second quarterly meeting november 29th 2007 auburn ca
DESCRIPTION
Second Quarterly Meeting November 29th 2007 Auburn CA. The SNAMP Project: Learning how to apply adaptive management in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Outline for Public Meeting. 1. Review our Guiding Principles and Key Agreements 2. Project Timeline & Team Updates 3. Discussion - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
The SNAMP Project:Learning how to apply
adaptive management in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment
Second Quarterly MeetingNovember 29th 2007
Auburn CA
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
Outline for Public Meeting
• 1. Review our Guiding Principles and Key Agreements
• 2. Project Timeline & Team Updates
• 3. Discussion
• Public Meeting Format
• Data Sharing
• Celebration and Where Do We Go From Here?
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
Review our guiding principles and key agreements
• Ground Rules
• Roles and Relationships for this Meeting:
• Facilitator: Kim Rodrigues
• Recorder: Susan Clark
• Roles and Relationships for the Project:
• Lead PI: John Battles
• New Project Coordinator: Ann Huber
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
AdaptiveManagement
USFS:Implement projects as
treatments
USFS: Plan projects with existing management
direction (ROD)
Observe & measureAnalyze &
recalibrate models
USFS: Change management
direction as needed
Analyze & model expected environmental
affects
Propose adjustments to management?
Adaptive Management Framework
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
SNAMP Timeline
2005
December 9, 2005First SNAMP Public Meeting
December 9, 2005First SNAMP Public Meeting
December 9, 2005Workplan Agreement with
USFS & UCCE
December 9, 2005Workplan Agreement with
USFS & UCCE
February 2005MOU with UC & USFS
February 2005MOU with UC & USFS
April 15, 2005UC SNAMP Proposal Completed
April 15, 2005UC SNAMP Proposal Completed
December 21, 2005SNAMP Key Agreements
December 21, 2005SNAMP Key Agreements
2006
November 11, 2006MOU + UCST
Meeting, Sacramento, CA
November 11, 2006MOU + UCST
Meeting, Sacramento, CA
January 13, 2006 MOU
Partner’s Meeting
January 13, 2006 MOU
Partner’s Meeting
January 20, 2006 Public Comment
Website Accessible
January 20, 2006 Public Comment
Website Accessible
October 2, 2006 MOU + UCST + USFS
Staff Field Trip: American River
October 2, 2006 MOU + UCST + USFS
Staff Field Trip: American River
September 7, 2006 MOU + UCST + USFS
Staff Field Trip: Bass Lake
September 7, 2006 MOU + UCST + USFS
Staff Field Trip: Bass Lake
July 2, 2006SNAMP Public
Meeting
July 2, 2006SNAMP Public
Meeting
July 21, 2006MOU + UCST
Meeting, Sacramento, CA
July 21, 2006MOU + UCST
Meeting, Sacramento, CA
May 15, 2006MOU Review &
UCST Response Posted
May 15, 2006MOU Review &
UCST Response Posted
May 8, 2006 Workplan Peer Review Posted
May 8, 2006 Workplan Peer Review Posted
April 28, 2006MOU + UCST
Meeting, Sacramento,
CA
April 28, 2006MOU + UCST
Meeting, Sacramento,
CA
February 28, 2006
Workplan Posted
February 28, 2006
Workplan Posted
February 10, 2006 Draft
Workplan Posted
February 10, 2006 Draft
Workplan Posted
August 20, 20071st QuarterlyReport, Davis
2007
January 24, 2007 SNAMP Public
Meeting
January 24, 2007 SNAMP Public
Meeting
January 16, 2007Revised Workplan Posted
January 16, 2007Revised Workplan Posted
January 11, 2007MOU + UCST
Meeting, Sacramento, CA
January 11, 2007MOU + UCST
Meeting, Sacramento, CA
May 16, 2007Full UCST Meeting
November 29, 20072nd Quarterly
Report, Auburn
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
UCST Science TeamsFire & Forest Ecosystem
Health• Scott Stephens, PI• John Battles, PI• Brandon Collins, Post-Doc• Adrian Das, Post-Doc• Gary Roller, PM
Fisher• Reg Barrett, PI• Rick Sweitzer, PM
Owl• Rocky Gutiérrez, PI• Doug Tempel, PM
Public Participation• Lynn Huntsinger, PI• Kimberly Rodrigues, PI• Maggi Kelly, PI• Adriana Sulak, Post-Doc• Ann Lombardo, Extension• Ken’ichi Ueda, MS Student
Spatial• Maggi Kelly, PI• Qinghua Guo, PI• Marek Jakubowski, Ph.D.
