Dear Dinkey Collaborative members and interested parties,
Please review the following five items, including the call for any additional charter comments by close of business on Monday, January 7, and Julie Gott's explanation regarding assessment of Watershed Improvement Need site work.
1. DECEMBER 6 FULL COLLABORATIVE AND REESE UNIT TECHNICAL MEETING SUMMARIES ARE ATTACHED
The meeting summaries from the Collaborative's full meeting on December 6, and subsequent technical meeting for Reese Unit planning later that afternoon are attached.
2. DECEMBER 6 ACTION ITEMS ARE UPDATED AND ATTACHED
The action items are also posted on our google calendar site: https://sites.google.com/site/dinkeycollaborative/
3. ANY ADDITIONAL CHARTER COMMENTS REQUESTED BY COB JANUARY 7
If you missed the December 6 full Collaborative meeting and have comments on the proposed charter revisions, please send them to me by close of business on Monday, January 7. Revised proposed text will be distributed to the group on Wednesday, January 9, providing a week for review before the full Collaborative meeting on January 17.
4. SOCIOECONOMIC MONITORING SCOPE OF WORK
There was a question about the socioeconomic monitoring effort at the December 6 meeting. If you did not attend the May 17, 2012, meeting, where the Collaborative (with the exception of Mr. Chad Hanson) recommended to the Forest to implement the socioeconomic monitoring proposal prepared by Sierra Institute, I am attaching the proposal and phase 1 explication again here for convenience.
5. WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT NEED WORK ASSESSMENT
At the September meadows field visit, members asked whether an assessment of Watershed Improvement Need (WIN) over the past 20 years had been conducted. Ms. Julie Gott, District Hydrologist, provided the following information via email on December 4.
"There has not been a formal assessment and report of the WIN work, but sites are monitored over time. The data is recorded in a database, and we have linked it to spatial data. The field forms have been scanned to .pdfs, and are hyperlinked to the spatial data. The hyperlinked files include digital photos from approximately 2004 to present. I have not been able to locate the hardcopy photos and slides that were taken to accompany the older field forms.
Typically, sites are re-visited by seasonal employees when we begin to look at a project area, then I review the data and visit selected sites.
Treated sites are usually checked for several years after implementation to identify and complete any needed maintenance work.
In the past when we have had large storm events (especially rain on snow), efforts have been made to fully inventory the most affected areas. (This has not been practical when there’s a Forest-wide big snowmelt year like we had in 2011.)
Historically, the weakest part of our WIN site tracking has been implementation of treatments. Part of the problem is that our corporate WIN database was discontinued in the 1990s, and somehow the Sierra’s data was lost when that occurred. The system that we have been using was created on-Forest in the last ten years using the original field data. Some field forms note that work was done on a site in a certain year, but many sites have no record of treatments. (We can estimate approximate timeframes based on when vegetation management projects were implemented in the surrounding area, since that typically directs where the WIN efforts are.)
We now have a new corporate database for this purpose (Watershed Improvement Tracking – or WIT), so I expect that every aspect of the WIN sites, including implementation work, will now be well-documented. This will still be database-type reporting, though, not assessments.
As I indicated on our field trip, merely continuing to implement this strategy will generate an increasing workload as we plan more projects over larger areas and treat more sites. I believe there is enough opportunity in the Dinkey Landscape area to support a journey level Watershed and Meadow Restoration specialist. However, given FS budget realities, we may want to find a partner outside of the FS to assist with the post-implementation monitoring (or, even better, to complete a more formal assessment).
I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have additional questions.
Dorian Fougères, Ph.D., Senior Mediator
Center for Collaborative Policy
California State University, Sacramento
(916) 531-3835 - Direct Line/Cellphone