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!
Your clock is an hour behind the rest of us.
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?
We've posted the revised workplan from the Owl Team above, and on the Workplan page. You can comment here.
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 agree that prey populations are of paramount importance for species of higher trophic levels. However, it is those higher-level species that are of most public, administrative, legal, and conservation concern. What we know of the ecology of these species leads to the supposition that they may respond negatively to the proposed management. Our study plan is designed to determine how they will respond; responses by prey populations will show up in the survival and reproduction of the predators. If the predators (e.g., fishers) do indeed respond positively to the treatments, we will know it.
We discuss the reason that we rejected a guild or biodiversity approach to addressing wildlife in the program. Based on modeling efforts, there is reason to think that more species may benefit from the treatments than will be negatively affected. However, those that may benefit are not the ones impeding forest management.
We are aware of and apologize for the very short time line allowed for the production of the draft work plan. We realize it is less than ideal.
We have not addressed the issue that the wildlife species selected for study in this project be “a valid indicator for the response of a wide variety of other species,” nor argued that any particular species can “Indicate” the ecological status or trend of others. The “indicator species” or “species guild” concepts are controversial and not of demonstrated utility. We selected species for inclusion in this project and prioritized them according to the criteria in the work plan. We do not claim that the results from the work as proposed can necessarily be generalized to other species.
We anticipate the ability to evaluate some of the landscape issues of fisher viability through monitoring dispersal from and detecting new individuals dispersing into the study area(s). Other insights will come from analyses of reproduction and mortality. However, a large-scale landscape or metapopulation analysis of the fisher population in the Sierra Nevada, as valuable as that would be, is beyond the scope of the proposed work.
We are aware of the current thought and evaluation of fisher reintroductions, and the issue regarding the viability of any proposed source population. If such a reintroduction program were to be adopted in the present project, it would be consistent with current standards and methodologies.
The Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign is a coalition of 98 conservation organizations united in our focus on land management planning and implementation on national forest lands in the Sierra Nevada. We are seriously concerned about management on national forest lands that compromises species and ecosystem needs.
It is our intention to provide detailed comments on the work plan in the near
future. At this point, we seek to highlight the need to fully meet the
budgetary requirements of the proposed work plan. To address the scientific and
management questions posed in the work plan, the research must be fully funded.
Anything short of full funding will not produce credible or useful results.
The work plan clearly identifies that fisher in the Sierra Nevada are highly vulnerable to population losses and further extirpation. The US Fish and Wildlife recently found that the listing of fisher under the Endangered Species Act may be warranted and cited habitat destruction and modification from timber harvest as factors of concern. We agree with these conclusions. The high vulnerability of fisher and the current threats to its habitat are precisely the reasons why a robust and meaningful assessment of the effects of management on fisher must be completed regardless of the cost. Beyond this, if funding for the fisher element of the work plan is reduced to the extent that the monitoring component is inadequate, the adaptive management plan will not be legitimate.
Susan Britting Science and Policy Advisor Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign
Please note: I sent a copy of my full letter directly to UC Davis and am now posting the entire letter in each section as it contains reference to each section and should be read in its entirety as opposed to piecemeal.
February 26, 2006
Comments on February 20, 2006 Draft Workplan “Learning how to apply adaptive management to land management in the Sierra Nevada.”
Defenders of Wildlife (“Defenders”) is pleased to submit these comments on the above document (heretofore “Draft Workplan”). Defenders is a national, non-profit wildlife advocacy organization committed to the protection of wild, native plants and animals in their natural communities. We represent over 400,000 members throughout the United States, nearly 100,000 of which reside in California.
Defenders, California Program has a programmatic focus on the Sierra Nevada, with current programs focused on forest carnivores (primarily the Pacific fisher) and impacts of grazing on biodiversity. We were unable to make the initial December 9, 2005 public meeting on the focus of the Draft Workplan, but have submitted some input into that process to date and remain committed to engaging in this process as it moves forward.
Our first comments relates to the unreasonable timeline imposed on public comments to this draft. We were originally informed that we would have one week between February 10th and the 17th to review this draft. The draft was not released until February 21st with a due date of February 26th. We understand that there are tight timelines that the authors are working under, but this should not allow extensions on their part to necessitate unreasonable and unrealistic timelines for public input. At the very minimum, the public should be allowed 2 full working weeks to provide substantive input. In this case, only 4 working days were allotted. Because of this, the only possible way to provide input in our case is to conduct a cursory review over the weekend. This is not an acceptable regime for functional public input.
As for the content of the Draft Workplan itself, we are appreciative of the concerted attempt to design a course of action that is true to the precepts of Adaptive Management and Monitoring to the extent that the proposal incorporates a priori research questions designed to be tested by the management practices which will in turn be responsive to the results of the research.
One main question that we have is why is the approach limited to the west side of the Sierra Nevada only? As the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment covers both west and east side forest management, it would appear that this would be a major omission.
We are generally supportive of the conceptual framework of using a landscape planning approach at the fireshed level, and incorporating elements of Fire and Forest Health, Public Participation, Water Quality and Quantity, and Wildlife. The following includes our specific comments on each of these sections of the Draft Workplan:
Public Participation:
We appreciate that Public Participation is given equal consideration in this process. It is a critical element to effective development and implementation of an adaptive management approach. In particular, we are pleased to see the call for staff to be wholly responsible for this portion of the Workplan and for the focus on increasing opportunities for input from local stakeholders. We support the general model that the participatory process section lays out. One concern is that the “community of learning” approach may not allow for direct input from the public. This may already be the plan, but we specifically request that direct input be allowed in both the “community of learning” and “community of collaboration” cases.
