i. welcome and overviewsnamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/static/documents/2014/04/03/ppt_it_webinar... ·...

4/2/14

1

snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu Sierra Nevada Adap�ve Management Project

2014 SNAMP PPT IT Webinar

April 2, 2014


I. Welcome and Overview

  Helpful ground rules for webinar par�cipa�on –  Mute phone un�l you want to speak. –  Silence cell phones/other noise makers. –  Do not put call on “hold” (problem with music). –  May type ques�ons via the chat func�on on your computer screen. –  If you ask ques�ons verbally, state your name followed by a concise

ques�on. –  One person speak at a �me.

4/2/14

2


Today’s Agenda 10-‐10:10am Welcome and overview – Kim Rodrigues

10:10-‐10:40am Overview of the PPT chapter of the SNAMP final report – Lynn Huntsinger SNAMP footprint: The Big picture

Results: Moving outwards – in person, on the web and through publica�ons Process: Lessons learned on how to collaborate Rela�onships: Connec�ons – network analysis and resilience

10:40-‐11:00 “Management recommenda�ons / Lessons learned” feedback

PPT Lessons Learned (Management recommenda�ons) Par�cipant input

11:00-‐11:45pm PPT Integra�on metrics and final report – Lynn Huntsinger, Adriana Sulak The integra�ng ques�ons – public percep�ons about splat effects Feedback on final report

11:45-‐12:00 Next steps/Evalua�on – Kim Rodrigues Review of “Lessons Learned” Can PPT model be used for other Science team?


Sierra Nevada Adap�ve Management Project

What is SNAMP?   A partnership with the goal of learning how to ensure the long-‐term sustainability of the Sierra Nevada forests.

Who is SNAMP?   A collabora�on among federal and state resource agencies.   An independent “third-‐party” of University researchers studying the impact of SPLATs.

  Public and private stakeholders.

4/2/14

3


SNAMP Study Areas and Research Teams Two Study Areas:

-‐ Tahoe Na�onal Forest

-‐ Sierra Na�onal Forest

Six Research Teams:

  Pacific Fisher

  Spo�ed Owl

  Fire & Forest Ecosystem Health

  Spa�al

  Water Quality and Quan�ty

  Public Par�cipa�on


Goals for the PPT final report

  Create an overview of our ac�vi�es   Highlight our main findings and ac�vi�es   Help with “transferability”

II. Overview of the PPT chapter of the SNAMP final report

4/2/14

4


PPT Final Report

  Introduc�on & Execu�ve Summary (All)   Par�cipa�on (Susie, Kim, Ann, Kim)

–  Outreach highlights, ac�vi�es and events, Collabora�ve Adap�ve Management workshops, socks!, adapta�on of methods through project.

  Engagement (Maggi, Shufei) –  Web use, digital informa�on networks, self-‐organizing maps, network

analysis, social resilience   Learning and working together (Lynn, Adriana)

–  Before and a�er interviews, survey, archives: enhance learning, build social legi�macy for decision making, establish rela�onships

  Conclusions/Lessons learned (All) –  Impact: SNAMP footprint; use for managers, scien�sts, agencies;

transferability; reflec�ons on Collabora�ve Adap�ve Management (CAM)   Appendices

–  Published papers, newsle�ers, CAM book, references matrix, manuscripts


Each chapter will:

  Provide an execu�ve summary   State objec�ves   Highlight results & findings   Draw on Logic Model and literature review

4/2/14

5


SNAMP Public Par�cipa�on

Techniques for public par�cipa�on con�nue to evolve. We have adopted a mul�-‐modal approach to par�cipa�on: public mee�ngs, field trips, workshops, webinars, websites


SNAMP Footprint

The BIG picture   Results: Moving outwards – in person, on the web and through publica�ons.   Process: Lessons learned on how to collaborate.   Rela�onships: Connec�ons – network analysis and resilience.

4/2/14

6


SNAMP Footprint

Relationships

Resu

lts Process

Outreach &

Informa�on Networks


SNAMP Footprint

Relationships

Resu

lts Process

Outreach &


4/2/14

7


Why do Outreach?


