2009 SNAMP Public Meeting

Transcription

1 2009 SNAMP Public Meeting October Today s Agenda 10 10:15am Welcome and overview John Battles 10:15 10:30am Implementation update USFS District Rangers 10:30 12:00am UC Science Team updates o Project integration meta analysis David Saah o Fire and Forest Ecosystem Health Scott Stephens o Water Team Roger Bales o Public Participation Team Maggi Kelly o Spatial Team Maggi Kelly o Wildlife (Fisher and Owl Teams) Rick Sweitzer and Rocky Gutiérrez 12 12:45pm Lunch (provided) 12:45 2:15pm Interactive sessions Facilitated discussions with science teams (Two 45 minute sessions) 2:15 2:30pm Report back and synthesis Each science team reports back on major themes of public discussion at their table 2:30 3:00pm Next steps/evaluation Recommendations from participants for SNAMP next steps Wrap up and evaluation

2 SNAMP Science Integration Integration Team Members Principal Investigator: John Battles, UCB Academic Coordinator: Ann Huber, UCB Treatments Cable Thin Mastication Tractor Thin Underburn Watershed Deep Canyon Grouse Creek SNAMP was formed to develop, implement and test Adaptive Management processes through testing the efficacy of Strategically Placed Landscape Treatments (SPLATs) across four response variables, including: Public participation Wildlife Pacific Fisher California Spotted Owl Water Fire/forest health Each of these groups has an associated research team, and all are supported by a spatial team.

3 SNAMP Study Areas These sites were chosen because: 1) Active USFS management plans in place; 2) Met a range of scientific criteria (including providing habitat for wildlife species and the potential for recruiting large tree structure), and 3) the sites were representative of typical Sierran landscapes.

4 SNAMP General Research Timeline USFS Treatments Last Chance and Sugar Pine Water Team Catchments Pre-treatment data collection Post-treatment data.. collection.. Wildlife, Water, PPT data collection during treatments Model Building / Paramaterization Public outreach and mutual learning...

5 SNAMP General Research Timeline USFS Treatments Last Chance and Sugar Pine Water Team Catchments Pre-treatment data collection Post-treatment data.. collection.. Wildlife, Water, PPT data collection during treatments Model Building / Paramaterization Public outreach and mutual learning... SNAMP Science Integration Meta analysis of fire hazard assessments within the Sierra Nevada of California aka The Fire Integration Project Integration Team Members Principal Investigators: John Battles, UCB Academic Coordinator: Ann Huber, UCB Consulting Scientist: David S. Saah, USF

6 Fire in the Sierra Nevada Fire is a natural part of these systems Nearly a century fire suppression as a dominate management strategy Placed millions of forested ha at risk of catastrophic fires Requiring management actions Background Strategically Placed Area Treatment (SPLAT) The spatial pattern of the treated areas is designed to reduce rates of fire spread and reduces fire intensity at the head of the fire 30% of the landscape strategically placed in acres blocks Defensible Fuel Profile Zone (DFPZ) Designed to provide safe access for fire fighters, limit fire behavior to prescribed levels, and create conditions in which canopy fires are less likely to spread. Interlocked landscape fuels breaks Despite sound conceptual underpinnings for both approaches, there is uncertainty regarding their efficacy in modifying fire behavior. Study Areas Site Location Rx Details PLAS Area (ha): 18,623 Elev.(ft): Northern Sierra Last Chance Sagehen Area (ha): 3,979 Elev.(ft): East Side Area (ha): 4,287 Elev.(ft): Northern Sierra! Study Sites California Sierra Nevada Kings River Area (ha): 9,362 Elev.(ft): Southern Sierra

7 Modeling Approach Site PLAS Sagehen Last Chance Kings River 1) Crown Fire Activity No Fire Surface Fire Passive Crown Fire Active Crown Fire 2) Fire Line Intensity Low (kw/m) Moderate (kw/m) High >1730 (kw/m) Plot LiDAR Resolution Data 10 (m) 5 (m) 30 (m) 30 (m) Pre-treatment Fire Behavior 3) Flame Length Low (m) Moderate (m) High >2.4 (m) Post-treatment Fire Behavior Local Expert Planned Rx FVS Remote Sensing Weather Difference in Fire Behavior Fire Behavior by % Area 12/08 Fire Type: SF= surface fire, PCF = passive crown fire, ACF = active crown fire; Fire line intensity Low = (kw/m), Moderate = (kw/m), and High = > 1730 (kw/m); Flame Length: Low = (m), Moderate = (m), and High > 2.4 (m). The error bars represent the standard error between the various weather scenarios.

8 Fire Behavior Impact Index 12/08 Fire Type: SF= surface fire, PCF = passive crown fire, ACF = active crown fire; Fire line intensity Low = (kw/m), Moderate = (kw/m), and High = > 1730 (kw/m); Flame Length: Low = (m), Moderate = (m), and High > 2.4 (m). The error bars represent the standard error between the various weather scenarios. Summary ALL: Variations between conceptual Rx s and actual implemented Rx ALL: management strategies were successful at changing fire behavior Both real world SPLAT and DFPZ designs seemed to work as predicted. LC SPLAT: seem to have had the largest total impact on fire behavior distributions in both total and weighted measures The implications of these results indicate that resource managers may not need to choose a specific strategy, but rather use the combination of approaches that achieves the desired fire behavior modification at a landscape level given local fuel characteristics, fire weather, and management goals.

