TurnipseedReview


 * Turnipseed Application Review**


 * 2010 Dec 10 - Turipseed Preserve approved as first WakeNature Preserve**

2010 Dec 2: Vote by email by 10 Dec to Toddi Steelman either ...
 * YES, I approve that Wake County Parks, Recreation, and Open Space's Turnipseed Preserve be designated as a WakeNature Preserve
 * NO, I do NOT approve that Wake County Parks, Recreation, and Open Space's Turnipseed Preserve be designated as a WakeNature Preserve
 * ABSTAIN


 * 2010 Nov 18 - Review comments, revised management plan as per review comments -** **this is the plan being voted on**
 * Revised plan, with "Track Changes" - [] (23 Mb)
 * Review committee comments - [] (45 Mb)
 * Letter explaining changes that were not made - []

**2010 Sept 15 -** **Management plan and** r**evised application - this is what the committee reviewed**
 * Cover letter - original still valid - [|TurnipseedCoverLetter.2010.05.20.pdf]
 * Revised application form - pending changes to form - OK to proceed without (or view original) - [|TurnipseedApplication.2010.05.20.pdf]
 * Management Plan (doc) - [|TurnipseedManagementPlan.2010.09.15.doc]


 * Review Committee**
 * George Hess (NCSU, chairman, non-voting)
 * Scott Anderson (Wildlife Resources Commission representative)
 * Leigh Ann Cienek (Triangle Land Conservancy representative)
 * John Connors (NC Museum of Natural Sciences representative)
 * Scott Pohlman (NC Natural Heritage Program representative)
 * Melissa Salter (Raleigh Parks, municipal government representative)

**The review subcommittee met on 2010 Oct 19 10A-12:30P at Triangle Land Conservancy's offices.**

**Committee present:** Hess (NCSU, chairman, not voting), Anderson (NC Wildlife Resources Commission), Cienek (Triangle Land Conservancy), Connors (NC Museum of Natural Sciences), Pohlman (NC Natural Heritage Program). **Committee absent:** Salter (Raleigh Parks) **Others present:** Snow (Wake County Parks, Recreation, and Open Space

**Question 1:** Does the site have features that qualify it as a WakeNature Preserve? (based on WNPP Criteria ) **Result:** Yes, by consensus. The management plan provided ample documentation of the presence of qualifying features. WNPP sets no standards as to nature or number of such features required.

**Question 2:** Does the management plan address adequately the protection and management of those features? (again, with reference to WNPP Criteria, and particularly the management priority and preserve alternation sections of those criteria) **Result:** Some changes are required to the plan to satisfy the committee.

**Motion:** The ad-hoc review committee approved (or recommends approval of) Wake County Parks, Recreation, and Open Space's application for Turnipseed Preserve to be accorded WakeNature Preserve status, subject to changes in the management plan suggested by the committee. (made by Pohlman, seconded by Anderson) **Result:** Approved 4-0

**Next steps:** Each committee member has mark-ups to the document that will be sent to Hess for tracking purposes. Hess will transmit to Snow. Snow will make requested changes and send back to Hess for verification. Once verified, the provisional status will be removed and Snow will be notified that he may call Turnipseed a WakeNature Preserve.

**Review Questions and Evaluation Criteria Development** As this is our first time reviewing a plan, I'm (george) going to ask for your in creating a review form for future reviews and feedback. As you go through the plan, I'd like you to be very conscious of the way in which you're thinking about whether or not it's a good plan. Write down the kinds of questions you're asking yourself and how you're answering them. Hess questions
 * Is the application in order (all parts present, all required items included)? [ What's missing ]
 * Does the site contain qualifying features for WakeNature?
 * Does the plan contain appropriate management prescriptions for each qualifying feature? [ How can I tell? If "No," what are the problems? ]
 * Do you believe that the qualifying features will be conserved if the management plan is followed? [ How can I tell? If "No," what are the problems? ]
 * Are there parts of the plan that seem incomplete, and, if so, is it so incomplete to warrant rejection, or do we simply need to give some guidance and move on?

**The action item for the meeting is to approve or deny the application** - I expect us to reach that decision at this single meeting. Denial would likely be accompanied by directions for improvement and resubmission, in which case we'd have to repeat the process.