.75 FTE outreach worker hired in Oakhurst

.5 FTE outreach coordinator

hired

.5 FTE outreach

worker hired in Foresthill

4/2/14

8


Involvement through in-‐person events Involvement event # in last 8

years A�endance

Public/Annual mee�ngs 13 >500 Science Integra�on Team mee�ngs 17 >580 Field Trips/ Scien�sts talks 28 >800 Management workshops 22 375

Reaching people through their events Outreach presenta�ons 142 >600 Represen�ng SNAMP at other events 16 >1000 Special projects 6 145

Total in person events 244 7330


Outreach events by SNAMP teams 2007 to September 2012 (57 events)

4/2/14

9



Loca�on

  Events have been dispersed with concentra�ons around the study sites and along the Sierra.

4/2/14

10


At a distance outreach goals

  To increase awareness beyond the more tradi�onal or accessible par�cipant

  Transmit informa�on to current par�cipants

  Allow some limited interac�on

  Act as repository of SNAMP informa�on


At a distance outreach methods

  Tradi�onal media – press releases, ar�cles   Newsle�ers – 15 so far   Research briefs from peer reviewed ar�cles – 23 so far   Website – post informa�on, discussion board

– h�p://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/   Web update emails quarterly   Email list no�fica�ons of events to 800 people, 144 so far   Blogs – 16 stories with >75,000 direct hits so far   Social media – facebook, twi�er, YouTube videos (11 so far)

4/2/14

11


Distance outreach can involve different people

Maps from Kelly Easterday and Google Analyt


Future post – SNAMP, collabora�on

Planning 2007 2006 2005

Data Collection & Analysis Synthesis, Integration

Inception

2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007

Wildlife, Water, PPT data collection continues

Pre-treatment Data Collection

Pre-‐Treatment

LiDAR flight: Sugar Pine

Water & Fisher begin data collec�on; LiDAR flight :Last Chance; Owl Study Area expands to include Eldorado

Public Outreach & Mutual Learning

2013 2014

Treatment

Public Outreach & Mutual Learning

2015 +

......

Adaptive management adjustments to policy due to

research findings will be discussed and implemented

by USFS

Post-‐Treatment Repor�ng

4/2/14

12


Building Capacity for Collabora�on

  In 2012, UCCE developed 17 training modules to facilitate collabora�ve adap�ve management efforts in the future   Held workshops for 100 managers and stakeholders in 2013   Developed an on-‐line collabora�ve tools site with curriculum and discussion for mutual support


Workshop topics   Defini�on & Purpose of Collabora�ve Adap�ve Management

  Facilita�on objec�ves: building agreements/measuring success

  Understanding constraints -‐ environmental, economic, staffing,

  Dis�nguishing content versus process Issues

  Listening as an ally   Understanding the stages of discussion   The decision making process   Logis�cs of a successful mee�ng   Learning styles and group dynamics   Crucial conversa�ons and understanding inference

  Dealing with difficult behaviors & reducing conflict

  Integra�on and capacity transfer of CAM   Pu�ng facilita�on tools into prac�ce

About 12 hours of instruction

4/2/14

13


Who is a�ending? Federal agencies US Forest Service Tahoe, Eldorado, & Sierra NF, & PSW Research, USGS, NRCS State agencies CalFire, Cal Department of Fish & Wildlife, Sierra Nevada Conservancy University UC Berkeley, UC Merced, UC Office of the President Local government/Districts Nevada & Placer County Resource Conserva�on Dist, Plumas Corpora�on, Central Sierra Watershed Commi�ee, Yosemite Sequoia RC&D, Placer County, Calaveras Irriga�on District Local organiza�ons/Non-‐profits Oakhurst Chamber of Commerce, Foothill Conservancy, Stewardship Council Other Consultant, Farmer, Outdoor Ed. School

What is the Outcome? Participants concerned about   “…having enough time to dedicate to getting all stakeholders

in agreement to the collaborative process and completing the project within the financial constraints and construction timelines.”

  They also articulated concerns about dealing with difficult stakeholders that may not have enough expertise or open mindedness to participate fully, leading to a ‘watered-down product’.

4/2/14

14

What is the Outcome? Increased comfort with collaboration and understanding how to manage a collaborative process including

1)  the importance of improving communication, 2) how much information to share with the public and 3) when a facilitator is needed.

There was growth in agreement that better facilitation can improve forest management and that it is useful to have an independent third party to do facilitation in controversial management processes though the Forest Service is ultimately responsible for forest management decisions on US Forest Service lands.


