This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
A Monitoring System for Research Natural
Areas in the Northeastern and Midwestern
United States 1
Charles T. Scott2
Lucy E. Tyrrel1 3
Marie-Louise Smith4
David T. Funks
Abstract-Research Natural Areas (RNAs) are designated by the
USDA Forest Service to protect ecosystems that are representative
of the region or contain unique or distinctive flora or fauna. Because
RNAs can serve as benchmark ecosystems, a long-term monitoring
system was developed to assess a wide range of ecosystem attributes
and processes. Monitoring within the study area is stratified by
Ecological Landtypes (ELT), which are units that integrate soils,
landform, and vegetation. Plots are located systematically within
each ELT. Subplots within plots are used to assess live trees, snags,
logs, and tip-up mounds, vegetative structure, understory vegetation, ground cover, and soils. Observations also are collected at the
plot level, e.g., topographic characteristics, and at the ELT level,
e.g., gap transects, wetlands, and surveys of presence of flora and
fauna. Manuals were developed to guide planning, data collection,
and analysis. This system was designed to be comprehensive and
integrated and should have wide applicability for monitoring natural areas and lands managed for other objectives, as well as for
ecosystem management research.
Resumen-Las areas naturales de investigacion (RNAs) estan
disenadas por el servicio forestal de estados unidos para proteger
ecosistemas representativos de la region 0 que contienen especies de
flora y fauna Unicas. Tomando en cuenta que los RNAs puede servir
como ecosistemas de referencia, los autores desarrollaron un sistema de monitoreo a largo plazo para evaluar una gama amplia de
atributos y procesos del ecosistema. El monitoreo es estratificado
por tipos ecologicos de tierras (ELT), las cuales integran unidades de
suelo, paisaje y vegetacion. Las parcelas de muestreo estan ubicadas sistematicamente dentro de cada ELT. Se establecieron
submuestras dentro de las parcelas de muestreo para evaluar
arboles vivos, tocones, lenas y ramajes; estructura de la vegetacion;
sotobosque; cobertura del suelo y suelos. A nivel de parcela de
muestreo se evaluaron caracteristicas topograficas y a nivel de elt se
evaluo la presencia de flora y fauna. Se han desarrollado manuales
Ipaper presented at the North American Science Symposium: Toward a
Unified Framework for Inventorying and Monitoring Forest Ecosystem
Resources, Guadalajara, Mexico, November 1-6,1998.
2Charles T. Scott is Project Leader, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern
Research Station, 359 Main Rd. Delaware, OH 43015-8640. Telephone: (740)
368-0101; Fax: (740) 3680152; e-mail: cscottlne_de@fs.fed.us
3Lucy E. Tyrrell is Research Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, North
Central Research Station, located in Rhinelander, WI. Headquarters is in St.
Paul, MN. e-mail: ltyrell/nc_rh@fs.fed.us
4Marie-Louise Smith is Research Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station located in Durham, NH. e-mail: msmithi
ne_du@fs.fed.us
4David T. Funk is retired, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research
Station located in Durham, NH. e-mail: dfunklne_du@fs.fed.us
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
para coleccion de los datos y analisis. Este sistema integra do ,
deberia tener amplia aplicacion para monitoreo de areas naturales
protegidas y tierras manejadas para otros objetivos, asi como para
la investigacion de manejo de ecosistemas.
Managing National Forests and other public lands has
become increasingly complex due to increasing demand for
products from this valuable resource and calls for greater
participation by the public in decisions affecting it. As a
result, we need a better understanding of the land and how
it changes over time. Resource monitoring helps ensure
that the responses to management practices are within the
expected range of effects and can be sustained.
Sound management of ecosystems requires a knowledge of
the effects of natural- and human-caused change. Repeated
observations over time can separate natural effects from
human ones, and distinguish effective management practices from less effective or harmful ones. The ability to
gather this type ofinformation is at the core ofland stewardship and ecosystem management.
