John Battles said at 8:26 p.m. on 3 March 2006 ,

1) There were several comments regarding the scale of the study and the coordination of this research effort with ongoing efforts.

Given the magnitude and diversity of the Sierra Nevada bioregion, we needed to identify a smaller, more homogeneous subset of this space in order to obtain information that was relevant to the management issues, that was credible in terms of its scientific justification, and that was timely. When exploring potential sites across, it was clear that treatments that span an area much larger than 10,000 to 15,000 acres were not feasible given the time frame. We were charged to design a plan that would provide some information within 5-7 years. Such a short turn-around in necessary if any adaptive management is going to occur. The scientific challenges of scaling-up to a larger fireshed are also daunting. We have tools and experience working at the stand and small watershed level. There are many fewer guides to studying multiple processes in larger landscapes. We have proposed some novel approaches to addressing forest response at the fireshed scale that we hope will meet the scrutiny of scientific peer review. We have also emphasized the role of meta-replication in this workplan. Given the urgency of the questions and the paucity of the information, we need to collect, collate, and integrate all the available information.

2) Our focus on the mixed conifer forests on the westside of the Sierra Nevada was also related to this need to focus on a manageable subset of the Sierra Nevada. Thus the selection was another prioritization exercise. We choose the westside mixed conifer because it was the forest region most at risk of catastrophic fire.

3) Another comment requested we supply a budget.

Our current workplan (Feb 28) does include cost-estimates summarized by category, research theme, and year.

4) Finally we tried in the revised Feb 28 workplan to more explicitly identify the steps in the application of adaptive management plan and the role that the UC research team could play in this process.

Specifically, we defined the available decision-space and how we would integrate new knowledge. Throughou,t all research themes we tried to make clear how the UC research team would contribute to the “Learn and Think” phases of adaptive management. We also explicitly listed the sort of deliverable we expect to provide. For example, we proposed developing and holding small workshops to engage the UC research team with Forest Service decision-makers. The workshops would be theme-based with an emphasis on hands-on and field-based learning to keep them focused and productive. Similar small workshops will be offered to the interested publics. The goals of these workshops go beyond information sharing. They seek to better understand how new information can impact the “DO” phase of the adaptive management process.

This post is a part of the following discussions: