From: Bill/Bob
Feb 7, 1996
Greetings! We hope you are all progressing toward a first draft of your papers. After the workshop, the holidays, and for many of you the government shutdowns, should have provided a respite from the intense effort during the workshop. We have waited several weeks to send this, thinking we might be able to confirm the group who will organize the actual review. However, it is going to be several more weeks until we have firm details and written agreements. The following is a general update on how the drafting and review process is expected to develop. The information should be considered tenative at this point and it is possible that some significant changes could occur.
The first draft is due at the reviewers Monday, April 1, 1996. We'll let you know who that will be and their address as soon as we have the details. This is a one month extension from the original date due to the loss of several weeks over the holidays and shutdowns.
In addition to organizing and writing based on your preliminary work and the information you developed in Tucson, your team should be identifying and developing contacts with as many people as possible. Particularly for the management papers, each author should be soliciting as much input as possible for inclusions in the first draft. We have been approached by a number of people wanting to contact various teams about how they might interact and provide information and thoughts during the development of the draft. We will be sending out the lead author/contact list to a number of interested parties, so expect some calls. Continue to coordinate frequently with your counterpart author team to keep the two efforts connected.
Send this document out to all of your team members as quickly as possible.
Feel free to also make it available to any person or group interested in your effort or wanting to work with your author team to keep them informed.
So far, the generalized format provided at Tucson seems to be meeting the needs for organizing the management papers and providing a structure to coordinate with science papers. The draft due April 1 should still generally follow:
etc
etc
As most of you developed an outline around this format at Tucson it should look familiar. If you see your paper taking a substantially different direction make sure you have coordinated with your counterpart science author team and those topics that will have a strong cross reference with yours in the final document. Remember the goal is to have a single reference document. If the individual elements aren't closely coordinated and presented in a generally similar manner, it will be more difficult for the managers and scientists who will be using it as source for integrated information.
All of the material and information developed at the workshop went on the internet the second week of January You can locate this at the internet address: {http://www.fs.fed.us/eco/workshop.htm}. Each team should consider whether they want to use the internet to merely accumulate comments or to use the system to hold a dialogue with commentors. It was established with user notes so that comments are encouraged but that users should not necessarily expect a response. If you want to conduct a dialgue, add that information on the menu page for your topic. We encourage all teams to designate a member who has the responsibility to respond to and collate comments off the internet. Please let Bill or Bob know so that we can ensure that the WEB pages reflect your willingness to do so.
The concept for the review process is based on a 3-stage approach:
[Review conducted by several, selected small workgroups]
[Review conducted by specific mailings to selected peer reviewers,
broad mailing to groups and organizations, and extensive distribution
within co-sponsoring agencies. Review comments consolidated and
synthesis recommendations made by a number of selected review panels
that are then returned to author teams]
[Review conducted by Dave Johnston]
The review process will be conducted by an independent group with significant experience and recognition for organizing and managing these types of reviews.
The following is the tenative schedule for the reveiw process:
FIRST DRAFT DUE AT REVIEWER APRIL 1
1st REVIEW BEGINS APRIL 1
(conducted by small work groups)
COMMENTS RETURNED TO AUTHOR TEAMS MAY 1
SECOND DRAFT DUE AT REVIEWER JULY 1
2nd REVIEW BEGINS JULY 1
(extensive opportunity to comment)
ALL COMMENTS DUE AT REVIEWER AUGUST 1
REVIEW PANELS BEGIN CONSOLIDATING COMMENTS AUGUST 1
RECOMMENDATIONS RETURNED TO AUTHOR TEAMS SEPTEMBER 1
FINAL DRAFTS COMPLETED OCTOBER 1
FINAL DRAFT RECEIVED BY TECHNICAL EDITOR OCTOBER 5
DELIVER FINAL COPY TO PUBLISHER DECEMBER 31
We are currently discussing the management of the review process with several organizations that have experience with developing products similar to what we seek and have a high interest in this particular project. The above described outline for the review is the basis we are using for those discussions. There may be some modifications as a final review plan evolves. However, you should assume for the time being that the steps and due dates are reasonably accurate for conducting your teams activities.
