UC Science Team 2014 Annual Report For MOU Partners

November 5, 2014

i

Contents Project Integration and Management………………………………….………………..1 SNAMP Budget Tables....…………………………… ……..…………..…..…..…….6 Fire and Forest Ecosystem Health………………………………………..……………...10 Wildlife Pacific Fisher………………………………………………………………….………17 Spotted Owl………………………………………….………………….…………...24 Water Quality and Quantity…………………………….………………….……………30 Spatial…………………………………………………………………………….………35 Public Participation………………………….……………………………….…………..39

1

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

Our work is divided into three primary tasks: fostering science integration; managing the SNAMP budget; and serving as a communication hub within the UC Science Team (UCST) and to the MOUP. Our overarching goal is to ensure that at the end of the project in mid-2015 (Fig. PIM-1), UCST will deliver SNAMP’s intended result: a multi-resource assessment of US Forest Service land management practices on Fire, Forest Health, Public Participation, Water, and Wildlife on a fireshed scale using an adaptive management framework, innovative science, and stakeholder participation. The Project Integration and Management (PIM) team works to keep the UCST functioning as an integrated whole, building science integration and ensuring that teams will be able to report their findings on a common scale – the fireshed. This year, the PIM team is focused on directing the integration process and shepherding the final products to completion: the integrated assessment of the SNAMP focal resources, the final report, and the approach towards closing the adaptive management circle. In addition, PIM organized and led an oral session on collaborative adaptive management, primarily featuring SNAMP speakers, at the Ecological Society of America (ESA) annual meeting in Sacramento in August 2014. The session was well attended, all talks were well presented and pertinent, and there was fruitful discussion following each talk. Several attendees told us that they found the session interesting and useful. At the session, PIM presented a talk entitled “Typical challenges integrating large and complex collaborative adaptive management projects and solutions for success,” and we are currently in the process of converting the talk into an article aimed at scientists who are planning large-scale collaborative adaptive management projects.

2

2) What has been accomplished and learned in 2014 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 2014 funding for SNAMP. o Given the demonstrated public benefit of UC’s role in the SNAMP, the

University of California waived indirect costs for SNAMP grants and contracts for Year 8.

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 Maintaining frequent, open communication with UCST resource teams. o Directing the production of SNAMP’s final products. o Coordinating interaction between teams to ensure the smooth flow of

integration products between teams. o Helping teams to maintain consistent spatial products. o Drafted introductory chapters of SNAMP final report. o Met with Public Participation team (PPT) regarding final report. o Coordinating peer-review process of SNAMP final report with University of

California Office of the President. o Organized and led monthly UCST conference calls. o Participated in all teams’ IT meetings and webinars. o Planning for UCST scientists meeting focused on integration. o Maintained collaborative internal UCST website (bSpace). o Maintaining SNAMP publications list, including checking for consistency in

funding acknowledgements and SNAMP publication numbers in SNAMP submitted manuscripts.

o Assisted teams with administration, logistics, and manuscript preparation. o Helped coordinate UCST response to the King Fire in the Owl team’s Eldorado

study area.

• Communication with MOUP, stakeholders, and beyond o Maintained regular communication with the MOU Partners. o Coordinated all quarterly and annual reports to MOUP. o Helped coordinate MOUP quarterly conference calls and represented UCST on

calls; produced quarterly call notes. o Co-coordinating the SNAMP 2014 Annual Meeting webinar on November 6,

2014. o Organized an oral session on adaptive management at the Ecological Society

of America (ESA) annual meeting in Sacramento in August 2014, http://eco.confex.com/eco/2014/webprogram/Session9762.html.

3

o Presented a talk “Typical challenges integrating large and complex collaborative adaptive management projects and solutions for success” at ESA oral session, August 2014 (see abstract at: http://eco.confex.com/eco/2014/webprogram/Paper45913.html).

o Helped PPT finalize SNAMP Integration newsletter, available on the SNAMP website: http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/documents/584/.

o Assisted editor of article on SNAMP for UC Berkeley College of Natural Resources publication: https://cnr.berkeley.edu/breakthroughs/sp14/taming-sierra-flames.

o Informing MOUP of new SNAMP publications. o Helping to plan for the final SNAMP meeting in April 2015. o Coordinated with PPT regarding UCST participation in agency monitoring

workshop. o Helped coordinate UCST participation in American Fire/Last Chance public

field trip, June 2014. o Assisted in communication between Forest Service Ranger Districts and Fire

and Owl teams. o Communicated with State Resources Agency regarding SNAMP funding.

3) PIM plans for the rest of 2014 and 2015 We continue to work towards the goals stated in item no.1. We will hold a final UCST scientists meeting in early 2015, at which the UCST will finalize the integrated assessment and integrated management recommendations. In spring 2015, the draft of the full SNAMP final report will be released for peer-review and for review by the MOU Partners and public stakeholders. The UCST will then present all the final products to the MOUP and public stakeholders at the final SNAMP meeting, scheduled for Wednesday, April 22, 2015. 4) Integration efforts in 2014/2015 In addition to the financial and administrative support that PIM provides to the UCST, PIM’s major task continues to be coordinating science team interaction to ensure that the flow of integration products between teams, essential for the success of the final assessment, is as smo0th a process as possible. PIM is drafting introductions to the two integration chapters of the final report and will lead the writing of the integration chapters following the UCST scientists meeting in early 2015. 5) Science products 1) Presentation: “Typical challenges integrating large and complex collaborative adaptive management projects and solutions for success” at ESA oral session, August 2014. 2) Draft article: Typical challenges integrating large and complex collaborative adaptive management projects and solutions for success.

4

Figure PIM-1. SNAMP general project timeline

5

Budget The UC science teams are currently projected to be slightly (0.9%) over budget for Year 8 (Jan 1-Dec 31, 2014, Table PIM-1). Based on projections from June 30, 2014, most teams will carry forward small amounts (<$2,000) into 2015. Currently, the SNAMP PIM project anticipates about a $10,000 deficit. Part of this deficit is due to the absorption of cost overruns during the transition of the fisher project. Most teams will be able to defer costs into 2015 to accommodate the revised timeline for the final SNAMP report. We are exploring options to support project integration and communication into 2015. Year 8 funding has been secured from the USFS and Department of Water Resources (Table PIM-2). From SNAMP’s origin, the federal and state agencies who signed the MOU (i.e., the MOU Partners) have shared responsibility for funding SNAMP (Fig. PIM-2). In addition, the participating member institutions of the UC Science team (UC Berkeley, UC Merced, UC Cooperative Extension, the University of Wisconsin, and the University of Minnesota) have substantially contributed to the effort by waiving indirect charges on all SNAMP funding. By the end of Year 8, the total effort from all sources will total close to $15.5M.

6

Table PIM-1. Summary of expenditures of the Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project for Year 7 (budget period: 1/1/14 – 12/31/14). Obligated amounts reflect actual transfers of funds to the contracting institutions. Balance reflects account balance as of 6/30/14. Encumbered amounts reflect funds already committed to pay salaries (as specified in hiring agreements) and ordered supplies/services. Projected balances are the difference between balance and encumbered funds. All amounts in USD($).

Resource Assessment

Theme

Contracting Institution Obligated Balance

6/30/14 Encumbered thru 12/31/14

Projected Balance 12/31/14

Spatial

UC Berkeley

37,926

17,894 18,731 1,301

UC Merced

57,449

-- 57,449 0

Fire and Forest Health UC Berkeley 66,126 43,936 20,633 1,557

Wildlife

U Wisconsin (fisher integration) 2

75,795 -- 75,795

0

U Wisconsin (owl)2

75,796 -- 75,796 0

Water1

UC Merced2 165,000 -- 165,000 0

Project integration UC Berkeley 109,802 49,983 59,819 -9,836

Public participation

UC Cooperative Ext2, 3 70,245 -- 70,245 0

UC Berkeley 56,861 21,208 35,045 608

TOTAL UC Science Team

715,000 115,127 -- -6,370

NOTES 1. The water team is funded by California Department of Water Resources (DWR) in Year 8. The DWR funding is direct award to UC Merced on a different annual cycle. No USFS funding in Year 8. 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.