Student
Water• Roger Bales, PI• Martha Conklin, PI• Qinghua Guo, PI• Sarah Martin, Ph.D. Student• Matt Meadows, Hydrologist
SNAMP Project Integration
• John Battles, Lead PI• Ann Huber, Academic
Coordinator
SNAMP Project Integration
• John Battles, Lead PI• Ann Huber, Academic
Coordinator
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
The SNAMP Study Sites
Placeholder for site maps
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
The SNAMP Study Sites
Placeholder for site photos
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
Monitoring and Research
• Monitoring targets are based on key forest management goals:• Reducing the potential for
catastrophic wildfire• Protecting wildlife habitat• Maintaining high-quality water• Working with the public
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
University of California Role
• Provide independent third-party monitoring and research
• Help develop and evaluate an adaptive management program with strong public participation
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
Science Team: Our Commitment
• Monitoring• We will monitor and analyze impacts of management treatments (and
USFS public participation processes) as a third party • Open and Transparent Process
• We commit to an open and transparent process, with public participation and full reporting to USFS and public from the beginning
• Information Tracking• We will follow how information is gathered and used as it is fed back into
the adaptive management process; report on use of information to public, Science Team, and USFS
• Public Participation• We will engage the public, as stakeholders, in monitoring and research, to
develop a “community of stakeholders” at local and regional scales
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
Project Integration Group (John)
• Accomplishments since Q1• Formalized internal UCST communication
• Bimonthly UCST conference calls• Weekly communication with each science team regarding their progress• Weekly update email posted to UCST
• Coordinated:• Getting science team workplans posted to SNAMP website• Q2 meeting and logistics planning with PPT• UCST review of data sharing and publications guidelines agreement with PPT• Owl revised proposal discussion and presentation
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
Project Integration Group (John)
• Accomplishments since Q1 (continued)• Obtained UCST consensus on
• Process for proposing new / altered research plans• Revised Neutrality Statement
• Communication with MOU Partners • Worked with USFS and Spatial Team to coordinate development of updated,
detailed SNAMP project map• Coordination of housing logistics for science teams for next summer• Communication with FS personnel regarding plans for treatment implementation• Served as central information hub for communications between MOU partners
and science team members• Developed UCST org chart• Clarified purchasing procedures for UC Berkeley teams
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
SNAMP Project Challenges (John)
• Uneven funding
• Implications of one-year delay
• Scale Issues
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
Project Integration Group (John)
• Next steps• Progress on data sharing and integration between teams with
data• Begin integrating complementary research studies in the
Sierra Nevada (meta-replication)• More frequent, improved communication with MOUP
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
AdaptiveManagement
USFS:Implement projects as
treatments
USFS: Plan projects with existing management
direction (ROD)
Observe & measureAnalyze &
recalibrate models
USFS: Change management
direction as needed
Analyze & model expected environmental
affects
Propose adjustments to management?
Fire & Forest Health & Adaptive Management
Locate study sites that meet criteria, plan treatments
Develop monitoring protocol, establish plots, inventory forest
structure and fuels, fire history reconstruction
Monitoring of forest conditions and changes
Use fuel and silvicultural models
Report results
Adaptive Management
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
Forest Fire & Ecosystem Health (Scott)
• Foresthill:• Total Plots: 200• 138 plots in the two treatment
watersheds at a 500m grid, additionally two sets of 16 plots each at a 250m grid
• 15 plots densified in the Frazier Creek control watershed
• 15 plots densified in the Bear Trap Creek treatment watershed
