Mendocino Coast Cooperative Weed Management Area

Minutes of the Information Management Workgroup Meeting

February 23, 2006, 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon., Jackson Demonstration State Forest Office, 802 N. Main St., Fort Bragg

ASSIGNED TASKS SUMMARY:

Task 1- Objective- Conduct roadside survey

    a) Tara will write up screening procedure for species on roadside survey and reapply to full list, by March 9 for presentation to planning committee.
    b) Tara will post roadside survey forms on website,
    c) Tara will create a sample species identification page, and present at next EO workgroup meeting.

Task 2 - Objective- Finalized mid-level survey protocol by end of April

    a) Lynn & Tara will  review Matt's site-reconnaissance survey protocol and send comments to Matt by March  10
    b) Tara will ask Matt to give us definitions of terminology by February 24
    c) Matt - respond to comments at next workgroup meeting (March 23)

Task 3- Objective- develop specifications for high-level survey protocol by March 1
    a) data uses and principles for project-specific protocol: Tara e-mail Lynn note right away (February 24)
    b) Lynn will draft and send to Tara by end of 24th
    c) comments back to Lynn by start of 27th.
    d) present to Teresa on 1st

Task 4- Objective - complete IM Contribution to Strategic Plan by March 9
    a) Tara draft overall narrative for categorization by management objective, a few examples for presentation at planning meeting March 9, distribute by March 7

Task 5- Objective- publish results of Experts meeting on website under IM workgroup/ products by end of April

    a)Tara will develop spreadsheets for coarse-scale data to verify database structure, and test on data from Experts Meeting by March 23
    b) Tara will begin preparing supporting information for presentation of results of the Experts meeting on the website, and report on progress at the next IMWG meeting.

Task 6- Objective- complete testing and setup of WIMS database by end of May

    a) Tara define multiple owner Management Area: before next IM workgroup meeting
    b) Lynn -export JDSF Management Area: before next workgroup meeting

Task 7- determine if next meeting can be held online by March 1
    a) Lynn will research CDF rules on chat rooms,
    b) Tara will research same from webhost,
    c) Tara will ask Matt to test the chat room

ACTIONS SUMMARY:

  1. [Details] Agenda approved;
  2. [Details] Minutes of last meeting approved;
  3. [Details] Information Management Element of Draft Strategic Plan Template was edited at the meeting.
  4. [Details] Draft Brief Report of Workgroup Accomplishments and Needs
  5. [Details]Lynn will present for the IMWG at Planning Committee meeting, Mar 9, 2006.
  6. [Details] Next Information Management Workgroup Meeting set for Thursday March 23, 2006, 10AM-2PM, tentatively held online in the MCWMA Chat Room.

MEETING DETAILS:

Attending:

Documents forwarded by Tara in preparation for this meeting:

  1. Agenda for this meeting,
  2. Minutes of Last Meeting
  3. Draft Strategic Plan from Template
Hardcopies of these documents were distributed at the meeting.
The meeting was brought to order at  10:00 am.

ACTION ITEM: Agenda approved.

ACTION ITEM: Minutes of last meeting reviewed, approved with corrections to location and time.

ACTION ITEM: Information Management Element of Draft Strategic Plan Template was edited at the meeting.  Modifications have been incorporated into the  Strategic Plan Draft , Section III Program Elements/Section B Information Management

Discussion Item. Weed Survey Protocols
Topic: Roadside survey
The roadside survey form is in final draft version (until field-tested).  There is a need for a transparent procedure for list selection. 

