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!
Draft Workplan (2/22) - pp. 1-4 talk about adaptive management and experimentation but then only focuses on the "explicit landscape palnning approach using the fireshed/SPLATs hypothesis. The "experiments" on the Blacks Mtn. and Blodgett Experimental Forests as well as the QLG are certainly other approaches that should be addressed.
I have understood turbidity is generally not a good measure of water quality except maybe relative to repreated sampling over time in the same stretch of water, so I'm curious as to its inclusion. Grazing will affect stream macroinvertebrates. Will it be necessary to control insure grazing uniformity between contril and treatments?
In reviewing the participatory portion of the document, I found considerable
emphasis on the Decision-making without clarity on what participants would be
allowed to decide: the study questions?, the budget? oversight of the studies?
when a study has gone on as long as it should and should now be ended?
Is this an advisory group to the agencies? to the researchers?
Is this a forum where people can tell the agencies what they think of these
studies?
Is there an expectation that this group may identify new projects that the
members can carry out themselves?
Some clarity on function of the group soon may avoid considerable frustration.
An Active Adaptive Management system traditionally includes a Think, Do, Learn loop. The work plan identifies the Think - Prioity Questions and Do - Study Design parts of the loop, but is less clear in the Learn - Evaluation and application of new information part. How does the UC Research Team propose that research findings be evaluated and applied to future management decisions "Is change warrented?" and/or refinement of the priority questions?
On page 9 of the UC/FS agreement: "5) The work plan will be dispalyed in such a way that questions and associated costs by location can be considered and prioritized by the MOU parties..." This requirement is not evident in the 2/20 draft work plan. I trust it will be included in either future drafts or the final work plan.
As noted above all four species listed feed rather high on the food chain. While these higher-order carnivores are generally the species that attract attention, from the perspective of understanding ‘forest ecosystem responses to the proposed treatments’ it seems a more diverse group would be useful. Or alternatively, trading one species for a community-based metric such as small mammal or amphibian diversity could greatly enhance the overall understanding. Predictions could certainly be made and tested regarding the effects of treatments on community structure in a similar manner to populations, and if we can start to understand how the management scenarios impact community interactions (predation, competition, etc) we may be able to find new alternatives to problems such as the “more set-asides” issue described above. As mentioned in the earlier response, the essence of adaptive management is learning and producing new understandings.
Also, the four species selected are certainly all of great concern to managers these days. But it seems that a long-term research program such as this offers the opportunity to look beyond today’s concerns and to try to predict and avoid future conflicts. For example, both amphibians and bats have been experiencing declines in the Sierras, and appear poised to become large conservation concerns. This program could be an excellent opportunity to try to get ahead of the curve for once, particularly with amphibians and their ties to disturbances and water quality.
Firstly, I'm speaking as a private citizen typing this on a break rather than as
a Forest Service employee. It is my own opinion and does not represent the
Forest Service as an agency.
Having spent 14 years working on the Modoc where goshawks will try to nest every
2 miles if there is anything like suitable habitat, I disagree that goshawks are
a priority species for study. The study group should discuss the goshawk
situation with Brian Woolbridge, one of the goshawk experts in California.
Right now the Mountain yellow legged frog seems to be experiencing population
declines and yet the apparent solution from what research tells us, restoring
habitat by removing fish from high mountain lakes where the fish are not native
and which might save the species is apparently not being done to any degree.
If adaptive management is to be meaningful, it won't result in just research
studies but action by the agencies and not just the Forest Service.
Design, data collection, and analysis -- experiments need to be designed to take advantage of multiple ownerships. Private industrial landowners are doing data collection and experiments; we have data collection occuring on selected national forests, and we have experiments going on the Blacks Mountain and Blodgett Experimental Forests. My perception is that all of these efforts are not fully coordinated.
Most species of interest are very high on the food chain (owls, fisher, . . .) and thus are probably more affected by availability of prey than they are nesting habitat. Yet, since 1990, we seem to think that more set-asides is the answer. We know that in the Sierra Nevadas that is a mgt. plan that will simply lead to insect, disease and eventual catastrophic wildfire. We need "experiments" that change canopy cover and enhance prey habitats within known home ranges of the species of interest to observe how they respond.
Draft Workplan (2/26) - p. 7 -- on what basis is the statement made that SPLATS (less than 30% of the forest lands) will likely lead to a reduction in the viability of sensitive species? All the species listed on p. 7 are habitat generalists high on the food chain and, therefore, likely most affected by prey abundance. More sunlight on the forest floor will likely lead to greatly enhanced abundance of prey for the species of interest.