uc science team 2012 annual report for mou...

UC Science Team 2012 Annual Report For MOU Partners

October 17, 2012

i

Contents Project Integration and Management…………………………………………………..1 SNAMP Budget Tables....…………………………………..…………………..…….7 Fire and Forest Ecosystem Health……………………………………………………...10 Wildlife Pacific Fisher………………………………………………………………………. 19 Spotted Owl………………………………………………………………………...29 Water Quality and Quantity…………………………………………………………… 32 Spatial………………………………………………………………………………….. 38 Public Participation……………………………………………………………………..41

of 54

Purpose and Scope of Report The purpose of this report is to summarize the Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project (SNAMP) University of California Science Team’s accomplishments, findings, and challenges over the past year. Updates are also given to the Memorandum of Understanding Partners (MOUP) during quarterly conference calls through the year and posted to the SNAMP website for public viewing at http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/. Science summaries are main highlights only. Each team also communicates its work at Integration Team meetings, at SNAMP field trips and workshops, in presentations at scientific conferences, and in publications in scientific journals. PROJECT INTEGRATION AND MANAGEMENT (PETER HOPKINSON AND JOHN BATTLES) 1) Overall goal

Our work is divided into three tasks: fostering science integration; managing the SNAMP budget; and serving as a communication hub within the Science Team (UCST) and to the MOUP. Our overarching goal is to ensure that at the end of this project, UCST will deliver SNAMP’s intended result: a multi-resource assessment of US Forest Service (USFS) land management practices on Water, Wildlife, Fire, Forest Health, and Public Participation on a fireshed scale using an adaptive management framework, innovative science, and stakeholder participation. The work of the Spatial Team is fundamental to fulfilling the science integration and innovative science goals. The Project Integration and Management (PIM) team works to keep the SNAMP Science Team functioning as an integrated whole, helps build science integration, and ensures that teams will be able to report their findings on a common spatial scale – the fireshed. This year, following the stabilization of SNAMP funding for 2012/2013, the PIM team has led planning for the project “endgame” in 2014: the integrated assessment of the SNAMP focal resources, the production of the final project report, and the closing of the adaptive management loop. In 2011, the US Forest Service requested that SNAMP finish work by the original 2014 deadline. However, given the delays in treatment implementation, a 2014 project end-date will result in a condensed project timeline with fewer post-treatment sampling years than originally planned. The PIM team has coordinated the UCST’s final revision of workplans, timelines, and budgets in response to the stabilized funding but shortened timeline. 2) What has been accomplished and learned in 2012 Nuts and bolts project management

• SNAMP budget, contracts, and grants administration o We have coordinated the final revisions of UCST budgets and workplans in response

to the stable 2012/2013 funding. o We have coordinated the UCST budget requests and workplans for the final year

(2014) of data analysis and modeling, report writing, and MOUP and public participation.

http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/

of 54

o Given the demonstrated public benefit of UC’s role in SNAMP, the University of California has waived indirect costs for SNAMP grants and contracts. However, UC continues to evaluate each waiver request on a case by case basis.

o We successfully completed a new cooperative agreement with the USFS that provides both Year 6 (2012) and Year 7 (2013) funding for SNAMP.

o We worked closely with the state Resources Agency and the Department of Water Resources (DWR) on funding for the Water team in 2012 and continue to work with them on funding for the Spatial and Water teams in 2013.

o We report on team budgets and project their expenses on a quarterly basis and provide invoice details for every reimbursement request.

• Internal UCST communication o Led significant and on-going planning for the production of SNAMP’s final products. o Organized and led 2-day “All Scientists Meeting” for UCST on September 27-28, 2012,

including a presentation by Tray Biasiolli and Angela White of Pat Manley’s USFS PSW research group regarding their Sugar Pine small mammal and bird study and a presentation by David Saah of the Spatial Informatics Group on techniques for integrating multi-resource assessments.

o Maintained frequent, open communication with UCST resource teams. o Organized and led monthly UCST conference calls. o Visited teams in the field and attended IT meetings and workshops. o Maintained collaborative internal UCST website (bSpace). o Checked for consistency in funding acknowledgements and SNAMP publication

numbers in SNAMP submitted manuscripts. o Assisted teams with HR activities. o Helped coordinate integration meetings between teams. o Coordinated UCST submission of proposals to funding agencies and organizations,

including the Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP).

• Communication with MOUP and stakeholders o Maintained regular communication with MOUP members. o Coordinated all reports to MOUP and MOUP quarterly conference calls. o Informed MOUP of new SNAMP publications. o Co-organized and led a PPT/PIM Integration meeting on June 22, 2012, to present and

seek MOUP and public feedback on our revised workplans and timelines, including their effects on project science design and products, and to propose several options for the integrated final report and other potential final written products.

o Communicated with Pat Manley’s USFS PSW research group regarding their Sugar Pine small mammal and bird study; requested and posted on SNAMP website an update on their study; in addition, members of the Manley group gave a presentation and participated in lively discussion at our 2012 All Scientists Meeting.

o Coordinated MOUP letters of support for FFEH and Wildlife teams’ JFSP proposal. o Coordinated with CalFire regarding obtaining harvest information on private land for

Owl team. o Communicated with USFS regarding SNAMP site treatments for Water team.

of 54

o Coordinated response to stakeholders’ requests for budget data, contract information, and quarterly meeting agendas and updates.

o Coordinated CalFire staff access to SNAMP water data. o Briefed Sierra Nevada Conservancy (SNC) staff about SNAMP fisher project and

produced written brief for SNC-organized meeting on fisher in Sierra Nevada. o Co-coordinating the SNAMP 2012 Annual Meeting on October 23, 2012.

• Overall SNAMP work o Communicated with SNAMP UC Advisory Committee regarding the improved SNAMP

funding outlook. o Maintained SNAMP publications list: many publications produced by SNAMP in 2012.

Planning for the SNAMP integrated assessment and final report As noted above, since last year’s Annual report, PIM and the UCST have been heavily engaged in planning for the future of SNAMP. Initially, during the last two months of 2011, we were preparing for the effects of significant budget cuts. However, at the start of the new year, we received the welcome news that USFS Region 5 had committed to maintaining the SNAMP funding at 2011 levels. In addition, despite the state’s budget crisis, the California Department of Water Resources was able to contribute significant funding to the Water team for 2012. In response, the UCST switched its planning focus to preparing for the project “endgame” in 2014: the integrated assessment of the SNAMP focal resources, the production of the final project report, and the closing of the adaptive management circle. In Spring 2012, the UCST rewrote resource team workplans and budgets (we hope for the final time!) with the assumption, subsequently borne out, that USFS would support SNAMP at 2011 funding levels in both 2012 and 2013. We also developed proposed team budgets and a timeline for 2014, the year which UCST will spend completing data analysis, resource modeling, report writing, and MOUP and public meetings. PIM and the UCST have invested much effort into building an approach for the integrated assessment of SPLAT effects on forest resources. In addition, we have started to develop the form that the final written product will take. PIM presented ideas for the final written product(s) at a public Integration meeting in June 2012. We received much useful feedback that directed us to concentrate on a final report format that will serve several audiences, e.g., forest managers, high-level policy-makers, agency and interest group scientists, and the general public. Currently, PIM and the UCST are working on how to develop metrics for each team that will allow for an integrated assessment of the effects of SPLATs on the focal resources and how best to present this integrated assessment in the final report. This was the primary topic we considered at our annual “All Scientists” meeting at the end of September 2012. We made good progress at the meeting, producing a framework for the integrated assessment and developing several ways we might present the assessment to the various SNAMP audiences. The UCST will present the framework at the SNAMP Annual meeting this coming October and will seek input from the MOUP and the public at the Annual meeting and thereafter. During 2013, the UCST resource teams will

of 54

fully develop their metrics, and PIM will lead the effort to unify the metrics into an integrated whole. 3) PIM plans for the rest of 2012 and 2013 We will continue working towards the goals stated in item no.1. In 2013, as well as our administrative tasks, we will focus: 1) on helping the teams develop the metrics that will be used in the integrated assessment, and 2) on planning for the SNAMP final integrated report. In addition, we will continue our efforts to support cross-team analyses, which have produced several publications in 2012. We will hold another All Scientists meeting in 2013, at which we finalize development and integration of the team metrics before presenting them to the MOUP and public at the 2013 Annual meeting. 4) Integration efforts in 2012 – Please refer to item no.2. 5) Products Briefing, Sierra Nevada Conservancy (SNC) staff, June 4, 2012 IT meeting presentation, MOUP, stakeholders, June 22, 2012 6) Current and near-term challenges A continuing challenge is to maintain the partnerships among the agencies, UC Science team, and the public as the inevitable changes in leadership occur. SNAMP is built on personal relationships, and these relationships need to be rebuilt if the goals of SNAMP are to be achieved. The PIM team has devoted considerable effort to building and maintaining relationships, following recent changes in both federal and state agencies

of 54

Figure PIM-1. SNAMP general project timeline, revised in response to improved budget situation, July 2012

of 54

Budget From SNAMP’s origin, the federal and state agencies who signed the MOU (i.e., the MOU partners) have shared responsibility for funding SNAMP. As noted above, the USFS restored 2012 funding (Project Year 6) to the target level of $1,4oo K. These funds support all teams in SNAMP with $1,114K in direct funding and $286K in airplane services (Table PIM-1). The California Resources Agency Department of Water Resources (DWR) contributed $150K to support the investigations of water response to the forest treatments. The University of California and the University of Wisconsin materially support SNAMP in the form of waived indirect charges for all SNAMP-related funding. In aggregate, our August projections show that we are on budget for Year 6 (Table PIM-1). We have also completed the funding agreement with the USFS for 2013 (Project Year 7). Their contributions include $1,111K in direct support, $147K for acquisition of lidar, and $289K in air support (Table PIM-2), for a total contribution of $1,547K. The DWR 2013 funding is currently pending. Through Year 7, SNAMP has received more than $10,000K in direct support, with the USFS contributing 78% and the state agencies 21% (Table PIM-2).

of 54

Table PIM-1. Summary of expenditures of the Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project for Year 6 (budget period: 1/1/12 - 12/30/12). Obligated amounts reflect actual transfers of funds to the contracting institutions. Balance reflects account balance as of 8/31/12. Encumbered amounts reflect funds already committed to pay salaries (as specified in hiring agreements) and ordered supplies/services. Projected balances are the difference between available funds and encumbered funds. All amounts in USD($).

