Rare Plant Program

CNPS Rare Plant Program Planning Meeting Notes

Davis, CA
August 19, 2004 

Facilitator: Jim Nelson (DFG)
Facilitator assistant: Marin Lemieux (CNPS Membership Coordinator)

Attendees:
Ileene Anderson (CNPS Southern California Regional Botanist)
Roxanne Bittman (DFG-CNDDB)
Diana Hickson (DFG / CNPS Sacramento Valley Chapter & Board)
Ann Howald (CNPS RPP Director / Bristlecone and Milo Baker Chapters)
Tony LaBanca (DFG / CNPS North Coast Chapter)
Dianne Lake (CNPS East Bay Chapter)
Larry Levine (CNPS North Coast Chapter / CNPS Online Inventory)
Don Mayall (CNPS Santa Clara Valley Chapter)
Pam Muick (CNPS Executive Director)
Julie Nelson (Shasta-Trinity NF)
Rob Preston (Jones and Stokes / CNPS Inventory Ranking WG)
Misa Ward (CNPS Interim Rare Plant Botanist)
Carol Witham (CNPS President)
 

• Orientation

• Review of past process
• What is our vision of the Rare Plant Program
• Project presentations by sponsors
• Prioritization
• Gap assessment

     3:30 Wrap-up, Next steps, Conclusion
     4:00 Adjourn
 

Meeting purpose
Ann Howald thanked all the attendees and Jim Nelson for coming to the meeting.  The purpose of the meeting for the RPP is to hear what each person wants the RPP to do in the long-term.  Additionally, it is to determine which proposals people want the RPP to act on soonest.  She asked attendees to focus on the “what” of proposals rather than the “how” (resources).
 

• Review of planning process that has gone into developing these projects to help participants orient
• Put project proposals into priority order using group process
• Identify lead for each project proposal
• Identify next steps
• Conduct brief visioning exercise-what is the group’s vision of the CNPS Rare Plant Program in the future (5 years)
   

• to generate ideas for program
• wants group to feel that their ideas are heard and move forward with most productive proposals
• create direction for program
• list rare plants
• for everyone at meeting to say what they want and that they be honest
• clarify ideas and prioritize projects
• create vision for program
• help define program structure
• rank proposals and have a good discussion; obtain consensus if possible
• to participate in the science aspect to further improve the effectiveness of own job
• concrete action to protect all native plants
• make progress to keep program strong; strengthen state program to help chapter RPP’s
• help develop online inventory
• envision beyond 5 years for program
• strengthen rare plant volunteer community
• make clear decisions to generate excitement and optimism
   

Review of past process
Pam Muick presented a review of the past planning activities in the RPP:
October 8^th meeting – 20 attendees; wrote RPP Director job description.
January 28^th meeting – 35 attendees; working groups created
June 23^rd meeting – 25 attendees; discussed progress of  working groups, priorities, proposal leads assigned
August 19^th meeting – final planning meeting; the RPP planning process has been a good model for revitalization and transition of CNPS programs.

Visioning exercise
In talking with people prior to the meeting, Jim identified that there was a great desire to articulate what the program consists of.  The consensus was that the overall view was not clear.  Through a visioning exercise, the goal is to create a vision of the program in total.  Attendees were asked to think about various components and desired aspects of the program.  People jotted down the most important components that resulted from the thought process.  Each person reported one component at a time until all the ideas were captured on a large poster.  Check back here soon for a photo of the poster!  The categories and items articulated for the desired RPP vision are listed below. 

• Local rare plant committees

• Clear articulation of CNPS purpose and processes by all
• More training programs for chapters
• Conferences and symposia on a regular basis
   

• LRS-used for NEPA and CEQA

• Every chapter has list
   

• credible

• professional
• science-based

• legal protection is clear
• premier plant protection program in Northern America
   

• program description
• *stable staffing and budget
• standing committee with skills and knowledge to assist staff and help guide RPP
• process for taking input from chapters in program planning
• process for planning
• process for communication
• interaction with other programs
• IT support staff
• Recruit and train volunteers and staff at state and local levels      
       Double size of current volunteers and staff
       Bigger program with 5 or 6 full-time staff
• Close tie between state and chapters
• Collaborative environment