7

3. The public participation subcontract with UC Cooperative Extension lags one quarter from other teams (1 May 2013 to 30 April 2014).

8

Table PIM-2. Year to date summary of SNAMP financial support by institution. All values in USD ($). Years 1-2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8+

TOTAL by Institution May 2007 –

Dec 2008 Jan-Dec

2009 Jan-Dec

2010 Jan-Dec

2011 Jan-Dec

2012 Jan-Dec

2013 Jan 2014-May 2015

DIRECT SUPPORT US Forest Service (Region + PSW) 2,133,666 1,196,000 1,204,000 1,068,0002 1,114,000 1,258,0574 550,000 8,523,723

Department of Water Resources 869,256 545,062 124,252 150,000 165,000 1,853,570

Department of Fish and Game (via FWS) 191,000 109,9093 300,909

Sierra Nevada Conservancy 123,000 123,000 Resource Legacy Fund 100,000 100,000 TOTAL DIRECT 3,416,922 1,196,000 1,749,062 1,302,161 1,264,000 1,258,057 715,000 10,901,202

INDIRECT SUPPORT

USFS aviation 400,0001 320,000 320,000 317,0002 286,043 289,000 0 1,932,043

University of California 888,399 310,960 454,756 302,966 241,020 207,323 185,900 2,591,324

TOTAL 15,424,569 NOTES

1. Included estimated costs of $80,000 for flight operations in 2007. 2. Amounts adjusted to reflect transfer from indirect (USFS aviation) to direct support (USFS) in 2011. 3. This grant was processed via San Jose State University Research Foundation. Their indirect rate was NOT waived. 4. This amount includes $147,056 for LiDAR contract that includes SNAMP assessment sites.

9

Institution

US

Fore

st S

ervi

ce

Uni

vers

ity o

f Cal

iforn

ia

CA

- Wat

er R

esou

rces

CA

-Fis

h &

Gam

e

SNC

Fina

ncia

l sup

port

(in $

M)

0.0

1.5

3.0

4.5

6.0

7.5

9.0

10.5

USFS CA%

Fin

anci

al s

uppo

rt0

20

40

60

Figure PIM-2. SNAMP financial support by institution.

10

FIRE & FOREST ECOSYSTEM HEALTH - FFEH (DANNY FRY, SCOTT STEPHENS, JOHN BATTLES

AND BRANDON COLLINS) 1) Overall goal One of the central questions of the SNAMP and thus the priority for FFEH is:

How well do coordinated landscape fuel treatments (SPLATs) reduce fire hazard across the entire fireshed?

We are well into the data analysis phase of the project. A fundamental challenge to a complex data set such as this is to not only describe our results in an effective way, but to provide the best information to other teams for integration. Analyzing the changes in fire behavior due to fuel treatments is straight-forward. While reducing fire size may not be the most desirable goal for fuel treatment projects (Reinhardt et al. 2008), we proceed with the assumption that increased burn probabilities, especially for fires with high flame lengths, generally result in exacerbated fire-effects in relatively closed canopy forests. The basis for this assumption is that when fires are modeled for a fixed period of time, increased burn probabilities and fire sizes are indicative of faster spread rates (Finney et al. 2007; Seli et al. 2008), which are related to higher fireline intensities (Albini 1976). However, using burn probabilities, a common statistic in fire research, presents some difficulties for other SNAMP teams that need simulated fire effects information as it relates to fire behavior to (e.g., post-fire changes in forest structure in treated and untreated firesheds). As such, in addition to fire modeling with FlamMap we are incorporating a second analytic method to provide this fire effects information. First, simulating wildfire to obtain flame lengths for pre- and post-treatment forest conditions is accomplished using Farsite (Finney 2004). Farsite is a two-dimensional fire spread modeling program that uses topography, forest structure, fuel moisture, and weather stream (obtained from nearest remote access weather station) information to simulate several fire behavior characteristics across landscapes. Second, using output maps from Farsite simulations average flame length and percent of stand crowning was calculated for each stand polygon. To estimate fire effects we used the simfire command in Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) (Wycoff et al. 1982) with the Fire and Fuels Extension (FFE) (Reinhardt and Crookston 2003). Based on the Farsite outputs, FVS simulates fire effects (i.e., tree mortality, fuels consumption) for each stand polygon and calculates forest structure, immediately post-fire and projected growth into the future for 30 years. This dual approach will provide better information for team integration.

11

2) What has been accomplished and learned in 2014 This year, we completed the post-treatment summary of the sample plot data from both sites. Combined with the pretreatment plot data collected from 2007-2008 we summarized changes in forest structure (see Results). We are using the final vegetation and forest change detection maps developed by the Spatial and FFEH teams. See the Spatial Team report for descriptions on development of the vegetation and change detection maps. Both maps are central to the fire simulations. The vegetation map was segmented into stand polygons (For Last Chance: n=1433, 1-76 ha; for Sugar Pine: n=1100, 2-304 ha) based on vegetation class, canopy structure, and topography. To model response to fire using FVS, we needed to impute detailed forest attributes (e.g., tree lists and fuel models) into each stand. To do so, we developed a gradient nearest neighbor (GNN, Ohmann and Gregory 2002) imputation technique to assign plots to each stand based on their similarity in “gradient space.” The gradient space was defined by a multivariate analysis of the plot data. The characteristics of each stand were determined by the data from three similar plots. To maintain some of the fine-scale heterogeneity observed in the field, we identified the five most similar plots to each stand and then randomly assigned three of those plots to the stand. Thus, the stand maps with their associated plot assignments form the base map layers for both Farsite and FlamMap fire simulations. We have received the treatment GIS files from both FS district offices. Using observation notes from plot data, treatment GIS files, and change detection maps, each stand polygon was assigned one of the following treatment types: untreated, mastication, prescribed fire (Last Chance only), thinning, cable thinning (Last Chance only), and thinning and mastication (Sugar Pine only). Results Changes in forest structure between time periods are shown in Figure FFEH-1. Plot data indicated average percent cover of both the overstory canopy and shrubs increased from pretreatment (2007-2008) to post-treatment (2013) in the untreated areas, at both sites. Similarly, canopy cover increased in mastication units, but, as expected, shrub cover decreased by approximately 30% and 18% at Last Chance and Sugar Pine, respectively. Thinning treatments decreased canopy cover, shrub cover, basal area, and tree density more strongly at Last Chance than at Sugar Pine. Only two plots were in the cable logging area, and these plots were not relocated accurately by the field crew. Therefore, comparison of pre- and post-treatment values is misleading and was removed from the summary. Preliminary summaries of treated areas are summarized in Table FFEH-1. These were calculated using a combination of sources: FS treatment polygons GIS files, observations from plot data, and Lidar change detection maps. In many cases, there were disagreements between data sources. The large amount of thinned area at Sugar Pine was primarily in the

12

Cedar Valley treatment watershed. The total value attributed to thinning is likely to be reexamined and adjusted. Figure FFEH-1. Changes in forest structure from sample plots measured pre (2007-2008) and post (2013) implementation of coordinated landscape fuel treatments. Bars represent averages (standard error) from plots identified within treated areas (CONT, control; MAST, mastication; THIN, thinning; C-THIN, cable logging; THINMAST, thinning followed by mastication; BURN, prescribed fire). *plots (n=2) in C-THIN units are not considered repeated measurements since plot centers had to be reestablished due to logging operations.

13

Table FFEH-1. Summary forest treatment area at both SNAMP study sites. Value in parentheses represents percent of forest treated for all treatment watersheds.

