**Dinosaur National Monument**

**Fire and Fire Effects Monitoring**

Fire-related monitoring, as prescribed in Dinosaur's Fire Management
Plan, has several components: collecting pre-burn data, monitoring
ongoing fires, monitoring first order fire effects, and monitoring
second order (long-term) fire effects. The purposes of such monitoring
are to (a) determine if resource management objectives are met on
individual fires and (b) to provide information for developing
prescriptions for future burning. Based on monitoring that has been
conducted, a fairly standard prescription has been developed for
prescribed burning in Wyoming big sagebrush communities. Burning in
these communities is intended to restore perennial grasslands as grazing
is terminated in various portions of the monument (see Grazing by
Domestic Livestock section).

Data collected during ongoing fires -- suppressed wildland fire,
wildland fire use, and prescribed burns -- includes location, elevation,
aspect, other topographic characteristics, weather temperature, relative
humidity, shading, wind speed and direction, etc.), fuel type and other
fuel characteristics (e.g. continuity, arrangement, live fuel moisture),
fire behavior (directions and rates of spread, flame length, residence
time, unusual fire behavior, etc.), fire perimeter increase and other
fire-related data. Some of these data are collected once; other types of
data are collected periodically throughout the duration of the fire.
Those data of greatest importance include fuel type, wind speed, live
fuel moisture, and residence time. The purpose of such monitoring is to
be able to correlate burning conditions with subsequent first and second
order fire effects.

Fire monitoring data is usually attached to the formal fire report and
kept in files in the Fire Management Office. Data may be collected by
firefighters, fire monitors, or biological technicians from resource
management functions. The quality and quantity of data collected during
monitoring of ongoing fires has varied considerably, depending on the
importance placed by the incumbent Fire Management Officer and the
training provided for fire monitors. Data from the 1980s is probably of
greater value than that of the 1990s.

First order fire effects data is collected immediately post-burn,
usually by the same staff that conduct the fire monitoring. Data
collected include such as area burned, percent ground cover consumed,
duff consumption, percent crown consumption and crown scorch, and other
characteristics appropriate for the fuel type. This data is also stored
with the formal fire report.

Second order fire effects data collection began in 1984 and has focused
on correlating fire effects with burning conditions (recorded fire
behavior, live fuel moisture, etc.) Monitoring second order fire effects
has two primary purposes: to determine if resource management objectives
are met in the fire management program and providing predictive
information for prescribed burning and wildland fire use.

There are three major points of investigation in the fire effects
monitoring program: the response by vegetation, small mammal populations
and breeding birds to wildland fire. When the program initially began in
the early 1980s, there was little information on community effects of
fire in sagebrush systems. We were unaware of any other entity
conducting systematic fire effects monitoring in pinyon/juniper and
sagebrush communities. The objectives of initial monitoring were to
provide some baseline information on such community effects.
Methodologies to determine the responses of vegetation, breeding birds
and small mammals were developed in conjunction with scientists from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Colorado State University. Sampling
was scheduled for years 1, 2, 4, 7, 12 and 20 post-burn. Pre-burn
sampling was conducted for prescribed fire to provide a baseline for
later analysis. Protocols were expected to yield statistically reliable
data with a minimum workload requirement.

The protocol initially applied to measuring vegetation response was
estimation of crown cover by species using the Daubenmire methodology
along permanent transects. Two transects were established in the burned
(experimental) and an adjacent unburned (control) area. Data collection
began as soon as grasses began to flower and were readily identifiable;
data collection ceased when forbs became too withered to identify. This
protocol was employed from 1984 through 1990. Seasonal employees
collected the data. It soon became evident, particularly with turnover
in seasonal staff, that there was considerable variation among monitors
in estimation of canopy cover. It was also evident that the transects
represented only a small portion of a burned area -- and monitoring the
response of vegetation along those small transects did not seem to
adequately characterize the response across a burned area.

The protocol for documenting vegetation response to fire was modified in
1991 (Delafield 1996). Five 100m transects were established in each of
the experimental and control areas. These were supposed to be placed
representatively across the sampling areas; on a few burns, however, the
transects are clustered. An optical point projection device is used to
collect two data points at each meter interval, resulting in 200 data
points per transect and 1,000 data points per sample area. While the
collected data is frequency of occurrence by species, the number of data
points allow the figures to also be used as a surrogate for canopy
coverage. Field data is entered in Microsoft Excel. Raw and analyzed
data are stored in notebooks for individual fires in the natural
resource management office.

