Front Range CFLRP
May 10, 2011
Peter Brown, PhD and Jessica Clement, PhD
General CFLRP Monitoring Plan Process
As of April 5, 2011
Black: Proposed Next Steps
Step 1
Gain
common
understanding of the
Science and
Project
Objectives
Boulder
Ranger
District Field
Trips.
Step 2
Gain common
understanding
of Science and
Restoration
Objectives
December 14
Step 3
Determine
Variables:
What do
we
measure to
track
change?
January
Step 4
Step (5)
Implementation:
Group 1: How to
measure,
Process
when, by
Group 2: whom,
where.
Project
Objectives Reporting
USFS Info
March 4 – April
include
FRRT
November 5
February/
March
Step (6)
Create
Adaptive
Management
Feedback
Loops
Finalize
Ecol. Plan
protocols
Step (7)
Release
Draft Plan
by May 31
Comments
back by
June 12,
Final Plan
June 17.
Field trips
Social and June 15
Econ.
and 29?
Monitoring
May
June
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
Chronology
24 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
Chronology
11 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.
Fixed Plot Size
1 acre
1/2 acre
1/3 acre
1/4 acre
1/5 acre
1/10 acre
1/50 acre
1/100 acre
1/150 acre
1/200 acre
1/250 acre
1/300 acre
1/400 acre
1/500 acre
1/1000 acre
Fixed Plot Radius
117.75 feet
83.3 feet
67.9 feet
58.9 feet
52.6 feet
37.2 feet
16.7 feet
11.8 feet
9.6 feet
8.3 feet
7.4 feet
6.8 feet
5.9 feet
5.3 feet
3.7 feet
Stem Map Legend
Meadows &
Inter-space
Transect
4
Seedlings &
Saplings
(VSS 1)
Small Poles
(VSS 2)
Black jack
(VSS 3)
Transect
3
Yellow Pine
(VSS 4)
USFS Common
Stand Exam
Point
Openings &
structure
transect
Acre delineation
Transect
2
Transect
1
Transect
5
Transect
6
Transe
ct
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
2
1
Transect2
2
7
Interspace
2
interspace
0
1
2
And so
on
0
Distance
should
equal total
length of
each
0
Guide to using monitoring protocol

The transect explained

What is 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 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
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?
Stem Map Legend
Meadows &
Inter-space
Seedlings &
Saplings
(VSS 1)
Small Poles
(VSS 2)
Black jack
(VSS 3)
CSE Point
2
Transect
1
CSE Point
1
Yellow Pine
(VSS 4)
USFS Common
Stand Exam
Point
Openings &
structure
transect
Acre delineation
Plot center is a Variable Radius Prism
plot (10 or 20 BAF), with nested plots
below
1/1000 understory indicator species
1/100 regeneration plot
1/10 exotics presence/absence
plot
http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/cfri-home/