Type Last Chance Sugar Pine Mastication (ac) 348 (3.1) 1072 (10) Thinning (ac) 915 (8.3) 3266 (29.4) Cable Logging (ac) 193 (1.7) - Thinning and Mastication (ac) - 812 (7.3) Prescribed Fire (ac) 577 (5.2) - Total 2032 (18.4) 5150 (46.4) This year we also completed the analysis of allometric equations that predict leaf area index (LAI) as a function of tree and plot attributes (data from D. Jones and K. O’Hara). These equations are needed to extrapolate fire effects on the vegetation composition and structure to leaf area, a key metric determining transpiration water flux in trees. LAI is a key input parameter in the RHESSys hydro-ecological model (Tague and Band 2004) used by the Water team in their hydrology, and thus it is essential to accurately estimate LAI. We have developed robust equations that perform well using either tree list information or more easily obtained plot-level relationships (Figure FFEH-2). In May 2014, we co-hosted a Fire and Forest Health Integration meeting in Sacramento, CA with the Public Participation Team. We presented initial results on the application of tree vulnerability models developed from SNAMP data. We have completed the proof-of-concept effort and demonstrated how the tree vulnerability models from SNAMP Last Chance can be used to quantify the mid-term impact of fire and fuel treatments on tree survival and forest resilience (Collins et al. In press). 3) Plans for the rest of 2014 and early 2015 In terms of our work plan, we are prioritizing fire modeling for Sugar Pine, and, as of the time of this report, considering the need to run the fire behavior modeling at Last Chance again. It is well known that one of the limitations of FVS modeling of forest structure is the effect of canopy base height increasing over time, which leads to unrealistic decreases in fire behavior in untreated stands. We are exploring options to model fire and growth from the respective measurement periods. In other words, the no treatment scenarios will commence in 2008, and the treatment scenarios will be in 2013, and we will compare changes in forest structure and SPLAT longevity at their respective 10-year intervals.

14

Figure FFEH-2. Allometric equation predicting leaf area index (LAI) as a function of plot-level basal area. Plot level data from Last Chance; Leaf area data from Jones and O’Hara; analysis FFEH. The solid line maps the predicted results from the equation. The dots are field-derived data points. BA = basal area; LAI = leaf area index.

15

4) Science Products in 2014 SNAMP presentation, Ecological Society of America, Annual Meeting, August 10-15, 2014, Sacramento, CA. Su, Y., Guo, Q, Fry, D.L., Collins, B.M., Kelly, M., Flanagan, J., and Battles, J. 2014. A new vegetation mapping strategy for conifer forests by combining airborne Lidar data and aerial imagery. (to be submitted). Guo, Q., Su, Y., Collins, B.M., Fry, D.L., Kelly, M. 2014. Forest treatment detection using multi-temporal airborne Lidar data and high resolution aerial imagery ---- A case study at Sierra Nevada, California. Remote Sensing of Environment (In Review). Collins, B.M., A.J. Das, J. J. Battles, D. L. Fry, K. D. Krasnow, and S. L. Stephens. In press. Beyond reducing fire hazard: fuel treatment impacts on overstory tree survival. Ecological Applications. 5) Team Integration Our contribution to SNAMP team integration will be presented in two forms: products and metrics. The metrics, which are the inputs for the fire behavior modeling, include landscape forest structure maps generated by both the FFEH and Spatial teams. We have been through several iterations of stand vegetation and fire behavior maps after discussions with the other teams. For example, the Owl Team found some redundancy in forest structure values near the perimeter of the stand polygon map. We made improvements in the imputation of plot data and assigned tree lists and the forest structure map layers used in the fire behavior modeling. Literature Cited Albini, F.A. 1976. Estimating wildfire behavior and effects. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-

30. 92 p. Finney, M. A. 2004. FARSITE: Fire Area Simulator–model development and evaluation.

Research Paper RMRS-RP-4 Revised. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Finney, M. A. 2006. An overview of FlamMap fire modeling capabilities. In: Fuels

management—how to measure success: conference proceedings. 2006 March 28-30; Portland, Oregon. Proceedings RMRS-P-41. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 213-220.

16

Finney, M.A., R.C. Seli, C.W. McHugh, A.A. Ager, B. Bahro, and J.K. Agee. 2007. Simulation of long-term landscape-level fuel treatment effects on large wildfires. Int. J. Wildland Fire 16(6):712-727.

Ohmann, J. L., & Gregory, M. J. 2002. Predictive mapping of forest composition and

structure with direct gradient analysis and nearest-neighbor imputation in coastal Oregon, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32(4), 725-741.

Reinhardt, E.D. and Crookston, N.L. (Editors). 2003 The fire and Fuels Extension to the Forest

Vegetation Simulator. USDA Forest Service, GTR-RMRS-116. Reinhardt, E.D., R.E. Keane, D.E. Calkin, and J.D. Cohen. 2008. Objectives and considerations

for wildland fuel treatment in forested ecosystems of the interior western United States. For. Ecol. Manage. 256(12):1997-2006.

Seli, R.C., A.A. Ager, N.L. Crookston, M.A. Finney, B. Bahro, J.K. Agee, and C.W. McHugh.

2008. Incorporating landscape fuel treatment modeling into the Forest Vegetation Simulator. P. 27-39 in Proc. of conf. on Third Forest Vegetation Simulator Conference, Havis, R.N., and N.L. Crookston (eds.). USDA For. Serv. Conf. Proc. RMRS-P-54.

Tague, C. L., and L. E. Band. 2004. RHESSys: regional hydro-ecologic simulation system-an

object-oriented approach to spatially distributed modeling of carbon, water, and nutrient cycling. Earth Interactions 8.19: 1-42.

Wycoff, W.R., N.L. Crookston, and A.R. Stage. 1982. User’sguide to the Stand Prognosis

Model. US For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-133. 39 p.

17

Wildlife A. PACIFIC FISHER (TESSA SMITH AND CRAIG THOMPSON) 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 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.

• Document the relationship between habitat use and/or demographic parameters and

vegetation structure in such a way that the impacts of SPLATs and other forest management actions can be projected.

It should be noted that in October 2014, the US Fish and Wildlife Service officially proposed that fisher in California and Oregon be designated a Distinct Population Segment and listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. As a result, data from the SNAMP fisher project are now of critical importance to land managers in the region. 2) Ongoing Activities 2014 Trapping Results

• Year 7 trapping began on November 1, 2013, and ended March 8, 2014 (Figure Fisher-1). We began Year 8 trapping early, starting July 1, 2014, and it is presently ongoing (Figure Fisher-2).

• To date, a total of 116 fishers have been trapped since the beginning of the fisher

study by SNAMP (64 females, 52 males).

• For this last trapping session, a total of 18 fishers were trapped, with just 7 new individuals. Interestingly, no juveniles were caught by the end of Year 7 trapping, but

18

we did get 4 young individuals in Year 8. Only 2 out of both trapping seasons were subadults. The remainder were known adult individuals.

• Although trapping season normally starts before October, many factors deterred us

from beginning early. Despite a smooth transition from UC Berkley to US Forest Service personnel in October, the technicians had to postpone the trapping season because of a 3 week long government shutdown. Once trapping commenced, the key watershed area was targeted; however, weather related issues caused many hindrances, including high bear activity levels. Usually bear presence is minimal, if not absent altogether from December until March. But because of the abnormally dry and warm winter, bear contact was noted into the first week of February, making it difficult to keep traps open for fishers to be captured.

Denning Results

• For adult females, 6 out of 9 animals denned this past season (66%). A total of 15 den trees were identified, and two of the females re-used their den trees from previous years. The first den was found on March 19, 2014; this date marks an earlier start time than previously recorded.

• For kit counts, we continued our protocol of camera placement to discover how

many kits each female had delivered. We confirmed 3 females with 2 kits each but could not get the other three kit counts due to the females dropping their collars early on in the denning season. In addition, our aerial flights indicated a possible denning female on private property, but we were unable to gain access to her area to confirm denning activity.

Camera Surveys: Sugar Pine Key Watershed area and SPLAT cameras

• US Forest Service technicians completed Year 7 (Oct 1, 2013-July 16, 2014) of the camera surveys for the key watershed area. We surveyed 133 of the one kilometer grids and had a total of 73 fishers (55%) detected in that time frame (Figure Fisher-3).

• After the key watershed was finished, a number of SPLAT cameras were also deployed into treated units where commercial thinning and logging had occurred. 52 of these units, also 1km grids in size, were surveyed. Those cameras were started on May 28, 2014. In all, 19 (37%) fishers have been detected from the 52 SPLAT cameras thus far.