• Rows 250m apart with plots 125m running north to south
• Sugar Pine:• Total Plots: 115• 76 plots in the general treatment area
around the town of Sugar Pine at a 500m grid
• 18 plots densified in the Big Sandy treatment watershed
• 21 plots densified in the North Speckerman control watershed
• rows 250m apart with plots 125m running north to south
• Cedar Valley:• 71 of 122 plots complete at a 500m
grid in the area around the town of Cedar Valley scheduled for immediate harvest
• Accomplishments & Notes
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
Overstory Species Composition >2 inches DBH
Tree Species Forest Hill (%) Sugar Pine (%)
Cedar Valley (%)
Abies concolor(balsam/white fir)
45 28 29
Abies magnifica(CA red fir)
7 3 0
Calocedrus decurrens(Insence cedar)
9 32 35
Pinus lambertiana(Sugar pine)
16 10 7
Pinus ponderosa(Ponderosa pine)
9 18 15
Quercus kelloggii(Black oak)
2 7 8
Pseudotsuga menziessii (Douglas fir)
12 0 0
Live Oak Family, misc. 0 0 3
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
Average Canopy CoverTree Species Forest Hill
(%)Sugar Pine
(%)Cedar Valley
(%)
Abies concolor (balsam/white fir)
20.5 17.1 13.5
Abies magnifica (CA red fir)
2.6 1.1 0.0
Calocedrus decurrens (Insence cedar)
3.9 0.3 16.7
Live Oak Family, misc. 0.0 1.3 11.2
Pinus lambertiana (Sugar pine)
6.8 5.1 3.3
Pinus ponderosa (Ponderosa pine)
5.8 10.7 8.4
Pseudotsuga menziessii (Douglas fir)
9.6 0.0 0.0
Quercus kelloggii (Black oak)
1.5 9.8 9.6
TOTAL 51 63.7 62.9
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
Average Shrub Cover
Shrub Cover Forest Hill (%)
Sugar Pine (%)
Cedar Valley (%)
Arctostaphylos nevedensis (pine mat manzanita)
3.7 0.6 0.0
Arctostaphylos patula (green leaf manzanita)
6.8 8.2 9.9
Ceanothus cordulatus (whitethorn)
2.7 2.6 0.1
Chamaebatia foliolosa (mountain misery)
0.3 13.4 5.0
Chrysolepis sempervirens (golden chinquapin)
1.7 4.7 0.0
Lithocarpus densiflorus (tanoak)
9.7 0.0 0.0
Quercus vaccinifolia (huckleberry oak)
10.7 0.0 0.0
Ribes shrubs(currant, gooseberry, etc.)
0.8 1.0 0.5
Symphoricarpos mollis (snowberry)
1.1 0.0 2.3
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
Basal Area>2 inches DBH
Tree Species Forest Hill (ft²/Acre)
Sugar Pine (ft²/Acre)
Cedar Valley
(ft²/Acre)
Abies concolor (Balsam/white fir)
81 66 67
Abies magnifica (CA Red fir)
12 6 0
Calocedrus decurrens (Insence cedar)
15 76 81
Live Oak Family, misc. 0 1 14
Pinus lambertiana (Sugar pine)
29 24 17
Pinus ponderosa (Ponderosa pine)
16 42 34
Pseudotsuga menziessii (Douglas fir)
21 0 0
Quercus kelloggii (Black oak)
3 17 19
TOTAL 178 234 232
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
Forest Fire & Ecosystem Health (Scott)
• Ongoing outreach activities & ideas for public participation
• Next steps• Complete the inventory in the summer of ‘08
• control firesheds in the northern and southern sites, and complete the new Cedar Valley project in the southern site
• We will also collect fire scars and corers from trees to be used in mortality modeling
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
AdaptiveManagement
USFS:Implement projects as
treatments
USFS: Plan projects with existing management
direction (ROD)
Observe & measureAnalyze &
recalibrate models
USFS: Change management
direction as needed
Analyze & model expected environmental
affects
Propose adjustments to management?
Water & Adaptive Management
Adaptive Management
Monitor changes in water quality & water budget in representative areas
Impact of forest treatments on water quality & budget, aquatic habitat &
aquatic biota at 3 levels: watershed, forest, bioregion
Based on impacts on streams, water cycle & forest health
Potential effects of treatments on watershed processes
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
Water(Roger & Martha)
• Accomplishments & Notes• 4 meteorological stations completed• Additional instrument sites selected
• Ongoing outreach activities & ideas for public participation• Yosemite H.S., Oakhurst, CA
• Next steps• Sediment basin permitting construction• Procure & install instrument clusters• Set up modeling framework• Await funding & purchases from DWR
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
AdaptiveManagement
USFS:Implement projects as
treatments
USFS: Plan projects with existing management
direction (ROD)
Observe & measureAnalyze &
recalibrate models
USFS: Change management
direction as needed
Analyze & model expected environmental
affects
Propose adjustments to management?