Science Theme Contracting Institution

Obligated4

10/1/11 USFS

10/1/12USFS

7/1/12DWR

Balance 8/31/12

Encumbered thru 12/31/12

Projected Balance 12/31/12

Spatial

UC Berkeley

21,113 -- 21,113 0

UC Merced

66,080 -- 66,080 0

Fire and Forest Health UC Berkeley 123,721 64,154 38,849 25,3054

Wildlife

UC Berkeley (fisher) 422,983 64,110 64,110 0

U Wisconsin (owl)2

98,139 -- 98,139 0

Water1

UC Merced2 150,000DWR

100,992USFS

--

-- --

100,992USFS --

0USFS

Project integration UC Berkeley 118,139 55,213 49,175 6,038

Public participation

UC Cooperative Ext2, 3 103,074 -- 103,074 0 UC Berkeley

59,759 16,859 21,755 -4,896

TOTAL UC Science Team

(USFS) 1,114,0005

(DWR) 150,000

of 54

NOTES 1. The Water team is jointly funded by California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the USFS. The DWR funding is a direct award to UC Merced; hence, no budget information is available to PIM. The USFS funding is a subaward from UCB to UC Merced. 2. We cannot track subaward finances (UC Merced, University of Wisconsin, UC Cooperative Extension) as closely as the awards held at UC Berkeley. Invoicing lags by approximately a fiscal quarter. 3. The Public Participation team subcontract with UC Cooperative Extension lags one quarter from other teams (1 May 2012 to 30 April 2013). 4. Obligated funds for Year 6 budget period include awards from two fiscal year allocations from the USFS. 5. In addition, the USFS provided $286,043 in dedicated air support for SNAMP fisher project.

of 54

Table PIM-2. Year-to-date summary of SNAMP financial support by institution

1. Amounts adjusted to reflect transfer from indirect (USFS aviation) to direct support (USFS) in 2011. 2. This grant was processed via San Jose State University Research Foundation. Their indirect rate was NOT waived. 3. This amount includes $147,056 for lidar contract that includes SNAMP study areas.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 TOTAL by Institution May –Dec

2007 Jan –Dec 2008

Jan-Dec 2009

Jan-Dec 2010

Jan-Dec 2011

Jan-Dec 2012

Jan-Dec 2013

DIRECT SUPPORT

US Forest Service (Region + PSW) 950,666 1,183,000 1,196,000 1,204,000 1,068,0001 1,114,000 1,258,0573 7,973,723

Department of Water Resources 236,185 633,071 545,062 124,252 150,000 pending 1,688,570

Department of Fish and Game (via FWS) 191,000 109,9092 300,909

Sierra Nevada Conservancy 123,000 123,000 Resource Legacy Fund 100,000 100,000 TOTAL DIRECT 1,186,851 2,230,071 1,196,000 1,749,062 1,275,162 900,000 1,258,057 10,186,202

INDIRECT SUPPORT

USFS aviation 80,000 (est) 320,000 320,000 320,000 317,0001 286,043 289,000 1,932,043

University of California 308,581 579,818 310,960 454,756 302,966 241,020 207,323 2,405,424 TOTAL 14,523,669

of 54

FIRE & FOREST ECOSYSTEM HEALTH - FFEH (SCOTT STEPHENS AND JOHN BATTLES) 1) Overall goal One of the central questions of the SNAMP and thus the priority for FFEH is:

How well do strategically placed area fuel treatments (SPLATs) reduce the fire risk and fire hazard across the entire fireshed?

2) What has been accomplished and learned in 2012 Laboratory work This year we completed the lab work to document the fine-scale temporal and spatial patterns of fire at Last Chance (Grouse Creek Fireshed) and Sugar Pine (Sugar Pine Fireshed). All of the fire scars have been processed and crossdated (see Table 1 for summary for Sugar Pine). Many of the dead samples could not be crossdated due to rot and very complacent ring pattern. The analysis and write-up of data from Sugar Pine is complete. Analysis of fire patterns at Last Chance is still ongoing. We completed the analysis of all the tree cores (Table 2). We have master chronologies built for all species at both sites as well as preliminary vulnerability models. As we discussed last year, we do not plan to collect a post-treatment sample. One to two years post-treatment is not sufficient time to measure changes in tree growth. Table FFEH-1. Distribution of fire scar samples by tree status (live, dead) and species (species codes are defined in Table FFEH-5).

Total samples 118 N Live scars 61 (52%) N Dead scars 57 (48%) N CADE scars 101 (86%) N PIPO scars 17 (14%)

Table FFEH-2. Status of tree core processing and analysis.

Tree status

Collected (field)

Prepared (mounted/sanded)

Analyzed (rings read)

QAQC

Model pairs Live 1553 1553 1553 1553 Dead 1553 1553 1553 1553

Pre-treatment samples Live only

1194 (includes

subsamples with 2 cores per one tree)

1194 1194

1194

of 54

Results (fire history) 1) Using a thin plate spline (TPS) spatial interpolation method, fire sizes from the fire history data were estimated (Table 3). Compared to other interpolation methods, TPS performed best at accounting for non-scarred trees within presumed burned areas (i.e., false negatives), which resulted in “donut holes” in burn area maps, and was the most conservative at estimating fire sizes. 2) Given the fire size information, a fire return interval map was developed for the Sugar Pine site (Figure 1). Despite the earliest fires recorded (mid 1600s), we limited the analysis to the period in which we had the most complete dataset prior to fire suppression (1750-1900). Table FFEH-3. Summary fire size statistics from the fire return interval data (1750-1900).

Mean (SD) Min.-Max. Estimated Fire Size (ha) 565 (268) 211-1542 % of Study Area Burned 19 (9) 7-51

Figure FFEH-1. Fire frequency map (fire return interval, years) for the Sugar Pine fireshed. Map was developed using a spatial interpolation of fire scar sample locations for each year that at least four samples were scarred. Each map year was then sandwiched to produce an overall fire occurrence map representing the period from 1750 to 1900.

of 54

Results (fire modeling) Fire behavior modeling was done using the command line version of Flammap, using 5,000 randomly placed ignitions burning for one 8-hr burning period. We developed preliminary fire models for Sugar Pine and Last Chance that evaluated the pretreatment landscape in terms of conditional burn probabilities, fire sizes, and fire intensities under extreme weather conditions. These models used lidar-derived maps of forest structure developed by the Spatial Team as inputs. Some of the maps (i.e., canopy bulk density and height to live crown base) were generated using the forest inventory plot data and based on regression analysis R2 values that are known not to represent real forest conditions accurately. Due to the lack of lidar penetration in dense forests, these maps underestimate true forest conditions, and given the general underestimation of fire models in simulating wildfire behavior, their use may result in substantial inaccuracies. To utilize the best tools available and improve our modeling of fire behavior conditions, we have assessed the effects of different inputs such as forest structure map types, fuel model assignment methods, and weather conditions. Below is an example of one fire modeling exercise comparing two types of forest structure maps. Using the pretreatment landscape scenario, we modeled the conditional burn probability of the Last Chance study area using two types of forest structure input maps: polygon based maps using values from the plot data and supplemented by LANDFIRE™ maps, and lidar-derived maps. Polygons ranged from 3 to 310 acres while the lidar grid map was composed of 20 m pixels. All other model inputs were similar. The hypothesis was that while the lidar approach suffers from accuracy, the higher map resolution will be a better spatiotemporal representation of forest and wildfire dynamics. 1) The polygon/LANDFIRE-based map had much larger fire model outputs. The conditional burn probabilities (flame lengths > 2 m) were an order of magnitude higher for the polygon/LANDFIRE™ map compared to the lidar map (Figure 2). 2) The lidar-based approach resulted in much smaller fires sizes (Table 4) and a more complex fire pattern. 3) Despite differences, areas of higher probabilities among the maps were similar and therefore repeatable. The relative change of input variables spatially is also similar.

of 54

Figure FFEH-2. Conditional burn probability maps (flame lengths > 2 m) for the Last Chance study area using two approaches. Map A was developed using polygons with input variables derived from pretreatment plot data (Collins et al. 2011). Polygons were only available within the unit boundaries so LANDFIRE™ data was used to create a large buffer around the study area. Map B on the right used lidar data as input variables with limited buffer area.

Table FFEH-4. Comparison of fire size statistics (ha) for conditional burn probability model runs using 5000 random ignitions.

Mean (SD) Max. Polygon/LANDFIRE™ based (Fig. 2, Map A)

1864.8 (818.3) 5585.8

Lidar Based (Fig. 2, Map B) 130 (90.7) 421.6 Results (forest health) 1) On the forest health side, we have been exploring alternative means to reliably estimate tree growth from periodic inventory data. The growth response of individual trees is the primary measure of forest health in the SNAMP study. Our rationale is that growth is an excellent indicator of tree vigor and, therefore, a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for a healthy forest is healthy trees. Our initial workplan relied on direct sampling of tree growth via increment cores to detect any treatment effect. Our ability to empirically detect change relies on both sample size and time since treatment. We anticipate that it will take 3-4 years to measure changes in growth in any individual tree with a sample size of approximately 100 trees per species (5) per site (2 , N=1,000). Under the SNAMP 2014 schedule, re-measurement will occur 1-2 years post-treatment. The shortened time since treatment so

A B

of 54

greatly reduces the power of the direct measure of growth (i.e., increment core) that we have decided not to re-core trees in 2013. Instead, we have been working on approaches that estimate tree growth from periodic diameter measurements. We still have the same problem with the limited time since treatment. However, by using diameter increment to measure growth, we greatly increase our sample size (Nlive trees=8,295). Figure FFEH-3. A selection of model estimates for white fir trees across a size gradient. Results from Eitzel et al. In revision. Estimating tree growth models from complex forest monitoring data. Ecological Applications. The filled circles represent inventory measurements and the open circles represent model predictions.

For example, instead of measuring change with 100 white fir core samples, we will have more than 1,000 repeat measurements of diameter for white fir trees from both sites. We

of 54

plan to use our pre- and post-inventory data to build a robust statistical tool that accounts for the complexities introduced by inventories. Toward that end, we have been collaborating with Perry de Valpine’s lab to explore potential methods. For example, Melissa Eitzel, a graduate student in the de Valpine lab, is the lead author of a manuscript in revision that describes one powerful approach that can account for uneven time intervals. She built a hierarchical Bayesian growth model for white fir from Blodgett Forest data (near Last Chance). She used only periodic diameter measurements to estimate growth. Her results confirmed the importance of tree size and local density as determinants of tree growth. But more relevant to our purposes was the model’s ability to capture trends in growth. Included below is a figure from the appendix that shows the model results for white fir trees of various sizes (Fig. 3). In most but not all cases, the model estimated the trend in growth remarkably well with only two or three measurements. 2) We have also reviewed methods proposed to integrate the various components of forest health and considered how they might inform SNAMP. A recent review by Tierney et al. (2009) in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (7(6): 308–316) outlines one way to incorporate multiple aspects of the forest (landscape distribution, structure, composition, and function) into a categorical rating of integrity of a forest (a term similar to forest health). In many respects, the design of SNAMP is well-suited to compare changes in integrity between treated and reference firesheds. In collaboration with the Public Participation Team as well as the rest of the UC Science Team, we are actively evaluating the value and wisdom of several “integrative” metrics of forest health. Results (vegetation maps) In collaboration with the Spatial Team, we have made good progress toward producing robust vegetation maps that scale plot-level information (tree lists, fuel types, leaf area) to the fireshed. The first step was to develop vegetation classes from the pre-treatment plot data. We used a hierarchical cluster analysis to determine groups of plots based on their similarity in tree species composition and total forest cover (as measured by basal area). Our goal was to detect meaningful vegetation classes that inform the models of fire behavior and water balance across the firesheds. From a practical perspective, the challenge is to maximize the information retained in the clusters (information is 100% without clustering and decreases as more groups are defined) while minimizing the number of clusters. For Sugar Pine, we defined seven forest types that captured the gradient across the sites while also retaining more than 80% of the information (Fig. 4). These plot-level classifications are used by the Spatial Team to “train” their remotely sensed values (a combination of color information from NAIP images and structural information from lidar). These algorithms are then used to extrapolate vegetation types to the entire watershed. We plan to produce two types of maps, raster (20 m pixels) and polygon (defined by vegetation type and landform). Both maps will be validated against 20% of the plot data that was not used in the training data set.

of 54

3) Plans for the rest of 2012 and 2013 In terms of our workplan, we are prioritizing the resampling of the forest and fuel inventory plots at both sites. Our goal is to have all of our remeasurements completed by the end of summer 2013. Following field data collection, we will summarize the data needed by the Spatial Team for calibration of the post-treatment lidar variables.