• This year posed many challenges for the fisher crew during our camera surveys, most

of which occurred during the summer months when fire season was high and we had to work around any areas that may be susceptible to fire hazards. Because of the government furlough, fewer staff resources and other priorities (i.e., trapping to get more animals on the air), we were not able to deploy as many SPLAT cameras as we would have liked. These cameras, which are an important factor when looking at

19

occupancy rates in treated areas, can be a good indication of presence/absence of a species in response to heavily managed forest systems. We hope this next year will provide easier access and more time to put effort into these critical areas.

• Vegetation surveys in denning areas have been postponed for now, as we feel our

priorities need to be focused on collaring animals and completing our camera surveys.

Figure Fisher-1. Year 7 trapping summary.

Fisher (New Capture) Fisher (Recapture-Processed)

Fisher (Recapture-Released) Non-Target Capture

7 12 27 30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

# of

Cap

ture

s

Year 7 Trapping Summary Year 7 = 2429 Total Trap Nights

Non-target Captures Include:

Douglas squirrel Gray Fox Opossum

20

Figure Fisher-2. Current number and location of animals being monitored by SNAMP / Sugar Pine fisher scientists.

21

Figure Fisher-3. Fisher detections per survey year.

Mortalities and Dropped Collars

• Only 3 mortalities occurred from Oct 2103-Oct 2014 (Table Fisher-1).

• 1 female and 2 males were recovered from the field. The female fisher was found in the Mariposa Grove area of Yosemite National Park. The two males were on Sierra National Forest.

• According to a recent report sent by the UC Davis pathologist, one of the male fishers

died by rodenticide poisoning. The other two carcasses look like the result of predation, but very few remains of the animals were left at either site. Those necropsy results are still pending.

• Dropped, or slipped collars were a large problem this year (Table Fisher-2). A total of

10 individuals lost their collars, which we retrieved in the field. Many of them occurred during the reproductive period between the months of April and July. Five out of the six females lost their collars, making it difficult to track them after they had moved their kits to other den trees.

185

120 123 124 126 130 133

102 66 72 84 95 69 73 0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

Year 1** Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7

Fisher Detections per Survey Year

# of camera gridssurveyed

# of fishers detected

% of fishers detected

** Year 1 surveys included key watershed (KW) grids and areas outside of KW

Average detection rate for all years: 60%

22

Table Fisher-1. Fisher mortalities, October 1, 2013 through October 1, 2014.

Table Fisher-2. Fisher dropped collars, October 1, 2013 through October 1, 2014.

Ongoing analyses Significant progress has been made on the completion of a SNAMP final report chapter. A draft has been completed and is currently being reviewed and edited. Topics include extensive information on fisher demographics and habitat use, as well as specific science highlights important to land managers. Detailed assessment protocols are also included as reference information. Submission is expected by the end of November. 3) Outreach, Publications, Manuscripts, and Meetings In July 2014, the annual Fisher IT meeting was held at the UC Cooperative Extension office in Fresno, CA. Approximately 50 people attended, representing a wide range of stakeholder interests. Presentations were made by Kathryn Purcell, Tessa Smith, Wayne Spencer, and

Fisher ID Sex Age Class Date Cause of Death General Location

F18 Female Adult 1-Oct-13 Awaiting Necropsy Mariposa Grove, Yosemite National Park

M17 Male Adult 17-Mar-14 Awaiting Necropsy South Fork of Merced River/Mount Raymond

M42 Male Adult 26-Feb-14 Anticoagulant Rodenticide

Poisoning, Awaiting PathologyYosemite Mountain Ranch/Miami Creek

Fisher ID Sex Age Class Date Recapture Date Dropped Collar General Location

F13 Female Adult 15-Oct-13 N/A Sonny Meadows

F43 Female Adult 28-Apr-14 N/A Nelder Grove/Chimney Tree Trail

20-Oct-13 1/26/2014 Nelder Grove/Nichols Meadow

23-Jul-14 N/A Nelder Grove/Gooseberry Flat

F60 Female Adult 17-Apr-14 N/A Sugar Pine

F61 Female Adult 19-Apr-14 N/A Miami Mountain

F63 Female Adult 21-Oct-13 N/A Central Camp

31-Oct-13 2/19/2014 Beashore Road

29-Jul-14 N/A Chilkoot Campground

F65 Female Adult 4-Aug-14 N/A Nelder Grove/Nelder Creek

M08 Male Adult 30-Jul-14 N/A Rainier Creek, Yosemite National Park

M37 Male Adult 16-Jul-14 10/22/2014 Wawona Meadow, Yosemite National Park

M46 Male Adult 5-Jun-14 N/A Lewis Creek Trail

Individuals That Have Dropped Their Collars: 11

Dropped Collar Total: 13

F59

F64

Female Adult

Female Adult

23

Craig Thompson. Topics covered updates on both the Kings River and Sugar Pine/SNAMP field projects, status of the SNAMP annual report and the integration effort, and update on the Fisher Conservation Strategy. 2014 Publications and Manuscripts Sweitzer, R.A., C.M. Thompson, R.E. Green, K.L. Purcell, R.H. Barrett. Survival of fishers in

the Southern Sierra region of California. Journal of Wildlife Management. In review. Sweitzer, R.A., V.D. Popescu, R.H. Barrett, K.L. Purcell, and C.M. Thompson. Reproductive

parameters, population size, density, and indications of negative growth for a fisher (Pekania pennanti) population in the Sierra National Forest, California. Journal of Mammology. In review.

Wengert, G.M., M.W. Gabriel, S.M. Matthews, J.M. Higley, R.A. Sweitzer, C.M. Thompson,

K.L. Purcell, R.H. Barrett, L.W. Woods, R.E. Green, S.M. Keller, P.M. Gaffney, M. Jones, and B.N. Sacks. 2014. Using DNA to describe and quantify interspecific killing of fishers in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 78: 603-611.

Thompson, C., R. Sweitzer, M. Gabriel, K. Purcell, R. Barrett, and R. Poppenga. 2014.

Impacts of rodenticide and insecticide toxicants from marijuana cultivation sites on fisher survival rates in the Sierra National Forest, California. Conservation Letters 7: 91-102.

2014 presentations

• Thompson, C.M. and R.A. Sweitzer. Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project, Fisher integration team meeting. University of California at Berkeley, Cooperative Extension Office, Clovis, CA. July 2014.

• Thompson, C.M. Impacts of illegal marijuana cultivation on wildlife in the Sierra

Nevadas. Invited presentation, Trout Unlimited Regional Conference, Reno, NV. March 2014.

• Thompson, C.M., M. Gabriel, K. Purcell, J.M. Higley, G. Wengert, R. Sweitzer, R.

Barrett, R. Poppenga, L. Woods, and S. Krogen. Impacts of illegal marijuana grows on fisher research in the Sierra Nevada. Wildlife Society Western Section annual meeting. Reno, NV. January 2014.

24

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: Are potential short-term impacts of fuel treatments on owls mediated by longer-term reductions in wildfire? 2) What Has Been Accomplished and Learned in 2014 Workplan Changes In previous years, the Owl Team proposed changes to their workplan, and these changes were approved by the MOU Partners. In our original design, we proposed to test the potential effects on owl vital rates of the SPLATs implemented on the Last Chance Study Area (LCSA), using pre- and post-treatment data. Because of the small number of owls on the LCSA, we expanded our study area 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 example, many of the SPLATs on the EDSA would have had one year (if any) of post-treatment owl data. Thus, we finally proposed a retrospective study on the effects of habitat change and past timber harvests on the owls in our study areas. Many changes to forests have occurred on the EDSA and ERSA over the past twenty years (e.g., fire, fuel-reduction treatments [SPLATs or SPLAT-like treatments], commercial logging on private land, and vegetative growth). Although we had 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 centered on assessing the relationships between habitat change and owl vital rates (reproduction, survival, territory occupancy) and collaborating with the FFEH Team to assess the potential benefits of reduced wildfire risk associated with fuel treatments to owls. Retrospective Analysis We assessed the effects of forest treatments and vegetation conditions on reproduction, survival, and territory occupancy of California spotted owls and used these vital rates to determine the sensitivity of population growth rate and occupancy to changes in vegetation conditions as a result of wildfire or timber harvest. We strove to understand the potential direct, short-term impacts of management actions intended to reduce wildfire risk on spotted owls, and to gain insight into the causes of an approximate 50% decline in abundance on our study area over the past two decades.