Resource monitoring has been conducted for many years
on various ecosystem components. Sustainable harvests of
forests have been monitored with timber surveys. Wildlife
has been monitored on project areas, e.g., bird censuses.
Often, ecosystem components are monitored without consideration of the ecosystem as a whole, and monitoring often is
conducted independently-even on the same area. Because
few conclusions can be drawn with respect to interactions
between and among resources, a comprehensive, integrated
system of monitoring is needed.
The USDA Forest Service is required to monitor the
effects of its actions over time as mandated by the National
Forest Management Act and the National Environmental
Policy Act. One way to separate the effects of natural and
human influences is to compare the results of various ecosystem management practices against similar ecosystems
on a Research Natural Area (RNA) managed to maintain
natural processes without removing physical resources.
This study was initiated on RNAs in the Eastern Region of
the USDA Forest Service to assess ecosystem status, change,
and differences among various management practices. The
monitoring program was designed to be comprehensive,
integrated across ecosystem components, and applicable to
forests and related ecosystems in the Northeastern and
Midwestern United States.
315
Approach _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
A team of researchers, National Forest System specialists, and cooperators was formed to develop an integrated
monitoring system. The team decided on a comprehensive
monitoring program that:
• integrates key ecosystem components
• crosses many spatial scales
• provides for different temporal scales
• is comprehensive and well documented
• is simple and efficient.
This monitoring program is one of many initial efforts to
address the need. Little is known about what constitutes
the best ecosystem indicators, the most cost-effective sampling and plot designs are, or the best method for analyzing
the results to provide information upon which to base
management decisions. However, research is being conducted on these problems, and experience is accumulating. Monitoring for management purposes provides an
opportunity for researchers to collaborate with resource
managers to develop an effective monitoring system.
The team developed a sampling design and a field guide
that were field tested in three areas within the region. The
methods were refined and the resulting monitoring program
was written in draft form as a three-volume set: Overview
and Planning Guide (Tyrrell and others 1999), A Catalog of
Field Methods (Smith and others 1999), and Field Data
Recorder Use and Programming (Scott 1999). While the
sampling and plot designs chosen are applicable to many
ecosystems, they are optimal for none. Much information is
provided to the planner, but much is left to be decided, for
example, which attributes to include, frequency of observation, and number of plots. The planning guide does provide
some guidance on making those decisions.
Monitoring Program
An effective monitoring pro~am must be developed by
first setting the monitoring objectives. The following steps
draw heavily from "Vegetation monitoring in a management
context", an unpublished guide developed in 1995 by The
Nature Conservancy in cooperation with the Forest Service:
1. Set broad objectives.
2. Set time and cost constraints.
3. Assemble and evaluate existing data.
4. Set specific objectives.
5. Select attributes.
6. Select sampling and plot designs.
7. Plan field work.
8. Train personnel.
9. Collect data.
10. Enter and store data.
11. Assess and interpret data.
12. Evaluate objectives and monitoring program.
13. Decide on future management.
This process provides feedback on both the monitoring
plan and the original management plan. The monitoring
system itself must be evaluated to ensure that it is providing
316
the appropriate kind of information at the appropriate
level of detail. Ifit is not, the program must be modified and
monitoring continued. If the management objectives are
met, no change is required. If they are not met, the management activities must be modified to meet the objectives or
the objectives must be modified,
Attributes
When selecting attributes, a number of factors should be
included. The key factor should be the attribute's ability to
answer the questions (specific objectives). As a means of
helping the planner identify attributes, we arranged them
in two ways-by spatial scale and broad resource category.
For spatial scale, attributes are listed in groups based on
whether the attributes are to be measured at the Study Area
level, the ELT level, or the Plot level. We also grouped the
attributes into five resource categories: general characteristics of the study area, plants, animals, water, and
physical environment. Each of these was then divided into
subcategories (Table 1).