In the near term, analysis of fire history samples from Last Chance will be completed by the end of 2012. Spatial analysis will compare northern and southern sites and examine past fire spatial patterns in relation to topography, time since last fire, and reconstructed climate. Our report on fire spatial analysis is projected to be in review for publication by winter 2013.

We will continue to improve on the fire behavior modeling. Considering the results of our preliminary models, the final wildfire simulations for the pre and post-treatment landscapes will be described using a combination of polygon and lidar input variables. We feel this approach will enable us to develop more accurate maps.

We will prioritize our efforts in producing two of the four fire hazard maps as part of the team integration effort. Using the pretreatment plot data, the two maps will represent no treatment scenarios (i.e., no SPLATS with and without wildfire modeling). Polygon based stand growth will be projected out 30 years to aid in assessing the change in fire hazard over time. This will be completed during spring 2013. The last two maps incorporating the change in forest conditions due to the landscape treatments will be developed following the 2013 field season.

We plan to share draft raster and polygon vegetation maps of Sugar Pine with the UC Science team by the end of December 2012. The draft maps will be evaluated by their skill in providing the necessary input to both the fire and water models. We will build the Last Chance maps using the same strategy with biometric and remote sensing data used in combination. We anticipate completion of the mapping effort by mid 2013.

of 54

Table FFEH-5. Species List CODE Genus Species Common ABCO Abies concolor white fir ABMA Abies magnifica red fir CADE Calocedrus decurrens incense cedar PICO Pinus contorta lodgepole pine PIJE Pinus jeffreyi jeffrey pine PIMO Pinus lambertiana sugar pine PIPO Pinus ponderosa ponderosa pine PSME Psuedotsuga menziesii Douglas fir ALRH Alnus rhombifolia white alder CONU Cornus nuttallii mountain dogwood QUKE Quercus kelloggii black oak LO Quercus spp live oak PILA Pinus lambertiana sugar pine SEGI Sequoia gigantea sequoia

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 2 3 4 5 6

Average of ABCO

Average of ABMA

Average of ALRH

Average of CADE

Average of CONU

Average of LO

Average of PILA

Average of PIPO

Average of PISA

Average of QUKE

Average of SALI

Average of SEGI

Basa

l are

a (m

2 /ha

)

1: White fir 2:Sugar Pine 3: Incense Cedar4: Mixed Conifer / Misc / Low BA

5: Pondorosa Pine

6: Giant Sequoia

1=56 plots 2=5 plots 3=88 plots 4=92 plots 5=23 plots 6=4 plots

Group Assignment (descriptions below)

Figure FFEH-4. Results from the cluster analysis of the 284 forest plots in Sugar Pine. The composition (by basal area) for the types are described in the histogram. Note that the 16 plots with no trees greater than 5 cm in diameter were grouped in a “no trees” class (Group 7, not shown). Species codes are defined in Table FFEH-5.

of 54

4) Science/Outreach The FFEH co-led the public field trip to observe and discuss the treatments being implemented in Sugar Pine (September 12, 2012). The FFEH participated in the 2012 STEM festival “Unveiling Potential Through Exposure” in Oakland California (October 13, 2012). A STEM festival is a science, engineering, math and technology (STEM) career fair. The goal of the event is to expose K-12 youth (particularly underrepresented minorities) to real-world applications of math and science by connecting them to STEM professionals and promoting hands-on learning experiences. We expanded our SNAMP outreach to urban youth by designing a mobile lab module/exhibit on measuring tree health and forest dynamics. The major activity is sampling tree cores from “practice trees” (large cut logs mounted like a Christmas tree). Eitzel, M., J.J. Battles, R.A. York, J. Knape, and P. de Valpine. In revision. Estimating tree growth models from complex forest monitoring data. Ecological Applications. 5) Current and near-term challenges for FFEH The primary challenge for us is the short turn-around time between the collection of post-treatment data (scheduled as late as possible) and the need to provide the other teams with finished products in a timely fashion. The logistics of such a large field campaign will also be a complex.

of 54

Wildlife A. PACIFIC FISHER (RICK SWEITZER AND JOHN BATTLES) 1) Overall Goal The SNAMP Fisher Project study area is at the northern end of the southern Sierra Nevada fisher population in California, encompassing the area bounded by the Merced River in the north and the San Joaquin River in the south. Our overall project goal is to assess life history responses of fishers to SPLATs that the Forest Service will implement, while also identifying and understanding how a range of population limiting factors contribute to the probability of persistence of Pacific fisher in the southern Sierra Nevada region and our study area. The specific science objectives for the study include:

Estimate population parameters (age and sex-specific survival, fecundity, dispersal) and identify population limiting factors in the region encompassed by the study area.

Evaluate effects of SPLATs on fisher habitat use, survival and fecundity Characterize resource/habitat use by fishers, including how SPLATs influence

resource/habitat use. 2) What has been accomplished and learned

POPULATION PARAMETERS AND LIMITING FACTORS o 102 total fishers have been captured and radiocollared (59 females: 43

males). o 21 previously unknown fishers (11 females and 10 males) were captured in

the study area during this reporting period. o We are currently monitoring 28 radiocollared fishers (12 females, 16

males). o 80% of the known adult females reproduced this year, and fecundity was

1.5 kits/female. o A total 25 den trees were documented for fishers in the study area during

Spring 2012, including three that were repeat use den trees (used as dens at least once in a previous den season). During five denning seasons, we have identified 104 known den trees across the study area, including nine that were used in two different years, and one that was used in three different years.

o Adult female survival during Population Year 5 (Apr 2011 to March 2012) was estimated at 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.06), which was significantly higher than in Population Year 4 (0.55, 95% CI 0.31 – 0.79).

of 54

o Adult male survival was estimated at 0.49 (95% CI or 0.18 – 0.65) during Year 5 (2011-12), significantly lower than in Year 4 (2010-11) (0.81, (95% CI 0.56 – 1.05).

o A total of nine mortalities were documented among radiocollared fishers during this reporting period, including six known or suspected to have been killed by predators, one that died associated with a wildlife-vehicle collision (roadkill), and two whose carcasses were intact and whose known or suspected causes of death are currently indeterminate.

o Forty-nine of the 102 fishers captured and fitted with radiocollars since December 2007 are known to have died as of October 9, 2012. Predation continues as the leading cause of mortality with 23 known predation mortalities and 7 suspected predation mortalities. Disease is the second leading cause of mortality among radiocollared fisher; a total of six radio collared fishers have died from disease/bacterial infection in the study area. We are aware of eight total fishers that died on local highways; 3 collared and 5 noncollared animals. All of the noncollared fisher roadkill mortalities were along Highway 41 within Yosemite National Park.

o During this reporting period we initiated efforts associated with the Southern Sierra Nevada Fisher Working Group to attempt to mitigate for deaths to fishers associated with wildlife-vehicle collisions (roadkills). As part of a new initiative focused around establishing suitable wildlife crossing structures in the study area, our goal is to determine (1) how many existing culverts are present along Highway 41 between Cedar Valley and the entrance to Yosemite NP, (2) what are the sizes of existing culverts, (3) if any existing culverts are being used by fishers or other wildlife to transition back/forth across Highway 41, and (4) use all of this information to support grants from Caltrans and other entities to construct suitable structures to facilitate wildlife crossings along Highway 41, and thereby reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions in the region encompassed by the Sierra National Forest and Yosemite National Park. So far we have used cameras to evaluate fisher use of seven different culverts and culvert-associated drainages. During late September and early October 2012, we succeeded in identifying fisher use of three different culverts in the area between the turnoff to Sugar Pine in the south and Fish Camp to the north. Also, we have determined that many other species of wildlife are using existing culverts to travel under the road (raccoon, gray fox), or they travel back and forth across the road using the nearby drainages (ringtail, deer, black bear). Funding has been acquired for a wildlife crossing structure within Yosemite National Park, and we believe these new data will help leverage significant funds from Caltrans towards culvert maintenance and creation of at least one actual wildlife crossing structure along Highway 41 in the Sierra National Forest.

of 54

Table Fisher-1: Forest Management Projects and Hazard Tree Removal Activities (not shown) within the Bass Lake Ranger District, Sierra National Forest, CA

SNAMP: Rush Creek (NO PRE-TREATMENT)Project Start and End: Fall 2006 to Fall/Winter 2007 POST TREATMENTData type 1: Camera-based surveys presence/absenceData type 2: Home ranges of radicollared fisherDate type 3: Population informative; survival, denning, dispersal

Bass Lake District: Graham Mountain (NO PRE-TREATMENT)Project Start and End: Fall 2004 to Summer 2008 POST TREATMENTData type 1: Camera-based surveys presence/absenceData type 2: Home ranges of radicollared fisherDate type 3: Population informative; survival, denning, dispersal

SNAMP: Cedar Valley (MIX OF SOME PRE-TREATMENT/NONE)Project Start and Project end (Projected): Late Fall 2007 to Fall/Winter 2011 POST TREATMENTData type 1: Camera-based surveys presence/absenceData type 2: Home ranges of radicollared fisherDate type 3: Population informative; survival, denning, dispersal

Bass Lake District: Sonny North & South (PRE- AND POST TREATMENT)Project Start and End: Fall 2009 to Fall/Winter 2010 PRE-TREATMENT POST TREATMENTData type 1: Camera-based surveys presence/absence `Data type 2: Home ranges of radicollared fisherDate type 3: Population informative; survival, denning, dispersal

SNAMP: Sugar Pine (MANY YEARS PRE-TREATMENT…)Project Start and End (Projected): Fall 2011 to Fall/Winter 2012 PRE-TREATMENT POST TREATMENTData type 1: Camera-based surveys presence/absenceData type 2: Home ranges of radicollared fisherDate type 3: Population informative; survival, denning, dispersal

SNAMP: Fish Camp (MANY YEARS PRE-TREATMENT…)Project Start and End (Projected): Fall 2012 to Fall/Winter 2014 PRE-TREATMENTData type 1: Camera-based surveys presence/absenceData type 2: Home ranges of radicollared fisherDate type 3: Population informative; survival, denning, dispersal

SNAMP: Greys Mountain (MANY YEARS PRE-TREATMENT)Project Start and End (Projected): Fall 2013 to Fall/Winter 2015 PRE-TREATMENTData type 1: Camera-based surveys presence/absenceData type 2: Home ranges of radicollared fisherDate type 3: Population informative; survival, denning, dispersal

SNAMP: Whiskey Ridge (MANY YEARS PRE-TREATMENT)Project Start and End (Projected): Summer 2014 to Fall/Winter 2016 PRE-TREATMENTData type 1: Camera-based surveys presence/absenceData type 2: Home ranges of radicollared fisherDate type 3: Population informative; survival, denning, dispersal

20132007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

of 54

EFFECTS OF SPLATS ON FISHER BIOLOGY AND BEHAVIOR o Fuel reduction management was initiated in the Sugar Pine Treatment

portion of the Fisher Study Area in Fall 2011 when approximately 7% of the SPLAT areas were treated. Commercial thinning and mastication intensified during Summer and Fall 2012, and District Ranger Dave Martin recently indicated that all of the Sugar Pine SPLATs would be completed by early November 2012. Across the larger Fisher Study Area, we have also been observing and acquiring data on commercial thinning and mastication activities in multiple areas identified below (see Table Fisher-1 above): Cedar Valley (commercial thinning and mastication) Sonny Meadows North and South Units (commercial thinning and

mastication) Graham Mtn Units, Gertrude Units (predominantly commercial

thinning) Minarets Work Station area (predominantly mastication) Grizzly Road (mastication) Rainier Creek (predominantly mastication) Road Hazard tree removal along the Beasore Road (Forest Service

Road 7), Minarets Road (Forest Service Road 81), and the Grizzly Road (Forest Service road 6s01)

o During this reporting period, Fisher worked with Forest Service GIS Specialist Heather Taylor and other staff with the Sierra National Forest to produce GIS layers delineating all major Hazard Tree removal and Fuel Management projects and activities that occurred in the Fisher Study area (Bass Lake Ranger District, SNF) during 2005 to 2012.

