Second Quarterly Meeting November 29th 2007 Auburn CA

The SNAMP Project:Learning how to apply

adaptive management in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Second Quarterly MeetingNovember 29th 2007

Auburn CA

Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/

Outline for Public Meeting

• 1. Review our Guiding Principles and Key Agreements

• 2. Project Timeline & Team Updates

• 3. Discussion

• Public Meeting Format

• Data Sharing

• Celebration and Where Do We Go From Here?


Review our guiding principles and key agreements

• Ground Rules

• Roles and Relationships for this Meeting:

• Facilitator: Kim Rodrigues

• Recorder: Susan Clark

• Roles and Relationships for the Project:

• Lead PI: John Battles

• New Project Coordinator: Ann Huber


AdaptiveManagement

USFS:Implement projects as

treatments

USFS: Plan projects with existing management

direction (ROD)

Observe & measureAnalyze &

recalibrate models

USFS: Change management

direction as needed

Analyze & model expected environmental

affects

Propose adjustments to management?

Adaptive Management Framework


SNAMP Timeline

2005

December 9, 2005First SNAMP Public Meeting

December 9, 2005First SNAMP Public Meeting

December 9, 2005Workplan Agreement with

USFS & UCCE

December 9, 2005Workplan Agreement with

USFS & UCCE

February 2005MOU with UC & USFS

February 2005MOU with UC & USFS

April 15, 2005UC SNAMP Proposal Completed

April 15, 2005UC SNAMP Proposal Completed

December 21, 2005SNAMP Key Agreements

December 21, 2005SNAMP Key Agreements

2006

November 11, 2006MOU + UCST

Meeting, Sacramento, CA

November 11, 2006MOU + UCST


January 13, 2006 MOU

Partner’s Meeting

January 13, 2006 MOU

Partner’s Meeting

January 20, 2006 Public Comment

Website Accessible

January 20, 2006 Public Comment

Website Accessible

October 2, 2006 MOU + UCST + USFS

Staff Field Trip: American River

October 2, 2006 MOU + UCST + USFS

Staff Field Trip: American River

September 7, 2006 MOU + UCST + USFS

Staff Field Trip: Bass Lake

September 7, 2006 MOU + UCST + USFS

Staff Field Trip: Bass Lake

July 2, 2006SNAMP Public

Meeting

July 2, 2006SNAMP Public

Meeting

July 21, 2006MOU + UCST


July 21, 2006MOU + UCST


May 15, 2006MOU Review &

UCST Response Posted

May 15, 2006MOU Review &

UCST Response Posted

May 8, 2006 Workplan Peer Review Posted

May 8, 2006 Workplan Peer Review Posted

April 28, 2006MOU + UCST

Meeting, Sacramento,

CA

April 28, 2006MOU + UCST

Meeting, Sacramento,

CA

February 28, 2006

Workplan Posted

February 28, 2006

Workplan Posted

February 10, 2006 Draft

Workplan Posted

February 10, 2006 Draft

Workplan Posted

August 20, 20071st QuarterlyReport, Davis

2007

January 24, 2007 SNAMP Public

Meeting

January 24, 2007 SNAMP Public

Meeting

January 16, 2007Revised Workplan Posted

January 16, 2007Revised Workplan Posted

January 11, 2007MOU + UCST


January 11, 2007MOU + UCST


May 16, 2007Full UCST Meeting

November 29, 20072nd Quarterly

Report, Auburn


UCST Science TeamsFire & Forest Ecosystem

Health• Scott Stephens, PI• John Battles, PI• Brandon Collins, Post-Doc• Adrian Das, Post-Doc• Gary Roller, PM

Fisher• Reg Barrett, PI• Rick Sweitzer, PM

Owl• Rocky Gutiérrez, PI• Doug Tempel, PM

Public Participation• Lynn Huntsinger, PI• Kimberly Rodrigues, PI• Maggi Kelly, PI• Adriana Sulak, Post-Doc• Ann Lombardo, Extension• Ken’ichi Ueda, MS Student

Spatial• Maggi Kelly, PI• Qinghua Guo, PI• Marek Jakubowski, Ph.D.