We support the use of web-based tools, but they must be accompanied by
sufficient advertising and instructional outreach to inform people of their
availability and how to use them. We also suggest that there be outreach via
the public library system to capture the input of publics that may not have to
the internet via a personal computer. An outreach element that include public
instructional workshops at public libraries could facilitate informed
participation to those with and without personal access to the internet. As
mentioned previously, the public input time period should be reasonable.
Depending on the level of analysis required, this time period should range from
a minimum of 2 working weeks for shorter products (such as the 27 page workplan)
to up to 3 months for larger documents (on the scale of a traditional NEPA or
CEQA document). In addition to the geographically-based web comments, there
must also be a section for general comments that are relevant to the entire
geographic scope and the process itself.
We also suggest that regional workshops be developed throughout the life of this
process where the public can be shown various simulated results of management
options being considered. This has been done in regional transportation
planning efforts (e.g. SACOG’s Regional Blueprint outreach workshops) and is a
very effective educational and participatory tool that would apply to this
situation.
For evaluation purposes, we suggest that options for gathering feedback at the
time of input on the web system. This could provide general feedback on how
long it took to get the input registered, if they felt they had effectively
registered their comments, options of improvement, and the ability to capture
instances where someone wanted to input something and was unable to do so for
stated reasons. This could be done in the form of a pop-up window that folks
could choose to complete or not, with response rates also reported.
Water Quality and Quantity:
We are generally supportive of the approach outlined under this section.
Defenders is particularly pleased to see that standard macro invertebrate
indices will be used to determine the biological impacts of the management
treatments.
Wildlife: We support the decision to prioritize which species should be the focus of the wildlife impacts analysis. It is not feasible to monitor all potentially affected species. We support the criteria laid out in the Draft Workplan as scientifically sound and would like to ask for one additional criteria. There must be some evidence that the focal species is a valid indicator for the response of a wide variety of other species in order for one or a few species to be used as a proxy for the response of several hundred. We believe that this can be demonstrated for the species currently prioritized by the Draft Workplan.
Additionally, it is important that the impacts to wildlife species also
incorporate information regarding the landscape context of management actions.
It may very well be that an individual treatment will have a negative impact on
the ability of that area to sustain fisher populations. However, of more
importance to the larger management throughout the Sierra Nevada is the ability
of the entire landscape to provide for the sustainability of the species as a
whole. It is possible that small, localized effects can be absorbed by the
population if the entire landscape level management allows for viable
populations. The authors make reference to this concept when they mention that
treatments may very well lead to population sinks for a species. The
availability of nearby population sources/ refugia and their ability to allow
ultimate persistence of the species should be the focus of the wildlife
analysis.
Defenders strongly agrees with the assertion that “simply documenting that some species will respond favorably [to the proposed treatment] will not solve the management dilemma we are attempting to resolve.” Beyond the implications of the public needing to understand and support the process and management results of the monitoring, we submit that all monitoring must be targeted at asking a question that is relevant to and result in direction to the management program.
Defenders is very concerned over the issue of the local extirpation in the northern study site. We do support the suggestion by the document that reintroduction could provide insight into the adaptive management process. We caution that the use of standards set by other successful fisher reintroductions be followed, and are specifically concerned about the ability of a source population from California to maintain the level of removals needed to establish a viable population. We have conducted a workshop on criteria for successful fisher reintroductions and ask that these guidelines be used as well as the methodology of a detailed and considered feasibility assessment and implementation plan that are both available for public review be included in any reintroduction efforts. These efforts must be conducted in the context of fisher conservation efforts throughout the west and in California. That said, we assert that a well-designed reintroduction to the northern Sierra would provide substantial conservation benefits to the species as well as critical information for the overall goals of the Draft Workplan.
Conclusion: Finally, we support the ambitious and reasoned scientific approach that the Draft Workplan lays out and caution that cost not be used an excuse for complete inaction. We look forward to continued participation in the on-going program of Adaptive Management and Monitoring in the Sierra Nevada. Should you have any questions, I can be contacted directly at: 916-313-5800 ext. 110 or cwilkerson@defenders.org.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Wilkerson California Representative
Defenders of Wildlife 1303 J Street, Suite 270 Sacramento, CA 95814
The study areas were selected prior to the participation of the owl team. They were selected on the basis of a variety of criteria that reflected the multiple elements of the SNAMP project. The study area selection team believed that owls would be present on the northern study area. However, they did not know how many owls would be present on the study area because current information on owl territory status was lacking.
The results of our first field season gave us concern that the study area was not large enough to contain a sufficient number of owl territories. We surveyed the entire SNAMP study area, as well as a 1.5-mile buffer zone around the SNAMP study area. We found that only 50% of the designated Protected Activity Centers (PACs) within the owl survey area were occupied in 2007. The location of owl PACs were obtained from the California Dept. of Fish and Game prior to the 2007 field season.
Prior to deciding on our current owl study design, we noted the lack of road access on the study area, which would severely hinder the use of radio telemetry. A long-term radio telemetry study would also require multiple recaptures of individual owls to replace batteries, which could prove to be infeasible if the owls became increasingly wary of being captured. Most importantly, the use of radio telemetry would be cost-prohibitive in terms of the overall SNAMP budget.