RESOURCE AND HABITAT USE BY PACIFIC FISHERS

o During Camera Survey Year 5 (Oct 11, 2011 to Oct 15, 2012), we completed surveys in 126 1 km2 grids within the Key Watersheds portion of the study area; fishers were detected in 95 of those grids (76%, Fig 1).

o Camera-based occupancy/distribution surveys were completed for a total 351 grids across the larger overall fisher study area. Pacific fishers were present at 195 (56%) of the 351 total grids surveyed by the Fisher Team in the study area.

o Detailed habitat data were collected around 23 confirmed den trees during this reporting period, and we have completed habitat assessments around 93 of the 104 confirmed den trees in the study area.

o Combined data on fisher occupancy (camera surveys) and home range models are being integrated into a detailed analysis of fisher distribution and habitat use, tentatively scheduled for completion during early 2013.

o Dispersal is being documented for both males and females; dispersal distances average 12.3 km for males and 7.5 km for females.

of 54

o Seasonal (four periods) and annual home ranges were determined for all fishers with sufficient data for analyses.

3) Future plans

Year 7 represents the first year of post-treatment measurements on fisher population dynamics. We recognize the limitations of such an abbreviated post-treatment measurement period. Given the constraints of SNAMP funding and timing, we will prioritize our efforts according to the following two criteria: 1) synthesize the five plus years of pre-treatment data on fisher demography and life history; 2) concentrate Year 7 field efforts on results that inform the SNAMP effort while also maintaining the fisher demography study for continuation past SNAMP. Dr. Sweitzer will take the lead in the analysis, synthesis, and integration of the existing fisher data. The goal is to provide the best possible information to the SNAMP 2014 report. We acknowledge the limitations imposed by the lack of post-treatment data. Nevertheless, we have learned a great deal about the ecology of the Pacific fisher and their interaction with the forest community. The SNAMP 2014 report provides the impetus to summarize our understanding to date. Specific tasks organized by topic are described below.

A) Synthesize science As we enter into the final phase of this project, the science priority for all teams is shifting from data collection to data analysis and synthesis. Thus, the goal is to complete in-progress analyses and prepare for publication the insights to date from five years of fisher study. Specific priorities include:

i. Peer-reviewed article tentatively titled “Survival, causes of mortality, and an evaluation of the current status of the fisher population in the Sierra National Forest, California” ii. Peer-reviewed article detailing “Seasonal patterns in diel activity of Pacific fishers in the southern Sierra Nevada” iii. Peer-reviewed article detailing “Body size and determination of sex for Pacific fishers using digital infrared cameras”.

In addition, given the dearth of directly measured impacts of SPLATs on fisher demography, it is crucial that a “best available” metric be developed from the available data. At present, our best idea is to use a probability of habitat use model, developed from our dense network of fisher telemetry sightings. Thus, building and validating this model is a high project priority.

of 54

B) Field work Field work during Year 7 is focused on the data that most directly contribute to answering the core question of SNAMP. At the same time, we want to maintain the value of the fisher demography study beyond the SNAMP project. The US Forest Service has acknowledged their interest in continuing the fisher work in Sugar Pine to 2016. Towards that end, we will:

i. Maintain aerial radiotelemetry (5 days/week) and individual-based monitoring to document rates of survival, reproduction, and fecundity. ii. Continue to retrieve fisher carcasses immediately and store for future necropsy analysis. iii. Finish ground-based study to identify and assess habitats and forest structural elements required for denning and successful reproduction. iv. Concentrate occupancy analysis and camera trapping in and around the “Key Watersheds” of the SNAMP Fisher study area.

4) Integration and Outreach Initiated or Completed during October 2011 to October 2012

SNAMP Fisher Field Trip and detailed overview of habitats used for denning and reproduction: In May 2012, Fisher and PPT hosted a field trip focused on fisher denning behaviors and habitat use. Over 60 agency, local landowners, or environmental group representatives attended, and we provided detailed information on fisher denning habitats in the region.

Characterizing habitats associated with fisher den structures using discrete return lidar: In 2011, we combined our data on fisher den sites with lidar information from the SNAMP Spatial team for an evaluation of how lidar-derived variables on the vertical and horizontal structure of forests can help characterize and provide a new tool (high resolution remote sensing) for understanding where fishers den on forested landscapes. A peer-reviewed publication was produced from this collaborative work in July 2012.

Collaboration with Conservation Biology Institute and Kings River Fisher Project on a regional model of fisher denning habitat: During fall 2011, we combined our data on fisher den sites with similar records from the Kings River Fisher Project and worked collaboratively with the Conservation Biology Institute to complete a landscape scale model

Figure Fisher-1: fisher

of 54

predicting/identifying fisher denning habitat in the region encompassing both the SNAMP Fisher Study Area and the PSW Kings River Fisher Study area. The model is in draft form, but it will be finalized once data on the locations of fisher den trees from spring 2012 can be applied to validate the model.

Impacts of rodenticide poisoning on fishers in the southern Sierras: In combination with the Integral Ecology Research Center, the UC Davis Vet Pathology Lab, and Kings River Fisher Project, SNAMP Fisher contributed to a summer 2012 article highlighting newly discovered information on high levels of exposure of fishers to rodenticides.

Model for Predicting Fisher Reproduction: SNAMP Fisher contributed data on physical measurements taken from reproductive-age female fishers with Sean Matthews/Mark Higley from the Wildlife Conservation Society/Hoopa Fisher Study. Our data in association with similar data from the Kings River Fisher Study were used to develop a predictive model of reproductive rates/fecundity for Pacific fishers that managers will use to understand fisher reproduction without need for radiocollaring/tracking female fishers during the den season. A short article has been prepared and submitted for publication from this effort (see below).

Fisher Monitoring and Conservation Planning Meeting: In July 2012, Fisher participated in a meeting hosted by the Sierra Nevada Conservancy in Sacramento, California. The SNAMP Fisher and Kings River Fisher Projects presented proposals for continuing monitoring of fishers in each study area. High level representatives from the Forest Service indicated strong support for continuing funding both projects during the period from January 2014 into 2017. For SNAMP Fisher, the longer term monitoring will focus in and immediately around the Key Watersheds portion of the study area with the goal of capturing information on how fishers may/may not respond to fuels management.

Intraguild Predation and Overlap in Habitat Use by Fishers and Bobcats: Fisher worked in close cooperation with PhD Candidate Greta Wengert (UC Davis) in her effort to capture and radiocollar bobcats within the Fisher Study area. An intensive effort to trap and fit GPS radiocollars to bobcats in the SNAMP Fisher Study area was initiated in November 2011. A single bobcat was captured and collared near the Calvin Crest area (within the Key Watersheds area) in late February 2012. Location records were acquired on this male bobcat during the period from March 2012 to September 2012 when the collar was recovered. These data are currently being evaluated for insight on recent changes in habitat associated with forest management, which may contribute to increased contact between bobcats and fishers in our region.

UC Berkeley Seminar: RA Sweitzer presented a seminar describing aspects of the SNAMP Fisher Study in relation to other fisher studies in the western U.S. at UC Berkeley on February 17, 2012 (http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/documents/435/).

of 54

Fisher Sock Drive: The Fisher Team worked closely with PPT (Anne Lombardo) during this reporting period as part of an effort to collect socks for project use from the general public. The 2012 “Fisher Sock Drive” generated major interest regionally and nationally, and was the subject of many short newspaper articles and blog posts. Most importantly, the Fisher Sock Drive provided us with the opportunity to draw national attention to SNAMP and to the regional decline in fisher numbers in the western United States:

o Multiple short newspaper articles appeared in California and across the U.S. associated with the “SNAMP Fisher Sock Drive” (detailed on the SNAMP Web Site: http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/teams/fisher). Two more substantive newspaper articles describing the SNAMP Fisher Study Project were published in the Sacramento Bee and Fresno Bee on February 26, 2012 (http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/documents/425).

o A poster on the sock drive was prepared and presented at the West Coast Fisher Symposium held in Sacramento in January, 2012. RA Sweitzer participated in editing the poster, but his name was removed as a contributing co-author on the printed version.

o A short article was produced describing the sock drive, which is now In Press (see below for details). Sugar Pine Implementation Field Trip: Fisher participated in the

implementation field trip on September 19. RA Sweitzer answered questions about SNAMP Fisher and contributed insight on the biology of fishers in the treatment areas.

SNAMP Update/PPT Meeting: Fisher participated in the discussions focused on “close out scenarios” for the SNAMP under a reduced budget. RA Sweitzer answered questions and contributed information on the status of SNAMP Fisher.

5) Products During October 2011 to October 2012

Fisher Presentations at Conferences:

o R. A. Sweitzer. Invited oral presentation. Resource and population limiting factors for Pacific fisher in the Western United States. West Coast Fisher Symposium, Sacramento, CA, January 31, 2012.

o O’Brien, C. J., and R. A. Sweitzer. Poster presentation. Diel activity patterns and den attendance by Pacific fishers in the Sierra National Forest, California. West Coast Fisher Symposium, Sacramento, CA, January 31, 2012.

o O’Brien, C. J., and R. A. Sweitzer. Poster presentation. Identifying sex of fishers (Martes pennanti) visiting camera stations in the Sierra National Forest, California. West Coast Fisher Symposium, Sacramento, CA, January 31, 2012.

o T. M. Watson, J. S. Busiek, and R.A. Sweitzer. Poster presentation. Distributions and hypotheses on how agonism and abiotic factors influence habitat use by Pacific fisher and American marten in the Sierra Nevada, California. West Coast Fisher Symposium, Sacramento, CA, January 31, 2012.

http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/teams/fisher

http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/documents/425

of 54

o Rodriquez, K., J. Lewis, R. A. Sweitzer, A. B. Otto, and P. Flick. Poster presentation. How did the fisher cross the road? Opportunities for reducing fisher, bear, and other wildlife-vehicle collisions in the Yosemite and Sierra National Forest Region. West Coast Fisher Symposium, Sacramento, CA, January 31, 2012.

o Gorman, T., and R. A. Sweitzer. Poster presentation. Distribution and habitat associations of four species of squirrels in the southern Sierra Nevada, California. Annual Conference of The Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Sacramento, CA, February 2, 2012.

o Berg, J. E., and R. A. Sweitzer. Poster presentation. Carnivore distributions in relation to roads on the Sierra National Forest, California. Annual Conference of The Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Sacramento, CA, February 2, 2012.

o Bridges, J. A., and R. A. Sweitzer. Poster presentation. Distribution and estimated fecundity for female black bears (Ursus americanus) in the Sierra Nevada, California using images from automatic cameras. Annual Conference of The Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Sacramento, CA, February 2, 2012.