25

Results Results suggested a negative influence of medium-intensity timber harvests on reproduction of spotted owls, but we found only weak support for this effect. For survival, adult males had higher survival rates than sub-adults and females, respectively. Non-juvenile survival and territory colonization were positively related to the amount of high-canopy-cover (≥70%) forest within owl territories, while territory extinction was negatively related to the amount of high-canopy-cover forest. Wildfire had a strong negative effect on territory colonization but did not affect territory extinction. Sensitivity analyses showed that the amount of high-canopy-cover forest had a strong, positive effect on both population growth rate and equilibrium occupancy within owl territories (see Figures Owl-1 and Owl-2). In summary:

• Adult survival and territory colonization probabilities were relatively high, while territory extinction probability was relatively low, especially in territories that had relatively large amounts of high-canopy-cover forest.

• Reproduction was negatively associated with the area of medium-intensity timber

harvests characteristic of proposed fuel treatments, but the relationship was weak. • Results also suggested that the amount of edge between older forests and

shrub/sapling vegetation may positively influence demographic rates of spotted owls.

• High-severity fire appeared to negatively influence the probability of territory

colonization. • Life-stage simulation (sensitivity) analyses indicated that the amount of high-canopy-

cover forest was the primary driver of population growth and equilibrium occupancy at the scale of individual territories.

Conclusions Although owl demographic rates were correlated with several habitat variables, the amount of high-canopy-cover forest was the habitat variable most strongly correlated with population growth and equilibrium occupancy at the scale of individual territories. The lack of a clear negative relationship between timber harvest and owl vital rates did not necessarily mean that timber harvests had no effect. First, our study was correlative and not a true experiment. Second, we developed our vegetation maps by interpreting aerial photos, and therefore, we delineated vegetation into fairly coarse categories and were unable to quantify potentially important habitat elements such as large trees and structural complexity. Finally, a broad range of timber harvest types occurred within owl territories over our 20-year study period. Our results suggest that fuel treatments that occur in forests with lower canopy cover (<70%) or that do not significantly reduce canopy cover in high–canopy-cover forests are less likely to have adverse impacts on spotted owls, particularly if fuel treatments primarily

26

remove ladder fuels and small-diameter trees. We recommend that managers consider the existing amount and spatial distribution of high-canopy-cover forest before implementing fuel treatments within an owl territory, and that treatments be accompanied by a rigorous monitoring program. 2014 Field Work

• We conducted 4 sets of complete night surveys within the EDSA and the ERSA.

• 36 of 75 territories were occupied on the EDSA and ERSA combined.

• We resighted/captured 70 territorial adults or sub-adults on the EDSA and ERSA combined.

• We assessed reproduction at 34 territories and found 27 nests (including 7 failed

nests) on the EDSA and ERSA combined. We captured 28 out of the 35 fledglings.

• Although our field effort did not include the LCSA in 2014, we assessed reproduction at 3 territories and found 2 nests and resighted/captured 4 adults or sub-adults and captured 1 out of 4 fledglings.

3) The Plan for Rest of 2014 and 2015

2014: Complete our collaboration with the FFEH Team to examine long-term (30-year timeframe) impacts of SPLATs and wildfire on owl habitat and demography. 2015: Complete our sections of the final SNAMP report.

4) Integration Efforts Initiated or Completed in 2014

• We participated in the SNAMP Owl IT meeting in Davis on June 20th, and the American Fire SNAMP field trip on June 19th.

• We shared owl detection data with the USFS.

5) Science Products in 2014

• D. Tempel, R. J. Gutierrez, S. Whitmore, M. Reetz, W. Berigan, R. Stoelting, M. E.

Seamans, and Peery, M. Z. In Press. Effects of forest management on California Spotted Owls: Implications for reducing wildfire risk in fire-prone forests. Ecological Applications. (preprint available at http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/13-2192.1)

• D. Tempel, M. Z. Peery, and R. J. Gutierrez. 2014. Integrated population models for wildlife conservation: An example with the California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis). Ecological Modelling 289: 86–95.

27

• Stoelting, R., R. J. Gutiérrez, W. L. Kendall, and M. Z. Peery. In Press. Life history

trade-offs and reproductive cycles in Spotted Owls. The Auk.

6) Integration Metrics We will have two types of integration metrics. For both the retrospective analysis and our collaboration with the FFEH Team, we will use the previously mentioned demographic metrics:

• Area (ha) of forest stands in CWHR vegetation classes 5 and 7 (≥70% canopy cover, dominated by trees ≥12” dbh).

• Reproduction—number of young fledged. • Survival—annual survival probabilities. • Occupancy—annual territory extinction and colonization probabilities.

These metrics will be at the spatial scale of an owl territory (~ 400 ha). In addition, for our collaboration with the FFEH Team, we will have the following habitat metrics:

• Density of large trees (≥28” dbh) that may be suitable for owl nesting. • Canopy cover (%). • Probability of forest stand being suitable as owl nesting habitat.

These habitat metrics will be at the spatial scale of the entire Last Chance Study Area, as well as the control and treatment firesheds within the Last Chance Study Area.

28

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Popu

latio

n gr

owth

rate

Area of high-canopy-cover (≥70%) forest

Figure Owl-1. Results of a life-stage simulation analysis used to assess the sensitivity of annual population growth rate (λ) of California spotted owls to changes in the area (ha) of high-canopy-cover (≥70%) forest within owl territories. A best-fit logarithmic regression line is shown, and the coefficient of determination (R2) for this relationship = 0.74. Reused with permission of the Ecological Society of America ©.

29

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Equi

libiru

m o

ccup

ancy

Area (ha) of high-canopy-cover (≥70%) forest

Figure Owl-2. Assessment of the sensitivity of equilibrium occupancy (ψEq) of California spotted owl territories to changes in the area (ha) of high-canopy-cover (≥70%) forest within owl territories. A best-fit logarithmic regression line is shown, and the coefficient of determination (R2) for this relationship = 0.87. Reused with permission of the Ecological Society of America ©.

30

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, and 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, Spatial, Wildlife, Fire and Forest Ecosystem Health 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. There will, however, be a threshold level of treatment required for detection of these changes. 2) What has been accomplished and learned in 2014 At the end of the 2014 water year, we have completed field measurements and data analysis for the final year of field observations, the 2013 water year. Development of the methods for upscaling the Regional Hydro-Ecological Simulation System (RHESSys) from headwaters to firesheds has been completed, and implementation of that process is currently underway. Final calibrations are being completed for Last Chance with the recently acquired vegetation maps developed by the FFEH and Spatial teams; the vegetation map for the Sugar Pine site is still being processed. The effects of reduced vegetation are being investigated with the model using forest structure input produced by the Forest Vegetation Simulator for the control, thinned, and burned catchments, to determine effects on water yield, stream discharge timing, soil moisture and evapotranspiration. 2.1 Data analysis and model results Analysis of scour pan data on bedload sediment movement has continued in 2014 with in-situ field calibrations improving results. A manuscript on the final scour pan results is forthcoming. Clockwise hysteresis of turbidity with discharge during storm events suggests

