Adaptive Management Handbook and Tools for Vegetation Management and
Estimation of Pollutant Loading from Forested Catchments
Title:
Subtheme this proposal is responding to:
Principal Investigator and Receiving
Institution
Co-Principal Investigator
Agency Collaborator
Agency Collaborator
Grants Contact Person
Funding requested:
Total cost share (value of financial and
in-kind contributions):
Adaptive Management Handbook and Tools for Vegetation
Management and Estimation of Pollutant Loading from Forested
Catchments
Subtheme 1a: Integrating the effects of forest management into the Lake
Tahoe TMDL
Michael Hogan
Integrated Environmental Restoration Services, Inc.
PO Box 7559, Tahoe City, CA 96145
Phone: 530.581.4377
Fax: 530.581.0359
Email: mhogan@ierstahoe.com
Dr. Mark Grismer
Vadose Zone Hydrology/UC Davis
7311 Occidental Road, Sebastopol, CA 95472
Phone: 530.304.5797
Fax: 530.752.5262
Email: megrismer@ucdavis.edu
Mike Vollmer
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
PO Box 5310, Stateline, NV 89449
Phone: 775.589.5268
Fax: 775.588.4527
Email: mvollmer@trpa.org
Elwood Miller
Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team
c/o North Lake Tahoe FPD
866 Oriole Way
Incline Village-Crystal Bay, NV 89451-9439
Phone: 775.721.7885
Fax: 530.583.6909
Email: firesafe1@sbcglobal.net
Debbie Hogan
Integrated Environmental Restoration Services, Inc.
PO Box 7559, Tahoe City, CA 96145
Phone: 530.581.4377
Fax: 530.581.0359
Email: dhogan@ierstahoe.com
$ 257,973
$ 52,000
1
Adaptive Management Handbook and Tools for Vegetation Management and
Estimation of Pollutant Loading from Forested Catchments
II. Proposal Narrative
a. Project abstract (1 paragraph summary for public distribution)
Efforts to reduce catastrophic fire potential in the Lake Tahoe Basin has resulted in a significant disparity
between those efforts and efforts to minimize fine sediment particle (FSP, <16 µm) loading to Lake
Tahoe under the Lake Tahoe TMDL. Logging and vegetation management practices are broadly believed
to increase erosion potential and associated FSP loading to surface waters. Operations and regulatory
implementation are constrained by a lack of local field-derived data and the ability to cost-effectively
monitor treatments. Thus, management decisions are often made intuitively, through ‘expert opinion’,
multiple interpretations of available research data, ‘common sense’, or model output. This research will
directly measure impacts of various vegetation management practices on soil function, hydrology and
FSP transport, develop a set of cost-effective mitigation measures where impacts exist, and produce an
adaptive management-based process and handbook for managers that will translate this data and other
relevant studies into Tahoe Basin-specific planning, implementation and assessment tools. In addition,
we will provide the field-measured data necessary to reduce uncertainty and add credibility to hillslopeand catchment-scale modeling efforts (WEPP and others). A field-tested, scientifically-defensible
handbook will integrate this information and data, thus supporting land managers in making more
informed treatment decisions. The tools developed with also help managers implement appropriate
mitigation measures where unacceptable impacts are measured, and begin to develop and standardize the
condition assessment methods necessary to account for changes in pollutant loading associated with
vegetation management actions in forested catchments, which comprise 85% of the land in the Tahoe
Basin. Such technical guidance is critical to support implementation of the Lake Tahoe TMDL.