Task 1- Objective- Conduct roadside survey

    a) Tara will write up screening procedure for species on roadside survey and reapply to the full list of MCWMA invasive weeds, by March 9 for presentation to planning committee.  The screening procedure is:
         Candidate species come from the full MCWMA invasive weed inventory, which should have already been screened to eliminate species of low impact.  To be on the roadside survey, a species must have either a distincitve form and/or a distinctive flower.  In the case of distinctive flowers, the blooming season determines the season that the species will be placed on the list.  If only the form is distinctive, the season will be determined by the time when the surroundings are such that the species is most easily observed (e.g. Cape ivy is most easily distinguished in winter by its bright green foliage in vine form.)
       From this subset of the full list, species will be placed on the form only if they meet the following requirements:
       1. absence of social constraints, e.g. high horticultural value;
        2. are not rare (e.g. Scotch heather);  rare species are placed on an "Alert Survey" Form;
    b) Tara will post windshield survey forms on website, as well as
    c) create a sample species identification page to be presented at next EO workgroup meeting and the Fort Bragg community meeting.
Recruiting and training of roadside surveyors will occur at the Fort Bragg community meeting, through targeted outreach to organizations such as CNPS, MLT, Garden Clubs, through hiring of student interns, and opportunistically through the website and individual contacts.

Topic. Mid-level survey
The mid-level survey protocol was developed by Matt Gerhart and distributed shortly before the meeting.  As we had not reviewed the protocol in advance of the meeting, we spent a lot of time going over the protocol.  The following questions and comments were derived from that discussion:

Task 2 - Objective- Finalized mid-level survey protocol by end of April

    a) Tara will ask (by February 24) Matt to give us definitions of terminology
       reconnaissance, baseline, plant cover, plot size, plant population, location offset
    b) Lynn & Tara will  review Matt's site-specific survey protocol and send comments to Matt by March  10
    c) Matt -please respond to comments at next workgroup meeting (March 23)
Comments.
    1. the survey description could form the basis of descriptions that distinguish between the 3 protocols.  In particular, each survey addresses a particular set of species, has a specific spatial resolution, and gathers data on a specified set of characterstics.
    2. a modification of methodology is needed for high canopy cover (e.g.  English ivy in several trees):  suggestion-collect data on average height as well as area
    3. should protocol include physical marking? suggestion: pre-survey checklist to determine need for physical marking
    4. plant cover: not included in roadside survey ( but perhaps it should be included in next pass, for more comprehensive regional overview),  the mid-level includes cover classes, the high-level survey might include quantity measures?
    5. plot (patch?) size: this data is not collected in the  roadside survey. In the mid- and high-level surveys, is size  measured in the same way?
     6. in the pre-survey checklist, determine the appropriate infestation geometry (linear, 2D or 3D) based on species and habitat characteristics
      7. need additional options for describing the patch size when the interior of the patch is not accessible (e.g. English ivy in a tree).  The estimate could be based on geometry and other characteristics.
    8. There could be a need, in some species, to divide the population according to height or age-classes (e.g. ground or climbing ivy, seedling or reproductively-mature gorse).  Suggestion: allow several lines for different categories within the same species.
    9.  Significant training is required to "calibrate" a beginning surveyor to the cover classes.
    10. To determine area of 2-D patches, the shape may be far from circular.  If the interior of a patch is accessible, mark a reference point with rebar if possible, then measure a number of radii- 4 at minimum (i.e. 2 diameters), 8 at maximum.  Record the orientation of radius using a compass(?).  Formulas are available to compute the area within 10% accuracy.  Is this level of accuracy necessary for the mid-level survey? (probably not) For the high-level survey? (probably)
   11.  Quicker method for area determination appropriate for mid-level survey: measure 2 diameters at approximately right angles.  The first diameter should measure the longest distance across the patch; the second should be perpendicular to the first.  It is not necessary to mark an interior point.  Area is calculated by the formula for area of an ellipse.
  12. Suggestion on order of collecting data, arranging on form: have all geographic/spatial quantitative measurements grouped together (location, offsets, area, cover, accuracy) and qualitative, biological information grouped separately (composition, vegetation).

Topic. Specifications for Project-Specific Protocol

Task 3- Objective- develop specifications for high-level survey protocol by March 1
    a) data uses and principles for project-specific protocol: Tara e-mail Lynn note right away (February 24)
(These notes were sent to the Workgroup by e-mail shortly after the meeting.  They are reproduced here without further editing.)

