Updated Goals and Deliverables for Discussion

1. Updated Goals and Deliverables for Discussion Goals – modified from existing draft • Identify primary and secondary species for monitoring that meet CFLRP and FS needs • Develop hypothesized species response (≈ population trends) for each 1° and 2° species • Explicitly integrate spatial and temporal scales in species selection and sampling approach • Establish range of monitoring options that encompass cost and rigor spectrums as needed • Identify field sampling protocols for selected species • Describe potential analytical methods • Identify opportunities for collaborating entities to contribute to monitoring implementation Deliverables – modified from existing draft A final report to build from existing plan and include: • Overview of field protocols, sampling approaches, and potential analytical approaches • Options: balancing rigorous monitoring of 1° species and casual monitoring of 2° species • Wildlife Team’s recommendations: based on funding, rigor, public interest

2. Recap of Monitoring Challenges • Variable species’ response to restoration treatments / landscape condition expected • Treatment effects difficult to tease out from other influences on populations • Landscape condition impacts • Our ability to effectively monitor varies by species • Populations v. habitat • If habitat relationships well established, may be reasonable to monitor habitat only • Population monitoring only true metric of population trend • Impacts of non-CFLRP activities on populations may confound pop response • Within CFLRP boundary- fire, hunting, recreation, etc • Outside CFLRP boundary- stressors during migration and seasonal habitat use, • Hypothesis testing vs. observation (poorly phrased) • Pitfalls of ‘Type 2 Errors’ in wildlife monitoring • Failing to observe an impact (positive or negative) when it actually occurs

3. Practical (?) Wildlife Monitoring Groups Ecologically Informative Politically Prudent Economically / Socially Important • Game species • Watchable wildlife (enthusiasts) • Iconic and culturally important spp. • Other economically important spp. • functional groups • PIPO specialists • Trophic representation • ESA listed & candidate spp. • FS Sensitive Species • State species of concern • MIS Groups certainly not exhaustive, nor independent Which meet the needs of the FS and CFLRP?

4. Meeting Multiple Objectives – Win, Win, Win? CFLRP Priority? Who belongs here? Of key interest to FS / CFLRP? Win, win, win 1 2 4 3 Suggest species that not fall into an overlap area should not be a priority for rigorous monitoring. If they can be monitored using a multi-species approach, inclusion makes sense.

5. Proposed Framework for Selecting Species for CFLRP Monitoring • Step 1: assign species to ‘monitoring’ groups • Step 2: identify species that meet multiple objectives • Step 3: for species that meet multiple objectives and select ‘single purpose’ speciesNTS: • identify appropriate temporal and spatial monitoring scales • Develop hypothesized population response to CFLRP mgmtNTS • Step 4a: review sampling methods for species from step 3 • Step 4b: review existing data for species from step 3 • Step 5: identify potential stressors that may influence population trends

6. Species Selection Framework, cont • Step 6: synthesize all of the above to identify potential 1° and 2°species for monitoring: • 1° species should (?) be resident species whose population trends will be less influenced by off-site stressors, likely (?) to respond to CFLR treatments and / or overall landscape condition, and able to be monitored using cost-effective techniques. • Ideally, 1° species will meet multiple objectives though single-purpose species may be appropriate to meet agency / CFLRP needs. • 2° species will be (?) species that can be monitored using techniques for 1° species or other methods that are inexpensive; less rigor for 2° species may acceptable • Step 7: for 1° species, conduct power analysis to establish sampling required to meet objectives • Step 8: summarize costs / benefits of sampling effort for 1° species • Step 9: make recommendations to LR team, with rationale…

7. Species Selection Framework – Filtering species from a whole bunch to a practical few Begin – 300+ species From filter 2: 37.5 species Final Filter: Step 6: identify 1° species for monitoring consideration, as well as 2° that could be monitored coincident with 1° NTS Filter 1: multiple objectives, select ‘single purpose’ species (Steps 1 – 3) Reduced to 62 species Reduced to 14 species • For Primary Species • Power analysis or similar • Cost / benefits of different monitoring approaches • Make recommendations that include range of options Filter 2: consider sampling approaches, available data, stressors Reduced to 37.5 species

