Frequently Asked Questions
Email questions regarding DecAID to bswebb@fs.fed.us. Put "DecAID Question" in the subject line. Answers to frequently asked questions will be posted here.
Question: How can I print tables and figures on one page? If I print from the DecAID web site tables and figures break across pages.
Answer: Unfortunately we have not found a way to format the DecAID pages for printing with the new web software. The best way to print tables and figures is to copy them from the web site and past them in a Word document. You can them format the document to print with page breaks and can resize graphs.
Question: What is the minimum size of an analysis area when using information in DecAID for project planning?
Answer: The minimum scale of 20 square miles is necessary if using the vegetation inventory data. If you are just using the wildlife data, you can use a smaller scale. The wildlife data were collected at the stand scale to describe stand or plot level habitat use. However, use of the vegetation inventory data give you much more flexibility in applying snag and down wood densities to a project area than just using the wildlife data.
Question: Should we still be using the concept of Biological Potential for analysis?
Answer: Rose et al. (2001) report that results of monitoring indicates that the biological potential models are a flawed technique (page 602). The eastside screens still mention biological potential but also state that we need to use the best available science - the biological potential model does not meet the "best available science" standard. The NW Forest Plan also refers to biological potential, but uses it as a placeholder until better information can be developed. The LRMP standards based on biological potential still need to be met as a minimum, but this shouldn't conflict with use of the best available science. Clearly state that you are meeting your LRMP standards as a minimum, but also clearly state what the best available science indicates for snag management.
Question: What is the appropriate Structural Condition Class to use for bug-killed lodgepole pine and mixed conifer stands that are > 10 years post-disturbance?
Answer: This is a challenging situation ... there are no good data for these stands. Post-fire wildlife habitat information for EMC stands is not applicable to this situation ... all those data points are from stands < 10 years and most <5 years post-disturbance. And there is no post-disturbance wildlife data for LP. For the other structural conditions, the BBWO and TTWO data from Goggans et al. ( 1988)doesn't give snag densities so that doesn't help either. If canopy closure in LP is >10% the stands would fall into the LP Small/medium tree class. That leaves marten (AMMA) data as the only data for wildlife, though there is inventory data for this type.
The best solution is to rely on the information available on life history of BBWO and TTWO indicating that they use high densities of recently dead trees (while beetle populations are high). Also discuss AMMA use of snags, but mostly down wood. Use the literature on these species that are in DecAID to help with this discussion.
In addition, show how other areas of the landscape are providing habitat for these species. Compare these data to the distribution histograms to show if there are adequate areas with high densities of snags and down wood on the landscape.