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!
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?
We have now loaded the presentation that was shown at the Public Meeting on August 20th in Davis. The presentation can be found in the Documents > Presentations > August 20th 2007 area. Thanks for checking. Maggi
Linda, I will check into this and get back to you as soon as I can. Thanks for checking, and thanks for being patient with us! Maggi
Why have Rocky Gutierrez's slides of owl survey results and maps been deleted from the August 20 meeting file posted on this website? They were shown in the public meeting in Davis. The owl distribution pattern, while preliminary and not to be used as final, is nevertheless noteworthy and should be available for adaptive management conversations.
We need to have the promised Powerpoint from the August 20 meeting posted on this website so we can share it with the stakeholder groups we represent, please!
For both the spotted owl (northern site, Tahoe NF) and the fisher (southern site, Sierra NF), sampling will begin in the explicit study area and "grow" until a sufficient sample is found. The subsequent analyses of the impact of SPLATs will look at how the management influences occupancy or use patterns in the study areas. However we share your concern about sample sizes and won't know exactly how many animals are there until we complete our initial year assessments.
At Sagehen, there is not an explicity adaptive management component and the study at Sagehen was specifically focused on evaluating SPLAT impact on fire behavior. I believe the Pacific Southwest Research Station is actively engaged in terrestrial wildlife research at Sagehen (bear, marten) but the studies are not explicitly integrated. Also since Sagehen is on the eastside of the Sierra Nevada, it is difficult to extrapolate results to the westside forests.
You question regarding the timing of SPLAT implementation is one frequently raised. We designed our study to answer the key questions in as short a time as possible but we still we need at least 7 years to get any concrete results.
Your clock is an hour behind the rest of us.