SNAMP Footprint

Relationships

Resu

lts Process

Outreach &


4/2/14

15


Par�cipa�on in the age of informa�on

The breadth, transparency and low compara�ve cost of exchanging informa�on on the Internet provides an efficient form of

communica�on between the public and planners, managers, and decision-‐makers.

Impact is rarely assessed.

web mapping

citizen involvement disaster response


Case study 1: Website how has the web contributed to informa�on flow in a par�cipatory project? We show that the web does not replace face-‐to-‐face mee�ngs.

Case study 2: Informa�on tracking informa�on technologies and systems greatly facilitate the flow and use of digital informa�on, leading to mul�party collabora�ons such as knowledge transfer and public par�cipa�on in science research.

Case study 3: Social network Analysis the SNAMP program showed aspects of social resiliency in the face of exogenous stressors.

Case study 4: Self-‐Organizing Maps Discussion focused on the project content, dominated by conten�ous issues. Integra�on across topics could be improved. SNAMP has been successful in sustaining engagement and facilita�ng focused discussions among the conten�ous par�cipants in the project.

Use of the web in adap�ve management

4/2/14

16


Use of the web in adap�ve management Case study 2: The success of public lands management is partly about informa�on: control of informa�on, differen�al access to informa�on, and transparency of informa�on flow. Informa�on is important in social learning, knowledge sharing, and in the

adap�ve management process at large.

How can we be�er understand the adap�ve management process through the tracking of

informa�on networks?


SNAMP Informa�on Networks & Methods

Web apps & services networks   Web analytics

Scientific knowledge networks   Citation analysis

Online media networks   News & Blog Search   Citation analysis

4/2/14

17


Scien�fic Knowledge Networks: Distance

SNAMP science has a wide reach globally, but there is a concentra�on in US and Europe, and in academic se�ngs.


Scien�fic Knowledge Networks: Time

SNAMP science has been cited numerous �mes, by scien�fic authors focusing on similar projects, and by the management community.

time

Date of publications, and date of citations.

SNAMP Publications

Citations for Pub#: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Citations for Pub#: 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24

4/2/14

18


Scien�fic Knowledge Networks – Closing the Learning Loop

  First publica�on: Jan 1, 2010 (Collins et. al. 2010)   As of Feb 2014: 25 publica�ons -‐ 19 were cited at least once   More than 190 cita�ons for 19 publica�ons   19 cita�ons came from reports to agencies

–  General Technical Report (PSW-‐GTR-‐237) [3] –  General Technical Report (RMRS-‐GTR-‐262) [2] –  Joint Fire Science Program [2] –  Plumas Lassen Study 2009 Annual Report [2] –  Public Interest Energy Research [1] –  Science Synthesis to promote resilience of social-‐ecological systems in

the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascades [8] –  USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Sta�on Proceedings [1]


Online Media Networks and Lessons Self-promotional articles   Lacking in the beginning of the

project.   More communication after

having research results

Public interests   Newspaper articles and blog

posts about SNAMP early on in the project

  More articles over the course of the project

Content popularity 1.  Fisher 2.  General 3.  Fire/PPT

SNAMP cited

News cited

Blog cited

General Fisher FFEH PPT Spatial Water Owl

time

4/2/14

19



  We used readily available informa�on tracking tools to characterize the use of various science and management informa�on products SNAMP (cita�on analysis, web analy�cs, and content analysis).

  The SNAMP commitment to informa�on transparency helped to facilitate the flow and use of digital informa�on, leading to mul�party collabora�ons such as knowledge transfer and public par�cipa�on in science research.

  This research shows how the scien�fic products that came from SNAMP have been used to “close the learning loop” in many ways: in the scien�fic community, in the management community, and by the public at large.


Case study 1: Website how has the web contributed to informa�on flow in a par�cipatory project? We show that the web does not replace face-‐to-‐face mee�ngs.

Case study 2: Informa�on tracking informa�on technologies and systems greatly facilitate the flow and use of digital informa�on, leading to mul�party collabora�ons such as knowledge transfer and public par�cipa�on in science research.

Case study 3: Social network Analysis the SNAMP program showed aspects of social resiliency in the face of exogenous stressors.

Case study 4: Self-‐Organizing Maps Discussion focused on the project content, dominated by conten�ous issues. Integra�on across topics could be improved. SNAMP has been successful in sustaining engagement and facilita�ng focused discussions among the conten�ous par�cipants in the project.

