Discussion

Let us know what you think about any topic related to the Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project in the forums below. The Principal Investigators on the UC Science Team cannot answer every post, but they will read all comments in our their areas, and respond to comments as a group at each quarterly meeting. We greatly value your input!

MET Station costs by Kim_Ingram, at 10:32 a.m. on 27 October 2009,

At the September 1st water field trip to the Last Chance site, a question was raised as to how much our MET stations cost? There is potential interest by other organizations in setting up similar MET stations. The water team has provided the following estimated cost breakdown for the SNAMP MET stations.

Tower - 10 meter aluminum tower - $700; Datalogger - Campbell Scientific CR1000 - $1,350; Remote Data Transmitter - GOES Setup - $3,400; Precipitation - Tipping Bucket Rain Gauge - $1,100; Net Radiation - Kipp & Zonen NR Lite - $1,600; Incoming Radiation - Li-Cor Li200 - $500; Snow Depth - Judd Ultrasonic Sensor - $600; Barametric Pressure - Sollnst Barologger - $500; Wind Speed & Direction - RM Young 05103V - $1,150; Temperature & Relative Humidity - Visalia HMP50, Radiation Shield - $450; Misc. equipment - wires,box, concrete - $1,000;

Total - $12,350

John Hofmann said at 1:02 p.m. on 17 October 2006 ,

I appreciate the challenge with identifying a site and ensuring it remains unaffected by the adaptive management study. I applaud the team for its position, “The UCST continued to emphasize the need to ensure that what they are studying represents the “normal” routine management activities as guided by the 2004 Record of Decision (ROD)”. However, I noted a later comment, “This will allow for mutual planning of SPLAT placement to maximize research goals”. I find that at odds with the earlier statement. As an independent, shouldn’t the UCST only monitor the results of the FS and not be involved in anyway with the placement of the SPLATs?

The field notes alluded several times to the SNAMP goals. These are probably articulated somewhere, but if they will control the selection of the site and perhaps the “mutual planning of the SPLAT placement”, they should be headlined somewhere.

I would suggest that as this project moves forward, that the UCST also select two other sites, one in the north and one in the south, near these areas, for the purpose of comparison between the projects that are approved in the study sites and the projects approved in these non-study sites to determine the degree that the projects really are typical and not altered because of the adaptive management study.

Legend Show