Specifications for High-Specific Protocol

 Data Use

Principles

data quality driven by data uses, will be project-specific
set suggested minimum quality for each data use
use sound statistical design (eg stratified sampling, adequate sample size, control (scientific) needed)

    b) Lynn will draft and send to Tara by end of 24th
    c) comments back to Lynn by start of 27th.
    d) present to Teresa on 1st

Discussion Item: IM Workgroup Contribution to Species Screening

Task 4- Objective - complete IM Contribution to Strategic Plan by March 9
    a) Tara draft overall narrative for categorization by management objective, a few examples for presentation at planning meeting March 9, distribute by March 7

The categories need to be defined.  The first decision is whether a species is eradicable.  The CDFA criteria were < 5 acres in a population and <20 acres in the entire county.  This is perhaps generous, as some studies have shown that populations of more than 1/2 acre are prohibitively expensive to eradicate.  Other characteristics of eradicable populations are that they are geographically isolated, episodic in time, the result of infrequent reintroduction and identifiable by baseline monitoring. (Example: heather)


If a species is determined to be non-eradicable, the next decision is whether it is containable.  Required characteristics include an identificable leading front within the potential range of the species. (Example: Arundo, acacia)

If the species doesn't meet fall into either of  these categories, the management goal becomes the establishment of refugia. (Example: Himalaya berry, jubata)

Discussion Item: IM Workgroup Website

Task 5- Objective- publish results of Experts meeting on website under IM workgroup/ products by end of April

    a) Tara will develop spreadsheets for coarse-scale data to verify database structure, and test on data from Experts Meeting by March 23

Input for the coarse-scale mapping will come in a variety of formats.  CDFA will send data on presence/absence in GIS layers at  resolution of sections.  Caltrans will send data by project/mile markers, not as GIS layers.  Roadside survey forms will have data by one-mile road segments.

This data will eventually be stored in a database; however, initially, a spreadsheet format will be used until the database structure has stabilized.  The spreadsheets will be transformed into MySQL databases and implemented for online access.  The data structure presently proposed is as follows:

    b) Tara will begin preparing supporting information for presentation of results of the Experts meeting on the website, and report on progress at the next IMWG meeting.

Additional information need in order to publish this product are a narrative description of the mapping meeting, pdfs of the resulting distribution maps.  These maps will be useful for orientation during the roadside surveys.  To be of use in this regard, the maps need to have all major and some minor roads, and geonames for labels.

ACTION ITEM: Draft Brief Report of Workgroup Accomplishments and Needs

It was noted that the implementation of the WIMS database in not making progress due to lack of participation by partners.

Task 6- Objective- complete testing and setup of WIMS database by end of May.

    a) Tara define multiple owner Management Area: before next IM workgroup meeting
    b) Lynn -export JDSF Management Area: before next workgroup meeting

ACTION ITEM: Lynn will present for the IMWG at Planning Committee meeting, Mar 9, 2006.

ACTION ITEM: proposed- conduct next IM workgroup meeting online in MCWMA chatroom.
This is dependent on the practicallity of the proposal and feedback from other members of the IMWG.

Task 7- determine if next meeting can be held online by March 1
    a) Lynn will research CDF rules on chat rooms,
    b) Tara will research same from webhost,
    c) Tara will ask Matt to test the chat room

ACTION ITEM: Next Information Management Workgroup Meeting set for Thursday March 23, 2006, 10AM-2PM, tentatively held online in the MCWMA Chat Room.  Agenda items for next meeting include review of the Strategic Plan Draft and Survey Protocols.

Note: the Information Management Workgroup deals with topics of a technical nature that are not readily accessible to the general public.  Therefore, the online meeting will not be noticed in the papers and so on, but will be posted on the website and in the newsletter.  People who enquire about participation in the MCWMA will only be advised to attend an Information Management Workgroup if they have sufficient technical expertise to understand and contribute to the project.

The meeting was adjourned at  2:20 pm.

Minutes recorded by Tara Athan.