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!

Wildfire Management Conference by Shasta, at 7:08 p.m. on 18 November 2009,

This may be of interest to SNAMP participants:

Conference on Pre- and Post-Wildfire Forest Management for Ecological Restoration and Fire Resiliency.

This conference will bring scientists, forest managers, environmental organizations and interested members of the general public together to present and discuss information relevant to the management of forested land before and after wildfire. Focus will be on the conifer forest types common to the Sierra Nevada and Trinity-Klamath Region of California, but the information presented will have application to similar forest types in other regions.

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

Sierra Nevada Conservancy Symposium by Shasta, at 3:39 p.m. on 14 October 2009,

The Sierra Nevada Conservancy will be hosting its 3rd Annual Symposium on October 29th, 2009. The symposium is titled “Connecting the Dots” and will focus on Wildfire, Forest Health, and Sustainable Rural Economies. For more info on this, visit the Sierra Nevada Conservancy Website.

Water Team Q & A Re. Moonlight fire by Kim_Ingram, at 10:52 a.m. on 3 September 2009,

The following question was submitted to the Water team for their consideration: Has SNAMP considered 'adapting' and having the water team take a 'side trip' to the Moonlight Fire perimeter to estimate sediment rates from the burned area? It is possible that this 65,000 acre perimeter is an ideal lab to quickly obtain valuable sediment information, particularly since this fire had a high percentage of high severity burn.

While the Moonlight fire has good potential to be a study area, it is not feasible for SNAMP to include this area due to the time/budget/objective constraints of this project. The Moonlight fires high severity burn was not part of a prescribed burn, so it is not comparable to fuels treatments conducted by the Forest Service with no potential for forest management recommendations.

The value of LiDAR by Kim_Ingram, at 10:29 a.m. on 8 June 2009,

For those of you unable to attend out recent workshops on the use of LiDAR and other technologies, it has been asked if the spatial team can give a quick synthesis of the value of LiDAR.

Do the scientists find it is sufficiently accurate to give them measurements at the needed accuracy and at what cost?

Sagehen Study by Shasta Ferranto, at 11:08 a.m. on 14 May 2009,

We've just posted The Fire Science brief on the Sagehen study that looked at SPLATs and fire behavior, conducted by Battles, Stephens, Vaillant, and Saah. It can be downloaded at: http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/documents/230/

Should SNAMP have a legal team? by Kim_Ingram, at 11:31 a.m. on 30 April 2009,

At a recent SNAMP presentation, questions were raised if SNAMP science could stand up in court and if SNAMP would benefit from having a legal team working side by side the science teams to ensure this? If the Forest Service fuels treatment projects get sued, doesn't that undermine the entire SNAMP effort which hoped to develop a public process to avoid litigation?

The SNAMP process will clearly document what worked and what didn’t work well for the US Forest Service, the NEPA process and SNAMP itself. However, SNAMP could never guarantee that no lawsuits would ever be filed against the USFS or others. If the USFS is sued over the fuels treatment projects and the science is questioned, SNAMP scientists may be asked to testify. The Principle Investigators for SNAMP were specifically chosen because they are experts in their fields. SNAMP work plans have been peer reviewed by other experts outside of the SNAMP UC Science Team (UCST), so their methods have already been validated. The UCST uses the ‘preeminent rules of science’ – peer review, in all SNAMP research. Because of this, the UCST is not interested in pursuing a legal review. It is also important to remember that the science used in the NEPA process is conducted by the US Forest Service, not SNAMP. The SNAMP teams invite public comments, questions and differing opinions. Disagreement is part of the SNAMP process, it doesn’t stop it.

Fire Article by Kim Ingram, at 11:54 a.m. on 19 March 2009,

This is an interesting article from Humboldt State University regarding wildfire:
http://magazine.humboldt.edu/spring09/fire-on-the-mountain

Relevant Publications by Susie Kocher, at 8:04 a.m. on 17 February 2009,

A recent publication from Science that may be of interest to SNAMP participants. I've posted the abstract here, the original article can be accessed from the Science website.

Widespread Increase of Tree Mortality Rates in the Western United States
Phillip J. van Mantgem, et al. Science 323, 521 (2009)

Persistent changes in tree mortality rates can alter forest structure, composition, and ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration. Our analyses of longitudinal data from unmanaged old forests in the western United States showed that background (noncatastrophic) mortality rates have increased rapidly in recent decades, with doubling periods ranging from 17 to 29 years among regions. Increases were also pervasive across elevations, tree sizes, dominant genera, and past fire histories. Forest density and basal area declined slightly, which suggests that increasing mortality was not caused by endogenous increases in competition. Because mortality increased in small trees, the overall increase in mortality rates cannot be attributed solely to aging of large trees. Regional warming and consequent increases in water deficits are likely contributors to the increases in tree mortality rates.

Preliminary outlook on this year's wildfire season by Ann Huber, at 4:15 p.m. on 3 February 2009,

The USFS is predicting a busy wildfire season this year. Here is an excerpt from a Preliminary report by Tom Wardell (USFS, Wildland Fire Analyst):

"The Central Coast Mountains and Valleys, Sierra Foothills and Sierra Mtn areas will likely see above normal significant fire potential due to long-term and persistent drought.

Lack of snow pack in the higher elevation areas could lead to more large fires than normal, depending on lightning activity. Elsewhere, fire potential is expected to be near normal at least through August. Santa Ana wind events could lead to significant short duration fire activity in the southern coastal and mountain areas during the fall."

Legend Show
« Previous12Next »