31

a localized sediment source, i.e., nearby channel bed and banks rather than the hillslope. Sediment accumulation and depletion cycles occur in these watersheds with accumulation associated with seasonal dry periods, when loose sediment can accumulate in the channel and depletion associated with wet periods when higher flows can transport available material (Figures Water-1 and Water-2). A manuscript was published on turbidity patterns, sediment sources, and seasonal sediment transport cycles in these watersheds (Martin et al. 2014). Analysis of stream water chemistry data is wrapping up, with stable water isotopes showing clear latitudinal and elevational gradients that are consistent with local and global meteoric water lines. Similarities in the geology and hydrograph characteristics between the headwater catchments and the firesheds have enabled transfer of the calibrated headwater model parameters to the firesheds. Snow cover will be different from the headwaters as the firesheds span a greater elevation range and will be calibrated separately using MODIS Snow Covered Area (SCA) products to ensure the correct timing of snow accumulation and melt. Results of model evaluation from the headwaters show high sensitivity to forest soil litter cover, which may be consumed in high intensity wildfires and potentially eliminate any water yield increases from vegetation reductions (Figure Water-3). These results will be refined following final model calibration. Headwater catchments showed little change in observed water yield over the low precipitation years of 2012 and 2013, potentially masking any changes due to forest treatments (Figure Water-4). 2.2 Instrumentation Instrumentation remained in place for the 2014 water year in anticipation of transfer to Department of Water Resources and future post-American Fire studies. 3) Integration efforts in 2014 The Fire and Forest Ecosystem Health Team has created a vegetation map with the Spatial Team that is being used directly in the RHESSys model, creating species-dependent estimates of transpiration for overstory and understory canopies. Output from the Forest Vegetation Simulator – Fire and Fuels Extension (FVS-FFE) will provide the Leaf Area Index and Canopy Cover levels to the RHESSys model for pre- and post-treatment, as well as following modeled burn events in an effort to have more uniform model inputs across the project. The Public Participation Team organized a Water Team integration webinar in September 2014 to share updated results. 4) Completed and Upcoming Products in 2014 Martin, S.E., Conklin, M.H, Bales, R.C. 2014. Seasonal Accumulation and Depletion of Local

Sediment Stores of Four Headwater Catchments. Water 6:2144-2163. Ecological Society of America, August 2014 – Oral Presentation “Verifying the impacts of

vegetation management in heterogeneous, mixed-conifer Sierra Nevada forests”.

32

American Geophysical Union, December 2014 - Poster Presentation “Evaluation of High-Temporal-Resolution Bedload Sensors for Tracking Channel Bed Movement and Transport Thresholds in Forested Mountain Headwater Catchments”.

Conklin, M., Bales, R., Saksa, P., Martin, S., Ray, R., Tobin, B., Womble, P. Sierra Nevada

Adaptive Management Project Water-Team Update. October 2014. Data report addendum to California Department of Water Resources.

5) Current and near-term challenges Producing the new vegetation maps, needed for hydrologic modeling, is taking longer than planned, delaying final model calibration and results. 6) Future plan (2014 and 2015) Final model calibrations of the Last Chance watersheds are now being completed in anticipation of the post-treatment, and wildfire vegetation maps. The Sugar Pine model is waiting on the pre-treatment vegetation maps to complete final calibrations at the southern site. Final touches to water quality data analyses are also being completed with several manuscripts to be submitted in early 2015. Figure Water-1. A conceptual model of localized sediment processes consisting of (A) an accumulation phase and (B) a depletion phase (from Martin et al. 2014).

33

Figure Water-2. Bank pin surveys from (A) Big Sandy and (B) Speckerman, showing sediment accumulation at toe of bank slopes (from Martin et al. 2014).

Figure Water-3. RHESSys results from model evaluation showing that the change in water yield from a reduction in biomass (Leaf Area Index in the model) for water year 2010, a year with mean precipitation levels, is dependent on the soil litter cover. Removal of the litter cover through consumption during a wildfire may result in no change or even a reduced water yield even with a reduction in vegetation.

34

Figure Water-4. Observed precipitation and water yield at both sites over four water years, 2010-2013. The low precipitation following forest treatments may have masked any changes in stream response from vegetation thinning.

35

SPATIAL (MAGGI KELLY AND QINGHUA GUO) 1) Overall goal for the Spatial Team The Spatial Team led the acquisition, maintenance, and distribution of lidar and other spatial data relevant to SNAMP goals. We integrated with other SNAMP teams through data provision and analysis and conducted independent original investigation into processing and analysis of lidar and other spatial data. 2) What has been accomplished and learned in 2014 Vegetation mapping We developed a new strategy using both multispectral aerial imagery and lidar data to map vegetation over large scales. Our approach included the use of a Bayesian Information Criterion algorithm to automatically determine the optimized number of vegetation groups within mixed-conifer forests in two study areas, and an unsupervised classification technique and post-hoc analysis to map the vegetation. The results suggest that each obtained vegetation group has its unique vegetation structure characteristics or vegetation species composition. The overall accuracy and kappa coefficient of the vegetation mapping results are over 78% and 0.64 for both study sites. 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 https://snamp.ucmerced.edu/. 3) What is the plan for rest of 2014 UC Berkeley Currently, our work focuses on supporting the final lidar product creation led by the UC Merced team. We have provided detailed vegetation mapping products for use by the other SNAMP science teams in their integration.

36

UC Merced Before and after forest thinning change detection This study used canopy height model (CHM) and canopy cover (CC) products derived from multi-temporal airborne Lidar data to monitor the forest change following implementation of landscape-scale forest fuel treatment (FFT) projects. Our approach involved the combination of a pixel-wise thresholding method and an object-of-interest segmentation method. We also investigated forest change through the use of normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) and standardized principle component analysis (PCA) from multi-temporal high resolution aerial imagery. The same FFT detection routine was applied to compare the capability of Lidar data and aerial imagery for FFT detection. Our results demonstrate that the FFT detection using Lidar derived CC products produced both the highest total accuracy and kappa coefficient, and was more robust at identifying areas with light FFTs. The accuracy using Lidar derived CHM products was significantly lower than that of the result using Lidar derived CC, but was still slightly higher than using aerial imagery. FFT detection results using NDVI and standardized PCA using multi-temporal aerial imagery produced almost identical total accuracy and kappa coefficient. Both methods showed relatively limited capacity to detect light FFT areas, and had higher false detection rate (recognized untreated areas as treated areas) compared to the methods using Lidar derived parameters. Aboveground biomass (AGB) estimation We compared a range of airborne lidar-derived volume metrics (e.g., stem volume, crown volume under convex hull, and crown volume under CHM) to estimate AGB. In addition, we evaluated the effect of horizontal crown overlap on the accuracy of AGB estimation by using a hybrid method that combined marker-controlled watershed segmentation and point cloud segmentation algorithms. Our results show that: (1) when the horizontal crown over-lap issue was not addressed, models based on point cloud segmentation outperformed models based on marker-controlled watershed segmentation; models using stem volume estimated AGB more accurately than models using crown volume under convex hull and crown volume under CHM. (2) Once the horizontal crown overlap issue was taken into consideration, the model using crown volume under CHM yielded a more accurate estimation of AGB. Lidar visualization work Based on the individual tree detection method described above, we reconstruct the forest using a ray-tracing algorithm. Parameters are used to reconstruct the forest include tree height, height to live crown, location of individual trees, and high resolution DEM. We then compare the simulated landscape with the photo taken at the same site, and the result shows that there is great similarity between them. 4) Science Products 2014 Workshops and Presentations

• M. Kelly. Invited Keynote at 2015 GEOBIA conference in Thessaloniki, Greece. May 22 2014.

37

• M. Kelly. Lidar and spatial analysis in the Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project. May 1 2014.

• M. Kelly. Mapping forests and conversations about them in SNAMP. Colloquium at

UC Davis. April 29 2014.

• M. Kelly. Public participation in the Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project. April 2 2014.

• M. Kelly. The web for participatory adaptive management. 2014 Wildlife Society

Annual Conference. Reno CA. January 2014. Publications

1. Tao, S., Li, L., Q. Guo, L. Li, B. Xue, M. Kelly, W. Li, G. Xu, and Y. Su. 2014. Airborne Lidar-derived volume metrics for aboveground biomass estimation: A comparative assessment for conifer stands. Agriculture and Forest Management 198–199: 24–3.

2. Jakubowski, M. J., W. Li, Q. Guo, and M. Kelly. 2013. Delineating individual trees from lidar data: a comparison of vector- and raster-based segmentation approaches. Remote Sensing, 5: 4163-4186; doi:10.3390/rs5094163.

3. Jakubowski, M. Q. Guo, B. Collins, S. Stephens, and M. Kelly. 2013. Prediction of fuel models and stand structure metrics using lidar and optical remote sensing in dense mixed conifer forest. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 79(1): 37-50.

