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 their areas, and respond to comments as a group at each quarterly meeting. We greatly value your input!

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.

Don Rivenes said at 3:07 p.m. on 5 March 2007 ,

If there are not enough Spotted owl pairs or fisher found, will the SPLATs still be completed and the project continued? If so, how will wildlife be evaluated sufficiently for the Forest Service to apply SPLATs elsewhere in the landscape? Since there already is a SPLAT experiment being designed in Sagehen, how will this design differ, and will the Sagehen experiment include a wildlife component? How can SPLATs be implemented across the landscape currently by the Forest Service until the results of this Adaptive management experiment and the Saghen experiment are known?

Where will the meeting be located? I'm interested in attending whether the meeting is Jan 11 or 24. I have not been receiving SNAMP emails, however, and would like to be included. The website displays neither an email address nor a meeting location, which hinders public participation. Thanks.

Assuming the study sites have been selected at that time, I would be interested in the factors that influenced the selection of the sites. Moreover, I would be interested in the FS plans in the study areas and the timing of the planned projects over the next several years.

I appreciate the challenge with identifying a site and ensuring it remains unaffected by the adaptive management study. I applaud the team for its position, “The UCST continued to emphasize the need to ensure that what they are studying represents the “normal” routine management activities as guided by the 2004 Record of Decision (ROD)”. However, I noted a later comment, “This will allow for mutual planning of SPLAT placement to maximize research goals”. I find that at odds with the earlier statement. As an independent, shouldn’t the UCST only monitor the results of the FS and not be involved in anyway with the placement of the SPLATs?

The field notes alluded several times to the SNAMP goals. These are probably articulated somewhere, but if they will control the selection of the site and perhaps the “mutual planning of the SPLAT placement”, they should be headlined somewhere.

I would suggest that as this project moves forward, that the UCST also select two other sites, one in the north and one in the south, near these areas, for the purpose of comparison between the projects that are approved in the study sites and the projects approved in these non-study sites to determine the degree that the projects really are typical and not altered because of the adaptive management study.

Rishiraj Das said at 1:14 p.m. on 19 March 2006 ,

I believe the research design represents an excellent start to address issues of adaptive management in the Sierra Nevada. Having worked in a number of watershed to bioregional resource management efforts in California and internationally, I believe the research design relates well to the general scale of human management decisions, and the research design allows for future scaling up to larger bioregional questions, or for similar approaches in different regions or aspects of the Sierra Nevada

Are you going to consider the impacts of climate change on hydrology?

Roger Bales said at 12:42 a.m. on 4 March 2006 ,

Turbidity is included in the proposed suite of measurements, primarily as an indicator of erosion and sediment movement associated with runoff events. It is proposed to use autonomous, continuous measurements, which will provide relative turbidity measurements at the same location over time. Regarding macroinvertebrates, we agree that grazing can have an effect; grazing practices and history will need to be evaluated as part of the detailed site selection. Grazing can affect other factors as well.

Lynn Huntsinger said at 9:23 p.m. on 3 March 2006 ,

Q: What kinds of stakeholders will be contacted to participate in the adaptive management process? Our goal is to provide various kinds of ways for various kinds of stakeholders to engage in the process, including information sharing and mutual learning meetings, and research planning, monitoring, and interpretation. We will certainly contact local elected officials, community leaders, and all kinds of interested stakeholders in each study area. For example, FireSafe Councils, we expect, will have a strong interest. We also plan to make an effort to bring in people who are not ordinarily at the table.

Q: How much impact will stakeholder decisions have? This in itself is a research question for our team! The comment we received at this website reminded us of this very crucial issue in time for the second workplan draft, and we decided to deal with it overtly as a topic for study. We need to somehow figure in the experimental design and scientific demands of the adaptive management process, complex administrative and legal framework of Forest Service decisionmaking, and the diverse points of view of stakeholders and partners. In our proposal, we state that we are committed to being very upfront about our knowledge of the opportunities and ultimate impact of stakeholder decisions for each phase or topic of the program. In addition, we plan to study how feedback from both scientific results and stakeholders is incorporated into Forest Service management decisions--and our own scientific approaches.

Q: Will direct public input be part of the participatory processes effort? Yes, absolutely. We see direct communication between scientists, managers, and stakeholders as essential to this process. For example, our public meetings are open to all and will continue to be so as long as we can get a room large enough. Direct input from the public will be part of all participatory processes.

Q: What kinds of methods will you be using to reach out to people, in addition to the website?

We are open to suggestions, and appreciate them! In particular, once dedicated personnel are hired to focus on engaging the public, we would expect all possible methods to be on the table for discussion. The main question we addressed to those attending our first public meeting was: how will we know when we have successfully reached out and engaged people? This question remains open!

Q: Why so little time for public input on the draft workplan?

A: We were up against a hard deadline, and basically for all the reasons you can imagine, it took us longer to do the draft than we thought. Remember, we had to put something together that anyone could look at, and that is pretty scary. More relevant, however, is that we are still listening to and will respond to public comment, and we will still use it, most definitely. People have good ideas, and we continue to take advantage of that.

Lynn Huntsinger said at 8:30 p.m. on 3 March 2006 ,

Q: What kinds of stakeholders will be contacted to participate in the adaptive management process? Our goal is to provide various kinds of ways for various kinds of stakeholders to engage in the process, including information sharing and mutual learning meetings, and research planning, monitoring, and interpretation. We will certainly contact local elected officials, community leaders, and all kinds of interested stakeholders in each study area. For example, FireSafe Councils, we expect, will have a strong interest. We also plan to make an effort to bring in people who are not ordinarily at the table.

Q: How much impact will stakeholder decisions have? This in itself is a research question for our team! The comment we received at this website reminded us of this very crucial issue in time for the second workplan draft, and we decided to deal with it overtly as a topic for study. We need to somehow figure in the experimental design and scientific demands of the adaptive management process, complex administrative and legal framework of Forest Service decisionmaking, and the diverse points of view of stakeholders and partners. In our proposal, we state that we are committed to being very upfront about our knowledge of the opportunities and ultimate impact of stakeholder decisions for each phase or topic of the program. In addition, we plan to study how feedback from both scientific results and stakeholders is incorporated into Forest Service management decisions--and our own scientific approaches.

Q: Will direct public input be part of the participatory processes effort? Yes, absolutely. We see direct communication between scientists, managers, and stakeholders as essential to this process. For example, our public meetings are open to all and will continue to be so as long as we can get a room large enough. Direct input from the public will be part of all participatory processes.

Q: What kinds of methods will you be using to reach out to people, in addition to the website?

We are open to suggestions, and appreciate them! In particular, once dedicated personnel are hired to focus on engaging the public, we would expect all possible methods to be on the table for discussion. The main question we addressed to those attending our first public meeting was: how will we know when we have successfully reached out and engaged people? This question remains open!

Q: Why so little time for public input on the draft workplan?

A: We were up against a hard deadline, and basically for all the reasons you can imagine, it took us longer to do the draft than we thought. Remember, we had to put something together that anyone could look at, and that is pretty scary. More relevant, however, is that we are still listening to and will respond to public comment, and we will still use it, most definitely. People have good ideas, and we continue to take advantage of that.

Legend Show