Manuscripts Published or Submitted:

o Thompson, C.M., R.A. Green, J. Sauder, K.L. Purcell, R. A. Sweitzer, and J. Armeno. In press-2012. The use of radio telemetry in Martes research: techniques and technologies. Proceedings of the 5th International Martes Symposium, Seattle, Washington. Pp. XXX in Biology and conservation of martens, sables, and fishers: a new synthesis (Aubry, K.B., W.J. Zielinski, M.G. Raphael, G. Proulx, and S.W. Buskirk, Editors). Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA.

o Keller, S., M., M. Gabriel, K. A. Terio, E. J. Dubovi, E. Van Wormer, R. Sweitzer, R. Barrett, C. Thompson, K. Purcell, and L. Munson. In press. Canine distemper in an isolated population of fishers (Martes pennanti) from California. Journal of Wildlife Diseases.

o Zhao, F., R. A. Sweitzer, Q. Guo, and M. Kelly. 2012. Characterizing habitats associated with fisher den structures in southern Sierra Nevada forests using discrete return lidar. Submitted to Forest Ecology and Management 280: 112-119.

o Gabriel, M.W., L. W Woods, R. Poppenga, R. A. Sweitzer, C. Thompson, S. M. Matthews, J. M. Higley, S. M. Keller, K. Purcell, R. H. Barrett, G. M. Wengert, B. N. Sacks, and D. L. Clifford. 2012. Anticoagulant Rodenticides on our Public and Community Lands: Spatial Distribution of Exposure and Poisoning of a Rare Forest Carnivore. PLoS One 7:7. Article Number: e40163. (http://www.plosone.org)

o Kocher, S., A. Lombardo, and R. A. Sweitzer. In press. Using social media to involve the public in wildlife research – the SNAMP Fisher sock collection drive. Submitted to Journal of Extension (http://www.joe.org).

o Matthews S.M., J.M. Higley, J.T. Finn, K.M. Rennie, C.M. Thompson, K.L. Purcell, R.A. Sweitzer, S.L. Haire, P.R. Sievert, and T.K. Fuller. Submitted to Journal of Mammalogy. An Evaluation of a weaning index for wild fishers in California.

http://www.plosone.org/

http://www.joe.org/

of 54

6) Current and Near-Term Challenges Balancing the twin priorities of completing SNAMP while also maintaining an active field program with an eye toward the future will be a challenge. By necessity, the field effort will be reduced in Year 7 as we concentrate on analysis, synthesis, and integration. We also must make strategic infrastructure investments in project equipment to ensure their future (post SNAMP) value.

of 54

B. SPOTTED OWL (ROCKY GUTIÉRREZ AND ZACH PEERY)

1) Overall Goals

Question 1: Do forest fuel treatments affect owl territory occupancy, survival and reproductive success? Question 2: Do changes in vegetation affect owl territory occupancy, survival, and reproductive success?

2) What Has Been Accomplished and Learned in 2012

Workplan Changes: The Owl Team has changed their approach to answering the SNAMP questions with approval from the MOU partners in previous years. In our original design, we proposed to test the potential effects of SPLATs placed on the Last Chance Study Area (LCSA) on owl vital rates using pre- and post-treatment data. We then expanded our study to include SPLATs being planned on the Eldorado Density Study Area (EDSA) and the Eldorado Regional Study Area (ERSA). However, we suspected that even this expansion of our sample size would be insufficient to detect potential effects because of the lack of post-treatment data (Popescu et al. 2012). For many of the SPLATs, we would have only one year or less of post-treatment owl data. Thus, we proposed and received permission to conduct a retrospective study on effects of habitat change on the owls in our study areas as follows. Many changes have occurred on the EDSA and ERSA the past twenty years (fire, fuel reduction treatments [SPLATs or SPLAT-like treatments], commercial logging on private land, and vegetative growth). Although we have owl demographic data from the EDSA dating to 1986, adequate survey effort on the EDSA was not achieved until 1993 due to insufficient funding. Our revised workplan centers on assessing the relationships between habitat change and owl vital rates (reproduction, occupancy, survival). We are currently developing a habitat map that will allow tracking vegetation changes within owl territories over a 19-year period (1993-2011). We will then conduct analyses that seek relationships between owl demographic rates and habitat change during this time period. 2012 Field Work:

• We conducted 4 sets of complete night surveys within the LCSA, EDSA, and ERSA, including a complete survey of all land within the LCSA and the EDSA.

• Seven of the 10 territories were occupied on the LCSA and 32 of 74 territories were occupied on the EDSA and ERSA combined.

• We resighted/captured 10 territorial adults or sub-adults on the LCSA and 59 on the EDSA and ERSA combined.

• We assessed reproduction at 6 territories and found 2 nests on the LCSA. • We assessed reproduction at 30 territories and found 16 nests (including 5 failed

nests) on the EDSA and ERSA combined. We captured 11 out of the 13 fledglings.

of 54

Status of the habitat map for the retrospective analysis in 2012:

• We have completed the mapping of vegetation classifications and treatments from 1993-2010 for 31 out of 75 territories.

• We sampled 180 random locations in the field for accuracy assessment. • We have updated the treatment files using annual data from the US Forest Service

(USFS), California Department of Forestry and Fire, and private timber companies.

3) The Plan for Rest of 2012 and 2013

2012: For the retrospective analysis, we will continue work on the construction of a habitat layer in GIS that tracks annual vegetative change across owl territories from 1993–2011, accounting for harvests and regeneration occurring within this time frame.

2013: We plan to complete the habitat map for the retrospective analysis by early 2013, including adding vegetation changes for 2012 when the data become available. We will assess the accuracy of the map using on-the-ground samples and/or lidar data. We will make adjustments to the map as needed, based on the accuracy assessment. We will calculate the habitat-related covariates for models that we will use in the final analysis linking demographic rates to changes in cover types. From April to August, we will continue to survey the LCSA, EDSA, and ERSA.

4) Integration Efforts Initiated or Completed in 2012

• We held a public Owl Team IT meeting with the PPT team on August 23. • We attended 4 field trips with the USFS (Eldorado National Forest, Georgetown

Ranger District) to visit Blacksmith Flat Collaborative Project sites and owl locations from the radio telemetry study.

• We shared owl detection data with the USFS and posted all owl data from the LCSA onto the SNAMP data server, https://snamp.ucmerced.edu/.

5) Products in 2012

• Spatial - García-Feced, C., D. Tempel, and M. Kelley 2011. LiDAR as a tool to characterize wildlife habitat: California spotted owl nesting habitat as an example. J. Forestry 108: 436-443.

• BACI Power Analysis - Popescu, V. D., P. de Valpine, D. J. Tempel, and M. Z. Peery. 2012. Estimating population impacts via dynamic occupancy analysis of Before–After Control–Impact studies. Ecological Applications 22: 1389-1404.

https://snamp.ucmerced.edu/

of 54

• Climate Change - Peery, M. Z., R. J. Gutiérrez, R. Kirby, O. E. LeDee, and W. S. LaHaye. 2012. Climate change and spotted owls: potentially contrasting responses in the southwestern United States. Global Change Biology 18:865-880.

• Owl Management - Berigan, W. J., R. J. Gutierrez, and D. J. Tempel. 2012. Evaluating the efficacy of protected habitat areas for the California Spotted Owl using long-term monitoring data. Journal of Forestry 110:299-305.

• Occupancy -Tempel, D. J. and R. J Gutierrez. In Review. The relationship between occupancy and abundance for a territorial species, the California Spotted Owl. Conservation Biology: in review.

of 54

WATER QUALITY & QUANTITY (ROGER BALES & MARTHA CONKLIN)

1) Overall goal

Our general study objective is to investigate how different treatment strategies affect water quality (e.g., stream temperature, turbidity, sediment transport) and the water budget (e.g., groundwater recharge, soil moisture, surface runoff, and evapotranspiration) across different hydroclimatic and forest regimes. The main goals of the Water Team are: 1. To understand how the prescribed forest treatments affect the timing and amounts of water fluxes through the catchments (e.g., how and when the water beginning as precipitation, moves through the system as soil moisture/evapotranspiration and eventually reaches the steam, exiting the system as discharge). 2. To determine the effects of the prescribed forest treatments on stream water quality, including changes in erosion and stream transport. 3. To determine the impacts of the prescribed forest treatments on vegetation properties across the catchments using lidar, in support of analysis and modeling by the water, wildlife, fire and forest health science teams. Our main working hypothesis is that treatments will alter the timing of flows and increase water quantity in the streams. Any changes in water quality (such as turbidity) will be due to in-stream changes from the increased discharges. 2) What has been accomplished and learned in 2012 Through the end of water year 2012, the meteorological stations have been operational for 5 years, the snow depth/soil moisture nodes for 4 years, the YSI water quality nodes for 3.5 years, the ISCO automatic water samplers and scour pans for 1-2 years, with the Speckerman Creek culvert weir operational following the most recent spring runoff. Data cleanup and analysis is completed for water years 2008-2011, and is currently being worked on for 2012. Regional Hydro-Ecological Simulation System (RHESSys) development for the four study catchments is ongoing, with Bear Trap Creek, Big Sandy Creek, and Speckerman Creek having fully functional models; Frazier Creek continues to need some troubleshooting. Model setups for the additional CZO catchments have been successful with a Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient of about 0.80 (1.0 is perfect match with observed data). Currently, the SNAMP basins have a NS Coefficient of around 0.60, and calibrations will continue to improve this value. The effects of reduced vegetation will be investigated with the model using the lidar flights to assess vegetation change, and will determine effects on the water cycle, particularly stream discharge, evapotranspiration and timing. In-stream continuous water quality sensors have been difficult to keep powered and damage-free but will still be able to detect any significant changes in water quality. Stream water samples are being analyzed for major ions as well as isotopes to characterize the sources of the water and seasonal trends

of 54

in water quality. 2.1 Data analysis and model results

A snow survey of 160 grid points was completed around Duncan Peak in April 2012, similar to the survey of March 2009. A fresh layer of snow initiated potential avalanche conditions on the west face of the peak, resulting in about 40 less grid points than the first survey. Scour pans, used to measure bedload sediment movement, have proven to be difficult to maintain in a working condition below the streambed, with as yet questionable results. Turbidity hysteresis analysis on individual storm events shows sediment concentrations peaking before stream discharge, suggesting localized sources of sediment (Fig 1.). Isotopic analysis of stable water isotopes shows clear latitudinal and elevational gradients and is consistent with the global meteoric water line.

