AIU EVSP232 National Parks Management Plan Powerpoint

Question Description

Looking at the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks create a PowerPoint presentation of approximately 30-35 slides with the primary goals of:

  • Describing the management plan using the grading criteria below
  • Critiquing and analyzing the plan using information gathered from peer-reviewed primary scientific literature and course materials

NOTE: (I already included the management plan link source for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks at the bottom, and also peer review reference sources that are to be used at the bottom of this page)

The vast majority of your points on this project come from the critique and analysis. Critique and analysis means that you look at each type of management plan being done at your site and using peer-reviewed primary scientific research and course materials to evaluate the management strategies being used for specific species, habitats, and other issues at your site.

For example, in this cause your site has active management for an Bears, then you’d find the recovery plan for bears and the most recent scientific work on that bear to supplement the recovery plan and use those sources as evidence to evaluate the effectiveness and appropriateness of the management. Or if your site uses a particular management strategy such as prescribed fire, then you’d find the peer-reviewed primary scientific research that speaks to that strategy at your site or sites that are similar. Those are just 2 examples of the sorts of things you might encounter and how you would handle them.

You should have 5-10+ sources and you must also cite them on each slide (APA style) and on one of your final slides, which should be a References slide. Your references should management plan as well appropriate peer-reviewed primary scientific literature, government and NGO reports, and other appropriately scholarly material.

NOTE: ( I already included the management plan link source for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks at the bottom, and also peer review reference sources that are to be used at the bottom of this page)

Don’t forget that you must cite the sources of your images as well as your data/information. Images can be cited in the same way as text using standard APA citation style. Use appropriate citations throughout the presentation for each fact or figure shown. Information sources should be cited on each slide next to the information, just like you’d do in a paper.

Then have a “References” slide at the end using the full APA style reference for each, these should be alphabetized. Image sources can be cited on the slide itself or at the end on a separate “Image Sources” slide – where they would be organized by slide number. Follow APA format for the reference citations both within your writing and in your references section at the end of your presentation. If you do not have a copy of the APA style manual, be sure to review guidance in the APUS library writing center or other reputable sources.

You will be graded here on the professional nature and effectiveness of your presentation as well as the content. You will want to use a consistent and appropriately professional theme for your graphics and color scheme, fonts, etc. When doing presentations you want to use bulleted or numbered lists instead of large unbroken blocks of text. Never have a slide without a title to guide your reader/listener.

Be sure it is 100% clear to your Instructor what items in your presentation are simply a report of what is in the plan vs. your analysis/critique of it.

One approach is to have the presentation of the management item and then the analysis & critique of that item on the same slide or one followed by the other. Another way is to do all of the reporting in the first part of your presentation and then end with all the slides of your analysis & critique. Either way be sure your bullet points and slide titles are very clear which is which.

PLEASE follow this rubric for the power point:

Final Project Grading Summary

1) Introduction to the Park/Refuge/Forest (10 points – see breakdown below)

1a: formation history such as when the site was established and under what conditions (2.5 points)

1b: brief intro to the managing agency (e.g, USFWS, BLM, USFS, etc.) (2.5 points)

1c: location information, including a map (2.5 points)

1d: important land use and other historical or traditional use information (2.5 points)

2) Management Plan overview (10 points – see breakdown below)

2a: history of the plan including type, date accepted, date(s) revised, etc. (2.5 points)

2b: management philosophy (2.5 points)

2c: primary management issues/problems (2.5 points)

2d: products extracted/used (2.5 points)
3) A critical evaluation of management plan, incorporating course topics and scientific evidence (30 points)
4) Appropriate type and number of sources, properly cited within the writing and at the end of the essay (20 points)
6) Mechanics: organization, length, writing style, grammar, spelling, etc. (10 points)

7) Presentation style & effectiveness (10 points)

8) No Plagiarizing (10 points)

Links for the Management Plans

Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park Service. (30 April 2019). Natural Resources Management Plan. Retrieved from https://www.nps.gov/seki/learn/management/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=106070

Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park Service. (30 April 2019). Bear Management Plan. Retrieved from https://www.nps.gov/seki/learn/management/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=106040