b. Justification statement: explain the relationship between the proposal and the subtheme(s)
The proposed research directly addresses Subtheme 1a, Integrating the effects of forest management into
the Lake Tahoe TMDL, through an integrated field-research to end-user approach that will produce a
Handbook that includes science-based tools for: 1) selecting and implementing appropriate vegetation
management treatments, 2) measuring and mitigating operational impacts, 3) field assessment methods
needed to support estimation and tracking of FSP loading from forested catchments, and 4) an adaptive
management-based decision support framework for managing forest vegetation and protecting soil and
water quality in the Tahoe Basin. By synthesizing existing data and conducting targeted research to fill
top priority information gaps, this project will provide the data and decision support tools necessary to
identify and mitigate on-the-ground impacts of vegetation management and directly support parallel
efforts aimed at improving pollutant loading estimates at the hillslope and catchment scales via the WEPP
model. The IERS team (including Dr. Mark Grismer and Environmental Incentives) has the unparalleled
expertise and experience in forest management, field research and modeling as well as the firm
understanding of the TMDL accounting and tracking framework needed to effectively integrate the
effects of various forest management actions into the Lake Tahoe TMDL.
c. Concise background and problem statement
The Lake Tahoe Basin is experiencing a major increase in vegetation management efforts, which has the
potential to increase the generation and transport of FSP as well as nutrients from forested catchments.
Some conflicts have already begun to arise, at least one of which has escalated to legal action. The
problematic nature of these conflicts, and the discussions that surround them, is perpetuated by a lack of
directly measured data on which to build a common understanding and base decisions and to be confident
in project outcomes. Agency decisions about whether to allow or deny specific vegetation management 1
actions are often based solely on model predictions, intuition, conflicting interpretation of research data
1
The term “vegetation management” is used in this proposal to describe all activities related to forestry and fuels
management such as thinning, logging, harvesting, silviculture, biomass removal, prescribed burning, etc.
2
Adaptive Management Handbook and Tools for Vegetation Management and
Estimation of Pollutant Loading from Forested Catchments
and expert opinion. Forest managers and agency personnel in the Lake Tahoe Basin have recognized for
several years that locally-targeted research and management strategies that incorporate the results of this
research are needed in order to meet both fire protection and water quality goals in the Lake Tahoe Basin
(personal communications with: Laurie Kemper, Harold Singer, John Singlaub, Martin Goldberg, Norb
Szczurek, Stewart McMorrow, Elwood Miller, Craig Thomas and others, 2005-2009). Following the
Angora Fire and subsequent acceleration of vegetation management efforts, coincident with the
development of the Lake Tahoe TMDL and increased scrutiny and legal action by public interest groups,
this need has become even more pronounced. The Tahoe Basin Fire Commission Report (2008) identified
a clear need to develop new tools and approaches that allow resource managers and regulators to
objectively evaluate alternative strategies for reducing fuel loading, protecting public safety, improving
forest health and protecting soil and water quality (Finding 4, p.127). Further, successful implementation
of the Lake Tahoe TMDL requires that we develop defensible and appropriate vegetation management
strategies and an associated rapid assessment and tracking framework to both minimize and account for
FSP loading from forested upland catchments.
d. Goals, objectives, and hypotheses to be tested
Goals
1. To define and develop a practical, science-based adaptive management process for planning,
implementing and assessing vegetation management treatments in order to achieve multiple
objectives including fuel reduction and water quality protection.
2. To link existing and ongoing research and monitoring from various sources including relevant
SNPLMA research, USFS monitoring programs and independent research being carried out by
members of the Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team (TFFT) in a manner that is mutually inclusive so that
all users within the Tahoe Basin can benefit from the range of currently disconnected efforts.
3. To develop a scientifically-supported set of tools for planning, implementation, assessment and
mitigation of vegetation management activities that balance fuels reduction with water quality
and soil protection.
4. To develop the data and field assessment methods necessary to increase confidence in modeled
catchment-scale pollutant loading estimates associated with vegetation management actions in
forested catchments.
Objectives
1. Develop clear hypotheses as to the primary controllable sources of the pollutants of concern
generated on various forested land uses. State clear hypotheses regarding how site condition
factors and management actions (including mitigation measures) are assumed to influence the
magnitude of pollutant loading (considering both historic and future forest management
practices).
2. Measure impacts of Tahoe Basin-specific vegetation management practices on pollutant
generation and transport in forested catchments.