The protocol for breeding birds involves multiple passes along a fixed
width linear transects (Delafield 1996). Transects are examined on three
consecutive mornings. Species within the transect and "fly-overs" are
recorded. Raw and analyzed data are stored in notebooks for individual
fires in the natural resource management office. Although other
methodologies currently have greater favor, the fixed width linear
transects have been retained for consistency.

The protocol for sampling small mammal populations uses 3 parallel
Calhoun lines in each of the experimental and control areas. Traps are
run for three consecutive nights, resulting in 540 trap nights in each
of the experimental and control areas. Specimens are identified to
species; most are then transferred to the Midcontinent Ecological Center
in Albuquerque for verification of identification and use as museum
specimens. Raw and analyzed data are stored in notebooks for individual
fires in the natural resource management office.

All sampling efforts were paired -- equal efforts on burned and unburned
areas. This is regarded as critical to identify the variations in
responses due simply to annual climatic patterns and other non-fire
influences. In retrospect, this has proved to be a very valuable part of
the protocols for all three aspects of long-term fire effects
monitoring. Annual differences in precipitation patterns and other
influences have resulted in wide fluctuations in apparent responses
(e.g. small mammal populations). That such fluctuations are experienced
in both experimental and control areas makes it evident that the
fluctuations are not fire-related responses.

These monitoring protocols were established prior to development of the
Western Region fire monitoring handbook (and RX-91). The RX-91
methodologies were not adopted at Dinosaur for several reasons:

-   The RX-91 methodologies for fire behavior monitoring are not
    conducive to monitoring fast-spreading fires in light fuels.

-   The RX-91 methodologies are insufficient to answer the
    community-level questions posed at Dinosaur.

-   The absence of control plots in the RX-91 methodologies makes it
    difficult to impossible to identify annual climatic effects.

Questions were raised, however, by proponents of the standardized
Western Region protocols about the validity of the Dinosaur protocols.
In the late 1990s, the University of Wyoming was contracted to (a)
examine the reliability of Dinosaur's fire effects monitoring protocols
and (b) analyze and publish the results of monitoring data collected
since 1984. The objectives of the latter effort were to (a) evaluate
difference in species richness, density and diversity within and across
paired burned and unburned plots, (b) assess similarity-dissimilarity in
species composition within and across burned and unburned sites, and (c)
evaluate short and long-term responses to burning. Six study sites with
similar soils, elevation, annual precipitation, and pre-burn vegetation
(all predominately Wyoming big sagebrush communities prior to burning)
were selected for the analysis.

Winslow (2001) compared the Dinosaur protocols with other accepted
methodologies. He concluded that the optical projection device
methodology used for vegetation monitoring was very precise and very
reliable; sufficient statistical power could still be achieved with some
reduction in sampling effort. He concluded that neither the Dinosaur
methodology nor the comparable methodology had sufficient power to
identify a one bird per hectare change within a considerable increase in
sampling effort. The small mammal methodology was acceptable though the
researcher would prefer to use a different array of traps (and would
prefer an accounting of catch by individual trap site -- that would
shift the effort from a monitoring program to a research program which,
we believe, is unnecessary to answer the monitoring questions). Winslow
did suggest that the sampling design might be changed to 5-year
intervals. We are inclined to disagree with eliminating the early
post-burn sampling because the rate of change is greatest during this
period and vegetation response during this period would also appear to
have greatest susceptibility to influences of other factors (e.g.
grazing).

Perryman, et al. (2002) documented the obvious regarding vegetation
response -- that fire converted Wyoming big sagebrush stands to
perennial grasslands. Grass density was significantly greater in burned
areas; forb abundance was also greater in some years. Sagebrush invasion
into burned areas was almost non-existent when there was no post-burn
grazing by domestic livestock during spring and summer.

Olson, et al. (2003) reviewed the response of small mammal populations
to fire. They concluded that:

-   There was no difference in species richness (number of species)
    between burn and control plots across sample years and sites
    combined, or across sample years by site.

-   The abundance of small mammals varied between site location,
    treatment type and across sample years. Generally, though, the
    number of small mammals was consistently lower on burned sites.