Figure Water-1. Clockwise hysteresis of turbidity with discharge during storm events suggests a localized sediment source such as nearby channel bed and banks rather than the hillslope.

Setup of the RHESSys model continues for the SNAMP basins, with additional input from the Kings River Experimental Watershed – Critical Zone Observatory (KREW-CZO). Using separate precipitation inputs of snow and rain, as opposed to letting the model split a single precipitation input into snow and rain based on temperature-index, improved model performance significantly. Implemented in the CZO basins, the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency rating which measures the accuracy of model output against observations (NSe of 1.0 is perfectly accurate), showed an increase from 0.50 to 0.80 for streamflow (Fig. 2). Obviously, precise partitioning of snow and rain is extremely important to the timing of snow accumulation and melt, and translates into more accurately simulated streamflow discharge. Other unique model inputs not standardly used were included to improve simulation of evapotranspiration, including a spatially distributed input of Leaf Area Index (LAI) and canopy cover derived from lidar as well as a separate calculation of daily vapor pressure deficit.

of 54

Figure Water-2. Streamflow model results improved when a single precipitation input (blue line) was changed to separate rain & snow inputs (red line) when compared with observed data (gray), showing the importance of snow accumulation and melt timing for accurate model results. The CZO basins are currently modeling with an NSe of approximately 0.80, and are close to final calibration, while the SNAMP basins currently have an NSe of about 0.60, and still need improvement. The calibration is ongoing and currently involves the addition of a vertical component of hydraulic conductivity that is different than the horizontal component. Initially, it was assumed that the subsurface was isotropic (uniform conductivity in all directions); adding the vertical component will account for anisotropic (not uniform) conditions. While streamflow is the major model output, calibration is also being completed using our more complete suite of measurements of distributed snow depth/snow water equivalent and soil moisture with multiple model outputs (Fig. 3).

Figure Water-3. Multiple RHESSys outputs are being used for calibration – snow, soil moisture, and streamflow. 2.2 Instrumentation Due to the relatively light precipitation levels in water year 2012 along with the reinforcement of instrumentation following the heavy precipitation in water year 2011,

of 54

instrument and site repair tasks were relatively minor. ISCO automatic water samplers have been collecting water on a weekly basis, unless a turbidity event was detected and triggered more frequent sampling for suspended sediment analysis. As such events in these streams are extremely few and are more often falsely triggered by bedload covering the sensor or algae growth, turbidity events will no longer be used as a frequent sample trigger. Increases in stream discharge will be used instead to collect stable water isotope samples during storm events to provide further insight into the timing and sources of water (snow, rain, soil, groundwater). A second turbidity sensor has been added to each stream water quality node for redundancy. The wireless network of measurement nodes that was deployed around the Duncan Peak meteorological station showed improvement in capturing snow depth variability over the 1-km2 area surrounding the station, when comparing the snow surveys and wired nodes from 2009 and 2012. The infrastructure for another network has now been installed around Bear Trap meteorological station and also consists of 10 additional snow depth, temperature, and relative humidity measurements in a 1-km2

area. A seasonal v-notch weir has been installed at the road culvert outflow of Speckerman Creek, providing more accurate low-flow discharge measurements. The weir will be removed each fall to keep the culvert fully open for winter/spring high flows (Fig. 4).

Figure Water-4. V-notch weir installed at the road culvert outlet of Speckerman Creek, improving low-flow discharge measurements. 3) Integration efforts in 2012 We are using the spatial products of scale-dependent Leaf Area Index (LAI). Due to a non-linear relationship with scale, a new LAI raster has to be produced every time a different resolution of model is tested (i.e., 5-m, 20-m), which requires a significant amount of effort. The Forest Ecosystem Health team is preparing a vegetation map with the Spatial team that will be used directly in the RHESSys model, creating species-dependent estimates of transpiration. Refining the resolution model and improving parameterization (such as

of 54

improved estimates of transpiration) is key to scaling our model from the headwater catchment scale to the fireshed scale. In addition to scaling the model to the fireshed scale, the Water team is looking for signals at the watershed scale of change in water flow (both timing of peak flow and amount, and baseflow), soil moisture and snow accumulation, and changes in turbidity response due to the forest treatments. We continue to provide our meteorological data to the public through the California Data Exchange Center (CDEC), hosted by the Department of Water Resources. 4) Products/outcomes in 2012 -California Department of Water Resources Task Order #UC 10-6, June 2012 – Data Report “Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project Water Team Field Activities, Methods, and Results”, http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/documents/470/. -Cooperators Meeting of the California Snow Surveys Program, November 2012 – Oral presentation entitled “Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project Water Measurements: A cost effective two-part approach to measuring discharge in small mountain catchments. -American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting, December 2012 – Oral Presentation entitled “Forest management effects on snow, runoff and evapotranspiration in Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer headwater catchments”. -American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting, December 2012 – Poster Presentation entitled “Seasonal Accumulation and Depletion of Localized Sediment Stores of Four Headwater Catchments in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, California”. 5) Current and near-term challenges Scour pans, used to measure bedload sediment movement, have proven to be difficult to maintain in a working condition below the streambed, with as yet questionable results. Data analysis continues to see if some useful data can be obtained, but it is still unclear whether these instruments will provide useful information. The turbidity threshold sampling program is being transitioned into a flow-based sampling regime in order to collect isotope samples during high flow or storm events. Conversion of the datalogger program and implementation at the stream sites will take place this fall with continued troubleshooting of the program expected to occur into the early winter months. Modeling using RHESSys, improving model predictions, and upscaling from watershed scale to fireshed scale is ongoing. Although RHESSys model predicts soil moisture for varying unsaturated soil layer depth in the catchment, developing a soil moisture map will require scaling soil depth over the fireshed, a major challenge. 6) Future plan (2012 and 2013) Fieldwork for the rest of 2012 will focus on final preparations for the winter months ahead. Data for water year 2012 are currently being compiled, cleaned, and will be posted to

http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/documents/470/

of 54

snamp.ucmerced.edu once completed. PVC enclosures for the YSI water quality sondes are being partially removed to try and reduce sediment damage to sensors, which has been an intermittent problem. Water samples will continue to be collected for major ion and isotope analysis. Stream bank sediment surveys and synoptic isotope surveys of the study watersheds will also be completed. Water quantity and quality data will be analyzed for any significant differences in the treated and untreated catchments. Manuscripts on the comparisons of the behavior of the four study catchments will be prepared. Refinement of the RHESSys model and setup for the four study catchments will continue this fall and a manuscript comparing observed and calculated water balance with RHESSys model setup and water balance will be prepared. The mean annual soil moisture distribution map will be developed. In addition, soil moisture distribution map will also be developed for the selected days (wet and dry) for each year. Incorporating the post-treatment lidar datasets and upscaling of the model to firesheds will be the focus for the remainder of 2013.

of 54

SPATIAL (MAGGI KELLY & QINGHUA GUO) 1) Overall goal for the spatial team The Spatial team will acquire, maintain, and distribute, when possible, lidar and other spatial data relevant to SNAMP goals; will integrate with other SNAMP teams through data provision and analysis; and conduct independent original work in processing and analysis of lidar and other spatial data.

2) What has been accomplished - and learned – in 2012 Data analysis At the plot level, the following forest-related variables have been calculated at pixel size of 20m:

• Canopy Max and Mean Height, Diameter at Breast Height, Height to Live Canopy Base, Canopy Bulk Density, Canopy Base Height, Canopy Cover, Leaf Area Index, Individual Trees - Location, height and crown size of all trees in each study area.

The following ground-based variables can be calculated at pixel size of 1m and larger from the DEM:

• Slope (%) • Aspect (degrees) • Elevation (m). •

All completed products are available at the SNAMP data server at snamp.ucmerced.edu. 3) What is the plan for rest of 2012 and 2013 UC Berkeley

-Completed a draft manuscript evaluating lidar pulse densities for predicting forest metrics. Paper has been reviewed and we are working on revisions. -Completed a manuscript that evaluates our lidar data for use in biomass estimates. The paper compares reference aboveground biomass derived from regional allometric equations (e.g., from USFS FIA plots) and Jenkins (Jenkins, C., Chojnacky, D.C., Heath, L.S., Birdsey, R.A., 2003. National-scale biomass estimators for United States tree species. For. Sci. 49 (1), 12–35): differences were greatest in plots with large biomass plots. Random Forest, a non-parametric algorithm, performed better than conventional multiple linear regression models. Lidar variables are sensitive to the reference allometric equation used in regional biomass studies. -Completed a manuscript discussing the use of object-based image analysis with lidar data to map downed logs on the forest floor.

of 54

-Completed a manuscript evaluating lidar data for classification of fisher denning trees. Lidar was able to distinguish between den trees and non-den trees with respect to canopy, structure, and canopy variability. -Develop a manuscript comparing methods to derive individual trees as objects.

UC Merced -Process multi-resolution LAI and canopy cover products for the Water team for hydrological modeling. -Begin processing new lidar data. -Implement environmental niche models for the Fisher team to map the fisher suitability, and reveal its relationship to the forest structures as well as other physical parameters. In addition, simulate the impact of forest thinning on the vegetation structure, and potential influences on the fisher habitats. -Delineate different vegetation types based on lidar metric and high-resolution images for the Fire and Forest Ecosystem Health team and the Water team. Polygons with relative homogeneous vegetation types will be grouped and relevant vegetation properties will be reported. -Contracting with NCALM on acquiring both discrete and waveform lidar for both sites, scheduled for the end of October 2012. -Develop new algorithms for processing waveform lidar and integrating with field measurements. -Complete a manuscript on reconstructing the forest using a ray-tracing algorithm, parameters that are used for the forest reconstruction include tree height, height to live crown, location of individual trees, and high resolution DEM.

4) Products 2012 Workshops/Presentations:

• Q. Guo. Seeing individual trees yet not missing the forest: a lidar approach. USFS Sacramento CA. December 20, 2011.

• M. Kelly. New frontiers in mapping for forest science: lidar data and analysis. UC Forestry Camp. June 6, 2012.

• M. Kelly. Lidar in support of adaptive management in Sierra Nevada forests. USDA Forest Service, Vallejo CA. May 22, 2012.