Sequoia and Kings Canyon General Management Plan and Comprehensive River Management Plan (plans found in pdf files at the bottom of the website)- https://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=342&projectId=11110&documentID=17344

Peer Reviewed Scientific Journals are attached below in PDF form

Unformatted Attachment Preview

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11320983 An Ecological Basis for Managing Giant Sequoia Ecosystems Article in Environmental Management · August 2002 DOI: 10.1007/s00267-001-2537-y · Source: PubMed CITATIONS READS 11 193 2 authors, including: Douglas D. Piirto Crestline Forestry Inc. 53 PUBLICATIONS 215 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Sustainable management of forest and woodland areas. View project All content following this page was uploaded by Douglas D. Piirto on 30 March 2014. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. An Ecological Basis for Managing Giant Sequoia Ecosystems DOUGLAS D. PIIRTO Natural Resources Management Department California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407, USA ROBERT R. ROGERS USDA Forest Service Sequoia National Forest 900 West Grand Avenue Porterville, CA 93257-2035, USA ABSTRACT / A strategy for management of giant sequoia groves is formulated using a conceptual framework for eco­ Since their discovery by settlers in 1852, giant se­ quoia trees (Sequoia gigantea [Lindl.] Decne.)1 have fascinated people throughout the world (Figure 1). Early exploitation by commercial interests led to many laws and administrative decisions designed to protect the groves where these magnificent wonders of nature are found (Piirto and others 1997, Tweed 1994). In 1990, the Sequoia National Forest was party to a mediated settlement agreement which established goals for giant sequoia management: to protect, pre­ serve, and restore the groves for the benefit of present and future generations (USDA Forest Service 1990). In 1992, President Bush issued a proclamation that indi­ rectly validated these goals and made them national in scope. Of the approximately 75 naturally occurring giant sequoia groves (Figure 2), 43 are found on na­ tional forests; most of the remainder are found in national parks (Rundel 1972a, Willard 1995, Rogers 1998). Portions of nine groves are in private ownership. All of the naturally occurring giant sequoia groves are found on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada moun­ tains in California. KEY WORDS: Ecosystem management; Environmental indicators; Nat­ ural range of variability; Giant Sequoia 1 The common name, giant sequoia, and the scientific name, Sequoia gigantea (Lindl.) Decne., rather than Sequoiadendron giganteum (Lindl.) Buchholz, will be used in this paper. Justification for this is documented in Davidson (1972) and Piirto (1977). system management recently developed by Region Five of the USDA Forest Service. The framework includes physical, bio­ logical, and social dimensions. Environmental indicators and reference variability for key ecosystem elements are discussed in this paper. The selected ecosystem elements include: 1) attitudes, beliefs, and values; 2) economics and subsistence; 3) stream channel morphology; 4) sediment; 5) water; 6) fire; 7) organic debris; and 8) vegetation mosaic. Recommenda­ tions are made for the attributes of environmental indicators that characterize these elements. These elements and associ­ ated indicators will define and control management activities for the protection, preservation, and restoration of national forest giant sequoia ecosystems. Management Goals Although the mediated settlement agreement (USDA Forest Service 1990) does not elaborate on the meaning of protect, preserve, and restore, the presiden­ tial proclamation (Bush 1992) does provide a context from which meanings useful for management purposes can be derived. In the proclamation President Bush declared: “Naturally occurring old-growth giant se­ quoia groves . . . are unique national treasures that are being managed for biodiversity, perpetuation of the species, public inspiration, and spiritual, aesthetic, rec­ reational, ecological, and scientific values.” Among other things, he proclaimed: “The designated giant sequoia groves shall be protected as natural areas with minimum development.” Scope and Context of this Paper The goals of protect, preserve, and restore are not independent of each other. Restoring giant sequoia ecosystems to conditions that resulted from centuries of adaptation to their environment appears to be the best way to protect them in the present, and to assure their preservation (or more appropriately, perpetuation) in the future (Fullmer and others 1996). This paper pro­ vides a scientific foundation upon which management decisions affecting these goals can be based. The foun­ dation is developed in five steps: 1. Define the ecosystem management process as it applies to national forest giant sequoia groves Figure 1. A The Confederate Group of giant sequoias in Mariposa Grove, Yosemite National Park. Note the signs that give each large tree an individual name. (Photo taken circa 1890.) B By 1970, in the absence of frequent surface fires, a dense thicket of white firs grew at the base of the sequoias. Such thickets provide fuels that could conduct fire high into the sequoias. (Photographs courtesy of Bruce M. Kilgore, National Park Service.) 