Discussion
Let us know what you think about any topic related to the Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project in the forums below. The Principal Investigators on the UC Science Team cannot answer every post, but they will read all comments in our their areas, and respond to comments as a group at each quarterly meeting. We greatly value your input!
You can now add a comment that is tied to a place on the map: a point, a line or a polygon. These posts will still be associated with a topic, but they will also show up on the map. On the Discussion Page, go to the "Map" tab and add your comment. Give it a try!
The study areas were selected prior to the participation of the owl team. They were selected on the basis of a variety of criteria that reflected the multiple elements of the SNAMP project. The study area selection team believed that owls would be present on the northern study area. However, they did not know how many owls would be present on the study area because current information on owl territory status was lacking.
The results of our first field season gave us concern that the study area was not large enough to contain a sufficient number of owl territories. We surveyed the entire SNAMP study area, as well as a 1.5-mile buffer zone around the SNAMP study area. We found that only 50% of the designated Protected Activity Centers (PACs) within the owl survey area were occupied in 2007. The location of owl PACs were obtained from the California Dept. of Fish and Game prior to the 2007 field season.
Prior to deciding on our current owl study design, we noted the lack of road access on the study area, which would severely hinder the use of radio telemetry. A long-term radio telemetry study would also require multiple recaptures of individual owls to replace batteries, which could prove to be infeasible if the owls became increasingly wary of being captured. Most importantly, the use of radio telemetry would be cost-prohibitive in terms of the overall SNAMP budget.
During the meeting in Auburn on November 29, I came to understand that the SNAMP fisher study does not have any fishers with collars at this point, so the story I heard regarding fisher mortalities necessarily does not come from this study. However, my point remains unaffected, as several of the parties in the SNAMP study are on record as stating they believe the fisher population in the southern Sierra Nevada to be so fragile that the loss of even one female could be significant.
Thanks for the comment. We have not established any triggers yet. We do have a “Triggers and Thresholds” subcommittee that meets periodically to develop and refine these concepts. Would you like to be part of this? If so, email me (Maggi Kelly at mkelly(at)nature.berkeley.edu) and I can add you to the group.
Your clock is an hour behind the rest of us.
I reviewed the new owl module of the study plan. I note that 2 of teh 11 criteria used to pick the study areas were adequate infrastructure and sufficient suitable habitat for study animals. However, apparently the owl study area doesn't have enough roads to allow a telemetry study to be successful, and it doesn't have enough suitable habitat to support the desired number of owl territories. How did this site get choosen given the lack of access and suitable habitat?
I have been searching for actual triggers and can find none in the work plan or elsewhere. I have heard that there have been several mortalities amoung the collared fishers in this project and am wondering why there is no thrigger regarding fisher mortality that would force a review of the entire study design. Also, what is the process for the interested public to be involved in developing and monitoring these triggers, as well as participate in the resolution when one or more triggers are tripped?
We've posted the revised workplan from the Owl Team above, and on the Workplan page. You can comment here.
How will research results be translated into alterations of management and policy? Adaptive management often fails to make a difference to the target resource because agencies and stakeholders are excluded from the process of developing the science that informs a decision. Consequently, the research is seen as an academic appendix and of little use to the problems that resource managers face. Is there USFS "buy-in" to the SNAMP priorities, approach and design?
Judge M. C. England has found in favor of the Forest Service and HFQLG Pilot on 11 out of 12 points in the challenge of the 2004 Sierra Nevada Framework and the Basin Project on the Plumas National Forest. The Decision Document and some content from the document are posted on the discussion site.