TempleFlatRock

Information about Temple Flat Rock
TFR Final Draft of summary document: [|TempleFlatRockSummary.2008.12.01.pdf] [|TempleFlatRockSummary.2008.12.01.doc]

Summary sheet [|TempleFlatRockSummary.2008.11.09.doc]

TFR conceptual and indicators from class of 2008 Oct 31 [|TFR2008.10.30.pdf]



I had a hard time with some of my notes. I think next time it might be good for a small group to gather after class if possible and make the changes. Or if someone has better notes than mine I can look at them and make whatever fixes we need to. Steve

TFR - Aforestation results chain- Latest version from Little River Team

Trampling results chain (following Wed. morning call) from Kuenzler Team.

TFR Invasive species results chain from Berryhill Tem.



Miradi File is posted above. You'll notice there is not a specific target for wildlife. We decided (open for debate) that all of the factors affecting the outcrop and the prairie also are affecting the wildlife and are covered by having the wildlife as nested targets. This would change on a property managing specifically for wildlife, but TLC isn't doing that.

Current team: Deb, Kate, Maria, Steve (2008 Sept 19) Current activity: Consolidating all the work we have done Timing:
 * Mirdai diagram to be posted by Wed 24 Sept noon
 * Comments from class posted on wiki by Thurs 25 Sept noon

Julia's comments: I agree with several of the comments brought up so far, but great job overall!
 * I rather like the prairie initiative strategy... it might not be a top priority when we get further into this project, but it brings the focus to the larger, regional conservation goals. I thought Donna discussed how this type of ecosystem is fast declining (along with the associated birds); again this isn't directly related to the TFR property, but maybe we could include it as a lower priority strategy.
 * I like the "no trespassing" signage vs. advertising TLC as an absentee landowner.
 * I also like the strategy for birds that focusing on a functional habitat (rather than bird populations) - this is much more feasible for TLC to implement
 * I think we need to specify if the 2050 goal of establishing sp. on similar outcrops would be natural or artificial transplantation. I am personally undecided on the bioethics here... this is tricky!
 * I am not sure that increasing plant diversity 2x is a reasonable goal... did Donna mention a ballpark number of how many grass species were historically present on these prairies? Technically exotic invasives and tree species would increase the biodiversity of the prairie, but that's not what we're going for.
 * Early successional habitat is not really a threat, and I'm not sure how the stewardship objective fits here. We should work out a better way to included afforestation of the field.