4. Jakubowski, M. K., Q. Guo, and M. Kelly. 2013. Tradeoffs between lidar pulse density and forest measurement accuracy. Remote Sensing of Environment 130: 245-253.

5. Zhao, F., Q. Guo, and M. Kelly. 2012. Allometric equation choice impacts lidar-based forest biomass estimates: A case study from the Sierra National Forest, CA. Agriculture and Forest Meteorology 165: 64-72.

6. 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.

7. Kelly, M., S. Ferranto, K. Ueda, S. Lei and L. Huntsinger. 2012. Expanding the table: the web as a tool for participatory adaptive management in California forests. Journal of Environmental Management 109:1-11.

8. 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.

38

Science Briefs SNAMP Science Briefs on the above papers are posted on the SNAMP website: http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/news/categories/research-briefs/. 5) Current and Near-term Challenges The Spatial Team is focused on the challenges associated with analyzing lidar for post-treatment in both sites and extending coverage to assist with owl Eldorado area.

39

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (PPT) The following summary includes updates for STRATEGIC FACILITATION AND OUTREACH (Kim Rodrigues and Susie Kocher), PROGRAM ANALYSIS (Lynn Huntsinger), and INTERNET DISCUSSION BOARD AND WEBGIS INTERNET DISCUSSION BOARD (Maggi Kelly). 1) Public Participation Team Highlights from 2014 Assessment

• Archiving SNAMP materials – on going • Conducted final online survey in July • Conducted final interviews from November 2013-March 2014 • Analysis of 2010 & 2014 online surveys, first, learning and final interviews and

observational data – on going • Field trip survey created and implemented for Last Chance field tour June 19th • Program evaluation matrix refinement – on going • Drafting final report chapter • Analyzing final interviews for integration and drafting PPT integration contributions • Paper accepted for California Agriculture, revisions submitted: Sulak, Huntsinger, and

Kocher “The Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project: Cooperative Extension and University Researchers Collaborate”

• Revising the science paper on analyzing the SNAMP social network to peer-reviewed journal for resubmission in November-December 2014

• Revised the science paper on visualizing the notes from public meetings based on reviewers’ comments to peer-reviewed journal in October 2014

• Submitting the science paper on tracking information products in SNAMP to peer-reviewed journal in October 2014

• Continued citations tracking: Total number of citations for all publications is 264 • Planning and detailed analysis of SNAMP publications' citations by MOUP.

Web

• Maintained and updated regularly • Sent out Web Updates at quarterly basis • Maintained server health and backed up data • Updated SNAMP Facebook page regularly • Produced and posted videos from various Integration Team webinars.

Outreach The outreach team continued to support multiple avenues for public/stakeholder, and collaborating agency participation in SNAMP. Public participation events in 2014 included field trips, collaboration workshops, public and science integration meetings, and meetings with organizations in communities near the field sites. Over 8,000 contacts have been made since 2005 (Figure PPT-1).

40

Figure PPT-1. In person events: Public outreach event types included manager workshops, science integration meetings, and presentations (Figure 2). At least 275 separate events have been held since the project’s inception in 2005, including 38 this fiscal year. A field trip (see Table PPT-2) was held to see how the American Fire affected the Last Chance project (June 19, 2014). Integration meetings were held this year with every team to share preliminary findings. Additional collaboration workshops were held by the Public Participation Team in South Lake Tahoe (March 18, April 23), Marysville (May 30, June 25) and six month follow up training sessions were held in Oakhurst (October 21) and Jackson (March 26). A SNAMP themed Project Learning Tree workshop was also held for classroom and non-formal educators (August 8).

41

Figure PPT-2. The Public Participation Team continues to target diverse audiences. Over 159 outreach presentations have been made since 2007 including 17 this year. Outreach presentations (see Table PPT-3) were made this year to 535 individuals in local interest groups and members of the California Native Plant Society, fire safe councils, Audubon Society, Resource Conservation Districts, extension associations, the Ecological Society of America, and to wildlife biologists and senior citizens. SNAMP events and presentations were targeted to people with a broad set of interests including arts, environmental, fire, forestry, and local government groups, as well as audiences with multiple interests (SNAMP) (see Figure PPT-3).

Figure PPT-3. 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, facilitating discussions on the SNAMP website, and maintaining information repositories for the Pacific fisher and California spotted owl. This year, three of the science Integration Team meetings were held by webinar, which resulted in larger audiences than previous in-person events.

42

To facilitate use of owl and fisher scientific information beyond that generated by SNAMP, the UCCE outreach team developed websites with collections of California spotted owl and Pacific fisher science papers. The Pacific Fisher Information Repository and the California Spotted Owl Information Repository were visited by 848 unique visitors during the fiscal year. Some users are accessing available research about Pacific fisher and California spotted owl this way. See Table PPT-4. This year these distance involvement efforts included developing four blog entries for the UCANR Green Blog (http://ucanr.edu/blogs/green/), a SNAMP newsletter about integration, six news write ups for the SNAMP website (http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/news/) and write-ups in two newsletters of others. See Table PPT-5 for a listing of topics, titles and locations. Products and Publications A big achievement of the outreach team this year was to finalize the curriculum used to build partner capacity for collaboration. The free and downloadable workbook being used at the Collaborative Adaptive Management workshops is available on the SNAMP website. The title is “Facilitation Skills for a Collaborative Adaptive Management Process: A workbook to train natural resource managers and stakeholders in facilitation of collaborative projects.” University of California Cooperative Extension. January 2014. Available on line at http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/documents/574/

PPT also created an 18 month Pacific fisher calendar for outreach purposes (July 2014 to December 2015). Each page has a picture of a fisher and life history information. Photos used and information included in the calendar were provided by the SNAMP Fisher Team and King’s River Project. They are available for purchase at cost at http://ucanr.edu/fishercalendar/.

43

Table PPT-1. SNAMP Public Participation Meetings (notes posted to web) Date Topic Location # Description and Agencies/ Organizations Represented October 23, 2013

Fisher Team IT

Webinar 30 Goals were to introduce the new lead scientist for the fisher team, Dr. Craig Thompson, clarify his role within SNAMP and establish the working relationships needed to support the success of the SNAMP fisher project. The team also shared science outcomes and planned integration metrics for the final SNAMP report as well as plans for 2014 and beyond. Materials and a recording of the webinar are available at http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/events/oct-23-2013-fisher-wildlife-team-webinar.

October 29, 2013

SNAMP Annual meeting

Sacramento

71 The meeting was held to promote shared understanding of the current status of the SNAMP project and findings, present the plan for integration, final report, and IT meetings to stakeholders and to allow for public interaction and involvement with the project. The morning session included an overview of the methods and findings of some of the SNAMP science teams as well as integration plans. The afternoon session involved more science team findings and small group dialog sessions. 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, regional and national environmental organizations, local water agencies, conservation districts and fire safe councils, and the California Forestry Association.

April 2, 2014

Public Participation Team IT

Webinar 24 The goal of the webinar was to share with stakeholders the envisioned structure and content of the Public Participation chapter of the final SNAMP report; seek input on stakeholder expectations of the PPT chapter and how that structure and content can help guide the other science teams chapters; produce a draft section on 'lessons learned' from various stakeholder perspectives; and discuss PPT integration metrics for the final report. Materials, including a recording of the webinar, are available at http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/events/apr-2-2014-ppt-it-webinar.

May 1, 2014

Spatial Team IT

Webinar 20 The SNAMP Spatial Team, led by Dr. Qinghua Guo and Dr. Maggi Kelly, hosted the Spatial IT webinar. The purpose of this webinar was to review the approaches, methods and products of the SNAMP Spatial team including 'lessons learned'; and their integration efforts with the other SNAMP Science teams. Materials, including a webinar recording are available at http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/events/may-1-2014-spatial-it-webinar.

May 15, 2014

Forest Team IT

Sacramento

22 The Fire and Forest Ecosystem Health team hosted an Integration Team meeting to share science updates with stakeholders and facilitate a discussion on the envisioned structure, content and integration metrics of the forest chapter of the final report. The recording of the webinar is available at http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/videos/.