3. Develop and test cost-effective mitigation measures to minimize the effects of vegetation
management practices on pollutant generation and transport in forested catchments.
4. Empirically test the priority hypotheses associated with objectives #2 and #3 with resources
available. Data collection efforts will focus on validating the hypotheses for forest land surface
conditions and management actions assumed to have the greatest relative water quality risk with
respect to FSP given the observed range of conditions.
5. Work closely with WEPP model developers to integrate field data and link field assessment
protocols to hillslope- and catchment-scale pollutant loading estimates for top priority vegetation
management treatments in the Tahoe Basin.
3
Adaptive Management Handbook and Tools for Vegetation Management and
Estimation of Pollutant Loading from Forested Catchments
Hypotheses
This research project includes three levels of hypotheses. The first level is conceptual and is not
readily testable within the scope of this project. However, these hypotheses have been developed in
order to capture explicitly discussions that have taken place and questions that have been posed by
implementers and agency staff from meetings across the West and particularly in the Tahoe Basin.
These are the ‘framing hypotheses’, stated in language that bridges the gap between management
questions and scientific or research hypothesis testing. Following the conceptual or ‘framing
hypotheses’, we will examine two types of scientific or testable hypotheses. This two-tiered
hypothesis approach forms the direct linkage between management and scientific inquiry. The first
type of hypothesis is operationally based, while the second is process based and will be more familiar
as a scientific hypothesis.
Example Framing Hypotheses (not readily testable within project scope)
• Forest management practices, including hand and machine procedures, can be strategically
implemented to maintain and improve the physical, chemical and biological functions of
forest soils under particular soil conditions (e.g. moisture level, duff layer thickness, etc.)
with no increase in pollutant loading.
• Specific forest management tools that are currently not allowed, such as pile burning and
mechanized equipment in SEZs, can be applied with minimal impacts or can be mitigated to
no-impact status, resulting in more cost- and environmentally-effective treatments.
• An accurate assessment of the actual vs. perceived risk of different forested site conditions
and impacts of vegetation management actions (particularly on soil conditions and the
generation and transport of FSP) will allow regulators, land managers and implementers to
more effectively plan and implement vegetation management projects to achieve multiple
objectives.
• A set of field-tested, scientifically-defensible treatment tools to mitigate impacts of
vegetation management activities will provide land managers with additional options and
encourage more informed treatment decisions.
Example Operational Hypotheses (eventually testable as part of scientific inquiry)
The following examples represent a small portion of the operational hypotheses that need direct,
scientifically robust testing. The data from this level of hypothesis testing will be translated
directly into management tools and incorporated into a Tools section of the final document
(handbook). These specific examples have been put forward by agency and practitioner staff over
time. Our project will work closely with steering team members to identify and prioritize these
existing operational data gaps for investigation. In this way, we will be able to focus on the
hypotheses and data gaps of greatest importance and use to stakeholders.
• Machine operation (identify specific types of machines, ground pressure, etc.) on soil
(identify soil type) that is at a critical moisture threshold results in a greater than 25%
increase in compaction, thus violating TRPA’s Soil Quality Standard.
• The critical soil moisture threshold at which machine operations results in a 25% increase in
compaction is xx% for granitic, xx% for volcanic and xx% for mixed alluvium soil.
• TDR (Time Domain Reflectrometry) measurement devices are able to measure soil moisture
with an acceptable and repeatable standard and are therefore defensible for determining
critical operational moisture thresholds.
• Pile burning in 1b SEZs can be implemented and mitigated such that the intent of Regional
Standards and Beneficial Use standards can be supported while providing for more
environmentally and cost effective treatment options.
4
Adaptive Management Handbook and Tools for Vegetation Management and
Estimation of Pollutant Loading from Forested Catchments
•
Hand transport of fuels from SEZs to non-SEZs results in as much or more soil disturbance
than properly implemented low ground pressure (<5.5psi) equipment treatment.