2. 3. 4. 5. (most of which are currently within the Giant Se­ quoia National Monument administered by the USDA Forest Service). Ecosystem management combines the social, physical, and biological di­ mensions of the environment in a holistic way that is particularly appropriate to the goals described above. Identify elements that are key to the function of giant sequoia ecosystems. This is the second step of the ecosystem management process. It identifies processes (i.e., fire and water), components (e.g., plant species), and structures (arrangement of components) that are important in characterizing giant sequoia groves. Identify indicators of the key elements. Describe how measures of those indicators can vary within naturally functioning giant sequoia ecosys­ tems. Provide practical guidance on how to apply the principles developed above. This context, is neces­ sary for application of the principles developed in this paper. Ecosystem Management in the USDA Forest Service Forest Versus Ecosystem Management Forest management helps people achieve their goals for forests. It seeks to produce results that meet land­ owner expectations, whether the owners are public or private. Leuschner (1984) states: “Forest management in the broadest sense, integrates all of the biological, social, economic, and other factors that affect manage­ ment decisions about the forest.” As defined by Manley and others (1995) ecosystem management is “the skill­ ful, integrated use of ecological knowledge at various scales to produce desired resource values, products, services and conditions in ways that also sustain the diversity and productivity of ecosystems. This approach blends the physical, biological, and cultural/social needs” (Figure 3). There appears to be no difference between the two approaches to the management of wildland natural resources, at least at the philosophical level. So, if the concept of ecosystem management brings anything new it is simply a reminder that elements of an ecosys­ tem are interconnected, and viewing them otherwise leads to faulty assumptions about the consequences of management actions. Former Chief of the Forest Ser­ vice, Dr. Jack Ward Thomas, expressed this thought when he said: “It is time to consider land use in a broader context than a series of single-use allocations to address specific problems or pacify the most vocal constituencies” (Thomas 1993). Concepts of Ecosystem Management Rhetoric abounds, but literature describing the ac­ tual practice of ecosystem management is scant. An exception is Manley and others (1995), a systematic process by field-oriented practitioners to put the con­ cepts of ecosystem management to work on the ground. It deals with five basic conceptual questions: 1) How did the ecosystem develop? 2) What is sustainable? 3) What do we want (within the limits of sustainability)? 4) What do we have? 5) How do we move conditions from what we have to what we want? These questions change the focus from output driven project planning which asks: “What do we need to mitigate because of our actions,” to outcome driven planning which asks: “What do we want to create with our actions?” The process developed by Manley and others (1995) used in this paper involves 14 steps to be applied at the landscape level: Step 1—select a landscape to analyze Step 2—select key ecosystem elements and their environmental indicators Step 3—derive recommended management vari­ ability for the indicators Step 4 — define desired condition Step 5— determine existing condition Step 6 —compare desired condition to existing condition Step 7—identify opportunities to approach desired condition Step 8 —list potential projects (possible manage­ ment practices) Step 9 —project selection, prioritization, and scheduling Step 10 —NEPA analysis and disclosure Step 11—responsible Official decision Step 12—project implementation Step 13—monitoring and feedback Step 14 —possible forest plan adjustment (adaptive management). These steps provide a systematic and administratively feasible approach to ecosystem management. Connecting Science to Ecosystem Management Sustainable ecosystems require that the integrity of their components, structures, and processes (the three general types of elements) be maintained through time and space. This requires a reasonable understanding of how these ecosystems developed into their present state. Landscape conditions within all ecosystems are Figure 2. Locations of giant sequoia groves in the Sierra Nevada (University of Califor­ nia 1996). dynamic, thus measures of their