Use of the web in adap�ve management

4/2/14

20


III. Management Recommenda�ons/ Lessons Learned: Feedback

  PPT lessons learned

  Management recommenda�ons

  Par�cipant input


What can we contribute to the integra�on model?

IV. PPT Integra�on metrics and final report

4/2/14

21


Notes on interviews

  Qualita�ve research: capture and explore varia�on, not “how many say this”.

  Though…statements that were unusually common are bolded.

  Before: 42 A�er: 31 Historical: 4 Learning: 27 –  Total = 58 Did all three interviews = 16 –  Included USFS, UC, MOUP, stakeholders

  As “a�er” as we can get is spring 2014   Preliminary interpreta�ons today



4/2/14

22


Forest Health

  SNAMP influenced par�cipant defini�ons of forest health

Expanded: Some felt SNAMP changed their percep�on mostly by broadening their defini�ons of forest health Reinforced: Some did not feel that SNAMP changed their percep�on of forest health but did affirm their previous defini�on


Forest Health

  Expanded defini�ons now include: –  water –  the role of fire –  the spacing or density of trees –  a broader apprecia�on for forest condi�ons –  a larger scale – landscape scale –  fisher needs –  what a healthy forest would consist of and what the threats to it are –  avoids value laden terms such as “catastrophic” fire –  the term is nebulous

4/2/14

23


Forest Health

  Reinforced exis�ng defini�ons:

–  Affirmed already held understanding of forest health –  Came to SNAMP with a solid perspec�ve based on background

–  Learned more about how to take care of a forest, learned about USFS techniques

–  Feels more informed – learned about mixed conifer forest

–  Wish the defini�on of forest health was discussed more within SNAMP


Treatment impacts on Forest Health at Sugar Pine and Last Chance?

  Par�cipants who had seen them or felt they knew enough to answer

4/2/14

24


Treatments and Forest Health at Sugar Pine

  “More healthy” because increased resiliency, reduced stand density and understory but need to do more.

  Increased resilience –  “The treatments were done well and they tried to preserve biodiversity and

mul�age stands all the things I think are part of forest health.” –  “And I think that those areas, when subjected to wildfire, inevitably will have

a benefit to the areas that also have no treatments.”   Reduced stand density and understory

–  “…density was at a level where you could protect the forest from fire or insect a�acks. [They] did density control or stocking control. They had maintained the structure in the forest and had different species and age classes.”

  Need to do more –  Poke holes in canopy more like described in GTR 220 and 227 –  More under burning

  “No Change” in Forest Health: did not treat enough   No one said “less healthy”


Treatments and Forest Health at Last Chance

  “More healthy” similar to Sugar Pine   Added aesthe�cs and historic references –  Improved resilience

  But not convinced that the cable unit is more fire resilient –  Reduced density will make for healthier trees –  Looked aesthe�cally be�er –  Made it more like a historic forest – more open with less compe��on –  Wish could have done more treatment –  Be�er now but if con�nue to suppress fire then will go back to same

situa�on   “No change”: didn’t treat enough   “Less healthy”: thinned too much, took big trees   “Don’t know”:

–  Expected treatment impacts – erosion and lack of soil fer�lity and regenera�on

–  Wai�ng for results to come out

4/2/14

25


How will treatments influence fire behavior?

  Posi�ve: All (but one) par�cipant –  But will be overwhelmed by extreme weather –  Sugar Pine treatments less effec�ve than Last Chance –  Fire in Last Chance showed effec�veness –  But may have short term impact on wildlife

  No one felt their opinions changed about this drama�cally in the last 7 years

  Influence of SNAMP –  Yes: “a li�le”; only one strong change from SNAMP

  Mostly learned about context around forest management: decision making, fuels management techniques, public

  Learned some forest ecology –  No

  Reaffirmed/confirmed/strengthened opinions   Need to wait and see with �me and SNAMP results



4/2/14

26


Treatments & Fisher – Short term might have nega�ve effects, if treatment planning takes into considera�on fisher needs then maybe not so detrimental

– Long term posi�ve effects from reduced severe fire, unless treatments lead toward lis�ng

– Other issues may be more important than treatments: roden�cide, road kill and preda�on

– Not enough treatment area to influence fisher

– Lots of people just “don’t know” yet


Did SNAMP change your opinions about Fisher and treatments?