Example Process/Research Hypotheses (testable under regular scientific method)
Process hypotheses will include more specific and targeted elements of operational testing that
will answer or quantify specific soil and hydrology questions. These hypotheses are designed to
link operational questions to scientifically-defensible inquiry. The process of developing and
prioritizing these hypotheses engages managers, regulatory staff and implementers and lays the
foundation for broad-scale understanding, distribution and application of the results. The answer
to these questions will support both the Operational Hypotheses and sediment and nutrient
loading questions. These hypotheses will also be developed, discussed and agreed upon by
agency and science partners. Examples that have been discussed over time include:
• Pore volumes in the three main soil groups are affected by compaction forces during specific
forestry operations such that hydrologic function (water holding capacity, infiltration) is
reduced and FSP transport is increased significantly. (Significance levels will be suggested
through model input and iteration).
• Organic, duff or surface layers are broken down through specific forestry thinning operations
such that N, P and other nutrient ions are liberated. From high erosion-potential soil
conditions, that increase in availability results in increased nutrient transport to surface waters
without mitigation.
• Soil chemistry (as measured by total organic matter and associated nutrient constituents, pH
and EC), biology (as measured by CO2 evolution), and vegetative cover/density in lowintensity SEZ burn operations can be mitigated to within 30% of pre-disturbance conditions
within two seasons of burning with specific mitigation measures (to be determined based on
current research and linked to Busse and Hubbard and IERS ongoing burn pile research).
• FSP delivery from burn piles (in and out of SEZs) can be mitigated to background levels
within 30 days of burning with mitigation measures (currently under development).
e. Approach, methodology and location of research
Adaptive Management Process/Stakeholder Participation
Adaptive management (AM) can be an extremely powerful tool or process for expanding environmental
knowledge and understanding. AM also serves as a powerful bridge between scientific inquiry and field
practices. There are many adaptive management models and interpretations currently circulating. We
propose to use a field-based type of adaptive management as published in the Sediment Source Control
Handbook (Hogan and Drake, 2009) and as described by Elzinga, Salzar and Willoughby (1998).
This proposed research will begin by assembling a steering team to provide technical, strategic and
practical input on characterization of management practices, information gaps and needs, site selection,
and further refinement of the adaptive management process and tools. This steering team is intended to
include representatives from the Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team, Nevada Division of Forestry, CalFire,
USFS-LTBMU, Basin regulatory agencies (Lahontan, TRPA), USFS researchers, forestry contractors and
others. This group will represent a wide range of individuals and managers who are ultimately responsible
for reviewing and implementing vegetation management projects in this region so that there is ownership
in the outcomes and outputs of this research.
Synthesis of Existing Data/Research Gap Analysis/Hypothesis Development
Some of the necessary data characterizing FSP loading from forested upland land uses in the Tahoe Basin
has already been collected (LRWQCB and NDEP 2008, Grismer and Hogan, 2004-2005) (Figures 1-2).
This data will be summarized along with the limited data that exists on impacts of vegetation management
practices and treatment/mitigation measures in the Tahoe Basin from research projects either completed
5
Adaptive Management Handbook and Tools for Vegetation Management and
Estimation of Pollutant Loading from Forested Catchments
(e.g. mastication studies; Hatchett et al., 2006), Angora burn and hydrophobicity (Rice & Grismer, 2010),
or underway and supported by past and current SNPLMA funding (e.g. Stubblefield et al., Busse and
Hubbard, Traeumer et al.). Most of the measured sediment yield data available in the Tahoe Basin has
recently been compiled and the output stratified into functional condition classes (1-5) based on rainfall
simulation-derived sediment and FSP loading rates to establish a baseline for forested upland land uses
(Grismer and Ellis, 2006; Grismer et al., 2008; Grismer and Hogan, SNPLMA R9). These functional
condition classes will be refined based on hypotheses of the relative impacts of various vegetation
management practices and associated mitigation treatments on the physical and chemical condition of
forested land surfaces. The focus of this task will be to bracket the upper and lower sediment yield values
(as they depend on soil type, slope and function) associated with top priority combinations of
management practices and site conditions. A conceptual model will be developed to document
assumptions of relative loading contributions of management practices on different forested land surfaces.