8. Example hypothesis testing Ho: restoration treatments will not impact Abert’s squirrel populations Ha: restoration treatments will negatively impact Abert’s squirrel pops Why bother with ‘rigorous’ wildlife monitoring?Statistical errors and hypothesis testing α, β, statistical Power and sample size Avoiding Type 2 errors requires statistical power, which usually requires considerable sampling effort

9. Roundtable Wildlife Team—DRAFT High Level Work Plan Roundtable Quarterly meeting: 11/30/12 Roundtable Quarterly meeting: 3/8/13 Roundtable Quarterly meeting: 5/31/13 Jan-Feb 2014 Nov-Dec Sep-Oct Nov 2012 Dec Feb Mar Apr May-June July-Aug Jan 2013 • Revise proposed team goals, deliverables, timeframe, scope (RT) • Agree on / finalize team goals, deliverables, timeframe, scope • Check in with prior effort leaders to learn their methods for species list; also get sources (Craig, Tonya, Ken, Janelle) (LD) • Do research to fill in gaps from criteria spreadsheet (e.g., Identify monitoring efforts already underway) • Collect and review existing data and sampling methods on remaining list of species (interview experts, conduct literature search as needed) • Summarize costs / benefits of sampling effort for 1° species • Make recommendations to LR team, with rationale… • Develop hypothesized population response to CFLRP mgmt • identify potential stressors that may influence population trends • Take stock; try to synthesize findings to identify potential 1° and 2°species for monitoring (try to cut list again) • Conduct power analysis to establish sampling required to meet objectives • Create spreadsheet matrix with criteria and species (RT) • Summarize from CFLR proposal: what restoration is, expected vegetation trends, and wildlife monitoring intentions (HG) – need to post (TL) • Make list of criteria for how to prioritize species for monitoring (RT) • Review new research and complete filling in matrix of species and criteria; try to filter species to smaller list that meet the most criteria (or justified for single purpose); begin discussing spatial and temporal scales and which species need what type of monitoring • Share draft deliverables with LR team on 4/10 • Review Casey’s list and bring to 1/22 mtg additional species to consider adding: reptiles (LC), amphibians (LD); fish (JV), birds (CC), mammals (JB), pollinators CC), inverts (FQ) • Send team existing list of Front Range Lower & Upper Montane species (CC) • Seek more funding or capacity to conduct research (?????) • Schedule calendar for team (GB) • Ask CDPW’s Kenny Kamire, USFS Denny Bohan) what other fish species to add to list (CC) • Propose additional species to add to list • Check in with Sara on team composition (LD) • Start rating each species by criteria (spreadsheet), add descriptive information; divvy up further research to fill gaps Between meetings During meetings • Check in with Craig & Leslie on capacity (JB) • Ask Mike Welker about importance of including fish (FQ) Completed On track • Make list of experts to ask for broad (early) or specific (later) help Needs attention Tentative • Present plan to LR team on 1/9 (RT+ CC)

10. Laundry List of ideas for inclusion – this forms the basis for team member tasks • Restate goals, objectives, deliverables • Articulate the challenge of selecting species • Propose a multi-step screening procedure • Initial Screening - Venn diagram concept based on monitoring ‘groups; • Species in the FR PIPO can be categorized, several fall into multiple cateogies • Priority species: those that occur in overlap areas? Need to use a different term- priorities will be used a subset of these. But… • Need to consider which overlap areas meet FS / CFLRP needs • Species not in overlap may not be priorities? If they can be monitored with protocols targeting priority species, win win. • Anecdotal or less rigorous information may be useful for species not in overlap areas • Additional considerations for ‘Priority’ species: • Hypothesized population response for each species based on the objectives of the CFLRP • Treatment effects? • Overall landscape suitability and population stability? • Population metrics of interest for each species • Monitoring protocols: • well-established techniques for population monitoring • Cost of monitoring • Skill level for monitoring • Issues of scale: • Spatial scale: need to establish consistent language that ties closely to that being used by CFRI’s Front Range GTR group. Scales in terms of veg aggregation as they may relate to wildlife behavior • Temporal scale: monitoring periodicity presumably varies based on life history (i.e., not necessary to monitor all species every year). • Availability of existing data • Possibility of a ‘2-tier’ monitoring approach • Priority species where rigor is needed • Additional species that can either be monitored through techniques for a priority species (E.g. bird monitoring protocol), or species where rigor less critical and anecdotal evidence is adequate?)