Survey of the Vegetation and Flora of a Wetland in Kiser Lake State Park, Champaign County, Ohio

Author Institution: Department of Botany, Miami UniversityWe classified plant communities by criteria of physiognomy, environment, and flora. Use of Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg's classification scheme for the world's vegetation provided 6 vegetation categories. The results of a Bray-Curtis ordination were consistent with our field observation of a correlation between these vegetation categories and a soil moisture gradient. The results of a cluster analysis were consistent with 5 of the vegetation categories, but the sixth should be subdivided according to variations in floristic composition. Our proposed classification has 8 plant communities: an alluvial forest dominated by Acer negundo and Parthenocissus quinquefolia, a reed swamp dominated by Eupatorium perfoliatum and Typha latifolia, a deciduous thicket dominated by Crataegus punctata, a second deciduous thicket dominated by Cornus obliqua and Aster pilosus, and a third deciduous thicket dominated by Rosa palustris and R. setigera, a perennial forb community dominated by Clematis virginiana and Verbesina alternifolia, a tall-sedge swamp dominated by Carex stricta and Eupatorium maculatum, and a herbaceous floating meadow dominated by Typha latifolia and Eupatorium perfoliatum. We list 183 species (of 61 families) and state the communities in which each is common

Collaborative Planning on State Trust Lands

ABSTRACT This report examines collaborative planning within the context of state trust lands. By analyzing eight case studies, the report aims to inform trust land agencies, local communities and other interested parties about the benefits, costs, challenges, facilitating factors and lessons learned associated with these collaborative planning efforts. The report concludes with a look ahead to future collaborative planning opportunities on state trust lands, providing a set of best management practices and recommendations for overcoming barriers to this trust land management approach. State trust lands are a category of land distinct from traditional state and federal public land. These lands were granted to states by the federal government upon statehood to support specific beneficiaries, including public schools. As a result, state trust lands are held in perpetual, intergenerational trust with the state acting as trustee. The state thus has a specific legal responsibility, known as a fiduciary duty, to conscientiously manage these lands for the designated beneficiaries. Today, there are approximately 46 million acres of state trust lands in the continental United States, mostly concentrated west of the Mississippi River. States historically have managed trust lands to generate revenue, primarily from natural-resource based activities. In recent years, rapid urbanization coupled with growing public interest in recreation opportunities, wildlife habitat, open space and ecosystem services have imposed new pressures on state trust lands in the West. These changes have provided new sources of revenue and created conflict over trust land management decisions. In response, some states have explored new ways to plan and manage state trust lands. With its promise of reducing conflict, creating mutual gains, minimizing poorly-planned development, creating flexible strategies and producing durable solutions, collaborative planning has been one approach that states have taken to balance their fiduciary duty with other interests. To examine the experience of collaborative planning on state trust lands, the research team selected eight cases from a larger pool of identified processes. These cases span seven western states and represent a range of issues, including land use planning, land management for oil, gas and ranching practices, open space conservation and forestry and watershed management. The cases also vary in the impetus for collaboration, size of trust land parcel(s) examined, level of completion of the process and scope of the outcome. To develop the case studies, researchers conducted on-site and telephone interviews of participants and studied the technical, legal and political issues involved in the case. A comprehensive cross-case analysis, informed by an extensive literature review, provided answers to several common questions about collaborative planning on state trust lands. First, in regards to what makes a process “collaborative,” the research showed that the breadth of stakeholders involved in the process affects the durability of the solution. Processes that were internally and externally transparent enjoyed low levels of public scrutiny and controversy. Most participants believed that they had influence over decision making and the outcome,although state trust land agencies did not give up their decision-making authority. Second, the research identified a number of factors that motivate and sustain collaborative planning on state trust lands. A sense of threat motivated most of the cases. Other reasons for T iv pursuing collaboration included a sense of place, a set of common goals and public pressure. Participants joined collaborative processes because of a professional or personal interest or because of a direct financial stake. The researchers found that career changes and process restrictions, such as an advisory committee charter, were the main barriers to sustaining collaboration. Factors that maintained collaboration included financial incentives, investment in the process, leadership and lack of attractive alternatives. Third, the research identified a variety of benefits and costs of collaborative planning on state trust lands. The primary benefits of collaboration included an increase in the value of the trust, an improvement in the natural environment and/or urban environment and a higher quality solution in terms of durability, creativity and the incorporation of science and outside knowledge. Secondary benefits included new and improved relationships, greater understanding and public awareness of state trust lands and better state and federal agency coordination. Costs associated with the process included direct planning costs, opportunity costs, periods of