Wildlife & Adaptive Management
Adaptive Management
Report on species status, conditions, mortality or disappearance
Select species for study, develop research protocol,Inventory and mark animals
Monitor owl and fisher
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
Wildlife: Fisher
Accomplishments & Notes• Bass Lake/North Fork Research Station
established• Six project technicians hired (3 M.S., 3 B.S.)• Field research was initiated in mid October• 15 camera traps established within SNAMP
watersheds; 2 fisher detections
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
Wildlife: Fisher
Accomplishments & Notes• Rick Sweitzer participated in “Sugar Pine Adaptive Mgt Public
Fieldtrip” hosted by Bass Lake Ranger District (Sept 29, 2007)
Ideas for Public Participation • Will provide Ann Lombardo with information
from study as project picks up steam
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
Wildlife: Fisher
• Accomplishments & Notes• Grid (1 km2) –based design for
research • Camera traps & other activities
linked to numbered grid; example is distribution of 15 camera traps
• Commercial thinning underway in Nelder Creek watershed
• Grid will be monitored with camera traps until 20 fisher are collared
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
• Next Steps• Continue to establish camera
traps in SNAMP watersheds and beyond
• Will radio-collar fishers through winter until at least 20 animals collared
• All radio-collared fisher will be monitored daily to determine cause of mortality
Fisher: Next Steps
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
• OPTION 1: Use existing data from Eldorado Study Area (ESA)• Determine which owl territories have recently experienced SPLAT-like
treatments• We have extensive occupancy, reproductive, and survival data for all ESA
territories
• OPTION 2: Use future data from ESA• Identify owl territories that will receive SPLAT treatments over same time frame
as SNAMP• Data will be collected during our ongoing efforts on the ESA
Wildlife: OwlOptions to Increase Sample Size
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
• OPTION 3: Expand our survey effort to include additional owl Protected Activity Centers (PACs) on Tahoe or Eldorado N.F.• Identify owl PACs near areas scheduled to receive SPLAT treatments over
same time frame as SNAMP• Survey, capture, and monitor owls in these areas
• OPTION 4: Expand our survey effort to include any SPLAT treatment sites on Tahoe or Eldorado N.F.• Identify any areas scheduled to receive SPLAT treatments over same time
frame as SNAMP (regardless of historic owl presence)• Survey, capture, and monitor owls in these areas
Wildlife: OwlOptions to Increase Sample Size
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
• Increased cooperation between UCST and U.S. Forest Service• Required for all options but particularly critical for Options 3-4• With assistance from U.S.F.S., assess the potential increase in sample size from
Options 1-2 before the 2008 field season
• Financial cost• Options 1-2 incur no additional costs for SNAMP• Options 3-4 incur additional (but unknown) costs for SNAMP
• Scale of Study Area• Expanded scale of owl sampling increases the generality of owl results• Strengthens the study (rather than weakens it)
Wildlife: OwlImplications of Revised Study Design
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
• Accompany owl crews on night-time surveys• Assess areas for presence/absence of owls• Surveys generally occur along roads• Less physically strenuous than following option• U of Minnesota requires participants to sign waiver of liability
• Accompany owl crews on walk-in surveys• Identify or capture (if necessary) owls detected during night-time surveys• Assess reproductive status of owls• Public participants must be in excellent physical condition• The use of mice to assess reproduction may offend some members of public• U of Minnesota requires participants to sign waiver of liability
Wildlife: OwlPublic Participation
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
AdaptiveManagement
USFS:Implement projects as
treatments
USFS: Plan projects with existing management
direction (ROD)
Observe & measureAnalyze &
recalibrate models
USFS: Change management
direction as needed
Analyze & model expected environmental
affects
Propose adjustments to management?
Spatial Analysis & Adaptive Management
Adaptive Management
Modeling
Mapping and data support
Data acquisition and analysis
Data & results display
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
Spatial Team: UCB and UCM (Maggi)
• Accomplishments & Notes• Lidar data for the Southern site have been acquired • Study Site maps have been created and posted• GIS data are continually maintained• Facilitated GIS software licensing for other teams• Evaluation of large-scale forest structure data for wildlife team use• Coordinate Data Sharing Draft Protocol for:
• Within-team sharing• Data sharing with the public
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
Spatial Team: Next Steps
• Next Steps• Data Acquisition
• Acquiring high spatial resolution images for the study areas• Plan Lidar data acquisition and other spatial data for the Northern site • Updating spatial data, current vegetation maps and high resolution DEM for
larger study areas• Data Processing
• Processing Southern Site Lidar data to extract DEM and vegetation structure• Process remote sensing data and other spatial data
• Data Sharing • Coordinate gathering and sharing of data collected by UCST • Setting up the data sever for users to upload data with security login in and
distribute spatial data via web GIS technique Work to link the remote sensing derived products to other team field measurements, and start upscalling
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
Spatial Team
• Ongoing Outreach Activities & Ideas for Public Participation• Study site maps available on SNAMP site• Data Sharing discussion begun• WebGIS site in development• Encourage discussion through Discussion Board
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
AdaptiveManagement
USFS:Implement projects as
treatments
USFS: Plan projects with existing management
direction (ROD)
Observe & measureAnalyze &
recalibrate models
USFS: Change management
direction as needed
Analyze & model expected environmental
affects
Propose adjustments to management?
