Syllabus

Fire, owls, and management:

Assessing risk in dry forests

FS 505 1 Cr.

CRN 39164

Winter 2010

Lecture: TBA

Instructors: Tom Spies, 350 FSL, 750-7354, tom.spies@oregonstate.edu

David Hibbs, Richardson 301K, 737-6077, david.hibbs@oregonstate.edu

Office hours: By appointment or drop in

Goals:

Ongoing debates in and outside the scientific literature about risks to owl habitat from fuel treatments and wildfire indicate the challenge posed by the complex problem of meeting multiple forest value goals in the eastern Cascades of Oregon and Washington. In general, we lack a clear understanding of management directions and possible consequences of alternative approaches to landscape management for owls, fire and other values. While uncertainty will continue to hound this problem, progress can be made to develop a more robust and comprehensive risk management framework for these issues in this region.

A number of valuable studies laid the foundation for improving the conceptual and analytical basis of risk management for multiple forest values. For example, Kerns and Ager (2007) identified the challenges and opportunities for using risk management for biodiversity conservation in the Pacific Northwest. Scott (2006) has developed a general quantitative framework for considering wildland fire risk and fuel treatments. Lee and Irwin (2005) have evaluated some of the potential effects of landscape-level thinning on northern spotted owls in the southern Sierra Nevada. O’Laughlin (2005) has developed a conceptual model that evaluates short and long-term risks to fish from wildfire and fuel reduction treatments. Ager et al. (2007) have simulated how fuel reduction treatments on a landscape scale can reduce probability of loss of northern spotted owl habitat to high severity wildfire.

What seems to be lacking in the wildfire-owl-fuel treatment debate is a robust conceptual and analytical risk framework that can help guide the debate, implement management actions that maximize learning opportunities, and identify critical information gaps. For example, it is not clear how to specify probabilities of burning from wildfire---how do we integrate knowledge obtained from recent history and fire simulations? How important are scale and landscape and stand-level pattern in assessing risk? How do we bring in other values besides persistence of the northern spotted owl ? How do we incorporate other threats—e.g. insects and disease, climate change and an expanding wildland-urban interface?

The course will read and discuss papers that deal with theory of risk and applications to the fire, biodiversity and climate change problem in the Pacific Northwest. We will try to develop a synthesis of these diverse disciplines in this management context.

Course structure:

We have just nine class meetings of 80 minutes so we will try to cram too much into each class with the primary activity of the course being discussion of literature readings.

Readings and discussions:

The readings are a mix of research papers, synthesis or summary papers, and papers that discuss implications. They were chosen to cover a broad spectrum of topics but don’t represent all possible topics. I hope you will bring in other information to the discussions. Links to pdf files for all class readings are found at: http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/teach/fs505/index.htm.

Each student will turn in at the end of each discussion period a brief written description of the primary research issue addressed (what was their researchable question?) in each assigned paper, the research approach used, and how the primary scientific conclusion relates to the primary research issue. Each of these three points to be covered can be a single sentence so you may have only three sentences per paper. These should be prepared ahead of class time and turned in at the end of the period.

Each student (as part of a 2 person team) will be responsible for leading a discussion of class readings at least once. In preparation for leading a discussion, the discussion leaders will prepare a list of issues and questions related to the reading. Additional data, tables, figures or bibliographic references are welcome. When leading a discussion, begin with a brief (2 minutes tops) summary of the why, what and import of the paper. Then begin the discussion with a question, prompt as needed when the discussion gets off course, and move on to the next question when you think it is time. Keep the primary goals of the course in mind as you guide the discussion.

Evaluation:

Evaluation is based on understanding illustrated in discussions and the abstracts as well as on leadership of assigned discussions. If you don’t participate in the discussions, how do we know how really insightful you are? A lot of people in the class have limited background in ecology so do not think your question is too simple. Ask it!!

Course Outline:

Week

1. Course organization and scheduling

2. Conservation biology paper controversy

Hanson et al.

Spies et al.

3. Risk/uncertainty concepts I

Burgman chapter 1, 2, part of 12

4. Risk/uncertainty concepts II

Aschough et al.

Maquire and Albright

5. Analytical framework fire/fish