Student

Water• Roger Bales, PI• Martha Conklin, PI• Qinghua Guo, PI• Sarah Martin, Ph.D. Student• Matt Meadows, Hydrologist

SNAMP Project Integration

• John Battles, Lead PI• Ann Huber, Academic

Coordinator

SNAMP Project Integration

• John Battles, Lead PI• Ann Huber, Academic

Coordinator


The SNAMP Study Sites

Placeholder for site maps


The SNAMP Study Sites

Placeholder for site photos


Monitoring and Research

• Monitoring targets are based on key forest management goals:• Reducing the potential for

catastrophic wildfire• Protecting wildlife habitat• Maintaining high-quality water• Working with the public


University of California Role

• Provide independent third-party monitoring and research

• Help develop and evaluate an adaptive management program with strong public participation


Science Team: Our Commitment

• Monitoring• We will monitor and analyze impacts of management treatments (and

USFS public participation processes) as a third party • Open and Transparent Process

• We commit to an open and transparent process, with public participation and full reporting to USFS and public from the beginning

• Information Tracking• We will follow how information is gathered and used as it is fed back into

the adaptive management process; report on use of information to public, Science Team, and USFS

• Public Participation• We will engage the public, as stakeholders, in monitoring and research, to

develop a “community of stakeholders” at local and regional scales


Project Integration Group (John)

• Accomplishments since Q1• Formalized internal UCST communication

• Bimonthly UCST conference calls• Weekly communication with each science team regarding their progress• Weekly update email posted to UCST

• Coordinated:• Getting science team workplans posted to SNAMP website• Q2 meeting and logistics planning with PPT• UCST review of data sharing and publications guidelines agreement with PPT• Owl revised proposal discussion and presentation



• Accomplishments since Q1 (continued)• Obtained UCST consensus on

• Process for proposing new / altered research plans• Revised Neutrality Statement

• Communication with MOU Partners • Worked with USFS and Spatial Team to coordinate development of updated,

detailed SNAMP project map• Coordination of housing logistics for science teams for next summer• Communication with FS personnel regarding plans for treatment implementation• Served as central information hub for communications between MOU partners

and science team members• Developed UCST org chart• Clarified purchasing procedures for UC Berkeley teams


SNAMP Project Challenges (John)

• Uneven funding

• Implications of one-year delay

• Scale Issues



• Next steps• Progress on data sharing and integration between teams with

data• Begin integrating complementary research studies in the

Sierra Nevada (meta-replication)• More frequent, improved communication with MOUP


AdaptiveManagement


treatments


direction (ROD)


recalibrate models


direction as needed


affects


Fire & Forest Health & Adaptive Management

Locate study sites that meet criteria, plan treatments

Develop monitoring protocol, establish plots, inventory forest

structure and fuels, fire history reconstruction

Monitoring of forest conditions and changes

Use fuel and silvicultural models

Report results

Adaptive Management


Forest Fire & Ecosystem Health (Scott)

• Foresthill:• Total Plots: 200• 138 plots in the two treatment

watersheds at a 500m grid, additionally two sets of 16 plots each at a 250m grid

• 15 plots densified in the Frazier Creek control watershed

• 15 plots densified in the Bear Trap Creek treatment watershed

• Rows 250m apart with plots 125m running north to south

• Sugar Pine:• Total Plots: 115• 76 plots in the general treatment area

around the town of Sugar Pine at a 500m grid

• 18 plots densified in the Big Sandy treatment watershed

• 21 plots densified in the North Speckerman control watershed

• rows 250m apart with plots 125m running north to south

• Cedar Valley:• 71 of 122 plots complete at a 500m

grid in the area around the town of Cedar Valley scheduled for immediate harvest

• Accomplishments & Notes


Overstory Species Composition >2 inches DBH

Tree Species Forest Hill (%) Sugar Pine (%)

Cedar Valley (%)

Abies concolor(balsam/white fir)

45 28 29

Abies magnifica(CA red fir)

7 3 0

Calocedrus decurrens(Insence cedar)

9 32 35

Pinus lambertiana(Sugar pine)

16 10 7

Pinus ponderosa(Ponderosa pine)

9 18 15

Quercus kelloggii(Black oak)

2 7 8

Pseudotsuga menziessii (Douglas fir)

12 0 0

Live Oak Family, misc. 0 0 3


Average Canopy CoverTree Species Forest Hill

(%)Sugar Pine

(%)Cedar Valley

(%)