• SNAMP Spatial Team. Two workshops on Lidar and Sierra Nevada forests: Oakhurst, and Forest Hill, CA. May 16 &17, 2012

Publications:

1. Jakubowski, M. Q. Guo, B. Collins, S. Stephens, and M. Kelly. Prediction of fuel models and stand structure metrics using lidar and optical remote sensing in dense mixed conifer forest. Accepted in Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing

2. Zhao, F., Q. Guo, and M. Kelly. 2012. Allometric equation choice impacts lidar-based

of 54

forest biomass estimates: A case study from the Sierra National Forest, CA. Agriculture and Forest Meteorology 165: 64-72

3. Li, W., Guo, Q., Jakubowski, M., Kelly, M. 2012. A New Method for Segmenting Individual Trees from the Lidar Point Cloud. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 78: 75 - 84

4. Zhao, F., A. R. Sweitzer, Q. Guo and M. Kelly. 2012. Characterization of forest habitat for mammals with lidar: a case study of Pacific fisher denning trees in the Sierra National Forest, CA. Forest Ecology and Management 280: 112–119

5. Blanchard, S., M. Jakubowski, and M. Kelly. 2011. Object-based image analysis of downed logs in a disturbed forest landscape using lidar. Remote Sensing 3(11), 2420-2439

Science Briefs:

• SNAMP Science Briefs on the above papers are posted on the SNAMP website. 5) Current and Near-term Challenges The spatial team is focused on the challenges associated with recapturing lidar for post-treatment in both sites; we need to develop new algorithms on how to process waveform lidar as well as fusion with ground-based measurements; and extending coverage to assist with owl Eldorado area. Lidar will be flown in late October 2012.

of 54

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION TEAM (PPT) The following summary includes updates for STRATEGIC FACILITATION (Kim Rodrigues), PROGRAM ANALYSIS (Lynn Huntsinger), and INTERNET DISCUSSION BOARD AND WEBGIS INTERNET DISCUSSION BOARD (Maggi Kelly). 1) Overview: An overarching goal for the SNAMP process is the one initially laid out by the USFS: create an engaged, knowledgeable group of stakeholders that can work constructively with the agency. The Public Participation team (PPT) has facilitation, outreach, and assessment roles. The team conducts strategic facilitation and outreach for stakeholders, Memorandum of Understanding partners (MOUP), University of California Science Team (UCST), and Forest Service (USFS) as part of an integrated participatory adaptive management approach for vegetation management on USFS Sierra Nevada forests. In addition to a spectrum of meetings, workshops, and field trips, a high quality interactive website facilitates participation by the broad public, as well as local stakeholders and SNAMP scientists. Stakeholders can ask scientists questions in meetings and via the website, and are able to participate in meetings focusing on the latest findings via Stakeholder Integration Team meetings and SNAMP field trips. The team also evaluates the processes and outcomes of stakeholder and MOUP participation in the program, Forest Service and UCST adaptation in response to empirical results, and stakeholder input and UC function in a third party role. As part of these overall objectives, we provide observational and empirical-based feedback to the Forest Service on its public participation methods. In the next year, we will begin planning our final report, and how we will work with the public to close the adaptive management loop. PPT has taken a leadership role in the development of shared metrics to produce an integrated report. 2) 2012 Activities and Products:

Team - PPT working retreat in Davis June 19th, 2012 - PPT-SNAMP IT June 22nd, 2012 - Participation at the 2012 SNAMP All Scientists Meeting PPT: Website - Maintained and updated regularly with documents, photographs, events, etc. - Web updates sent out regularly. - Increased use of the SNAMP website, to over 9,000 visits from over 6,000 unique visitors in the past year. This represents an increase of 8.5% from the previous year, with 27% more unique viewers from the year before. - Finished content analysis of web usage from 2009-2012: shows sustained use by our public of general SNAMP information pages (About, Documents, Events, etc.) and increasing

of 54

popularity in our science pages, particularly Fisher and Newsletters. - Working on a series of papers:

• Networks of Information, People, and Space in Adaptive Management: the Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project

• The information landscape in adaptive management of natural resources

• Information tracking and adaptive management: the production, use, and impact of mutual learning

• Social networks of people and places: structural participation through events and the web

• System design to facilitate networks and information flow

- Published paper "Expanding the table: the web as a tool for participatory adaptive management in California: a case study in the Sierra Nevada" accepted by the Journal of Environmental Management. Kelly, M., S. Ferranto, S. Lei, K. Ueda, L. Huntsinger. Expanding the table: the web as a tool for participatory adaptive management in California: a case study in the Sierra Nevada. Journal of Environmental Management 109: 1-11. http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/news/2012/jun/20/snamp-pub-12-expanding-table-web-tool-participator/

PPT: Analysis An overarching goal of PPT analysis is to examine the sustainability of the SNAMP model and its potential applicability in other settings. As part of this goal, the creation, adaptation, and implementation of information generated by the adaptive management program, including stakeholder engagement, and the University of California’s function in a third party role, are assessed. SNAMP methods are largely centered on generating science and “sharing” it: the science team is developing ways to inform stakeholders about the planning, design, implementation, and results of science. A current hypothesis for participatory management is that better science and interpretation of science can be done with inputs that include local and traditional knowledge, and diverse ideas from stakeholders. SNAMP has made an effort since the beginning to share the science process, and to make science processes and decisions transparent. A major assessment goal is to uncover how much the various participants have learned from each other, from science, and from our outreach efforts. In turn, we want to see if that has changed relationships among the involved parties, and if constructive channels of communication have been built and used as an outcome of SNAMP.

A publication about the adaptive management and third party monitoring aspects of SNAMP will be drafted and submitted for publication. In late 2013, we will work with all of PPT to conduct an internet-based survey of SNAMP participants, to follow up our earlier survey of how particular SNAMP processes have functioned and what participants are getting out of

http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/news/2012/jun/20/snamp-pub-12-expanding-table-web-tool-participator/

http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/news/2012/jun/20/snamp-pub-12-expanding-table-web-tool-participator/

of 54

it. In 2014, the final, or post, interviews of SNAMP participants and key informants will be initiated and the interviews about learning processes within SNAMP will be analyzed. The information gathered through these surveys and interviews, conducted throughout the SNAMP program period, will inform the final PPT report. We have begun drafting that report to integrate the various activities and approaches to evaluation of the PPT team.

- Archiving SNAMP materials – on going - Analysis of online survey, interview and observational data – on going - Program evaluation matrix refinement – on going - Learning analysis

- Completed learning survey protocol in collaboration with Dr. Heidi Ballard (UC Davis)

- Completed learning survey interviews – 27 interviews with SNAMP participants - Analysis software updated to allow for intra-team collaboration - All learning data uploaded and coded in NVivo, ready for inquiry and paper production

- Completed and published forest health paper - Drafting of “third party monitoring paper” exploring the evolution of the USFS management model from 1900 through SNAMP. Will be presented at 2nd Rangeland Science Symposium at UC Davis, Jan 2013, and at the Society for Range Management 66th Annual Meeting, February 2013. - Completing white papers – local history in review with Dr. Lucy Diekmann in preparation for posting - Initiating outline and planning for PPT final report. Publication:

Sulak, A. and L. Huntsinger. 2012. Perceptions of forest health among stakeholders in an adaptive management project in the Sierra Nevada of California. Journal of Forest Health 110(6): 312-317 http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/saf/jof/pre-prints/jof12004 PPT: Outreach The outreach team continued to support a multitude of field opportunities for public/stakeholder, and collaborating agency participation in scientific study on water, wildlife, and forest health issues. 2012 public participation events included field trips, Integration Team meetings, public meetings, and meetings with organizations and schools in communities near the field sites. Nearly 5,000 contacts have been made since 2005 (Figure 1).

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/saf/jof/pre-prints/jof12004

of 54

Figure PPT-1: Total participation at SNAMP public involvement events per month since December 2005

In person events: Public outreach event types included IT meetings, field trips, and presentations (Figure 2). At least 163 separate events have been held since the project’s inception in 2005, including 25 this fiscal year. Integration meetings were held this year (see Table 1) with the Public Participation Team (June 22, 2012), the Water Team (July 31, 2012), and the Owl Team (August 23rd, 2012). Field trips (see Table 2) were taken to see how the fisher team tracks denning females (May 1, 2012) and to look at the treatments being done at the Sugar Pine study site (September 19, 2012). The Spatial Team held workshops to demonstrate the use of lidar to characterize forest structure, fuels, and habitat in Oakhurst (May 16, 2012), Foresthill (May 17, 2012), and in a special manager’s workshop for US Forest Service Regional staff in Vallejo (May 22, 2012).

of 54

Figure PPT- 2: SNAMP public involvement events per month since 2005

The Public Participation Team continues to target diverse audiences. Outreach presentations (see Table 3) were made to 693 individuals in local service clubs and political clubs, user’s groups such as the Trailbike Sportsman Association, environmental groups such as the Native Plant Society, Watershed Councils in the study area, and to youth in educational programs and 4H camps. Presentations were made to people with a broad set of interests, including arts, wildlife, tribal, forestry, and local government groups (see Figure 3).

Figure PPT-3: Outreach presentations by PPT by category of audience, Dec 2007-present

One highlight of these presentations was a half hour long overview of SNAMP presented by Drs. John Battles and Kim Rodrigues at the sixth session of the USFS Sierra Cascades Dialog on May 10th, 2012. SNAMP was asked to present on the project as an example of using adaptive management in forest planning. John and Kim gave an overview of SNAMP, its

of 54

success, constraints, and lessons learned and how these can be applied to benefit forest planning. Outreach using at a distance methods: In addition to in-person involvement events, the Public Participation Outreach Team continued to facilitate involvement of audiences at a distance by developing news articles, contributing blog stories to the UCANR Green Blog (ucanr.org/blogs/green), facilitating discussions on the SNAMP website, and maintaining information repositories for the Pacific fisher and California spotted owl. To facilitate use of owl and fisher study information beyond that generated by SNAMP, the UCCE outreach team developed websites with collections of owl and Pacific fisher science papers. These sites, The Pacific Fisher Information Repository and the California Spotted Owl Information Repository, were visited by 224 and 337 unique visitors, respectively, during the fiscal year. Some users are accessing available science about Pacific fisher this way (44 in the fiscal year). See Table 4. This year these distance involvement efforts included developing six blog entries for the UCANR Green Blog, two videos highlighting the work of the SNAMP fisher and owl teams, write-ups of SNAMP in others’ newsletters, on-line news articles, and two journal articles in California Agriculture magazine and the Journal of Extension. See Table 5 for a listing of topics, titles, and locations. One of these blog entries, a story titled: UC wildlife research team looking for single socks posted on the UCANR Green Blog (http://ucanr.org/sockdrive), on December 14, 2011, went viral. The sock drive appeal was also posted on UC Green Blog’s Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/ucanr), Tweeted, and sent out as a UC news release (http://ucanr.edu/News/). The goals of the social media campaign were to solicit donations of materials in support of fisher science and to extend outreach to new non-local audiences across the state, region, and nation. Dr. Rick Sweitzer initiated the sock drive in November 2011, with PPT assisting with outreach and logistics. PPT first developed a humorous one-page flyer appealing for sock donations. The flyer explained the need for used socks in support of scientific study on the fishers and had an image of a fisher pulling on a bait sock. The flyer and sock drop-off bins were distributed to local schools in Oakhurst, the headquarters of the Fisher team. This approach yielded only a few hundred socks. This led to a broadening of the appeal using social networking methods. The response to the social media campaign overwhelmed our expectations. The UC Green Blog story received over 10,000 hits by January 30, 2012, the most of any story since the Green Blog’s inception in July 2010. The post led to interviews on four radio stations and articles in California newspapers including the San Francisco Examiner, Sacramento Bee, and San Jose Mercury News. Most media stories occurred during the first two weeks after the initial appeal was posted (Figure 4).

http://ucanr.org/sockdrive

https://www.facebook.com/ucanr

http://ucanr.edu/News/

of 54

The social and traditional media attention led to a tremendous influx of socks. Within the first 6 weeks, over 282 packages were received, at a cost of over $1,250 in postage, from throughout the United States. The peak number of packages arrived about two weeks after the initial media interest. Enough socks were collected to supply the fisher project for the next two years. Additional socks are being provided to another fisher project nearby and to non-profit organizations that provide services to those in need in Oakhurst and San Francisco.