So I think two things would be helpful:

(1) Written comments on the plan - especially places where it could be improved. If you're printing out the plan, you could simply make hand-written comments on the document and be prepared to turn a copy of that over to WakeNature. If you're not printing the plan, you could make comments with track changes, or simply create a memo with suggested changes and other comments, referencing section and page.

(2) A short summary statement with your recommendation for approving or denying, supported by an account of your reasoning.

We're creating this process as we move through it, so the value of #2 is mostly that it gives you a chance to come to the meeting with an opening position. Through discussion, your opinion might change, so I would not view this summary statement as binding in any way.

Toward the end of the meeting, I think we, as a committee, will want to come to a consensus statement of our recommendation for approval or denial, with an explanation of our reasoning.

I hope this makes sense to all - please feel to comment if not.

george hess 2010 Sept 23


 * OLDER ITEMS BELOW THIS LINE**

This is our first application, and we'll be using it to help develop a review process. As you're reviewing this, please imagine that we haven't been working on this for 2+ years and that it has come in from an organization that we've not worked so closely with.
 * How would you evaluate its adequacy?
 * What would you be looking for?
 * What criticisms would you have?
 * What other thoughts do you have?

Our current version of procedures is documented on the Application and Review page. We'll revise and enhance this page once we've gone through this process, to provide more complete information for future applicants.

Application package, submitted 2010 May 20:
 * Cover letter - [|TurnipseedCoverLetter.2010.05.20.pdf]
 * Application - [|TurnipseedApplication.2010.05.20.pdf]
 * Management Plan - [|TurnipseedManagementPlan.2010.03.05.pdf]
 * Management Plan (Doc) - [|TurnipseedManagementPlan.2010.03.05.docx]
 * Revised Plan (Doc) - [|TurnipseedManagementPlan.2010.07.30.docx]

//From Gary Perlmutter, 21 May 2010// - I had reviewed the Plan previously, and have made some comments: [|Turnipseed+Management+Plan+review.doc]. Now looking at it again, I would like to see a greater format and orgainzation consistency with the Management Plan Template, plus include appendices as referenced, such as maps, species lists and other information as these are available. I was confused with the cover letter listing five parcels when the Management Plan references to only four parcels. In the Natural Features section, I would include geology with soils description, and enlarge the imbedded map to read its legend easier. I would also like to see a plant / vegetation diversity overview section in there, ahead of the Wildlife Diversity Overview, and move the Lichen Diversity Overview inbetween. But despite these issues, the information in regards to meeting the criteria for Wake Nature Preserve seems adequate. I would support designating the Turnipseed site as a Wake Nature Preserve with improvements made to the management plan.

//From George Hess 1 June//

General issues and questions - these mostly have to do with defining WNPP policy and procedures.
 * We should send an acknowledgement when we receive an application. This should indicate an approximate review schedule.
 * Last checklist on application – asks whether management plan addresses 8 different issues. Do we //require// that all be addressed? What if it doesn’t? Which ones are required vs optional, or is it not that clear cut? NOTE from 2 June meeting: Yes, all should be required - but need revisions to bring into alignment with plan template
 * At what point is there “enough” information to say “Yes, this should be a WNPP and we trust that the agency is going to carry out appropriate management?” How much “seat-of-the-pants” work is OK? NOTE form 2 June: unclear - must appear to be a serious enough effort. Needs more thinking
 * Our management plan template does not require an executive summary – I think it should (Turnipseed includes one). However, the ExecSum for Turnipseed does not summarize (1) why this place qualifies for a WNPP or (2) the management actions proposed. I think it should be revised to include – esp as it’s likely to be used as an example for future applicants. NOTE from 2 June: agreed
 * The submitted mgmt plan does not match the template – I assume we’re more concerned that it deals with the items in the template, but just want to make sure. If this is the case, do we want to change from “template” to something else – like “Things to include in management plan”? And then we get back to the question of what //must// be included and what's OK to omit. NOTE from 2 June: Create a revised checklist that matches our plan template, but do not attempt to force all to conform. On the application, allow applicant to crosswalk their plan with requirements - in other words, indicate which part of their plan addresses our requirements if they don't follow our template
 * Do we want to require mapping of Wildlife Action Plan habitat, as Jacquelyn Wallace has suggested? NOTE from 2 June: Yes - map the things that qualify property for WNPP status