A few of the vegetation management practices and related mitigation measured intended to be
investigated include pile burning, chipping, tracked mechanized equipment (including mastication),
wheeled mechanized equipment and whole tree-skidding if available. The exact definition and priority of
these management practices (and others) will be determined with the steering team. Data gaps will be
identified and stated as hypotheses to be empirically tested on existing and planned vegetation
management projects during the course of this research. These data will be used to both estimate
catchment-scale sediment loads from vegetation management practices (through collaboration with Elliot
and Brooks) and to develop recommended lower impact management practices.
Field Research/Hypothesis Testing
A targeted research strategy will be developed to test hypotheses and fill the top priority data gaps to
develop rapid assessment tools and inform ongoing WEPP model development (Elliot et al.). Research
sites will be selected based on research needs, input from the steering team and synchronization with
existing and planned vegetation management projects. We will quantitatively measure pre-treatment
conditions, implementation impacts and effects of treatments and mitigation measures over time (1-2
seasons) using direct measurements of pollutant transport, such as simulated rainfall and runoff, as well as
a range of soil and vegetation monitoring techniques (Grismer et al., 2009). Research data will be
analyzed, summarized and interpreted in order to: 1) produce/update technical guidance (tools) in
handbook (annually); 2) refine pollutant generation and transport estimates for vegetation management
actions on forested upland land uses; 3) assess results of mitigation measures on this pollutant generation
and transport; and 4) increase confidence in hillslope- and catchment-scale WEPP model pollutant
loading predictions. IERS will share field research data with WEPP developers (Elliot et al., SNPLMA
Round 11) and, in turn, WEPP model predictions will be shared with IERS. This feedback loop will help
to bridge the gap between field measurement and modeling and strengthen the end products of both
teams. The a unique aspect of this proposed research is that it will provide a body of data that is both
immediately useful to forestry practitioners and regulators in the Tahoe Basin and integral to the
development of a robust and defensible modeling approach for estimating pollutant loading at the
catchment scale for Lake Tahoe TMDL accounting and tracking.
Handbook and Tool Development
Relevant research findings (from within this project and synthesized from other relevant projects) will be
translated into a user-friendly handbook with adaptive management-based, technical guidance for
planning, implementing and assessing vegetation management projects in the Tahoe Basin. This
handbook is intended to provide clear, research-based guidance and a common language on which both
implementers and regulators can base management decisions. It is intended to supplement (not replace)
existing agency manuals and programs and provide field-tested methods for achieving stated goals and/or
regulatory standards. Three sets of tools will be developed based on field research/hypothesis testing.
6
Adaptive Management Handbook and Tools for Vegetation Management and
Estimation of Pollutant Loading from Forested Catchments
Treatment Tools - Examples may include: SEZ burn pile runoff quantification and mitigation measures;
management options at specific soil moisture regimes; mechanized equipment impact comparison (SEZ
and non-SEZ); SEZ functional type identification and equipment/burning options in each type.
Mitigation Tools – Examples may include: burn pile mitigation measures (SEZ and non-SEZ specific);
equipment travelway/road mitigation measures; compaction mitigation measures.
Assessment Tools – Examples may include: soil moisture evaluation techniques and associated impacts;
soil density/compaction assessment; soil organic matter assessment (for inherent resilience); vegetation
response assessment.
f.
Relationship of the research to previous and current relevant research, monitoring, and/or
environmental improvement efforts
This proposed research will leverage and build on many years of data collection in the Tahoe Basin,
including an extensive and ever-growing database of more than 1000 rainfall simulation plot studies
conducted in the Tahoe area (Grismer and Hogan, 2004-2005; also unpublished data). This research will
build on the data and methods used to estimate load reductions for forested upland watersheds as part of
the Phase II of the Lake Tahoe TMDL (LRWQCB and NDEP, 2008). This research will also develop a
framework and process for translating the results of many recent, ongoing and upcoming research projects
on the impacts of specific vegetation management practices in the Tahoe Basin into useful tools for
managers. Such research projects include effects of burn piles (IERS, Traeumer et al., Hubbert/Busse,
Stubblefield – all in progress) and effects of mechanical treatment (Hatchett et al., 2006; IERS, ongoing).