elements change over time and space, but within certain limits. An under­ standing of this “range of variability” is critical to en­ suring the sustainability of these ecosystems. Science plays a key role in providing that understanding (Bon­ nicksen 1985, 1988, Stephenson 1996, Piirto and others 1997). Selecting Key Ecosystem Elements Ecosystem management in Region 5 of the USDA Forest Service (Figures 3 and 4) is guided by the con­ cepts and principles established in “Sustaining Ecosys­ tems—A Conceptual Framework” (Manley and others 1995). This work includes a lengthy list of ecosystem elements that could be helpful in defining and control­ ling the management actions in national forest giant sequoia groves. If all were used in practice the admin­ istrative task would become hopelessly complex. It is therefore necessary to concentrate on just the “key” ecosystem elements (Holling 1992). These are the ones that broadly represent the ecosystem, are influenced by management decisions, and are reasonably well under­ stood (Piirto and Rogers 1999b). The selected key elements for giant sequoia ecosystems are shown in Table 1. Selecting Environmental Indicators Once key ecosystem elements are identified, the next step is to determine what environmental indica­ tors will be used to assess them. From a practical ad­ ministrative point of view the selected indicators should be affected by management actions, change over rela­ tively short periods of time, be feasible to measure either directly or indirectly, and be useful in describing desired conditions (Piirto and Rogers 1999b). The se­ lected environmental indicators for giant sequoia eco­ systems that meet these criteria are shown in Table 1 (Piirto and Rogers 1999b). Natural Range of Variability Environmental indicators are to an ecosystem man­ ager what an engine temperature gauge is to an auto­ mobile driver. Environmental indicators are a measure of ecosystem performance, and at the extremes of their range they often warn of danger. Just as the automobile engine temperature can range from below freezing on a cold day to the boiling point of the engine coolant on a hot one, environmental indicators also range between extremes. This range is referred to as reference vari­ ability, natural range of variability, or historic range of variability. Manley and others (1995) elaborate as follows: “Ref­ erence Variabilities represent the full distribution of values for environmental indicators including infre­ quent and extreme events (e.g., severe floods, high intensity wildfires, etc.). The role of these more ex­ treme disturbances in maintaining ecosystem processes is not well understood, but their importance for biolog­ ical elements is a well-accepted notion.” A desirable and more closely defined operating range is usually found between the extremes. This range is referred to as the recommended management variability (RMV). Again Manley and others (1995) elaborate: “The entire Ref­ erence Variability distribution is important and should be realized, for biological elements, over long-term, Figure 3. The USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest region approach to ecosystem management. Biological, cultural/so­ cial, and physical considerations are integrated to arrive at a desired condition (Manley et al. 1995). evolutionary temporal scales. However, planned man­ agement activities should not normally seek to replicate extreme values of the distribution if they will occur naturally.” Under most conditions, properly designed and executed management actions should be able to maintain environmental indicators within the RMV, and by so doing minimize the risk of extreme events that would jeopardize ecosystem sustainability and re­ siliency (Figure 4). The recommended management variability for any ecosystem must take into account the influence of cli­ mate on forest community development (Patterson and Prentice 1985). Over long periods of time climates do change dramatically. However, even with similar cli­ mate regimes there is substantial variation in the com­ position within and between the giant sequoia groves. Stephenson (1996) states in the context of the biolog­ ical dimension: “. . . . It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that a variety of different grove structures, not a single predictable grove structure, probably occurred during periods that shared similar climates.” Such vari­ ation can also be expected in the cultural/social and physical dimensions as well. Indicators for all of the key giant sequoia ecosystem elements are discussed in detail in Piirto and Rogers (1999b). Because fire, organic debris, and vegetation mosaic are of paramount importance to both users and managers, indicators for these elements will be dis­ cussed here. Figure 4. Relationships be­ tween ecosystem elements, indi­ cators and recommended man­ agement variability (Manley et al. 1995). Fire Severity Indicator High intensity crown fires were evidently rare