Specific to this management plan ...
 * Why isn’t there a property location map in Section II? There’s also no map showing where each of the 4 parcels referred to in 2.1 (Scope) are. Why aren’t PINs listed?
 * Many maps and appendixes are missing – the plan is incomplete.
 * I’ve reached page 7 and still don’t know why this should be a preserve – that should be made clear up front. A summary table of the characteristics / species that make this WNPP-worthy should appear very early on, perhaps arranged by WNPP categories (exceptional, outstanding, etc). For each, we should say (briefly) what the objectives are (taken from the criteria list – habitat, research, education, etc …).
 * There’s no map of NP categories (exceptional, outstanding, natural, cultural/historic, support) – or even mention that this needs to be done. Having such a map is recommended in the criteria.
 * Table 1. Soil types needs better caption and explanation of what “moderate” “slight” etc mean.
 * Agree with Gary P – geology should be with soils; plants before animals (because plants largely define animal habitat).
 * Table 3 appears to need an associated map showing sites and parcels.
 * Table 3 needs interpretation – what’s a “good” ratio?
 * Section 4.3.3. Fallow field – first para says encourage wildlife – what kind of wildlife?
 * Management really needs prioritization. There are lots of options here and very limited resources – what should be done most urgently? I can understand that it’s difficult to have a complete timeline, and that we have to be flexible to take advantage of opportunities that arise … but what should we be focused on? Think of it this way … when our volunteer coordinator starts, what should s/he try to get done most quickly?

Subcom met Wed 2 June 10-noon at Cup-of-Joe in Mission Valley - Blank, Connors, Hess, Snow, Wallace. >> "Property description" was intended to do this, but it got lost in translation.
 * Management plan, management plan template, and application checklists require revision to bring them all into alignment and make the submission and review process clearer - all checklist items will be required - Blank, Connors, Hess, Snow will work on this with goal of completing approval process by 2010 Sept 1. Main items ...
 * There should be a section very early in the document that explains how the property meets WNPP criteria.
 * Instead of an "annual workplan" there should be a "proposed 5-year implementation timeline" that would include a list of what is to be done within the 5-year period before the property will be reviewed for recertification. This is, essentially, a prioritization of the management elements proposed in the plan. For each item / task listed, include frequency or proposed year for carrying out, management tools required to carry out, and expected source of funding or in-kind labor. If possible, include person-hours and cost estimate to complete.
 * All appendixes to be included.
 * Philosophical note - WNPP does not decide what elements on the property are to be managed. For example, if there are 8 NHEOs on the property and the agency submits a management plan that says they're managing for only 6 of the 8, that is not grounds for rejection - that is their choice. We do, however, have to be able to judge if the management proposed is reasonable for the 6 they are managing.
 * We need to establish a committee to review applications, and suggest representatives from the various partners be on that committee: TLC, NCSU, NHP, WRC, Museum, and a local govt representative. For the Wake County application, we will ask Cienek (TLC), Hess (NCSU), Pohlman (NHP), Wallace (WRC), Connors (Museum), and Salter (local govt). Hess will follow up and ask.
 * Blank, Connors, Hess, Snow have meeting set for Thurs 17 June 10A-1P (following regular WNPP meeting) to work on these items - all are welcome - 3213 Jordan Addition. Hess and Blank will organize some things in advance.
 * Target submission of revised application and management plan in July looking for approval by 1 Sept, latest.

//From George Hess 2010 July 30.//

I've completed my revisions and attach the new version here: [|TurnipseedManagementPlan.2010.07.30.docx]


 * Subject:** **Re: Turnipseed management plan**
 * From:** george hess 
 * Date:** 2010 July 30 15:39:55 EDT
 * To:** Chris Snow 
 * Cc:** Gary Blank , John Connors , Louise Alexander , Meghan Elizabeth Lobsinger 

Chris,

Attached is the revised Turnipseed management plan.