poor public relations and personal and emotional costs. In one case, participants identified a reduction in the value of the trust asset as a cost, whereas in another case, participants identified a potential loss of environmental protection as a cost. While benefits and costs were not quantified in each case, the majority of participants interviewed in each case study said they thought the process was successful or that they would collaborate again in the future. Fourth, the research addressed how legal constraints affect collaborative planning on state trust lands. In some cases, the trust mandate empowered stakeholder groups and, in others, created a division between the trust land agency and other participants. The clarity and flexibility of the mandate influenced participation, allocation of decision-making power and group dynamics. External legal constraints like federal and state laws posed a challenge for some cases by introducing new timelines and constraints, and served as a facilitating factor for others by keeping people at the table. Many of the cases strategically used the law to initiate or influence the process, define issues, create options or shape the final outcome. Several participants mentioned that collaboration is easier in the state trust land context than other natural resource contexts because trust land agencies are afforded greater legal flexibility than other agencies. Fifth, the research showed how agency structure, culture and politics affect collaborative planning. Access to the state land board, changes in agency institutional structure and land commissioner term limitations were some of the structural elements that influenced the processes. Cultural factors that influenced the process included trust land agency interaction with communities and other agencies, integration of collaboration with agency operating procedures, concern about abdication of decision-making power and uncertainty about accepting help from outside sources. Politics affected the process either as a means to gain influence over decision making or to impede or facilitate the process. Sixth, in regards to how to structure an effective collaborative process, the research showed that process structure, decision making and management are important. Process elements included deciding upon process design, dealing with representation and participation, defining roles and responsibilities and organizing subcommittees or task forces. Key steps for v addressing decision making were setting ground rules and establishing decision rules. Setting objectives and timelines, conducting activities that build understanding and coordinating with other state and federal processes were important strategies for effectively managing the process. Seventh, the research addressed how leadership and facilitation affect collaboration. Official and unofficial leaders helped guide, inspire or represent others. These leaders often, but not always, benefited the process. Professional or internal facilitators in many cases proved to be invaluable resources that assisted the groups in running meetings, communicating and making decisions. Eighth, the research showed how interpersonal dynamics influence collaborative planning on state trust lands. Positive relationships among stakeholders helped facilitate progress, provided an incentive to stay involved, fostered respect and built a greater understanding of the issues. Several participants observed that the collaborative process improved relationships and anticipated that these relationships would help with implementing the planning outcome and addressing future resource management issues. Many groups achieved a more even distribution of power by consensus decision making. Power imbalances did arise, but in most cases they did not prevent the groups from achieving their goals. Finally, the research addressed how collaborative planning processes incorporate scientific information. In many of the cases in this report, science had a significant influence on the process, whether scientific and technical information was explicitly central to the process or became an important tool along the way. The origin of this information impacted the process through strengthening group relationships or increasing the perception of the legitimacy of information. In some cases, science acted as a major facilitating factor to informed decision making while in other cases, the lack of information or the uncertainty of information significantly delayed the process. Incorporating science and technical information into the process often influenced the process structure and could act as a significant resource drain on participants who produced such information. While science influenced the process,collaborative processes also determined what science was gathered, how it was collected and by whom. From this cross-case analysis, the research team developed a set of best management practices (BMPs) and recommendations. The BMPs provide guidance to state trust land managers and other stakeholders interested in creating and/or guiding a collaborative process. The BMPs address effective ways to set the groundwork for a process, determine membership composition of the collaborative group, merge the people with the process, create a decision-making structure, effectively manage the people and the process, deal with information or lack thereof and implement the outcome. The recommendations address the broader context of challenges that impede collaboration on state trust land. They identify areas for change in regards to resource allocation, knowledge and skill sets, organizational structure, organizational culture, policy and law. The recommendations conclude with advice for continued dialogue and learning among agencies regarding collaboration on state trust land, as well as suggestions for future research.Master of ScienceNatural Resources and EnvironmentUniversity of Michigan, School of Natural Resources and Environmenthttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/35327/2/Collaborative Planning on State Trust Lands - SNRE Masters P.pd

Post-1935 changes in forest vegetation of Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, USA: Part 1 – ponderosa pine forest