As you collect references, use the format shown below for those you cite as part of your paper. The following are two pages of examples for you to follow. Please note that the journal name in a journal article or the name of the book in which a reference occurs or the title of an independent publication is in italics.
NOTE: the examples below may not appear formatted correctly when viewed through the WWW.
Addicott, J. F., J. M. Aho, M. R. Antolin, D. K. Padilla, J. S Richardson, and D. A. Soluk. 1987.
Ecological neighborhoods: scaling environmental patterns. Oikos 49:340-346.
Advisory Board on Wildlife Management. 1963. Wildlife Management in the National Parks. A. S.
Leopold (chairman). Appointed by Secretary of the Interior Udall. March 4. U.S.
Department of Interior, Washington, D.C.
Agee, J. K., and D. R. Johnson. 1988. Ecosystem Management for Parks and Wilderness. University
of Washington Press, Seattle, Wash.
Alaback, P. B. 1982. Dynamics of understory biomass in Sitka spruce-western hemlock forests of
southeastern Alaska. Ecology 63:1932-1948.
Allee, W. C., A. E. Emerson, O. Park, T. Park. and K. P. Schmidt. 1949. Principles of Animal
Ecology. Saunders, Philadelphia, Pa.
Allen, J. C., and D. F. Barnes. 1985. The causes of deforestation in developing countries. Ann.
Assoc. Am. Geographers 75:163-184.
Allendorf, F. W. 1983. Isolation, gene flow, and genetic differentiation among populations. In
Genetics and Conservation. A Reference for Managing Wild Animal and Plant Populations, eds.
C. M. Schonewald-Cox, S. M. Chambers, B. MacBryde and L. Thomas, pp. 51-65.
Benjamin/Cummings Publ. Co., Menlo Park, Calif.
Allendorf, F. W., and R. F. Leary. 1986. Heterozygosity and fitness in natural populations of
animals. In Conservation Biology. The Science of Scarcity and Diversity, ed. M. E. Soul_,
pp.57-76. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass.
Altieri, M. 1988. Rethinking crop genetic resource conservation: a view from the south.
Conserv. Biol. 3(1):77-79.
Andrews, J. R. T. 1961. A forest inventory of Ceylon. Prepared by the Hunting Survey Corporation
Ltd., Toronto, Canada in cooperation with the Forest Department, Ceylon. A Canada-Ceylon
Colombo Plan Project, Government Press, Ceylon.
Anonymous. 1992. Strengthening protected areas. In Global Biodiversity Strategy, ed. K.
Courrier, pp. 117-132. World Resources Institute, World Conservation Union, United
Nations Environment Programme, Washington, D.C.
Antonovics, J., A. D. Bradshaw, and R. G. Turner. 1971. Heavy metal tolerance in plants. Adv.
Ecol. Res. 7:1-85.
Aplet, G. H., N. Johnson, J. T. Olson, and V. A. Sample. 1993. Defining Sustainable Forestry.
Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Atkinson, I. 1989. Introduced animals and extinctions. In Conservation for the Twenty-first
Century, eds. D. Western and M. C. Pearl, pp. 54-75. Oxford University Press, New York.
Atwood, J. L. 1990. Status review of the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica).
Unpubl. Tech. Rep., Manomet Bird Observatory, Manomet, Mass.
Avise, J. C., and R. M. Ball, Jr. 1990. Principles of genealogical concordance in species concepts
and biological taxonomy. Oxford Surv. Evol. Biol. 7:45-67.
Ayensu, E. S., and R. A. DeFilipps. 1978. Endangered and Threatened Plants of the United States.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Bailey, R. G. 1988. Ecogeographic analysis: a guide to the ecological division of land for
resource management. Misc. Publ. No. 1465. USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
Balda, R. P. 1975. Vegetation Structure and Breeding Bird Diversity. In Proceedings of the
Symposium on Management of Forest and Range Habitats for Nongame Birds. USDA Forest
Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-l:59-80.