It now follows the revised outline document at http://wakenature.wikispaces.com/ManagementPlanTemplateV1

I think it's in pretty good shape, and I've marked clearly where I believe things need addressed. If you'll start filling in the holes, I'll start assembling a review team once I get back from vacation (ie, starting 9 Aug). I still think we can get this done in September or at worst early October, if you can fill the holes by late August.

For a review team, I'm thinking about ... Hess (NCSU, Chairman), Cienek (TLC), Pohlman (NHP), Anderson (WRC), Connors (Museum), and Salter (local govt) Let me know if that's OK. I've not asked Anderson or Salter yet.

I've also posted this on the wiki on the Turnipseed review page http://wakenature.wikispaces.com/TurnipseedReview

to work with - I mostly moved things around in an attempt to make the highlights of the area more obvious and to keep a clear chain from WNPP features to the actually management of those features. If I've done you a disservice in any way, please don't hesitate to slap me upside the head.
 * John and Louise**, thanks for providing such great material

Best wishes, george 919.515.7437 []

2010 Aug 19: Hess sent invitations to participate on Turnipseed review committee to ...
 * Cienek (TLC) - Accepted 20 Aug
 * Pohlman (NHP) - Accepted 25 Aug
 * Anderson (WRC) - Accepted 20 Aug - either he or Jeff Marcus will do
 * Connors (Museum)
 * Salter (Raleigh Parks) - Accepted 20 Aug

2010 Aug 19: From George Hess To: Chris Snow, John Connors, Amada Willis, Gary Blank, Louise Alexander, Scott Pohlman Copy: Toddi Steelman

Dear Turnipseed Management Plan Review SubCommittee,

I have placed on the agenda for discussion at our 2 Sept WakeNature meeting two items that we should act on before the meeting. http://wakenature.wikispaces.com/Meeting+2010+Sept+2

1) Approving the revised management plan template http://wakenature.wikispaces.com/ManagementPlanTemplateV1

2) Approving changes to the WakeNature criteria to bring it and the management plan template into sync http://wakenature.wikispaces.com/Nature+Preserve+Criteria

I think we should have agreement on these items as a full group before we can formally review the Wake County application for Turnipseed, which is why I've put this on the 2 Sept agenda.

I would like us to the point where we can recommend to the full group both of these actions at the 2 Sept meeting. And I'm trying to avoid another SubComm meeting that we'll never be able to schedule :-)

Instead, I'd like each of you to look at the material, think about your experiences, and let me (as chairman of the SubCom) know what you think. I've copied this message to the bottom of the Turnipseed Review wiki page and ask that you add your thoughts and discussion there during the next week or so. I'll monitor what's there and then come back for your "vote" to see if we have consensus on the matter.

Please contact me with any questions or concerns.

Thanks to all!

Best wishes, george 919.515.7437 [] PLACE DISCUSSION HERE ... I think the management plan template and the nature preserves definitions and criteria are looking good (I have some edits I would recommend, but I am trying to figure out how to do track changes in wiki). As suggested earlier, I have tried to "imagine that we haven't been working on this for 2+ years and that it has come in from an organization that we've not worked so closely with." One thing that comes to mind -- and that I think someone else also noted in the past -- is that it possible that future applications will come from existing parks or other long-standing open space lands that already have a management plan. They should still be able to pull the relevant information out of their management plan, but we ask for some pretty detailed information, especially in the workplans section. Don't get me wrong, I would like to have that information, and I think what it gives the partnership the opportunity for is to point out that one of the potential benefits of the partnership is to help tap into expertise. I should also point out that I like the format of the management plan template with all the tables, It might be good to include some of the potential objectives, such as "Allow to mature and monitor for invasive, exotic species" or "Use prescribed fire to reintroduce natural ecological processes."

Other comments (until I can figure out a track changes option): In Definitions and Criteria, under Category 3 other natural features, I would recommend that this include a connecting function between two or more Exceptional or Outstanding natural features, in addition to buffering from incompatible land uses and restoration of degraded important habitats. Also in Definitions and Criteria, under Objectives, to be consistent with application, I think it should read that WakeNature Preserves are at their highest and beset use by serving __one or more of__ the following public purposes. My other comments are editorial, except that in my opinion NHP needs a better definition of the Landscape Habitat Indicator Guilds. Thanks to all those who put so much time and effort into this. Scott Pohlman