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!
Having just heard from the USFS Regional Forester yesterday that the next round of forest planning will make fisher habitat an issue for all the Sierran national forests, I'd like to challenge the SNAMP science team to be very clear about the ages as well as the sizes and species of forest components in the southern SNAMP site.
The need for such accuracy hit home earlier this week while Harry & I were watching KVIE's "California's Gold" TV program on the Yosemite Sugar Pine Railroad. The operator said 30,000 acres were clearcut in the vicinity of the railroad between 1899 and 1931. Photos showing the landscape backed up the characterization of clearcutting. There's no way the habitats where fishers are being studied in SNAMP classify as "old growth."
Also, I'd like to suggest to all agencies participating in SNAMP that, given the fisher mortality data obtained so far, a roadside signage program and lower speed limit on Hwy 41 similar to the bear signs & speed limits now being deployed in Yosemite might be in order for fishers. Thanks.
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.
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!
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.
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?
The following question was submitted to the Water team for their consideration: Has SNAMP considered 'adapting' and having the water team take a 'side trip' to the Moonlight Fire perimeter to estimate sediment rates from the burned area? It is possible that this 65,000 acre perimeter is an ideal lab to quickly obtain valuable sediment information, particularly since this fire had a high percentage of high severity burn.
While the Moonlight fire has good potential to be a study area, it is not feasible for SNAMP to include this area due to the time/budget/objective constraints of this project. The Moonlight fires high severity burn was not part of a prescribed burn, so it is not comparable to fuels treatments conducted by the Forest Service with no potential for forest management recommendations.