The SNAMP Project: Learning how to apply adaptive management in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

1
The SNAMP ProjectLearning how to applyadaptive
management in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan
Amendment

• Second Quarterly Meeting
• November 29th 2007
• Auburn CA

2
(No Transcript)
3
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?

4
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

5
Adaptive Management Framework
USFS Plan projects with existing management
direction (ROD)
USFS Change management direction as needed
Analyze model expected environmental affects
Propose adjustments to management?
Adaptive Management
USFS Implement projects as treatments
Analyze recalibrate models
Observe measure
6
SNAMP Timeline
May 16, 2007 Full UCST Meeting
August 20, 2007 1st Quarterly Report, Davis
November 29, 2007 2nd Quarterly Report, Auburn
December 9, 2005 First SNAMP Public Meeting
February 2005 MOU with UC USFS
April 15, 2005 UC SNAMP Proposal Completed
December 21, 2005 SNAMP Key Agreements
2005
December 9, 2005 Workplan Agreement with USFS
UCCE
7
UCST Science Teams

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

• 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

• Fisher
• Reg Barrett, PI
• Rick Sweitzer, PM

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

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

• Owl
• Rocky Gutiérrez, PI
• Doug Tempel, PM

8
The SNAMP Study Sites
Placeholder for site maps
9
The SNAMP Study Sites
Placeholder for site photos
10
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

11
University of California Role

• Provide independent third-party monitoring and
  research

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

12
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

13
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

14
Project Integration Group (John)

• 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

15
SNAMP Project Challenges (John)

• Uneven funding
• Implications of one-year delay
• Scale Issues

16
Project Integration Group (John)

• 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

17
Fire Forest Health Adaptive Management
Locate study sites that meet criteria, plan
treatments
USFS Plan projects with existing management
direction (ROD)
Develop monitoring protocol, establish plots,
inventory forest structure and fuels, fire
history reconstruction
USFS Change management direction as needed
Analyze model expected environmental affects
Adaptive Management
Propose adjustments to management?
Adaptive Management
USFS Implement projects as treatments
Report results
Monitoring of forest conditions and changes
Analyze recalibrate models
Observe measure
Use fuel and silvicultural models
18
Forest Fire Ecosystem Health (Scott)

• 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

• 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

19
Overstory Species Composition gt2 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
20
Average Canopy Cover
Tree 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
Pseudotsuga menziessii (Douglas fir) 9.6 0.0 0.0
Quercus kelloggii (Black oak) 1.5 9.8 9.6
TOTAL 51 63.7 62.9
21
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
22
Basal Areagt2 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
Pseudotsuga menziessii (Douglas fir) 21 0 0
Quercus kelloggii (Black oak) 3 17 19
TOTAL 178 234 232
23
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

24
Water Adaptive Management
USFS Plan projects with existing management
direction (ROD)
Based on impacts on streams, water cycle forest
health
USFS Change management direction as needed
Analyze model expected environmental affects
Adaptive Management
Propose adjustments to management?
Adaptive Management
USFS Implement projects as treatments
Impact of forest treatments on water quality
budget, aquatic habitat aquatic biota at 3
levels watershed, forest, bioregion
Monitor changes in water quality water budget
in representative areas
Analyze recalibrate models
Observe measure
Potential effects of treatments on watershed
processes
25
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

26
Wildlife Adaptive Management
USFS Plan projects with existing management
direction (ROD)
Select species for study, develop research
protocol, Inventory and mark animals
USFS Change management direction as needed
Analyze model expected environmental affects
Adaptive Management
Propose adjustments to management?
Adaptive Management
USFS Implement projects as treatments
Report on species status, conditions, mortality
or disappearance
Monitor owl and fisher
Analyze recalibrate models
Observe measure
27
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

28
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

29
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

30
Fisher Next Steps

• 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

31
Wildlife OwlOptions to Increase Sample Size

• 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

32
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

33
Wildlife OwlImplications of Revised Study
Design

• 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)

34
Wildlife OwlPublic Participation

• 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

35
Spatial Analysis Adaptive Management
USFS Plan projects with existing management
direction (ROD)
USFS Change management direction as needed
Analyze model expected environmental affects
Adaptive Management
Mapping and data support
Propose adjustments to management?
Adaptive Management
USFS Implement projects as treatments
Data results display
Data acquisition and analysis
Analyze recalibrate models
Observe measure
Modeling
36
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

37
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

38
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

39
Public Participation Adaptive Management
Incorporate information ideas from stakeholders
into research plan, strategic facilitation
USFS Plan projects with existing management
direction (ROD)
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?
USFS Change management direction as needed
Analyze model expected environmental affects
Enable stakeholder participation in
monitoring and research Observe NEPA process of
USFS Initiate Triggers and Thresholds
Adaptive Management
Propose adjustments to management?
Adaptive Management
USFS Implement projects as treatments
Track report use of information and
participation in management and research Work
with USFS to incorporate what is learned
Analyze recalibrate models
Observe measure
Enable stakeholder and partner participation in
interpretation
40
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

41
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

42
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)

43
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

44
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 teams 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.

45
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.

46
Data from SNAMP
shown in public meeting presentation, which is
published on the web. There was a public
request for these data.
47
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

48
Time to Celebrate

• Eat
• Talk
• Be Merry
• Please talk to each other and share ideas about
  how to work together.