This research will also build on recent WEPP model development and calibration work in the Tahoe
Basin (Elliot and Brooks et al.). This research will develop the data and assessment methods necessary to
support eventual development of a catchment-scale load estimation tool for forested uplands, thereby
expanding the utility of the TMDL Accounting and Tracking Tool (2NDNATURE 2009) and supporting
the development of the TMDL Management System. Lastly, this proposed research will build on and
complete a related research project that began in the summer of 2009 to develop an adaptive management
process and technical guidance/tools for balancing fuels reduction and water quality protection.
g. Strategy for engaging with managers and obtaining permits
This project will rely heavily on the participation of a variety of stakeholders. We will begin with an
analysis of stakeholder participation needs and development of a stakeholder communication strategy. At
the core of this proposed research is a steering team that is intended to include representatives from the
Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team, which includes Tahoe area fire districts, CalFire, USFS-LTBMU, Basin
regulatory agencies (Lahontan, TRPA), Basin researchers and forestry contractors. The steering team will
be comprised, in part, by practitioners and agency personnel – those who are ultimately responsible for
reviewing and implementing projects – in order to create ownership in the outcomes and outputs of this
research. Additionally, a structured multi-criteria decision-making process (e.g. Analytic Hierarchy
Process) will be employed to prioritize alternatives and document the basis for key decisions. This
stakeholder process will be closely modeled after the process that produced the Sediment Source Control
Handbook, which brought together divergent stakeholders around common issues and questions,
developed a practical roadmap for project implementation, robust research and monitoring to validate
practices and a toolkit of practices based on that research. Permits will be obtained, where required, for
the monitoring to be conducted at each site. IERS has experience working with personnel at both State
Parks and the California Tahoe Conservancy (CTC) who are familiar with our monitoring methods and
have enthusiastically supported past research.
7
Adaptive Management Handbook and Tools for Vegetation Management and
Estimation of Pollutant Loading from Forested Catchments
h. Description of deliverables/products and plan for how data and products will be
reviewed and made available to end users
Task 1: Stakeholder Engagement and Management - Analyze stakeholder participation needs and approach;
form and facilitate Steering Team meetings.
Deliverables: Stakeholder communication strategy document; meeting reports with decisions, action items and key
points from participants; prioritized list of management and mitigation practices to be tested.
Task 2: Frame Project/Identify Information Gaps - Identify probable primary sources and relative magnitudes of
sediment loading from vegetation management practices; synthesize existing data; identify and prioritize data gaps.
Deliverables: Conceptual model diagram describing relationships between priority management practices,
environmental process factors and management objectives; compendium of existing rainfall simulation-derived
sediment yield data; memo describing relative priority of identified data gaps for specific management practices
(linked to conceptual model deliverable).
Task 3: Develop Research Strategy - Develop hypotheses to fill identified data gaps; evaluate
monitoring/assessment methods; develop research strategy.
Deliverables: Memo stating hypotheses to be tested; draft list of monitoring/assessment methods; work plan
summarizing research methods and potential research sites
Task 4: Field Research/Hypothesis Testing - Conduct baseline, implementation and performance monitoring for
selected vegetation management practices and mitigation measures; data entry/QA-QC, analysis and synthesis.
Deliverables: Draft tools for selected vegetation management practices and mitigation measures; database of
erosion and runoff rates for selected management practices and different site and soil functional conditions posted to
TIIMS; technical memo summarizing key research findings; annual update of draft tools.
Note: this proposed research is focused primarily on FSP generation, transport and loading. If desired, we can
include additional lab analyses for nitrogen and phosphorous parameters in runoff and/or soil samples to further
support WEPP development efforts being proposed in SNPLMA R11 (Elliot et al.), which include adding a nutrient
loading component to WEPP. Additional nutrient analysis would increase lab analytical costs but have little impact
on field sampling costs.