Vegetation plots originally sampled in Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP), Arizona, USA in 1935 are the earliest-known, sample-intensive, quantitative documentation of forest vegetation over a Southwest USA landscape. These historical plots were located as accurately as possible and resampled in 2004 to document multi-decadal changes in never-harvested Southwestern forests. Findings for ponderosa pine forest (PPF) differed among three forest subtypes (dry, mesic, and moist PPF), indicating that understanding the ecology of PPF subtypes is essential for development of ecologically based management practices. Dry PPF, which is transitional with pinyon-juniper vegetation at low elevation, exhibited no changes from 1935 to 2004. Mesic PPF, the core subtype of PPF, had increased densities of total trees, ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), and white fir (Abies concolor) in the 10–29.9 cm diameter class from 1935 to 2004 that may have induced decreased densities of larger ponderosa pines and total tree and ponderosa pine basal areas. Moist PPF, which is transitional with mixed conifer forest at high elevation, was the most dynamic PPF subtype with decreases from 1935 to 2004 in total density and total basal area that are largely attributable to decreases in quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). Graphical synthesis of datasets with historical and modern values for density and basal area indicates that overall PPF (all subtypes combined) increased in sapling density of all species combined and conifers with canopy potential and decreased in density of quaking aspen trees since the late 19th century. PPF of GCNP has passed through an accretion phase of forest development with increases in density and, depending on PPF subtype and variable being examined, is at or past the point of inflection to recession of density and basal area. Increases in small diameter ponderosa pine and white fir from 1935 to 2004 portend potential additional accretion, but decreases in total basal area, density and basal area of quaking aspen, basal area of ponderosa pine, and density of larger diameter ponderosa pine indicate PPF has passed the inflection point from accretion to recession. Uncertainties about 19th-century PPF structure and composition and about future ecological and societal environments lead to the conclusion that resource managers of GCNP and other natural areas should consider a change in focus from the objective of achieving desired future conditions to an objective of avoiding undesired future conditions

Post-1935 changes in forest vegetation of Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, USA: Part 2—Mixed conifer, spruce-fir, and quaking aspen forests

This study examined changes in never-harvested mixed conifer (MCF), spruce-fir (SFF), and quaking aspen forests (QAF) in Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP), Arizona, USA based on repeat sampling of two sets of vegetation study plots, one originally sampled in 1935 and the other in 1984. The 1935 plots are the earliest-known, sample-intensive, quantitative documentation of forest vegetation over a Southwest USA landscape. Findings documented that previously described increases in densities and basal areas attributed to fire exclusion were followed by decreases in 1935–2004 and 1984–2005. Decreases in MCF were attributable primarily to quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) and white fir (Abies concolor), but there were differences between dry-mesic and moist-mesic MCF subtypes. Decreases in SFF were attributable to quaking aspen, spruce (Picea engelmannii + Picea pungens), and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa). Decreases in QAF resulted from the loss of quaking aspen during succession. Changes in ponderosa pine forest (PPF) are described in a parallel paper (Vankat, J.L., 2011. Post-1935 changes in forest vegetation of Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, USA: part 1 – ponderosa pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management 261, 309–325). Graphical synthesis of historical and modern MCF data sets for GCNP indicated tree densities and basal areas increased from the late 19th to the mid 20th century and then decreased to the 21st century. Changes began earlier, occurred more rapidly, and/or were larger at higher elevation. Plot data showed that basal area decreased earlier and/or more rapidly than density and that decreases from 1935 to 2004 resulted in convergence among MCF, SFF, and PPF. If GCNP coniferous forests are trending toward conditions present before fire exclusion, this implies density and basal area were more similar among these forests in the late 19th century than in 1935. Changes in MCF and SFF can be placed in a general framework of forest accretion, inflection, and recession in which increases in tree density and basal area are followed by an inflection point and decreases. Accretion was triggered by the exogenous factor of fire exclusion, and inflection and recession apparently were driven by the endogenous factor of density-dependent mortality combined with exogenous factors such as climate. Although the decreases in density and basal area could be unique to GCNP, it is likely that the historical study plots provided a unique opportunity to quantitatively determine forest trends since 1935. This documentation of post-1935 decreases in MCF and SFF densities and basal areas indicates a shift in perspective on Southwestern forests is needed

Field Maps 2000

Historical field map scans (2000) for the permanent 100m x 105m research plot in Hueston Woods State Nature Preserve. Maps were digitized in 2022

Geospatial Data Trees 1981

Location and demographic data collected for each individual tree in 1981, 1988, 1994, 2000, and 2022 in Hueston Woods State Nature Preserve. These maps were digitized from the historical field maps to a GIS shapefile for each sampling year. Geographic Coordinate System: GCS_North_American_1983. Projected Coordinate System: NAD_1983_StatePlane_Ohio_South_FIPS_3402 (meters)