This monitoring system is admittedly strongest for
plants-this is a function of the objectives of the team, the
history of resource surveys, and the nature of the resource
component. For example, methods for developing population statistics for streams and watersheds need work. Finally, this list is meant to be used as catalog from which to
choose based on the objectives and type of monitoring
being conducted. Similarly, not all components of the design
would be used in most applications. However, guidance is
given on the priority of each attribute: important (core),
costly, and special studies only.
Design
When developing a sampling design, the basic building
block was assumed to be the ELT within a study area;
thus, the ELT was chosen to stratify the study area. ELTs
are defined based on soils, landform, rock type, geomorphic
process and plant associations and are 10's to 100's of
hectares in size (Avers and others 1993). A simple grid
system is recommended to cover the ELT at a rate based
on the target sample size (Fig. 1). The Canopy Gap Survey
and surveys of herbs and small mammals using pitfall
tra ps or drift fences are conducted along the grid lines
connecting plots, because these phenomena are assumed to
operate at the ELT scale. Bird Surveys are conducted at
plot locations to relate the results with local habitat information. Plant information is collected on a plot with nested
subplots (Fig. 2). The Overs tory plot is large at 0.125-ha
(20-m) radius to sample enough trees to classify the plot and
to use in modeling relationships between resource components. However, a smaller plot can be used if population
estimates are the primary focus. Four Understory (3-m
radius) and four Vegetative Structure (5-m radius) subplots
are located in the off-cardinal directions within the Overstory plot. Four Ground Layer (1 m 2 ) subplots surround
each Understory subplot. A soil pit is dug just outside the
Overstoryplot. Because ecosystems are so complex, we made
the design flexible enough to easily add new attributes.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
Table 1.-Five resource categories, their components, and examples of their attributes.
General Characteristics of the Study Area:
Location Attributes, such as Stand and Plot Number
Measurement Attributes, such as UTM coordinates, and Measurement Date
Ownership and Land-use History
Plants:
Canopy Gaps, such as transect length, gap length, gap width
Floristic Survey of the ELT, including species and abundance class
Ground Layer, such as percent cover by herbaceous species, rock, and leaf litter
Shrubs and Vines, such as species and cover or counts by basal diameter class
Tree Regeneration, such as species, seedling height class, and sapling diameter
Vegetative Structure, such as percent occupancy by life form by height class
Overstory, such as species, diameter, distance, and azimuth
Live Trees, such as crown class and damage
Snag Trees, such as fragmentation class and height class
Logs, such as length, diameter, and decay class
Tip-Up Mounds, such as length and width
Site Index, such as species, total height, and age
Fauna:
Bird Surveys, such as counts by species and sex
Reptile, Amphibian, and Small Mammal Surveys, such as counts by species
Water:
Lake Survey, such as lake area, depth, turbidity, pH, and temperature
Stream Survey, such as stream order, channel sinuosity, and bed material
Wetland Survey, such as seasonality and soil inundation
Physical Environment:
Climate, such as mean annual temperature and precipitation
Deposition Chemistry, such as pH, nitrates, and sulfates
Soil Profile, such as soil horizon depths, textures, and colors
Landform, such as slope, aspect, elevation, and terrain position
Data Collection
The Northeastern Region of the USDA Forest Service
purchased TMDR data recorders and APG++ software from
Sprengnether Instruments for use on all of its National
Forests. APG++ is an application generator, that is, it is
used on a desktop PC to. develop data collection forms,
database, and error checks which are then downloaded to
the data recorders for data collection. The data are then
uploaded as text files for processing. Applications for this
monitoring program were developed for the full list of
resource components described here except water and deposition chemistry. The Field Data Recorder Use and Pro-
gramming volume describes how to alter the software for
specific applications. However, because the applications
generator was not available in time, data recorders were not
used as part of the field test.
