eric l berlow wilderness preservation

Science as a Mediation Tool

Most conflict about resource management decisions stems from at least two factors: a) conflicting assumptions that are not articulated, and b) large spatial and temporal variability in natural ecosystems. Natural variability makes it difficult to quantify specific human impacts or to evaluate the success/failure of a specific management decision. Science can be an effective tool to help: a) articulate differing implicit assumptions and address them with data, and b) explain critical variability in natural patterns and human impacts. One project where I currently use this approach involves conflict over policy that regulates the use of packstock (i.e., horses and mules) for recreation in wilderness meadows of the Sierra Nevada mountains in California.

Separating climatic from local impacts to wilderness ecosystems and sensitive species

One of the biggest challenges to managing and protecting wilderness meadows is the difficulty in separating out direct local human impacts (e.g., trampling) from the broader impacts of a changing climate which do not respect wilderness boundaries or rules. This problem particularly true for high elevation meadow ecosystems in the Sierra Nevada which rely heavily on snow melt for water.

To address these issues requires a combination of regional scale data on meadow environmental conditions, and targeted field monitoring. I and other colleagues are working to develop a meadow geo-database for the entire Sierra Nevada that synthesizes data on physical and biotic attributes, sensitive species (e.g., Yosemite Toad, Bufo canorus), and satellite estimates of annual snow signatures for each meadow. Through a combination of large scale data analysis and targeted field monitoring, we hope to better understand how and why wilderness meadows (and their associated flora and fauna) are changing, and how best to protect them.