Abies concolor (balsam/white fir)

20.5 17.1 13.5

Abies magnifica (CA red fir)

2.6 1.1 0.0

Calocedrus decurrens (Insence cedar)

3.9 0.3 16.7

Live Oak Family, misc. 0.0 1.3 11.2

Pinus lambertiana (Sugar pine)

6.8 5.1 3.3

Pinus ponderosa (Ponderosa pine)

5.8 10.7 8.4


9.6 0.0 0.0

Quercus kelloggii (Black oak)

1.5 9.8 9.6

TOTAL 51 63.7 62.9


Average Shrub Cover

Shrub Cover Forest Hill (%)

Sugar Pine (%)

Cedar Valley (%)

Arctostaphylos nevedensis (pine mat manzanita)

3.7 0.6 0.0

Arctostaphylos patula (green leaf manzanita)

6.8 8.2 9.9

Ceanothus cordulatus (whitethorn)

2.7 2.6 0.1

Chamaebatia foliolosa (mountain misery)

0.3 13.4 5.0

Chrysolepis sempervirens (golden chinquapin)

1.7 4.7 0.0

Lithocarpus densiflorus (tanoak)

9.7 0.0 0.0

Quercus vaccinifolia (huckleberry oak)

10.7 0.0 0.0

Ribes shrubs(currant, gooseberry, etc.)

0.8 1.0 0.5

Symphoricarpos mollis (snowberry)

1.1 0.0 2.3


Basal Area>2 inches DBH

Tree Species Forest Hill (ft²/Acre)

Sugar Pine (ft²/Acre)

Cedar Valley

(ft²/Acre)

Abies concolor (Balsam/white fir)

81 66 67

Abies magnifica (CA Red fir)

12 6 0

Calocedrus decurrens (Insence cedar)

15 76 81

Live Oak Family, misc. 0 1 14

Pinus lambertiana (Sugar pine)

29 24 17

Pinus ponderosa (Ponderosa pine)

16 42 34


21 0 0

Quercus kelloggii (Black oak)

3 17 19

TOTAL 178 234 232


Forest Fire & Ecosystem Health (Scott)

• Ongoing outreach activities & ideas for public participation

• Next steps• Complete the inventory in the summer of ‘08

• control firesheds in the northern and southern sites, and complete the new Cedar Valley project in the southern site

• We will also collect fire scars and corers from trees to be used in mortality modeling


AdaptiveManagement


treatments


direction (ROD)


recalibrate models


direction as needed


affects


Water & Adaptive Management

Adaptive Management

Monitor changes in water quality & water budget in representative areas

Impact of forest treatments on water quality & budget, aquatic habitat &

aquatic biota at 3 levels: watershed, forest, bioregion

Based on impacts on streams, water cycle & forest health

Potential effects of treatments on watershed processes


Water(Roger & Martha)

• Accomplishments & Notes• 4 meteorological stations completed• Additional instrument sites selected

• Ongoing outreach activities & ideas for public participation• Yosemite H.S., Oakhurst, CA

• Next steps• Sediment basin permitting construction• Procure & install instrument clusters• Set up modeling framework• Await funding & purchases from DWR


AdaptiveManagement


treatments


direction (ROD)


recalibrate models


direction as needed


affects


Wildlife & Adaptive Management

Adaptive Management

Report on species status, conditions, mortality or disappearance

Select species for study, develop research protocol,Inventory and mark animals

Monitor owl and fisher


Wildlife: Fisher

Accomplishments & Notes• Bass Lake/North Fork Research Station

established• Six project technicians hired (3 M.S., 3 B.S.)• Field research was initiated in mid October• 15 camera traps established within SNAMP

watersheds; 2 fisher detections


Wildlife: Fisher

Accomplishments & Notes• Rick Sweitzer participated in “Sugar Pine Adaptive Mgt Public

Fieldtrip” hosted by Bass Lake Ranger District (Sept 29, 2007)