Task 5: WEPP Model Integration and Feedback - Integration with SNPLMA-funded WEPP model development
efforts (Elliot, Brooks); data sharing and interpretation; sediment loading estimate review and refinement.
Deliverables: Annual work plan detailing project integration strategies and priorities; table summarizing WEPP
input parameters and associated field monitoring methods; tables summarizing field research data for WEPP input.
Task 6: Vegetation Management and Water Quality Protection Handbook – develop draft and final adaptive
management handbook with technical tools for vegetation management treatment, impact assessment and
mitigation.
Deliverables: Technical tools; management-focused literature summary; draft handbook; summary of reviewer
feedback; final handbook (100 hard copies); post PDF of Handbook on appropriate websites for broad availability
(TIIMS, Lahontan, TRPA, TFFT).
Task 7: Training Workshop
Deliverable: Workshop on application of vegetation management, mitigation and assessment tools for vegetation
management projects.
Task 8: Project Administration and Reporting
Deliverables: Quarterly progress reports and invoices; annual accomplishment reports; draft and final project report.
8
Adaptive Management Handbook and Tools for Vegetation Management and
Estimation of Pollutant Loading from Forested Catchments
III. Schedule of major milestones/deliverables
Milestone/Deliverables
Start Date
End Date
Stakeholder communication strategy document
Commitment from Steering Team participants
Compendium of existing rainfall simulation
data related to functional condition class
Conceptual model diagram
WEPP integration work plan
Prioritized list of management and mitigation
practices to be tested
Memo on identified data gaps and hypotheses
to be tested
Work plan summarizing research strategies and
potential monitoring/measurement sites
Table of WEPP input parameters and associated
monitoring methods
Field research and monitoring, hypothesis
testing
Draft adaptive management guidelines/guiding
principles
Draft vegetation management treatment tools
May 2011
May 2011
May 2011
June 2011
June 2011
June 2011
June 2011
June 2011
June 2011
July 2011
July 2011
July 2011
June 2011
July 2011
June 2011
July 2011
July 2011
Aug 2011
August 2011
October 2012
Jan. 2012
March 2013
Jan. 2012
March 2013
Draft rapid assessment tools
Jan. 2012
March 2013
Draft mitigation treatment tools
Jan. 2012
March 2013
Management-focused literature summary
Jan. 2012
March 2013
Database of erosion and runoff rates for
selected management practices and different
site and soil functional conditions
Technical memo summarizing key research
findings
Table of WEPP input parameters
Draft Handbook
Jan. 2013
May 2013
March 2013
May 2013
March 2013
March 2013
May 2013
May 2013
Final Handbook
June 2013
July 2013
Workshop/training on application of Handbook
for vegetation management projects
Annual accomplishments reports
Quarterly invoices and progress reports
Steering Team meeting reports
Draft Project Report
Final Project Report
July 2013
Aug. 2013
Sept. 2011
July 2011
June 2011
August. 2013
Sept. 2013
Sept. 2013
Oct 2013
March 2013
Sept. 2013
Oct. 2013
9
Description
Produced annually in 2011 and 2012
Updated, reviewed and field-tested
annually in 2012 & 2013
Updated, reviewed and field-tested
annually in 2012 & 2013
Updated, reviewed and field-tested
annually in 2012 & 2013
Updated, reviewed and field-tested
annually in 2012 & 2013
Updated, reviewed and field-tested
annually in 2012 & 2013
Posted on TIIMS for broad access by
other researchers/modelers
Posted on appropriate websites (e.g.
TIIMS, Lahontan, TRPA) for review;
summarize of reviewer feedback.
Print and distribute 100 hard copies;
post Handbook on appropriate
websites (e.g. TIIMS, Lahontan,
TRPA) for broad accessibility.