• Prepare listing package for all qualified species
• *Lobby for new laws
• Process for prioritizing listing petitions
   

• Conduit for plant literature
• Annual report on “the state of the flora”
   

• *NCCP involvement with every chapter

• quantified goals

• *rare plant preserves statewide
• protection and identification of important plant areas (referring to European system)
   

• species assessments
• active studies of plants in the field
• research ecological processes
• species conservation strategies

• increase conservation education

• raise profile of native plants

• education focused on middle school
• academic and conservation communities
• collaborative with other environmental groups
• CNPS member on each local commission

• Vegetation map of state

• Continued science-based identification of rare and endangered plants
• Web-based information distribution

• Integrate/collaborate with UCB Natural History online
• Respect because:

• Integrate rare and locally rare species
• Integrate inventory into flora (vegetation and rare plant programs)
• Data collection X 3
• 50% of known rare plant populations revisited and GPS’d

*Gaps in current program; see “Gap Assessment” section.

This vision is broad and reflects the need to integrate.  Note the many connections with other programs.  There is not a distinct line between programs.  The vision helps to focus on what is important, what we are doing well, and what needs there are.  In ranking the various projects, people should have this vision in mind.
 

Project evaluation criteria
What:

• Long-term benefit

• Feasibility

• Lacks other means

How:

• Resource availability

Each person was given 5 votes.  To cast their vote for a particular proposal, each person was asked to assign each number to a proposal.  1= least important and 5= most important.
 

Working group proposals
Click on a link below to see the full proposal documents:

CNPS Inventory Ranking

CNPS Inventory Dissemination

Listing Petitions and List of Nominated Species

Locally Rare:  Conference

Locally Rare:  Methodology

Locally Rare:  White Paper

Monitoring:  Conference

Monitoring:  Agency Reporting

Monitoring:  Fremontia Issue

Monitoring:  Website 

A brief summary of each proposal was posted on the wall and presented by the proposal sponsor (if present). The proposal summaries are below, with additional comments that were given during the meeting.

Discontinuation and Replacement of RED Code with Modifications to Ranking

• Retain the CNPS Lists 1-4 as a ranking tool, and discontinue the RED (Rarity-Endangerment-Distribution) Code.

• Replace E with a threat code extension, D with a CA endemic field, and display G and S Ranks.

• Make needed modifications to the RPP database and Rarefind to accommodate these changes.

• Resources needed:  rare plant botanist 38 hrs, CNDDB staff 60 hrs, Online Inventory volunteer 4 hours, Database volunteer 16 hours or database consultant $480

Comments:  Misa Ward and Roxanne Bittman are the proposal sponsors.  Misa presented the summary.  Ann Howald mentioned that a benefit of this proposal is the efficiency and time-savings in inventory data development.  Roxanne added that this system is more transparent to the public because the threat information is clearer.  A question was raised regarding whether Board approval was really needed to move forward with this change.  Clarification was provided; because this is a relatively major, visible change to a system that has been in place for such a long time, it requires Board review and approval in November.  Larry Levine mentioned that he could make the change on the online inventory as soon as approval is given and also display the new ranks alongside the old ones as a “provisional change.”  This will be decided by the Ranking working group.
 

Dissemination Plan for CNPS Inventory Data

• FY '05-'06:  RPP and Online Inventory (OI) manager work on improvements to OI

• FY '05-'06:  Produce user manual for OI

• FY '05-'06:  Publish interim list of all changes since the 6th edition Inventory

• FY '06-'07:  Form Inventory Publication committee and work on hardcopy format/distribution details

• FY '06-'07:  Publish alternative hardcopy (recommended annually for subsequent years)

• Resources needed: RPP director 123 hrs, RP botanist 331 hrs, Online Inventory manager 35 hrs, other volunteers 46 hrs, office staff 30 hrs, contract work (XX-Quote from John + 250 + 1-2,000), expenses $550

Comments:  Misa Ward (proposal sponsor) presented the summary.  The first meeting to discuss OI improvements will be during the September Chapter Council meeting.  Pam Muick mentioned that in any publications, the issue of acknowledgements and authorship should be resolved early in the process.
 

