Science Program Update Spring 2008
|Original Science Framework|
|Science Team Members|
|Science Update Fall 2007|
|Science Update Spring 2008|
|Science Team Review of DEIS (PDF)|
Process changes from original WOPR Science Framework
One of BLM’s objectives for the Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR) process was to create a sustained dialog between scientists and managers. That dialog included three components:
- “State-of-the science” review for selected major issues and questions;
- Informal discussions (also referred to as “informal consultation”) between interdisciplinary team (IDT) members and key scientists; and
- A Science Team (formally known as the Science Advisory Team, or SAT) to enhance the quality and credibility of Resource Management Plan (RMP) revision analyses through reviewof RMP revision analyses.
Updates for each of these key components of the WOPR science program are summarized below.
"State-of-the science" reviews and technology transfer: Update (Spring 2008)
During initial scoping, BLM identified a number of science issues and questions which it felt were relevant to the WOPR process and which would benefit from research to synthesize current scientific knowledge. BLM established cooperative agreements with scientists with recognized expertise in the relevant fields to conduct “State-of-the science” reviews for these issues. “State-of-the science” review topics were:
- Wildlife use of dead wood
- Forest management effects on peak stream flows
- Aquatic habitat management strategies
- Human community resiliency
- Application oflandscape dynamics concepts
- Young stand management
Each “State-of-the science” review synthesized published, peer-reviewed empirical and model-based studies relevant to forest management in the Plan area. One of the studies produced new modeling results that were used directly in the WOPR analysis. Table 1 (below) notes the current status of these reviews and links to published documents.
Table 1. "State-of-the-Science" Reports and their status.
USGS’ stands for US Geological Survey; ‘GTR’ stands for General Technical Report; ‘PNW’ stands for Pacific Northwest Research station; ‘OSU’ stands for Oregon State University;
|Wildlife use of dead wood||Hagar (USGS)||Published as a technical report (USGS Report 2007–1054)
|Forest management effects on peak stream flows||Grant et al. (PNW)||Being published as a technical report (GTR): http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/about/programs/ecop/Peakflow_GTR_Grant.pdf (PDF)|
|Aquatic habitat management strategies||Burnett et al. (PNW)||Modeling results were used directly in WOPR EIS analysis.
|Human community resiliency||Donoghue and Haynes (PNW)||Published as a technical report (GTR-PNW-693)
|Application of landscape dynamics concepts||Fred Swanson (PNW)1||Draft is still in review status. This manuscript considers forest management strategies that emulate key aspects of natural disturbance regimes.|
|Young stand management||Puettman (OSU)1, Anderson (PNW)||Two
concerning this topic are currently available:
Wilson and Puettman. 2007. Available at: http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/fs/kpuettmann/publications.htm
Anderson, P.D. 2007. Understory vegetation responses to initial thinning of Douglas-fir plantations undergoing conversion to uneven-age management. In PNW-GTR-733; p.77-90. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/gtr733/PNW_GTR_733_4.pdf (PDF)
1 This study was funded by the US Forest Service.
Preliminary results from these studies and their utility to the WOPR process were discussed in a public meeting, the “State
of the Science Review” held at Oregon State University (June 15, 2006). An
overview of this workshop and streaming video of workshop presentations is
Science Team Review
Since its inception, the Science Team has operated in a review capacity, reviewing WOPR criteria, alternatives, and effects analyses. The Science Team has produced the following review products:
- Review of WOPR Planning Criteria (PDF) - Completed March 20, 2006
- Review of Preliminary Alternatives (PDF) - Completed April 10, 2006
- Science Team Review of Draft EIS (PDF) - Completed March 3, 2008
Two personnel changes have occurred in Science Team membership since the team’s inception. Sarah Crim (National Forest System, Region 6), analyzing Timber modeling and Forestry issues, has been replaced by Gary Lettman (Oregon Department of Forestry). Chris Sheridan (BLM) has replaced John Cissel (BLM) as the Science Team Coordinator. Credentials for these two new individuals have been provided on the team member page.