-   There were no differences in diversity indexes between burned and
    control plats across sample years and sites combined; diversity on
    burned plots generally fluctuated more across post-burn sample years
    by site than did diversity on control plots.

-   With the exception of one study site, species similarity between
    paired burn and control plots across post-burn sample years was
    consistently high.

From this we can conclude that burning Wyoming big sagebrush stands does
not substantially alter small mammal communities. Although not analyzed
by Olson, et al. (2003), a cursory examination of the data does suggest
some species are more common in burned areas (e.g. Apache pocket mouse,
northern grasshopper mouse) and other species (e.g. sagebrush vole) are
more common in the control plots.

Olson, et al. (*in prep*) found that species richness, density and
diversity of breeding birds were higher on burned than unburned plots
across all sites during the early post-burn period (1-5 years) but lower
on burned plots during later post-burn periods (5+ years). Similarity
index values indicated maximum overlap of bird species between burned
and unburned plots across all sites during the intermediate post-burn
years and minimal overlap during early and late post-burn periods. They
concluded that fire in Wyoming big sagebrush communities results in
short-term (5-7 years) increased species richness, density, and
community diversity on burned sites. Though not analyzed by Olson, et
al. (*in prep*), some species appear to be nearly obligate in unburned
sites (e.g. green-tailed towhee) while granivores appear to be more
common in the burned sites. It also appears that where pinyon/juniper
stands are burned, insectivorous bird populations increase during the
first few years following burning. As a general conclusion, then, it
appears that burning in Wyoming big sagebrush does not adversely effect
breeding bird populations.

I would be inclined to recommend cessation monitoring of breeding bird
and small mammal populations. It appears from Olson, et al. (2003; *in
prep*) that 15 years of data indicate that burning has no substantial
impact on these resources. I recommend that the vegetation monitoring be
continued with some modification (redistribution of some clustered
transects) because these monitoring results are most directly applicable
to determining if management objectives are achieved on individual burn
sites.

One other fire-related monitoring effort has been quite important in
Dinosaur's fire management program. Intensive monitoring of live fuel
moisture in sagebrush was conducted from 1987 through 1990. Live fuel
moisture proved to be a very sensitive input in modeling prescribed
burning in Wyoming big sagebrush (NFFL Fuel Model 5). With inputs of
empirical live fuel moisture and modification of midflame wind speed (no
reduction from 20-foot wind speed), NFFL Model 5 closely predicted fire
behavior in Wyoming big sage communities. Kalish (1992) extended the
examination of live fuel moisture to sites with varying elevation and
aspect. She concluded that live fuel moisture varied by elevation but
not by aspect. Live fuel moisture monitoring is still conducted
intermittently for prescribed fire planning and implementation.

**Data Sets:**

-   Fire history maps (hard copies in fire management office)

-   Fire reports with attached fire behavior and first order fire
    effects monitoring notes (fire management office files)

-   Second order fire effects monitoring data (WORD and EXCEL files as
    well as field data forms in individual fire notebooks in the natural
    resource management office)

-   Live fuel moisture data in LOTUS and EXCEL formats (in natural
    resource management and fire management offices)

**References:**

Delafield, H., Jr. 1996. Fire effects monitoring protocols. File
memorandum, Dinosaur National Monument.

Kalish, E.L. 1992. Comparison of live fuel moisture in Wyoming big
sagebrush based upon elevation and aspect. M.S. Thesis. Colorado State
University, Fort Collins. 67pp.

Olson, R.A., B.L. Perryman, S.J. Petersburg and T. Naumann. *In prep.*
Fire Effects on Passerine Bird Communities in Dinosaur National
Monument.

Olson, R.A., B.L. Perryman, S.J. Petersburg, and T. Naumann. 2003. Fire
Effects on Small Mammal Communities in Dinosaur National Monument.
Western North American Naturalist. *In press.*

Perryman, B.L., R.A. Olson, and S. Petersburg. 2002. Vegetation response
to fire in Dinosaur National Monument. Western North American Naturalist
(*In press*).

Winslow, D.K. 2001. Validation of sampling protocols for monitoring
vegetation, breeding passerine birds, and small mammal community
responses to prescribed fire at Dinosaur National Monument. M.S. Thesis.
University of Wyoming, Laramie. 139pp.