Field Test
During the summer of 1994, a field test of the monitoring
program was conducted in RNAs and actively managed
areas on three National Forests-one each in Illinois, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin. Much was learned regarding the
clarity of instructions, field logistics, and the time and cost
involved in collecting the data. The manual was then
revised and the remaining information was included in
the planning guide. All attributes were tested except
water and deposition chemistry.
Planning Guide
On the basis of the revised manual and field experience,
we developed a planning guide. The target audience for the
guide is the survey planner, though portions of the field
guide are written for field crews. The planner works wi th the
land manager to identify the objectives. He or she then
develops the survey design, selects the attributes, and is
responsible for training, data collection, analysis, and reporting. The planning guide describes:
Figure 1.-Grid of plot locations and grid lines for Canopy
Gap Survey across two Ecological Landtypes within a
study area.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999
Monitoring objectives
Types of monitoring
Resource components and attributes
317
Plot Design
2
0.125 ha Plot
(20 m radius)
1 m Ground Cover Subplot
•
" ' - Soil Pit
0.00283 ha Understory Subplot
(3 m radius)
0.00785 ha Vegetative Structure Subplot
(5 m radius)
Distance from Plot Center to
Understory Plots 13.0 mat
45, 135,225 & 315 degrees
=
Figure 2.-Plot cluster design for vegetative and soils data.
Monitoring steps to follow
Case studies
Time and cost information from case studies
Bibliography
Glossary
With access to the Catalog ofField Methods and the Field
Data Recorder Use and Programming guide, the survey
planner should have much of the guidance needed to plan
and conduct the monitoring program required to meet management objectives.
Acknowledgments
The development of this monitoring program was a cooperative effort of Region 9 of the National Forest System,
North Central Research Station, and the Northeastern
Research Station. We gratefully acknowledge the efforts
Linda Parker, Thomas E. DeMeo, Beth Shimp, and Marella
Brakke. We also thank our reviewers: Vic Rudis, Gary
Brand, and Doug Powell, all with the USDA Forest Service.
of
Literature Cited
Summary
This program was designed for monitoring portions of
National Forests in the Northeastern United States but is
general enough to be applicable elsewhere. The design
and list of attributes is long so that survey planners can
choose the components and attributes that meet their
needs. By measuring the core set of attributes, the monitoring program also can provide a means for ensuring consistency between different locations within an organization or
between agencies. They may not always choose to measure
the same set of additional attributes, but when they do,
they are measured according to the same standards.
The three-volume set will be a useful starting point for
survey planners to design and implement monitoring. The
field guide alone i~ a rich resource for planners. The use of
the data collection software is not integral to the monitoring
program, but we recommend the use offield data recorders
because they provide an opportunity to edit data in the field
where changes are best made.
318
Avers,PeterE.,Cleland,David T.;McNab, W.Henry;Jensen,Mark
E.; Bailey, Robert G.; King, Thomas; Goudey, Charles B.; Russell,
Walter E. 1993. National hierarchial framework of ecological
units. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service. 20 p.
Scott, Charles T. 1999. Planning and field method options for
ecosystem monitoring: Volume III-Field data recorder use and
programming. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC- St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research
Station. In press.
Smith, Marie Louise; Tyrrell r Lucy E.; Scott, Charles T.; Parker,
Linda; Funk, David T.; DeMeo, Thomas E.; Shimp, Beth; Brakke,
Marella. 1999. Planning and field method options for ecosystem
monitoring: Volume II-A catalog offield methods. Gen. Tech. Rep.
NC- St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. In press.
Tyrrell, Lucy E.; Funk., David T.; Scott, Charles T.; Smith, Marie
Louise; Parker, Linda; DeMeo, Thomas E.; Brakke, Marella;
Shimp, Beth. 1999. Planning and field method options for ecosystem monitoring: Volume I-Overview and planning guide. Gen.
Tech. Rep. NC- St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, North Central Research Station. In press.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-12. 1999