Figure PPT-4: Timing of the UC Sock Drive Media Stories and Sock Packages Received, December 2011 to February 15, 2012

Over 83% of packages received were from California; however, shipments were also received from 20 states and Canada (Figure 5). Almost 82% of mailings were from urban areas with populations of 20,000 or more.

Figure PPT-5: Location of Donors Sending in Packages of Socks with Legible Return

Addresses (Map by Sarah Lewis)

of 54

The success of this sock drive shows that involvement of the public in wildlife science can be facilitated by use of social media for donations of supplies, especially when the appeal includes a good dose of humor and allows the public to play a useful role with items they have readily at hand. Comments posted by people reading newspaper articles on-line about the sock drive focused on the humorous aspects of used socks – suggesting that fishers are causing the universal dilemma of missing socks and worrying about the health of fishers snacking on dirty socks. One San Francisco Bay blog covered the sock drive under the title “This guy wants to eat your socks”, accompanied by a photo of an adult male fisher. Though humor was the most prominent theme found in reactions to the sock drive, some making donations were more serious. Notes included in some packages commented that donated socks had belonged to loved ones who had recently died, and that deceased family members would have appreciated knowing their possessions were being used to facilitate important scientific study in the natural world. The major challenge caused by the success of the campaign was developing the local logistical support to deal with the overwhelming response and influx of donations (Figure 6). Extension programs developed to reach a local audience may need additional logistical support when using social media since the potential of reaching a wider audience is high.

Figure PPT-6: Anne Lombardo – University of California Cooperative Extension Program Representative and Rick Sweitzer - University of California Berkeley Fisher Scientist Processing Donated Socks

of 54

Table PPT-1: SNAMP Public Participation Meetings (notes posted to web)

Date Topic Location # Description and Agencies/ Organizations Represented October 27, 2012

SNAMP Annual meeting

Sacramento and webinar

65 The meeting was held to promote shared understanding of the current status of the SNAMP project and findings, and to allow for public interaction and involvement with the project. The morning session included an overview of the methods and findings of each of the 7 SNAMP science teams. The afternoon session included discussion of budget cutbacks and implications for the team’s workplan. The meeting was attended by a diverse group of people that included representatives of: US Fish & Wildlife Service, US Forest Service, CalFire, CA Nat. Resources Agency, CA Dept. of Fish & Game, CA Dept. Water Resources, Sierra Forest Legacy, Sierra Club, Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center, Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch, Mariposans for Environment and Responsible Government, Defenders of Wildlife, Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch Pacific Rivers Council, Nevada County Fire Safe Council, Calaveras County Water Dept., Placer County Water Authority, American River Watershed Inst., Placer County RCD, National Forest Foundation, Resources Legacy Fund, and UC Cooperative Extension.

June 22nd, 2012

Public Participa-tion Integra-tion Team and Update meeting


35 Meeting goals were to update stakeholders on SNAMP’s funding reductions and how they affect work plans; discuss how delay of fuel treatments has affected the team’s work plans and deliverables and seek input on of final SNAMP report to be the most useful product for users. Discussion topics included an update on the PPT participation and science outcomes, an update on the project budget and timeline, and a discussion of the final report format. Participants included representatives from: US Forest Service, CA Dept. of Water Resources, Sierra Nevada Conservancy, Placer County, Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center, and CA Forestry Association.

July 31st, 2012

Water Integration Team meeting


35 Meeting goals are to share the study design and findings from the UC Water team thus far as well as to explain connections between the Water Team science and other projects including the Kings River Experimental Watershed, Stanislaus Experimental Forest, and the Sierra Watershed Ecosystem Enhancement Project. Participants included representatives from: US Forest Service, CA Dept. of Water Resources, Cal Fire, Sierra Nevada Conservancy, Association of California Water Agencies, Calaveras County Water Dist., El Dorado Water Agency, Plumas County Flood Control & WCD Society of American Foresters, CA. Forestry Assoc., CalFire, Placer County RCD, Nevada County Fire Safe Council CSERC, Sierra Club, Conservation Biological Institute, The Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, Sierra Institute and UC Cooperative Extension.

August 23rd, 2012

Owl Integration Team meeting


30 Meeting goals were to share the latest findings by the UC Owl Team to include an update on the status of the study design; development of the retrospective analysis and vegetation history map, development of the integrated population model, and next steps for the owl team. Participants included representatives from CalFire, CA Dept. of Fish & Game, US Forest Service, CA Association of RCDs, Conservation Biology Institute, Sierra Forest Legacy, CSERC, Defenders of Wildlife,

of 54

Defenders of Wildlife, WM Beaty & Assoc, Sierra Pacific Industries, and California Forestry Association.

Total 165 Annual meeting and IT total contacts

Table PPT-2: Local field trips and workshops

Date Event/ location # Description & organizations represented

May 1, 2012 Fisher field trip, Oakhurst

46 The SNAMP Fisher Team led a group of participants to their study site to show illustrate of the results from the first four years of their study of this population's response to local fuel treatments being done by the Forest Service. The team showed the group high quality denning habitat and some of the details they have learned about the fisher's denning habits over the last few years.

May 16, 2012 Spatial workshop, Oakhurst

22 The goal of the workshop was to share the work of the SNAMP Spatial Team including the use of remote sensing/mapping tools to quantify forest structures across the landscape; from fuels, to biomass, canopy cover, downed logs, and the height, diameter and height to live crown of individual trees. The workshop included hands on use of Lidar data.

May 17, 2012 Spatial workshop, Foresthill

22 The goal of the workshop was to share the work of the SNAMP Spatial Team including the use of remote sensing/mapping tools to quantify forest structures across the landscape; from fuels, to biomass, canopy cover, downed logs, and the height, diameter and height to live crown of individual trees. The workshop included hands on use of Lidar data.

May 22, 2012 US Forest Service Spatial workshop, Vallejo

11 The goal of this USFS-sponsored workshop was to present a current knowledge of the use of Lidar in forest measurements and to allow staff/participants to ask questions of scientists. Invitations to this workshop were restricted to USFS agency staff (GIS/spatial staff) and other state agency personnel only.

September 19, 2012

USFS & SNAMP Implementation field trip, Sugar Pine study site

35 To provide the public with an opportunity to see the studied fuels reduction projects in progress and to ask questions and make comments. Participants included representatives from UC Cooperative Extension, USFS and USFS PSW, CA Dept. of Fish & Game, Sierra Pacific Industries.

Total 136 Field trip and workshop contacts

of 54

Table PPT-3: Presentations about SNAMP to outside organizations

Date Group Location Attendance #

October 13, 2011 CAL EPA Sacramento 8 November 10, 2011 California Native Plant Society Sacramento 24 January 31, 2012 Wildlife Society – Western Section Sacramento 200 March 6, 2012 Willow Creek Collaborative Group North Fork 28 March 29, 2012 Northern California Prescribed Fire Council Chico 30 April 20, 2012 Oakhurst Earth Day Celebration Oakhurst 50 May 2, 2012 Auburn Lions Club Auburn 33 May 7, 2012 Foresthill Forum Foresthill 30 May 10, 2012 USFS Sierra Cascades Dialog session 6 Sacramento 120 May 12, 2012 Oakhurst Children’s Museum Oakhurst 25 June 19, 2012 Merced County 4H Camp Nippanwasse 30 July 9, 2012 Integrated Regional Water Management Planning group Oakhurst 12 July 25, 2012 Central Sierra Watershed Committee Oakhurst 15 August 15, 2012 Trailbike Sportsman Association Sacramento 18 August 23, 2012 Adhoc rodenticide action group Madera 18 September 6, 2012 Sierra Nevada Conservancy board meeting Mariposa 20 September 18, 2012 Foresthill Lions Club Foresthill 32

Total Outreach contacts 693

of 54

Table PPT-4: Use of UCCE supported fisher and owl websites

Website Unique visitors 2011/

2012

New visitor/ Returning visitor Top Content

Rank – Number of page views - % of page views

Pacific Fisher Information Repository

http://ucanr.org/sites/pacificfisher/

224 76%- 217 Visits

23%-67 Visits

1. Home page 240 34%

2. Fisher news 88 12 %

3. Photos 86 12%

4. Research groups 49 7%

5. Fisher researchers 44 6%

6. Research papers 44 6%

California Spotted Owl Information Repository

http://ucanr.org/sites/spottedowl/

337 79% - 330 visits

21% - 89 visits

1. Home page 427 51%

2. Research Papers 86 10%

3. Photos 69 8%

4. Owl News 68 8%

5. Researchers 59 7%

6. Web Sites 30 4%

Total 561 unique visitors

http://ucanr.org/sites/pacificfisher/

http://ucanr.org/sites/spottedowl/

of 54

Table PPT-5: Blog entries, news and journal articles generated by PPT

Date Story Title Topic Location September 28, 2011 U.S. Forest Service and UC study ways

to reduce wildfire severity Modeled effectiveness of SNAMP fuel treatments

UC Green Blog: ucanr.org/blogs/green

December 14, 2011 UC wildlife research team looking for single socks

Appeal for sock donations to the SNAMP Fisher Team


January 18, 2012 You socked it to us! Thanks to all who donated socks UC Green Blog: ucanr.org/blogs/green

February 29, 2012 Using Lidar to map forest structure and characterize wildlife habitat

Description of SNAMP Spatial Team’s Lidar products and utility


March 22, 2012 The Pacific Fisher A profile of the Pacific fisher and the SNAMP Fisher Team

Minaret High School media class http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM3uJ5dcUmI

March 2012 California Spotted Owl Research in the Sierra Nevada

A profile of the spotted owl and the SNAMP Owl Team

SNAMP website http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/videos/

April 2012 issue Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project

Overview of the SNAMP project and Pacific fisher study

Yosemite Gateway Partners http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/static/documents/2012/03/21/Yosemite_Gateway_Partners_Spring_2012_newsletter.pdf

April-June 2012 issue UC leads effort to protect California forests from catastrophic fire

An update on the status of the Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project

California Agriculture http://californiaagriculture.ucanr.edu

June 13, 2012 Visualizing the forest Overview and graphics of the visualization products from the SNAMP Spatial Team


August 30, 2012 GREEN ACRES: Mountain Living at its Finest

Fisher habitat on the Sierra National Forest Sierra Online: http://www.sierranewsonline.com

September 20, 2012 Web-based tools and their contribution to public participation and natural resource management.

Description of how the SNAMP website contributes to participation in the project, the strengths and weaknesses of web-based participation


http://ucanr.org/blogs/green




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM3uJ5dcUmI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM3uJ5dcUmI

http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/videos/

http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/static/documents/2012/03/21/Yosemite_Gateway_Partners_Spring_2012_newsletter.pdf



http://californiaagriculture.ucanr.edu/


http://www.sierranewsonline.com/


of 54

Date Story Title Topic Location In press Using Social Media to Involve the Public

in Wildlife Research – the SNAMP Fisher Sock Collection Drive.

Overview of the social media campaign for socks for the SNAMP fisher team.

Journal of Extension, http://joe.org/

Total distance outreach events 12

http://joe.org/