4 meetings (2 per year)
Adaptive Management Handbook and Tools for Vegetation Management and
Estimation of Pollutant Loading from Forested Catchments
IV. Literature cited/References
Elzinga, C.L., D.W. Salzer, and J.W. Willoughby. 1998. Measuring and Monitoring Plant Populations.
Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1998 July, BLM/RS/ST-98/005+1730.
Grismer, M.E. and M.P. Hogan. 2004. Evaluation of Revegetation/Mulch Erosion Control Using
Simulated Rainfall in the Lake Tahoe Basin: 1. Method Assessment. Land Degradation & Dev. 13:573588.
Grismer, M.E. and M.P. Hogan. 2005. Evaluation of Revegetation/Mulch Erosion Control Using
Simulated Rainfall in the Lake Tahoe Basin: 2. Bare Soil Assessment. Land Degradation & Dev. 16:397404.
Grismer, M.E. and M.P. Hogan. 2005. Evaluation of Revegetation/Mulch Erosion Control Using
Simulated Rainfall in the Lake Tahoe Basin: 3. Treatment Assessment. Land Degradation & Dev.
16:489-501.
Grismer, M.E. and A.L. Ellis. 2006. Sediment Particle-size Distributions in Runoff from Disturbed Soils
in the Lake Tahoe Basin. California Ag. 60(2):72-76.
Grismer, M.E., A.L. Ellis and A. Fristensky. 2008. Runoff Sediment Particle-sizes associated with Soil
Erosion in the Lake Tahoe Basin, USA. Land Degradation & Dev. 19:331-350.
Grismer, M.E. 2007. Soil Restoration and Erosion Control: Quantitative Assessment in Rangeland and
Forested areas. Invited to ASABE Transactions Soil & Water Centennial Collection. 50(5):1619-1626.
Grismer, M.E., C. Schnurrenberger, R. Arst and M.P. Hogan. 2009. Integrated Monitoring and
Assessment of Soil Restoration Treatments in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Environ. Monitoring & Assessment.
150:365-383.
Hatchett, B., M. P. Hogan and M. E. Grismer. 2006. Mechanized Mastication Effects on Soil Compaction and
Runoff from Forests in the Western Lake Tahoe Basin. California Ag. 60(2):77-82.
Hogan, M.P. and K.M. Drake. 2009. Sediment Source Control Handbook. Published by Sierra Business
Council. Truckee, CA. www.ierstahoe.com/pdf/research/SSCH 2008 FINAL.pdf
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection.
2008. Lake Tahoe TMDL Pollutant Reduction Opportunity Report v2.0. Prepared by Environmental
Incentives, LLC. South Lake Tahoe, CA.
Rice, E. and M.E. Grismer. 2010. Dry season soil water repellency effects on infiltration in the Tahoe
Basin. California Ag. 64(3):141-148.
2NDNATURE. 2009. Lake Tahoe TMDL Pollutant Load Reduction Accounting and Tracking Tool.
10
Adaptive Management Handbook and Tools for Vegetation Management and
Estimation of Pollutant Loading from Forested Catchments
V. Figures
30.0
Class D - Bare
27.0
B = 1.9425e0.0343x
R2 = 0.5593
Class A - Native
Sediment Yield (g/mm)
24.0
21.0
18.0
15.0
12.0
9.0
N = 0.0953e0.0377x
R2 = 0.4716
6.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
60.0
65.0
70.0
75.0
80.0
Slope (%)
Figure 1. Example sediment yield (SY) versus slope regression equations for two
treatment levels/functional classes on volcanic soils. This data was originally developed
for use in Tahoe TMDL load reduction modeling.
27
24
y = 7.6784x -0.4616
R2 = 0.7013
D10
D30
Particle-size (um)
21
18
15
12
9
y = 2.3646x -0.4425
R2 = 0.758
6
3
0
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
Sediment Yield (g/mm)
Figure 2. Dependence of silt and clay fractions on SY for runoff from volcanic soils.
This data was also originally developed for use in Tahoe TMDL load reduction modeling.
11