9 SNAMP Science Team: Fire & Forest Ecosystem Health FFEH Team Members Principal Investigators: John Battles, UCB Scott Stephens, UCB Collaborating Researchers: Brandon Collins, USFS PSW Adrian Das, USGS BRD Field Team Leader: Gary Roller Fire & Forest Ecosystem Health Team Goals The Fire and Forest Ecosystem Health Team will investigate effects of strategic fuel treatments on fire behavior, tree morbidity and mortality, and forest health. FFEH Team Activities Preliminary Fire Modeling: pre and post treatment scenarios Forest Health develop tree survival functions collect/process pre treatment explore means to transfer survival functions Fire Modeling We ve been looking at conditional burn probability in the Last Chance study area. 1) Last Chance project effective at reducing conditional burn probability; 2) Reduces size of wildfires until 2027; 3) Diameter limits of 12, 20, and 30 inches did not change conditional burn probability, all were effective; These results emphasize the importance of surface and ladder fuel treatments Other goals possible in removing larger trees

10 0.40 Conditional burn probability No Treatment 30.5 cm dbh limit 50.8 cm dbh limit 76.2 cm dbh limit Simulated calender year

11 Entire Last Chance study area (4450 ha) Fire size (ha) Pre-treatment baseline No-treatment Treated (76.2 cm dbh limit) Ecologically informed transfers of tree survival models can greatly improve performance while minimizing the need to collect more data. a) Absolute radial increment b) Relative basal area increment Both relative and absolute measures have been used to measure trends in tree growth. Selecting the measure(s) that provides the best discrimination between live and dead trees is critical to our approach. Growth Trends (mm yr -1 ) live dead c) Relative radial increment Growth Trends (yr -1 ) live dead d) Detrended radial increment Growth Trends (yr -1 ) live dead Growth Trends (yr -1 ) live dead Figure 1. For sugar pine trees in a managed forest, relative measure of growth (1b, 1c) provide better separation in growth trend between live and dead trees.

12 UCST collaboration: Developing more inclusive definition of forest health that integrates results from other science teams (e.g., water quality, sensitive species habitat, fire hazard, public perception). SNAMP Science Team: Water Principal investigators: Roger Bales Martha Conklin Grad student: Sarah Martin Research staff: Phil Saksa Fengjing Liu Goals Water team members are measuring & modeling water quality & quantity across treatment & control catchments. They will determine the impacts of strategic fuel treatments in SNAMP study areas by continuing these activities after treatments occur. Activities Watershed instruments: meteorological station, snow & soil moisture nodes Stream measurements: sediment, discharge, temperature, DO, turbidity Watershed modeling: Distributed Hydrology Soils Vegetation Model

13 Hypotheses Reducing LAI will reduce ET & soil drying Treatment will increase snow accumulation & advance snowmelt Treatments will have a small, positive effect on summer baseflow & temperature, linked to changes soil moisture & ET Effect of change in snow accumulation on peak streamflow? Changes in sediment response tied to changes in stream discharge Findings Treatment & control pairs track each other well Fronts Storm & melt signals in met data correspond to changes in stream attributes Snow Stream stage Increase in Depth Rain

14 Collaboration on measurements & modeling Stream stage discharge Stream temperature, DO, turbidity Snow depth, SWE & soil moisture Energy balance at met stations LIDAR DEM & canopy attributes Tree mapping (partial), DBH, ht, species Litter/soil attributes Stream scour pans Black = done Red = in progress Green = from others Observations Predictions 1. Point Measurements Snow Depth, Soil Moisture Speckerman Creek

15 Observations Predictions 1. Point measurements Snow depth, soil moisture 2. Range of physiographic attributes Canopy: under open Slope/elevation: low high Aspect: north south Apply to entire fireshed Predict values everywhere based on attributes Canopy Slope Aspect Elevation Adaptation Use weir, stilling Switch wells to in scour culverts, or bedrock pans control and/or sections scour chains Assimilate knowledge & modify goals Pressure transducers alone won t KREW give data accurate suggests measurements; basins not Need capturing measurement at full efficiency locations without subsurface flow Analyze & model Work Plan Measure stage-discharge near Measure sediment production from stream instruments with watershed using sediment basins pressure transducers Implementation Pressure Sediment transducers basins used installed at KREW sites Observe & measure Instrument Looked locations sediment went dry basin summer; Significant data sub-surface from KREW flow observed

16 Challenges Measuring both peak & base flows in streams w/ a wide range of discharges, plus subsurface flow Continued cash flow issues have delayed some instrumentation & model testing Next steps: data/model integration Effects more significant in 1 st & 2 nd order streams that drain treated catchments Physiographic & hydroclimatic thresholds linking area treated with aquatic effects & impacts on forest water cycle

17 Getting instruments in.