Improving Public Agency Plant Monitoring and Reporting to CNDDB

• Discussions between Rare Plant and Conservation Program staff with high-level agency botanists to identify required and desired monitoring and reporting

• Training of chapter volunteers in working with field-level agency botanists and in influencing decision-makers in their local public land agency to increase monitoring and reporting

• Time required over one year trial and evaluation period: 100 hours of Program staff time; 130 hours of paid or volunteer state office staff; 10 hours volunteer time per month per participating chapter

Comments:  Diana Hickson and Don Mayall (proposal sponsors) presented the summary.  Julie Nelson provided a suggestion for meetings with high-level agency staff.  For example, it’s often  effective to arrive prepared with statistics about the number of species or average age of CNDDB records for occurrences on a national forest.  Diana clarified that the training of chapter volunteers would involve the dissemination of the approach in working with agency field staff (determined at the meetings with high-level staff), not on monitoring itself.

Locally Rare and Monitoring Working Groups: CNPS Symposium

1. Recruit co-chairs and steering committee

2. Scope event date and location

3. Send RFPs, review results

4. Formulate budget, write grants, design registration process/materials 

5. Invite speakers and advertise event

6. Resource needs (wild guess): 5-10% of Executive Director and Development Director (80 hours) time for (four months)

Comments:  The proposal sponsor is Gordon Leppig.  Ann Howald provided the summary.  She explained that this idea was initially conceived as a conference focusing on issues related to the conservation of locally rare species.  However, as the monitoring working group also decided to recommend a conference, the conference scope became more comprehensive to include topics from both working groups.

Listing Petitions

• Based on the combined state-wide list, select for petitioning at the state or federal level:

• 2005-06 – 1 species

• 2006-07 – 2 species

• 2007-08 – 3 species

• The Working Group will continue to develop guidelines for strategic listings.  These guidelines will indicate the most vulnerable species and prioritize species for listing (or conservation plans). 

• Support volunteer petitions based on their incorporation of the above yet-to-be-developed Guidelines.  A CNPS rare plant program review of draft petitions would be required for any petition submitted with CNPS affiliation.

• Work with the Development Director to acquire funding for either additional Rare Plant staff or contract staff to write/review petitions.  Team with other conservation-oriented organizations who have shown past interest in rare plant petitions

• Resources needed:  Per petition, ~150 hours (over 3 months) rare plant botanist time or $3,000 for consulting botanist

Comments:  Ileene Anderson (proposal sponsor) presented this summary.  There were no questions.

A Methodology for Establishing Locally Rare Programs for CNPS Chapters

• A presentation of guidelines to help CNPS chapters establish their own locally rare programs based on the four currently existing locally rare programs of the Ventura County, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and East Bay Chapters.

• Submit draft to Locally Rare Working Group and to chapters with current locally rare programs for review, additions, and editing.

• Submit Methodology to State CNPS for distribution to Chapters, or for combination with papers by Gordon Lepping and David Magney into a Locally Rare Manual to be distributed to chapters.

• Resources Needed: Staff time and production costs needed to combine 3 papers and print them as a Locally Rare Manual and distribute it to CNPS chapters around the state.

Comments:  Dianne Lake (proposal sponsor) presented this summary.  She clarified that the product of this proposal would be combined with Gordon Leppig’s white paper on peripheral populations and David Magney’s paper on legal means of protecting locally rare species  to form a manual for chapters.  Estimated cost is tough determine, but state CNPS would combine these into a publication with an introduction.  Pam Muick mentioned that training for chapters might be needed and perhaps could be done through regional workshops.  Misa Ward asked whether there would be an attempt to standardize criteria for defining locally rare in the methodology description.  Carol Witham clarified that since this will be used as a local planning tool, differing criteria among chapters are needed.

Web-based Monitoring Information

• Research existing rare plant monitoring information available on the web.

• Contact state and federal agency personnel, reserve managers, and any other relevant sources that may have experience with rare plant monitoring to gather useful information and have input on the project

• Consolidate information onto one website, based out of the CNPS main webpage

• Create links to federal, state, and non-profit websites as appropriate

• Develop a literature database accessible through the website; this may consist of developing a database or adapting an existing one.

