Colorado Front Range Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Project : Initial Pre and Post-Treatment Stand Structure Analysis for the Pike and San Isabel and Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests January 10, 2014 Rob Addington, Nick Young, Carl Reeder, Yvette Dickinson, Paul Evangelista, Tony Cheng

CFLRP Monitoring Plan Restoration Goals Establish a complex mosaic of forest density, size and age at stand and landscape scales Establish a more favorable species composition favoring lower montane over other conifers Establish a more characteristic fire regime Increase coverage of native understory plant communities Increase the occurrence of wildlife species expected in restored lower montane habitats

CFLRP Monitoring Variables and Desired Trends Monitoring VariableDesired Trend Tree densityDecrease in basal area and trees per acre Tree sizesIncrease in quadratic mean diameter Tree speciesIncreased ratio of ponderosa pine to other conifers Tree agesIncreased ratio of old to transitional and young trees Spatial heterogeneityIncrease in number of tree clumps and openings Surface fuelsDecrease in litter and duff depths Fire behaviorReduced crown fire potential and 90% weather Understory vegetationIncreased cover of grass, forbs, and shrubs WildlifeIncreased use by important species such as goshawks and Abert’s squirrels Monitoring VariableDesired Trend Tree densityDecrease in basal area and trees per acre Tree sizesIncrease in quadratic mean diameter Tree speciesIncreased ratio of ponderosa pine to other conifers Tree agesIncreased ratio of old to transitional and young trees Spatial heterogeneityIncrease in number of tree clumps and openings Surface fuelsDecrease in litter and duff depths Fire behaviorReduced crown fire potential Understory vegetationIncreased cover of grass, forbs, and shrubs WildlifeIncreased use by important species such as goshawks and Abert’s squirrels

Methods Common Stand Exam – plot-based approach for stand characterization, conducted by Forest Service crews

Pike NF Phantom Creek 20 stands with pre- and post- treatment CSE associated data 104 total CSE plots Covered five main units – 2, 3, 5, 5A, and 7

Tree Density PrePost Basal area87(±4)58(±3) Trees per acre163(±12)88(±6) Means across Units

Removals focused on smaller-diameter trees

Tree size - QMD Unit Pre-Post A Total Quadratic mean diameter

Species Composition

Arapaho and Roosevelt NF Projects Total of 304 CSE plots collected pre- and post- treatment Five projects – Walker Black – Walker Red – Taylor Mountain – Thompson River – Estes Valley 5

Tree Density PrePost Basal area 69(±3)52(±2) Trees per acre 148(±8)90(±5) Means across Projects

Removals focused on smaller-diameter trees

Tree Size - QMD Project Pre-Post- Walker Black Walker Red Taylor Mountain Thompson River Estes Valley Total Quadratic mean diameter

Species Composition

Summary Decrease in tree density – basal area and trees per acre Increase in average tree size due to removal of smaller-diameter trees General trend of favoring ponderosa for retention over other conifers

Next steps – Future projects Fuels variables Wildlife monitoring Understory vegetation Spatial heterogeneity Integration of all monitoring variables – Tier 1 and 2 Adaptive management process - what does the AM process look like from here forward now that we have post-treatment monitoring data available?

Are we treating the right areas? Are treatments contributing to DCs? Define Restoration Actions/Treatments Defined by Front Range Roundtable; agreed by Agencies Define Desired Conditions (DCs) for Ecological Restoration and identify uncertainties Defined by Front Range Roundtable* and Agencies Define Restoration Areas Proposed by Agencies; agreed by Front Range Roundtable (pre-NEPA) Project Planning, NEPA Project Implementation and Implementation monitoring** Goal: To Sustain Front Range Montane Ecosystems No Yes Pre-Treatment Monitoring Have we defined appropriate DCs? Did we define the goal(s) correctly? No Post-Treatment Monitoring Yes Develop/Modify Monitoring Plan Analysis/Evaluation By Agencies and Front Range Roundtable Analysis/Evaluation By Agencies and Front Range Roundtable * Currently delegated to the Landscape Restoration Team ** See explanation in accompanying text Are we monitoring the right things? Is monitoring effective? Yes Effectiveness monitoring: long- term, landscape-scale External/ Internal Research External/ Internal Research Adaptive monitoring: Continual and long term No