June 20, 2014

Owl Team IT

Davis 35 The CA spotted owl team hosted their final integration team meeting: to discuss owl population trends on the Eldorado study area; discuss assessment results for the short-term effects of timber harvest and wildfire on spotted owls; to update stakeholders on the progress of scientific assessment on the long-term effects of fuels treatments and wildfire on spotted owls; and to share owl team integration metrics for the final report. Materials are available at http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/events/jun-20-2014-owl-it-meeting.

July 31, 2014

Fisher Team IT

Fresno 42 The meeting was held to put SNAMP assessment efforts into context with additional ongoing fisher monitoring efforts, share details and seek input

44

Date Topic Location # Description and Agencies/ Organizations Represented on the team’s plans for their final SNAMP report, share the team’s modeling work results, facilitate discussion of integration metrics for the SNAMP final report, discuss the effects of fuel treatments and fire on fisher, and to share and discuss information on the rodenticide poisoning issues facing fisher. Materials are available at http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/events/jul-31-2014-fisher-it-meeting.

September 4, 2014

Water Team IT

Webinar 39 Webinar goals were to share the findings from the UC SNAMP water science team and gather final input before the production of the final report. The desired outcomes are to develop shared understanding about the water team’s scientific assessment, allow for mutual learning and build a foundation for adaptive management in respects to outcomes from the SNAMP forest treatments. Materials including a webinar recording are available at http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/events/sep-4-2014-water-it-meeting.

Total Eight annual meeting and IT events with 283 total contacts Table PPT-2. Local field trips and workshops. Date Event/ location # Description & organizations represented October 21, 2013

Collaborative adaptive management workshop – Follow up, Oakhurst

11 The goal of the workshop was to review previous material and work with participants on their current challenges. Craig Thomas of Sierra Forest Legacy and Larry Duysen of Sierra Forest Products presented on their collaboration experience and participants role played and practiced facilitation problem solving using their real life scenarios.

December 2, 2013

Collaborative adaptive management workshop – ½ day, Berkeley

12 The goal of the workshop was to improve communication and facilitation skills between scientist, students and stakeholders and learn effective collaborative and mutual learning techniques. PPT and the group of UC Berkeley graduate students discussed and did exercises in facilitation and public participation, desired outcomes, boundaries and constraints, content versus process, listening as an ally, stages of discussion, dealing with difficult behaviors, and managing conflict.

March 18, 2014

Collaborative adaptive management workshop – part 1, South Lake Tahoe

22 The goal of the workshop was to improve communication and facilitation skills between natural resource managers and stakeholders and to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the collaboration. Part one of the workshop reviewed collaboration, institutional constraints, decision making, building agreements and active listening, identifying desired outcomes, stakeholder analysis, content versus process and stages of discussion.

March 26, 2014

Collaborative adaptive management workshop – Follow up, Jackson

8 The goal of the workshop was to review previous material and work with participants on their current challenges. Sue Britting of Sierra Forest Legacy presented on her collaboration experience, and participants role played and practiced facilitation problem solving using their real life scenarios.

April 23, 2014

Collaborative adaptive management workshop– part 2, South Lake Tahoe

24 The goal of the workshop was to improve communication and facilitation skills between natural resource managers and stakeholders and to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the collaboration. Part two of the workshop reviewed building key agreements; managing conflict, dealing with difficult people, learning styles and meeting organization.

May 30, 2014

Collaborative adaptive

17 The goal of the workshop was to improve communication and facilitation skills between natural resource managers and stakeholders and to

45

Date Event/ location # Description & organizations represented management workshop – part 1, Marysville

increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the collaboration. Part one of the workshop reviewed collaboration, institutional constraints, decision making, building agreements and active listening, identifying desired outcomes, stakeholder analysis, content versus process and stages of discussion.

June 19, 2014

Last Chance American Fire Field trip, Foresthill

54 The American River Ranger District led a group of participants to the Last Chance site to view how the American Fire affected the fuels reduction project. UC Science Team members described effects on resources.

June 25, 2013

Collaborative adaptive management workshop– part 2, Marysville

17 The goal of the workshop was to improve communication and facilitation skills between natural resource managers and stakeholders and to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the collaboration. Part two of the workshop reviewed building key agreements; managing conflict, dealing with difficult people, learning styles and meeting organization.

August 8, 2014

Project Learning Tree workshop, Sonora

15 The goal of the workshop was to teach quality environmental education curriculum to classroom and non-formal educators in SNAMP related topics including forestry, fire, water, and society. A SNAMP presentation was made to participants to frame the key task of identifying the tradeoffs inherent in managing natural resources for ecosystem services.

Total Nine field trip and workshop events with 180 contacts Table PPT-3. Presentations about SNAMP to outside organizations Date Group Location # Attending January 30, 2014 Western Section of Wildlife Society Reno 30 February 26,

2014 Statewide Watershed Forum Riverside 35 March 20, 2014 Sacramento Audubon Society Sacramento 33 April 22, 2014 Earth Day Oakhurst 25

April 29, 2014 UC Davis Graduate Colloquium in Geography Davis 50

May 5, 2014 Road Scholar Group Oakhurst 30

May 19, 2014 Association of Nat. Res. Ext. Professionals session Sacramento 40

May 19, 2014 Association of Nat. Res. Ext. Professionals session Sacramento 35

May 20, 2014 Association of Nat. Res. Ext. Professionals session Sacramento 50

June 16, 2014 Road Scholar Group Oakhurst 21 June 19, 2014 Upper Merced River Watershed Council Midpines 25 June 26, 2014 Nevada County Fire Safe Council Nevada City 13

August 13, 2014 Ecological Society of America special session Sacramento 60

August 27, 2014 Central Sierra Watershed Council Oakhurst 13 August 27, 2014 California Native Plant Society Nevada City 26 August 28, 2014 Road Scholar Oakhurst 22 September 19, Central Sierra Region Resource Cons. Placerville 27

46

2014 District 17 outreach presentations to 535 total contacts

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

Website Unique visitors 2013/ 2014

New visitor/ Returning visitor

Top Content Rank – Number of page views - % of page views

Pacific Fisher Information Repository http://ucanr.org/sites/pacificfisher/

473 86% - 468 Visits 14% - 79 Visits

1. Home page 500 47% 2. Photos 117 11% 3. Research papers 94 9% 4. Fisher news 89 8% 5. Research groups 74 7% 6. Fisher researchers 52 5%

California Spotted Owl Information Repository http://ucanr.org/sites/spottedowl/

375 78% - 291 visits 22% - 84 visits

1. Home page 332 48% 2. Research Papers 94 13% 3. Photos 47 7% 4. Researchers 45 6% 5. Owl News 43 6% 6. Web Sites 25 4%

Total 848 unique visitors Table PPT-5. Blog entries and news stories generated by PPT

Date Story Title Location October 7, 2013 The Federal Government’s Shut Down Affects

the Use of the SNAMP Fisher Team’s Plane SNAMP website

Fall 2013 Issue UC Cooperative Extension Helps Facilitate Collaboration in Public Forest Management

http://www.anrep.org/resources/newsletters/

November 8, 2013 Generating energy from forest products UC Green Blog January 15, 2014 Collaborative Adaptive Management curriculum

posted SNAMP website

Winter 2014 Issue Chukchansi Tribe awarded $25,000 to the Yosemite/Sequoia Resource Conservation District for clean-up of large scale marijuana cultivation sites

www.yosemitegatewaypartners.org/

February 27, 2014 What happens when a wildfire sweeps through your study area?

UC Green Blog

March 31, 2014 Spring 2014 Newsletter: Vol. 7 No. 1 - Integration SNAMP website June 4, 2014 Taming Sierra flames UC Green Blog July 31, 2014 Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project http://www.calfor

47

Date Story Title Location wraps up its research ests.org/

August 27, 2014 The Junction Fire did NOT burn through the SNAMP study area but did cause evacuation of the fisher research team

SNAMP website

September 15, 2014

Weasel one to the rescue! SNAMP website

September 18, 2014

King Fire in SNAMP owl study area SNAMP website

September 19, 2014

Calendar with rare Pacific fisher photos available from UC Cooperative Extension

UC Green Blog

13 total news stories