• Resources and Staff: Computer access,  Web page development skills (200 hours), Database development skills (100 hours), Editor (20 hours); Work would be completed with existing staff and computers.

Comments:  Jane Rodgers is the proposal sponsor.  Ann Howald presented the summary.  She clarified that CNPS would be responsible for maintaining current, statewide information on monitoring (i.e. a clearinghouse for monitoring literature, not data from studies).  Many details of this proposal need to be fleshed out.  The consensus is that a similar literature database is not being compiled by another group.

Fremontia Special Issue on Monitoring

• Proposes CNPS publish a special issue of Fremontia devoted to monitoring sensitive plant taxa and natural communities in California in 2006.

• Assemble special issue committee and choose a convening editor.

• Create special issue plan and timeline

• Develop prioritized list of topic and authors.

• Contact authors and provide guidance to those who accept invitation to submit.

• Convening editor, special issue committee and peer reviews conducted

• Convening editor works with Fremontia editor to create special issue

• Resources needed:  similar publishing costs to recent special issues.  These costs would include staff time (Fremontia editor, CNPS Press, Executive Director),  publishing, and distribution costs.  Volunteer time to create content (committee and convening editor). 

Comments:  Tony LaBanca (proposal sponsor) presented the summary.  Julie Nelson asked how the issue would differ from Willoughby’s book on Measuring and Monitoring Plant Populations.  Tony clarified that this would be more of a reference with examples from the CA flora rather than a reference on methods.  Carol Witham mentioned that this issue could occur at the same time as the symposium.  Rob Preston offered that this type of material seems more appropriate in symposium proceedings rather than Fremontia, which has a more general audience.  Pam Muick announced that Linda Vorobik will leave her position as Fremontia editor and that there will be a year overlap for training of a new editor.

White Paper and Article on the Conservation of Locally Rare Populations

• A CNPS “white paper” and peer-reviewed essay that summarizes the conservation significance of locally rare (peripheral) populations and the adequacy of current conservation approached is proposed. 

• Submit Draft to Locally Rare Working Group and others for review.

• Submit white paper to Fremontia and post on CNPS website.

• Submit article to the journal California Fish and Game.

• RESOURCES NEEDED:  printing costs for Fremontia, negligible Fremontia staff and webmaster time, 130 hours volunteer time (100 hrs authors, 30 hrs WG)

Comments:  Gordon Leppig is the proposal sponsor.  Ann Howald provided the summary and clarified that this work is already in progress and does not require additional resources from the RPP.  Therefore, this proposal does not need to be included as a voting item in the ranking.

Conservation and Research Plans

• CRP group to carefully review the revised Conservation Plan outline via conference call.

• CNPS Rare Plant program will assist in circulating students’ conservation plans for peer review for Elizabeth Friar’s RSA class 2004-05.

• Resources needed:  $40 for conference call, WG volunteer time, 8 hours rare plant botanist time.

Comments:  Pam Muick presented the summary.  This project is proceeding at RSA, so it does not need to be voted on during the ranking.  Pam clarified that the RPP will provide input and evaluate the final products.

Proposals (sponsors) and scores resulting from the voting:

#1 - Inventory dissemination plan=42 (Misa)
#2 - CNPS symposium=34 (Gordon and Clare)
#2 - Listing=34 (Ileene)
#3 - Improve agency monitoring and reporting=26 (Diana and Don)
#3 - RED code modification=26 (Misa and Roxanne)
#4 - Establish locally rare program for chapters=24 (Dianne)
#5 - Web-based monitoring information=9 (Jane)
#6 - Fremontia special monitoring issue=6 (Tony) 

Conservation and research plans=not voted on because it was decided that it would occur regardless of voting (Pam)

Locally rare population conservation article=not voted on for same reason (Gordon)
 

Summary and Next Steps
Ann Howald summarized that RPP is clearly important to CNPS and CA.  The vision is very inclusive and emphasizes science-based activities and the need for more collaboration.  All proposals will go forward.  Next steps:

• Communicate with others the results of our meeting
• Ann and Misa will prepare a program plan for ‘05-‘06
• Incorporate vision ideas into program description and longer term planning process
• Use Gap analysis in cross-program meeting to see if other programs could fill in some of these
• Working groups: communicate specifics to chairs for further discussion