in the presettlement giant sequoia-mixed conifer forest (Kil­ gore and Taylor 1979, Muir 1961). The risk of high severity fires occurring in giant sequoia groves has in­ creased over the last century due to a reduction in the areal extent of fire in the Sierra Nevadas. Giant sequoia mixed conifer forests now have: 1) more smaller trees with higher proportions of white fir (Abies concolor) and incense-cedar (Libocedrus decurrens) than were present historically; and 2) increased levels of fuel both on the forest floor and as fuel ladders (McKelvey and others 1996, Skinner and Chang 1996, Stephenson 1994). Ste­ phenson (1994) states: “By far the largest deviation from equilibrium conditions (stationary age distribu­ tion) in giant sequoia populations over the last two to three millennia is due to the effects of fire suppression during the last century.” Within this context, Shulman and Gelobter (1996) developed a preliminary wildfire severity and behavior model to evaluate potential loss of spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) habitat during nintieth percentile burning conditions on the Sequoia National Forest. They used stand structure, surface fuels, slope, and weather to estimate the potential for habitat loss. They defined fire risk categories of low, moderate, high, very high, and extreme relying on BEHAVE (Fire Behavior Model) and FOFEM (First Order Fire Effects Model). According to Mr. Jack Eaton (1996), retired USDA Forest Service Fuels Specialist, a giant sequoia grove with only 25% of its area in the high to extreme fire risk categories is likely to avoid crown fires even under ninti­ Table 1. Recommended environmental indicators for national forest giant sequoia groves Ecosystem Elements Recommended Environmental Indicators Attitudes, Beliefs, and Values ● expression of realized expectations ● recognition and incorporation of diverse values and beliefs Economics and Subsistence ● resource uses ● financial feasibility Stream Channel Morphology ● sinuosity, confinement, and gradient (Rosgen channel types) Sediment ● ● ● ● ● Water ● drainage density ● surface distribution ● concentration Fire ● severity ● return rate (i.e., fire return interval) Organic Debris ● weight of down material ● distribution of down material ● snag density Vegetation Mosaic ● gap and patch size ● gap and patch frequency ● plant community ● plant species ● plant density eth percentile burning conditions. A grove with 75% of its area in those categories is seriously threatened. Recommendation. The potential for crown fires in gi­ ant sequoia groves should be kept at low levels. However, because of considerations for the vegetative mosaic ele­ ment, there should be some allowance for patches of dense, multi-layered forest cover even though it contrib­ utes to crown fire potential. The recommended manage­ ment variability for the fire severity indicator should allow between 10% and 25% of the grove area to be in the high to extreme range of potential fire severity, the remainder should be moderate to low. Fire Return Rate (Interval) Indicator It is generally agreed that low to moderate intensity fires in the mixed conifer forest were much more fre­ quent prior to the late 1800’s than they are today. Skinner and Chang (1996) summarized data from sev­ eral authors that describe a reference variability for fire return interval of 1–35 years for the giant sequoiamixed conifer forest. Swetnam and others (1992) and Swetnam (1993) reported a fire return interval for the presettlement giant sequoia-mixed conifer forest of three to eight years with a maximum interval generally less than 15 years (Figure 5). Fire-free periods of 20 –30 years occasionally appeared in the record. vegetative bank protection (upper banks) cutting (lower banks) deposition (lower banks) scouring and deposition (channel bottom) percent stable material (channel bottom) Recommendation. Although the studies cited here were conducted on widely different scales (from 1 to 100 hectares), and include a variety of aspects and other factors that influence fire return interval, there appears to be consensus that the fine scale (on the order of 1 ha) presettlement return interval was on the order of 10 years. If prescribed fire is used extensively, then intervals very much shorter than 10 years are likely to be logistically infeasible for management to attain. On the other hand, intervals longer than about 20 years would probably allow fuels to build to excessive levels (in excess of recommended management variability) in many cases. The recommended management variability for returning low to moderate intensity fire to national forest giant sequoia ecosystems should be in the range of 5–20 years. Weight of Organic Debris-Down Material Indicator Stephenson (1996) and Keifer (1995) report that existing fuel loads can vary from 19 to 134 tons per acre in groves not recently disturbed. From a fire …
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount “GET12” for 12%