Ideas for Public Participation • Will provide Ann Lombardo with information

from study as project picks up steam


Wildlife: Fisher

• Accomplishments & Notes• Grid (1 km2) –based design for

research • Camera traps & other activities

linked to numbered grid; example is distribution of 15 camera traps

• Commercial thinning underway in Nelder Creek watershed

• Grid will be monitored with camera traps until 20 fisher are collared


• Next Steps• Continue to establish camera

traps in SNAMP watersheds and beyond

• Will radio-collar fishers through winter until at least 20 animals collared

• All radio-collared fisher will be monitored daily to determine cause of mortality

Fisher: Next Steps


• OPTION 1: Use existing data from Eldorado Study Area (ESA)• Determine which owl territories have recently experienced SPLAT-like

treatments• We have extensive occupancy, reproductive, and survival data for all ESA

territories

• OPTION 2: Use future data from ESA• Identify owl territories that will receive SPLAT treatments over same time frame

as SNAMP• Data will be collected during our ongoing efforts on the ESA

Wildlife: OwlOptions to Increase Sample Size


• OPTION 3: Expand our survey effort to include additional owl Protected Activity Centers (PACs) on Tahoe or Eldorado N.F.• Identify owl PACs near areas scheduled to receive SPLAT treatments over

same time frame as SNAMP• Survey, capture, and monitor owls in these areas

• OPTION 4: Expand our survey effort to include any SPLAT treatment sites on Tahoe or Eldorado N.F.• Identify any areas scheduled to receive SPLAT treatments over same time

frame as SNAMP (regardless of historic owl presence)• Survey, capture, and monitor owls in these areas

Wildlife: OwlOptions to Increase Sample Size


• Increased cooperation between UCST and U.S. Forest Service• Required for all options but particularly critical for Options 3-4• With assistance from U.S.F.S., assess the potential increase in sample size from

Options 1-2 before the 2008 field season

• Financial cost• Options 1-2 incur no additional costs for SNAMP• Options 3-4 incur additional (but unknown) costs for SNAMP

• Scale of Study Area• Expanded scale of owl sampling increases the generality of owl results• Strengthens the study (rather than weakens it)

Wildlife: OwlImplications of Revised Study Design


• Accompany owl crews on night-time surveys• Assess areas for presence/absence of owls• Surveys generally occur along roads• Less physically strenuous than following option• U of Minnesota requires participants to sign waiver of liability

• Accompany owl crews on walk-in surveys• Identify or capture (if necessary) owls detected during night-time surveys• Assess reproductive status of owls• Public participants must be in excellent physical condition• The use of mice to assess reproduction may offend some members of public• U of Minnesota requires participants to sign waiver of liability

Wildlife: OwlPublic Participation


AdaptiveManagement


treatments


direction (ROD)


recalibrate models


direction as needed


affects


Spatial Analysis & Adaptive Management

Adaptive Management

Modeling

Mapping and data support

Data acquisition and analysis

Data & results display


Spatial Team: UCB and UCM (Maggi)

• Accomplishments & Notes• Lidar data for the Southern site have been acquired • Study Site maps have been created and posted• GIS data are continually maintained• Facilitated GIS software licensing for other teams• Evaluation of large-scale forest structure data for wildlife team use• Coordinate Data Sharing Draft Protocol for:

• Within-team sharing• Data sharing with the public


Spatial Team: Next Steps

• Next Steps• Data Acquisition

• Acquiring high spatial resolution images for the study areas• Plan Lidar data acquisition and other spatial data for the Northern site • Updating spatial data, current vegetation maps and high resolution DEM for

larger study areas• Data Processing

• Processing Southern Site Lidar data to extract DEM and vegetation structure• Process remote sensing data and other spatial data

• Data Sharing • Coordinate gathering and sharing of data collected by UCST • Setting up the data sever for users to upload data with security login in and

distribute spatial data via web GIS technique Work to link the remote sensing derived products to other team field measurements, and start upscalling


Spatial Team

• Ongoing Outreach Activities & Ideas for Public Participation• Study site maps available on SNAMP site• Data Sharing discussion begun• WebGIS site in development• Encourage discussion through Discussion Board


AdaptiveManagement


treatments


direction (ROD)


recalibrate models


direction as needed


affects


Public Participation & Adaptive Management

Adaptive Management

Incorporate information & ideas from stakeholders into research plan, strategic facilitation