  Yes, largely through learning –  Roden�cide, biology, impacts of fire, light treatment effects –  “When SNAMP first started I thought we would see more of an impact

on the fisher and now I think they have a wider variety of habitat that they choose to use than I ini�ally thought.”

  No, but reinforced previously held opinion –  “SNAMP is helping me understand that the way I saw it is correct, that

there won’t be an effect.” –  “We have more informa�on about the fisher but not how the fisher

responds to disturbance.”

  Wai�ng for results

4/2/14

27




Treatments & Owls

–  Short term might have nega�ve effects, if treatment planning takes into considera�on owl needs then maybe not so bad

–  Long term posi�ve effects from reduced severe fire, except one who says treatments will lead toward lis�ng

–  Too few owls in study area, or treatment area too small, to see effect

–  Lots of people just “don’t know” yet

4/2/14

28


Compare treatments vs. fire for owls?

  Treatment posi�ve; fire nega�ve –  Treatments have li�le to no effect on the owls compared to a high

intensity fire. –  Low intensity fire, smaller scale, during cooler seasons, or one that

leaves a mosaic of effects is good. –  Can’t do prescribed fire with condi�ons as they are, too dangerous

and there aren’t enough burn days. Have to treat a lot more than we do.

  Treatment nega�ve; fire nega�ve

–  Treatments aren’t enough, too li�le too late –  Need to have a massive program of prescribed fire


Summary: Treatments impacts on wildlife

  Short term might have nega�ve impact –  But if treatment planning takes into considera�on wildlife needs then

maybe not so bad

  Long term posi�ve impacts from reduced severe fire –  Except one who says treatments will lead toward lis�ng for both

species

  Fisher: Other issues may be more important than treatments: roden�cide, road kill and preda�on

  Owl: Too few owls in study area, or treatment area too small, to see impact

4/2/14

29




Treatments & Water

  Diverse opinions –  Treatments are posi�ve because they reduce nega�ve impacts of fire

–  Treatments are posi�ve because increases water quan�ty but people’s ideas of the processes vary

– Using best management prac�ces so shouldn’t see an effect

–  Treatments will have minimal effects –  Treatments might have a short term nega�ve effect –  Treatments are too light/study is too short to see effects

4/2/14

30


Compare: Fire vs. Treatment for Water

  Treatment posi�ve; fire nega�ve

– Wildfire is bad   Nega�ve short and long term impacts   Rain a�er wildfire: water quan�ty goes up and quality goes down

–  No vegeta�on to keep the water on the landscape   Increased erosion and turbidity: water quality goes down, ash   Soils become hydrophobic: increased run off (quan�ty), decreased moisture in soil

  Low intensity fire might have similar effects as treatments, posi�ve effects

  High expecta�ons of research results



4/2/14

31


Summary: Treatments vs. Fire for Forest Health, Wildlife &

Water

  Treatment is be�er/li�le impact compared to devasta�on from severe fire –  But SNAMP treatments might be too light to protect from Rim fire type

severe fire, or to effect wildlife and water   Short term impacts may cause some nega�ve impacts, in some cases learned this was not as bad as they thought

  Long term impacts generally posi�ve, if reduces severe fire   Prescribed fire would be more acceptable, but most recognized the difficulty

  Learning from SNAMP is highly valued, but did not o�en change people’s opinions, though it did broaden understanding and defini�ons


Some thoughts   Enhancing learning, building social legi�macy for decision-‐making, and establishing rela�onships that support learning and adapta�on in the long term (Arnold et al. 2012).

  Top-‐down origin generally means a less organic set of rela�onships to begin with, and a less democra�c governance structure. Power sharing can remain elusive in se�ngs dominated by scien�sts and managers (Stringer et al. 2006).

  Despite the ins�tu�onal and technical limits to power-‐sharing, an environment conducive to the social learning characteris�c of democra�c collabora�ve projects was created.

  In SNAMP, University had a media�ng role, & reported directly to public.

  Long term rela�onships that support use of project findings a�er the University role has ended?

4/2/14

32


2014 SNAMP PPT IT Webinar

Next Steps and Evalua�on – Kim Rodrigues

i. welcome and overviewsnamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/static/documents/2014/04/03/ppt_it_webinar... ·...

Documents