Benkman, C. W. 1993. Adaptation to single resources and the evolution of crossbill (Loxia)
diversity. Ecol. Monogr. 63: 305-325.
Bennett, J. W., and K. A. Dahlberg. 1990. Institutions, social organization, and cultural values.
In The Earth as Transformed by Human Action, ed. B. Turner II, pp. 69-86. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Bennett, K. D. 1990. Milankovitch cycles and their effects on species in ecological and
evolutionary time. Paleobiol. 16:11-21.
British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 1988. Biogeoclimatic Zones of British Columbia 1988 (map).
British Columbia Ministry of Forests Research Branch, Victoria, B.C.
Brown, J. H., and M. Kurzius. 1989. Spatial and temporal variation in guilds of North American
granivorous desert rodents. In Patterns in the Structure of Mammalian Communities, eds.
D. W. Morris, Z. Abramsky, B. J. Fox, and M. R. Willig, pp. 71-90. Spec. Publ. Mus.,
Texas Tech. Univ., No. 28, Lubbock, Tex.
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA). 1991. Integrated system plan for salmon and
steelhead production in the Columbia River basin. CBFWA, Portland, Ore.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and
deepwater habitats of the United States. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service,
FWS/OBS-79/31, Washington D.C.
Courtenay, W. R., Jr. 1991. Pathways and consequences of the introduction of non-indigenous fishes
in the United States. Unpublished Rept. to Office of Technology Assessment, Congress
of the United States. 83 pp.
Dahl, T. E., and C. E. Johnson. 1991. Wetlands, status and trends in the conterminous United
States, mid-1970's to mid-1980's. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Doren, R. F. 1991. Forward. In Proceedings of the Symposi6m on Exotic Pest Plants, eds. T. D.
Center, R. F. Doren, R. L. Hofstetter, R. L. Myers, and L. D. Whiteaker,
pp. ix-xii. Technical Report NPS/NREVER/NRTR-91/06. USDI National Park Service,
Washington, D.C.
Doren, R. F., and L. D. Whiteaker. 1991. The Exotic Pest Plant Council: an example of interagency
cooperation to solve resource related problems. In Proceedings of the Symposium on
Exotic Pest Plants, eds. T. D. Center, R. F. Doren, R. L. Hofstetter, R. L. Myers,
and L. D. Whiteaker, pp. 111-114. Technical Report NPS/NREVER/NRTR-91/06. USDI
National Park Service, Washington, D.C.
Eng, R. L., E. J. Pitcher, S. J. Scott, and R. J. Greene. 1979. Minimizing the effect of surface
coal mining on a sagegrouse population by a directed shift of breeding activities.
In The Migitation Symposium, tech. coord. G. A. Swanson, pp. 464-468. Gen. Tech.
Rep. RM-65. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mtn. Forest and Range Expt. Station,
Ft. Collins, Colorado.
Everett, R., C. Oliver, J. Saveland, P. Hessburg, N. Diaz, and L. Irwin. 1994. Adaptive Ecosystem
Management. In Eastside Forest Health Assessment, Volume II: Ecosystem Management:
Principles and Applications, tech. eds. M. E. Jensen and P. S. Bourgeron. Gen. Tech.
Rep. PNW-GTR-318. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.
As soon as possible we'll finalize an agreement with an organization to conduct the review. Once that is in place, a detailed description of the final process will be provided.
There's a lot to do, and everyone is already fully occupied. So, expand your contacts and focus on April 1 for the first draft. As soon as we have any change in plans we'll provide another update.
BILL/BOB
(Bob Szaro, USDA Forest Service, (202) 205-1316, E-mail: /s=b.szaro/ou=w01c@mhs-fswa.attmail.com)
(Bill Sexton, USDA Forest Service, (202) 205-1795, E-mail: /s=b.sexton/ou=w01c@mhs-fswa.attmail.com)