Public Participation & Adaptive Management
Adaptive Management
Incorporate information & ideas from stakeholders into research plan, strategic facilitation
1. Effectiveness of web, community-based, & public meeting methods?
2. How is information used by scientists and USFS?3. Role of UC as third party?
Enable stakeholder participation in monitoring and research; Observe NEPA process of USFS; Initiate Triggers and Thresholds
Enable stakeholder and partner participation in interpretation
Track & report use of information and participation in management and
research;Work with USFS to incorporate what
is learned
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
Public Participation (Lynn)
• Accomplishments & Notes• Introducing Anne Lombardo -- local outreach• Introducing Adrianna Sulak -- project analysis• Strategic facilitation continuing including facilitating Triggers and
Threshold process• Continued website development with systematic user input• Developed a range of outreach materials: SNAMP handout, maps,
newsletter• Participation in, and evaluation of Forest Service and other outreach
meetings and activities• Project archival and historical information
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
Public Participation (Lynn)
• Next steps• Triggers and Thresholds Report• Data Sharing protocol• Workshop with Forest Service• Re-organization and re-launch of SNAMP website• Facilitation Training in Spring 2008• Plan for Q3• Expand outreach
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
For Discussion
• Public Meeting Format (Kim)
• Data Sharing Protocol (Maggi)• Emerging Guiding Principles• Constraints on Data Sharing• SNAMP Data Table
• Where do we go from here? (Kim)
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
SNAMP Data Sharing
• The SNAMP Project will collect, analyze and generate large datasets, from data collected by teams on the ground to remotely measured spatial data.
• The UCST has a commitment to make our workplan, meeting notes, and discussions public and transparent; yet have not yet formally decided on a protocol for sharing of data.
• Sharing data is a key part of adaptive management; but there are constraints associated with sharing
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
Data Sharing Guidelines
• Data propriety begins with the lead PI of the research teams that have collected the data, and each PI will have the ability to decide which of their team’s data can be shared, either internally (within UCST) or externally (outside of UCST);
• There is a limited time period that the lead research team PI have propriety of their data (6-12 months);
• All data requests must be approved in writing by the science team lead PI that has overseen the study in question;
• All science team PIs must archive their data at least annually.
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
Data Sharing Constraints
• The UCST will make efforts to make spatial and non-spatial data public whenever possible and/or appropriate.
• There are compelling reasons why a scientist might not want to distribute data, for example: • disclosure of location of people or rare and endangered species might put them at risk; • data might not be complete; • data might have proprietary restrictions originating outside of the UCST.
• For spatial data that is common across all teams, the spatial team will review and make recommendations on the appropriate format for data sharing. We are concerned about distributing overly large file sizes.
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
Data from SNAMPTeam PI Data set Public? Format Avail?
Integration John Battles Study area boundaries Yes Shapefiles Yes SNAMP SPLAT Treatments Yes, from MOU Shapefile ? Cedar Valley Treatments Yes, from MOU Shapefile ? Fish Camp Project…Others… Yes, from MOU Shapefile ? Fire & Forest Health
Scott Stephens
Plot locations No GPS points Yes *
Wildlife Reg Barrett Study area boundary Yes Shapefile Yes Fisher presence: 1km2 scale grid Yes Grid Not yet Rocky
Gutierrez Study area boundary Yes Shapefile Yes
PACs From MOU Shapefile Yes * Eldorado study area Yes Shapefile ? Water Roger Bales / Study area boundaries Yes Shapefile Yes Martha
Conklin Samples ? GPS Points No
Public Particip’n
Lynn Huntsinger
Names of stakeholder participants Meeting notes Meeting evaluations by participants Meeting evaluations by ppt Notes from discussions Local historical information
Yes Yes No No No Yes
Document Documents Documents and database Documents and database Documents and database Documents and database
?
Spatial Qinghua Guo
/ Lidar imagery No Raw LAS No**
Maggi Kelly ? Processed DEM No** ? Tree height No** ? Structure No** Others…
* shown in public meeting presentation, which is published on the web.** There was a public request for these data.
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Projecthttp://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/
Public Website
• Discussion Board• Add comments about current
activities• Document Archive• Workplan
• Workplan-specific documents• Photographs
• From the field and meetings• Meeting Information
• News on current and past meetings
• Background Reading