Front Range CFLRPMay 10, 2011

Peter Brown, PhD and Jessica Clement, PhD

General CFLRP Monitoring Plan ProcessAs of April 5, 2011

Black: Proposed Next Steps

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Step (5)

Gain common understand-ing of the Science and Project ObjectivesBoulder Ranger District Field Trips.

November 5

Gain common understanding of Science and Restoration Objectives

December 14

Determine Variables:What do we measure to track change?

January

Implement-ation:How to measure, when, by whom, where.Reporting

April

Step (6)

Create Adaptive Manage-ment Feedback Loops

Finalize Ecol. Plan protocols

Social and Econ. Monitoring

May

Step (7)

Release Draft Planby May 31

Comments back by June 12, Final Plan June 17.

Field trips June 15 and 29?

June

Step 4

USFS Info

Group 1: Process

Group 2: Project Objectives

March 4 – include FRRT

February/March

FRRT Monitoring Working Group Chronology 15 Oct: Kick-Off in Boulder: established process,

reviewed restoration language, initial meeting dates, purpose of Front Range CFLRP, CFRI’s role and role of MWG.

5 November – Discussion re. CFLRP objectives and ecological science. Presentations Tom Veblen and Tanya Schoennagel. Field trip Boulder Open Space and Taylor Mountain.

14 December – Discussion re. collaboration (Jessica) and Project Objectives (Peter) and possible variables to measure. Agreed on decision-making method (thumbs). Break-out groups explored project objectives. Generally proposal language accepted.

FRRT Monitoring Working Group Chronology24 January – Discussion and presentations regarding

wildlife (Ken), a case study from the Uncompahgre Plateau (Pam Motley) and Peter’s core variables proposal. Break-out groups to explore possible ecological variables. Jessica proposes and group agrees that USFS present their info in Feb and metrics and process teams for March.

16 February – Received in-depth info from USFS re. CSE protocols, budgets, staffing, silvicultural and other info. Split into process and metrics group to plan March work.

4 March – FRRT Quarterly meeting: Received general support.

8 March – Process group met in Golden.

FRRT Monitoring Working Group Chronology11 March – Metrics Team Meeting: creation of

spreadsheet based on literature review, agreed to interview guide and team methodology.

31 March – Reviewed expert interview results. This translates into evidence-based restoration: use review of literature and expertise to create projects, monitoring using adaptive management.

5 April – Full MWG: review and agree to outcomes of metrics and process groups. Identified Tier 1 and Tier 2 ecological monitoring variables. Jessica introduced social and economic monitoring varaibles based on CFLRA legislation and existing CFLR protocols.

FRRT Monitoring Working Group Chronology 27 April – Full MWG: combine Hal and Peters’

charts into BFT. BFT is chart with full ecological monitoring protocol system: desired conditions, parameters, metrics, methods and other info. Jonas presented suggestion for a sampling method that combines CSE and transect protocols to collect plot and spatial data.

Today’s Objectives Finalize Ecological Monitoring Plan protocols

(BFT) and draft outline. Adaptive Management Discussion: where to

insert data into FRRT SM Team process? Propose process for completion of social and

economic monitoring. Create short-term social and economic monitoring team for one meeting in May.

Future: Draft Proposal complete by May 31. Release Plan June 17.

Draft Outline for Monitoring Plan Introduction: socio-political and geographic

contexts. Summary CFLRP proposal. Collaborative Process Description. Scientific grounding: summary of literature and

scientific experts’ contributions. Ecological Monitoring protocols: BFT, plot scale

and landscape scale sampling methods, implementation protocols.

Social/Economic Monitoring protocols: Variables collaboratively decided on, Social-Economic Team’s suggestions for monitoring plan.

References.

Each “tally” tree in the plot represents 10 or 20 ft2/ac depending on the BAF. In this case, seven trees are in the plot.

1 acre 117.75 feet1/2 acre 83.3 feet1/3 acre 67.9 feet1/4 acre 58.9 feet1/5 acre 52.6 feet1/10 acre 37.2 feet1/50 acre 16.7 feet1/100 acre 11.8 feet1/150 acre 9.6 feet1/200 acre 8.3 feet1/250 acre 7.4 feet1/300 acre 6.8 feet1/400 acre 5.9 feet1/500 acre 5.3 feet

1/1000 acre 3.7 feet

Fixed Plot Size Fixed Plot Radius

Seedlings & Saplings(VSS 1)

Small Poles(VSS 2)

Black jack(VSS 3)

Yellow Pine (VSS 4)

Stem Map LegendMeadows & Inter-space

USFS Common Stand Exam PointOpenings & structure transect

Transect

Distance (feet)

Feature (openings & VSS)

SPF (stems per feature)

1 30 2 16

1 200 Open meadow

0

2 75 4 7

2 25 Inter-space 0

2 45 1 80

2 50 2 40

2 25 Open meadow

1

2 40 2 40

2 Interspace 0

2 1

2 Interspace 0

2 1

2 Interspace 0

2 1

2 interspace 0

2

And so on

Distance should equal total length of each transect

Transect 1

Transect 2

Transect 3

Transect 4 Transect

5

Transect 6

Transect 7

Acre delineation

Guide to using monitoring protocol The transect explained

What is it? The transect is a classic line-intercept that is most commonly used in range

inventories. Lee Kaiser, Dec. of 1983, journal Biometrics, does a fine job of discussing the merits and approaches to this methodology. Though we intend to adapt it

Where is it used? The Front Range CFLRP adaptation to this method, instead of measuring

typically finer scale variation amongst understory vegetation, would instead focus on the overstory tree structure by means of identified structural stage with its roughly estimated stem count for each segment of that stage

How does it work? The transects would span the distance from one randomly selects USFS

Common Stand Exam plot to another, e.g. Point 1 to 2 would be transect 1 Measure distance of each predominant structural component in linear feet of

the over story (or regeneration) (VSS 1, VSS 2, VSS 3, and so on, drip line to drip line), and openings (either inter-space, or persistent meadows).

Quickly count (roughly estimate?) number of stems in the structural component, possibly redundant to the USFS Common Stand Exam (CSE).

End Result If one passes through lets say 6 different structural components, then there

ought to be 6 different segments that add up to the total length of the transect. From this relative proportion of site occupancy of each structural class, inter-

space, and persistent meadow, and associated summary statistics. Potentially able to estimate abundance and determine stocking, if not to

corroborate the Common Stand Exam results, again, may be redundant?

Seedlings & Saplings(VSS 1)

Small Poles(VSS 2)

Black jack(VSS 3)

Yellow Pine (VSS 4)

Stem Map LegendMeadows & Inter-space

USFS Common Stand Exam PointOpenings & structure transect

Acre delineation

Transect 1

CSE Point 1

CSE Point 2

1/100 regeneration plot

1/10 exotics presence/absence plot

1/1000 understory indicator species

Plot center is a Variable Radius Prism plot (10 or 20 BAF), with nested plots below

http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/cfri-home/