1. Effectiveness of web, community-based, & public meeting methods?

2. How is information used by scientists and USFS?3. Role of UC as third party?

Enable stakeholder participation in monitoring and research; Observe NEPA process of USFS; Initiate Triggers and Thresholds

Enable stakeholder and partner participation in interpretation

Track & report use of information and participation in management and

research;Work with USFS to incorporate what

is learned


Public Participation (Lynn)

• Accomplishments & Notes• Introducing Anne Lombardo -- local outreach• Introducing Adrianna Sulak -- project analysis• Strategic facilitation continuing including facilitating Triggers and

Threshold process• Continued website development with systematic user input• Developed a range of outreach materials: SNAMP handout, maps,

newsletter• Participation in, and evaluation of Forest Service and other outreach

meetings and activities• Project archival and historical information


Public Participation (Lynn)

• Next steps• Triggers and Thresholds Report• Data Sharing protocol• Workshop with Forest Service• Re-organization and re-launch of SNAMP website• Facilitation Training in Spring 2008• Plan for Q3• Expand outreach


For Discussion

• Public Meeting Format (Kim)

• Data Sharing Protocol (Maggi)• Emerging Guiding Principles• Constraints on Data Sharing• SNAMP Data Table

• Where do we go from here? (Kim)


SNAMP Data Sharing

• The SNAMP Project will collect, analyze and generate large datasets, from data collected by teams on the ground to remotely measured spatial data.

• The UCST has a commitment to make our workplan, meeting notes, and discussions public and transparent; yet have not yet formally decided on a protocol for sharing of data.

• Sharing data is a key part of adaptive management; but there are constraints associated with sharing


Data Sharing Guidelines

• Data propriety begins with the lead PI of the research teams that have collected the data, and each PI will have the ability to decide which of their team’s data can be shared, either internally (within UCST) or externally (outside of UCST);

• There is a limited time period that the lead research team PI have propriety of their data (6-12 months);

• All data requests must be approved in writing by the science team lead PI that has overseen the study in question;

• All science team PIs must archive their data at least annually.


Data Sharing Constraints

• The UCST will make efforts to make spatial and non-spatial data public whenever possible and/or appropriate.

• There are compelling reasons why a scientist might not want to distribute data, for example: • disclosure of location of people or rare and endangered species might put them at risk; • data might not be complete; • data might have proprietary restrictions originating outside of the UCST.

• For spatial data that is common across all teams, the spatial team will review and make recommendations on the appropriate format for data sharing. We are concerned about distributing overly large file sizes.


Data from SNAMPTeam PI Data set Public? Format Avail?

Integration John Battles Study area boundaries Yes Shapefiles Yes SNAMP SPLAT Treatments Yes, from MOU Shapefile ? Cedar Valley Treatments Yes, from MOU Shapefile ? Fish Camp Project…Others… Yes, from MOU Shapefile ? Fire & Forest Health

Scott Stephens

Plot locations No GPS points Yes *

Wildlife Reg Barrett Study area boundary Yes Shapefile Yes Fisher presence: 1km2 scale grid Yes Grid Not yet Rocky

Gutierrez Study area boundary Yes Shapefile Yes

PACs From MOU Shapefile Yes * Eldorado study area Yes Shapefile ? Water Roger Bales / Study area boundaries Yes Shapefile Yes Martha

Conklin Samples ? GPS Points No

Public Particip’n

Lynn Huntsinger

Names of stakeholder participants Meeting notes Meeting evaluations by participants Meeting evaluations by ppt Notes from discussions Local historical information

Yes Yes No No No Yes

Document Documents Documents and database Documents and database Documents and database Documents and database

?

Spatial Qinghua Guo

/ Lidar imagery No Raw LAS No**

Maggi Kelly ? Processed DEM No** ? Tree height No** ? Structure No** Others…

* shown in public meeting presentation, which is published on the web.** There was a public request for these data.


Public Website

• Discussion Board• Add comments about current

activities• Document Archive• Workplan

• Workplan-specific documents• Photographs

• From the field and meetings• Meeting Information

• News on current and past meetings

• Background Reading


Time to Celebrate

• Eat• Talk• Be Merry

• Please talk to each other and share ideas about how to work together.

Second Quarterly Meeting November 29th 2007 Auburn CA

Documents

Transcript of Second Quarterly Meeting November 29th 2007 Auburn CA