1 / 29

Reporting Lessons Learned from the Northwest Forest Plan s Experiences

Overview. Background on Northwest Forest PlanReporting strategyLessons learnedRecommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1994. 95. 97. 98. 99. 2000. 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. 2006. 96. Timeline. . . . . . . . . . . . . Prepare monitoring plans. Hire staff. Prepare annual reports. Prepare 10-year i

minowa
Download Presentation

Reporting Lessons Learned from the Northwest Forest Plan s Experiences

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


    1. Reporting Lessons Learned from the Northwest Forest Plan’s Experiences Craig Palmer Mojave Network Data Manager University of Nevada, Las Vegas

    2. Overview Background on Northwest Forest Plan Reporting strategy Lessons learned Recommendations

    3. Timeline

    4. Northwest Forest Plan 1993 at direction of President Clinton Resolve conflict over timber management and protection of natural resources (e.g. spotted owl) 10 million hectares (24 million acres) Federal Government land management units (USFS, BLM, NPS) 100 year plan

    5. Monitoring is a requirement

    6. Covering the range of the northern spotted owl, the NWFP includes 62 million acres – of which 24 million are federal lands The organization includes 8 cooperating agencies and the Regional Monitoring Team is staffed with employees from Forest Service, Bureau of Land management, and Fish and Wildlife Service Not shown here is the list of interagency science teams with members from USGS, EPA, NPS, PNW, PSW, State Agencies and othersCovering the range of the northern spotted owl, the NWFP includes 62 million acres – of which 24 million are federal lands The organization includes 8 cooperating agencies and the Regional Monitoring Team is staffed with employees from Forest Service, Bureau of Land management, and Fish and Wildlife Service Not shown here is the list of interagency science teams with members from USGS, EPA, NPS, PNW, PSW, State Agencies and others

    7. Review of other monitoring programs Broad spatial scale Ecological focus Multiple resource issues Long-term Contributing to ongoing management decision-making

    8. Primary reasons for failure of monitoring programs No link to decision-making Poor basis for selection of measurements (indicators) Little ecological or scientific foundation Lack of emphasis on data quality and accessibility

    9. Approaches Recommended for Monitoring Linkage to decision-making Adaptive management Prospective monitoring Reporting Indicator selection Seven step process Ecological foundation Conceptual model for habitat monitoring Data quality and accessibility Structured quality assurance program Identification of essential data from external programs

    10. Approach to Reporting Adaptive management cycle Conceptual model for reporting Role of annual and interpretive reports

    11. Adaptive Management Cycle

    13. Lessons Learned Value of annual reports Effort required for interpretive reports Data management issues

    14. Benefits of Annual Reports Motivate staff to process data Tangible products for accountability Building blocks for interpretive reports Builds client base

    15. 10- Year Interpretive Report

    17. Synthesis report topics What was expected? What actually occurred? How different are they? Were these differences caused by the Plan? How certain are you? Are the assumptions (premises) of the Plan still valid?

    18. Data Management Issues

    19. Data Types

    20. We compared the corporate system road layer to Digital Ortho Quad Maps (shown on left) for 38 watersheds. We compared the corporate system road layer to Digital Ortho Quad Maps (shown on left) for 38 watersheds.

    21. Ranking of issues

    22. Ranking of Issues Level Impact Value Very High Could not complete section in report 4 High Section completed with limitations 3 Moderate Delayed completion of section of report 2 Low Section completed on time - but with significant effort 1 None No impact to this module's report 0

    23. Top ranking issues

    24. Streams Issue- inconsistent identification of streams (intermittent) Impact- most module reports impacted Vision- interagency regional hydrography data layers collected in a consistent manner

    25. Land Use Allocation Map Updated land use allocation map Issue- does not include riparian reserves Impact- most module reports impacted e.g. dispersal habitat for owls, evaluation of watershed health Vision- LUA coverage that includes riparian reserves

    26. Activities Restoration, harvests, thinning etc. Issue – spatial data not collected for activities Impact – most module reports impacted, required work-arounds Vision – regional activities database with spatial information

    27. Vegetation Mapping Used remotely sensed maps, plot data sets, data analysis tools, created habitat maps (northern spotted owls, marbled murrelets) Issue- difference between CA (polygons) and WA/OR (pixels) Impact-most module reports Vision- single approach to vegetation mapping

    30. Recommendations to the I&M Program related to Reporting Consider the role of reporting in the adaptive management cycle Encourage annual reports Provides many benefits Consider the importance of periodic interpretive reports Will require outside help and involvement Begin now to identify your external data needs Begin now to address data management obstacles

More Related