at end of Year 1; consider peer review and pilot test results. In Year 2, make final decision regarding population survey approach and continuation of demographic studies.
What is the status and trend of MAMU habitat & populations? (M-4)
Option 1A – Continue current monitoring of populations and habitats for one year to complete data needed for power analysis, then re-evaluate to consider status of murrelet and other survey options.
What is the status and trend of socioeconomic well being? (MR-3)
Option A – Periodic regional analysis of existing data (e.g., 10-year census) Additional direction: Suggest process and options with cost estimates.
What is the status and trend of government-to-government
Option: Waiting for Interagency Tribal Monitoring Task Group (TMTG) to develop options and recommendations for RIEC consideration. The TMTG to report out by mid-April. This question will encompass other tribal related questions (e.g., M-9: Do American Indians have access to and use of forest species, resources, and places important for cultural, subsidence or economic reasons, particularly those identified in treaties? MR-8: Are sites of religious and cultural heritage being adequately protected? M-10: What is the status of trust resources identified in treaties with American Indians?).
(1) RIEC and staff were asked to provide input to John Laurence by February 14, 2006 on the draft Adaptive Management Framework concept paper.
(2) The RIEC was asked to review the priority questions package, in preparation for the March RIEC meeting (yet to be scheduled), to:
(3) Schedule a meeting in March 2006 for RIEC to make decisions regarding regional priority questions and options for answering these questions.
(4) Schedule two meetings to provide an opportunity for Senior Managers Group (SMG) and key agency staff (not represented by SMG) to meet with the task group members to answer questions and clarify the monitoring staff work. RIEC would like the SMG to meet and discuss potential options, rationale and pros/cons of those options, and availability of funding by agency. RIEC members would like feedback from their SMG members and staff prior to making a decision on regional priority questions and options to answer those questions.
(5) Research executives will continue discussions about priority research questions and will look for opportunities to collaborate. They will suggest areas where the research agencies may be able to join efforts and collaborate in order to provide answers to key research questions important to Federal land managers.
(6) The task group will complete the work on the management experiment templates prior to the next RIEC meeting. They will provide a summary of all existing management experiments, issues and costs.
1) Refine Regional Corporate Questions--This staff work will include refining priority questions wording, eliminating redundancies, determining potential options to answer the questions, and providing costs and uncertainties for the options. Staff will provide an update to the RIEC in December.
2) Prepare to discuss with the IAC--Several facets of this work will be discussed at the upcoming November IAC meeting.
3) Summarize Work on Existing Management Experiments--The RIEC asked for a summary of the work accomplished to date on extensive management experiments such as the BLM Density Management Studies, Five Rivers, Fort Lewis, Olympic Habitat Study, and the work in the Sierras. Staff should summarize existing work including findings, outcomes, effort expended and costs. The RIEC felt that they might be able to learn from the work that has already been completed. Staff will provide a summary of ongoing management experiments and a draft template for future management experiments in February or March.
4) Develop a Proposal for Reporting Progress on Regional Objectives--A task group (Jon Martin, FSR6; Miles Brown, BLM; and Dave Busch, USGS) was identified to work with Tom Quigley’s proposal regarding annual progress reporting and regional objectives. Tom’s proposal suggests managers are to report their perception on progress in meeting regional objectives for every acre on a yearly basis at the watershed level. This information would be consolidated regionally and could be portrayed in a series of map products. The task group should prepare a proposal for RIEC review by December.
Topic: Future Research/Monitoring Reports -In discussing the release of the 04 Interpretative Reports, the RIEC members wanted to ensure that they were informed... RIEC would like to have periodic briefings on report findings and issues as the manuscripts are being developed and finalized. The Research Executives were requested to revise the proposed peer review and release process for the 04 Interpretive Reports to be published by PNW, and present the process in the form of a document that the RIEC and non-agency authors could agree to. The Research Executives will continue dialogue on the Data Quality Act and peer review procedures, and look for opportunities to share experts and develop joint sources for external peer reviews ideas and expertise. The Research agencies will share information with one another about their respective data management, scientific review and report release policies to ensure strong collaboration on products for the RIEC.