Kathryn's comment:
 * You got a lot of work done on this diagram. Many thanks for synthesizing class comments/ideas from last week!
 * We need to remember that the term "invasive species" is not synonymous with the term "non-native species". Additionally, not all non-native species are invasive. So we need to clarify that our focus on "invasives" throughout the conceptual diagram that we are focusing on invasive plants that are not native to Temple Flat Rock and surrounding area.
 * Regarding the 2050 goal for the granite outcrop, I think Donna made it clear that she is not comfortable, bioethically speaking, with translocating plant species found on other outcrops to the Temple Flat Rock outcrop. We can't predict to what birds/mammals and wind will introduce the other native plants to Temple Flat Rock by 2050 (if at all). I suggest striking this goal.
 * Regarding the indicators for the non-native invasive species direct threat and associated objective, I think we need to look at more than just species presence and absence. We need to track the size of the area that the non-native invasive species occupy over time, both on the outcrop and along the perimeter of the outcrop. We should decide what distance from the outcrop we want to monitor for non-native invasives.
 * Regarding the objective for the influence of land use plans, I suggest we add outreach to zoning regulators to promote the insertion of regulatory language that restricts the planting of any plants non-native to the Piedmont area because we don't know which non-natives could become invasive.
 * Before Friday's class I'll see if I can find any guidance on how wide the forest buffer should be surrounding TFR. We need to be prepared to defend the proposed width of 150-feet (or whatever width we go with).
 * Point of clarification needed for objective of the logging indirect threat. Does "acquire" strictly mean fee-title ownership or is conservation easement under consideration? I think the mode of protection should be left open at the moment because the neighboring landowner(s) may be amenable to assuming an active stewardship role of the property. So I think the strategy of educating adjacent landowners should act on both logging and development threats.
 * We should rewrite the invasive eradication strategy objective so it's more specific and measurable (in fact all objectives in the diagram need this level of consistency). Who will be carrying out the manual removal of non-native invasives? How often will they conduct this activity (once a year? three times a year?) and when will they start the non-native invasive spp removal project? Walt's going to need physical assistance for this activity. Can we rely on the assistance of local high school students and the TFR volunteer stewardship crew? The TFR volunteer crew doesn't exist so we need an objective to create the crew. We also have to approach the local high school to find out if a particular club or teacher wants to adopt the property for stewardship purposes (and ecological learning, too!). If neither group is an option for conducting the invasive removal, who would be an option?
 * I agree with others that the direct threat of "undesirable public use" needs to be more specific -- trampling, ATVs. And we probably separate trampling from ATV as two different threats because even people who are permitted access to the outcrop could accidentally trample vegetation (back to awareness building and education).
 * Regarding the "prairie initiative" strategy, I don't recall Walt or Donna mentioning the prairie habitat needs to be expanded. So what's the justification for this strategy? Is expansion needed because the current acreage size is too small to support bobwhite quail and other grassland birds? Is expansion needed because the neighboring woodlands were once grassland openings that were cultivated for agricultural production and long ago abandoned?
 * I agree with George that "early successional habitat" is what we want the prairie environment to look like but it doesn't currently because of lack of management (fire in particular) to prevent the establishment of trees. So aforestation and establishment/spread of invasive species appear to be the direct threats. I like how you've got the indirect threats and strategies set up for this direct threat!
 * I like the use of creating a service-learning course at the high school and/or university level to assist TLC with management activities of TFR property. Initially I was thinking of just getting students in the field as volunteers. Now we have a selling point for the teacher - she uses the property as part of her curriculum.
 * For the "native plant" strategy, I would delete the word "transplant" and use "seed". I think there are 4 warm grass species that TLC wanted to grow on the property. Is that right? If so, we should identify what the species are in our objectives. Actually I think we need this "native plant" strategy connecting in some fashion to the "burn regime" strategy -- arrows from both going to the "frequency of prescribed burns" box. And I think it would make more sense to move the warm season grass seeding objective from the burn regime strategy and put it with the "native plant" strategy. Once we start working on the results chain, we'll probably need to pull the other objectives of the "burn regime" strategy out and array them in some order with the objective in the "frequency of of prescribed burn" box. Visually the complete set of objectives look like they're not in the best chronological sequence.
 * That's great you added the "alternate to prescribed burning" strategy. Before we didn't really have anything discussing what we would do in case of a prolonged (or renewed) drought.
 * Regarding the deer management strategy one and its affiliated objectives, this is tricky! Having conducted research on this topic in Michigan and knowing how far deer travel in one day (in the lower peninsula of MI, 1.5 miles a day), TLC will not be able to keep the deer herd at or below carrying capacity if it is the only property owner in the area allowing deer hunting. Come to think of it, to what extent are deer causing a problem in and around Temple Flat Rocks? I easily could have assumed there is a deer problem simply because TLC leases the property to hunters. Are deer-vehicle collisions problematic? Is the sex ratio of the deer population in the relevant deer management unit skewed towards does? Are deer driving homeowners crazy with all of the ornamental plants deer eat? I'm very willing to research these questions to determine if we actually need to focus on deer management in this conceptual model. If not, perhaps we just create a strategy of "continuing recreational hunting" based on the rationale of why TLC decided to lease TFR to hunters in the first place. So all of the confusion/ambiguity around this strategy can solely be attributed to me!
 * The direct threat of "population of native animals" is vague. The description says we're concerned about an overabundant deer population but then we have "bird surveys" linked to it as a strategy to identify whether or not the habitat is functioning properly. We should probably identify a couple of bird species to use as an indicator to guide the selection of habitat measurement techniques, in addition to bird nesting/chick rearing counts.

George comments:


 * Looks great - thanks very much!
 * Scope: Make it clear that the privately-owned portion is part of the long-term project scope. They way it is now, it's just kind of noted that it's there.
 * Targets and goals: The targets are clear. Some of the goals read like strategies. For example, "By 2010 remove invasive species along the edge of outcrop" ... the goal is "By 2010, no invasive species along edge of outcrop" ... removal is a strategy, along with preventing more from getting there, etc. ... not also that the way you have it phrased now does not say how much to remove, whereas the rephrase say it's all gone (or 50%, or 75%). Can we rethink in these terms?
 * Same issue with some of the "objectives" on the direct threats. For example, under "undesired public use" we have "-By 2015 have a yearly open day where the public can learn about the importance of the site -By 2010 have a number of volunteers and students who monitor the site on a regular basis." These are strategies - the objective is something like "Eliminate ATV incursions by 2010" and the things mentioned are ways to do that. Look at Table 2 in section 2B of the CMP manual for this - an objective is a "what" that can have a clear indicator; strategies are how? when? who? where?
 * Direct threats ... I don't think "public use" is the direct threat. I think the direct threat is "trampling" (to the granitic outcrop) and this comes from public use / trespass (agreeing with Emily here). In other words, the public use itself - or even the trespass - does not //directly// threaten the granitic outcrop - it's the trampling that does. I think you tried to get at this with the separation of "public use" and "undesired public use." Step back and ask "What direct, physical activities cause the problem?"
 * __Direct threat to prairie ... "early successional habitat." How is that a threat? That's what you want. The threat is aforestation - allowing the forest to return. It will take management to prevent that. The indirect threats there is suppression of fire.__
 * __Direct threat to prairie ... "populations of native animals." The direct threat is "browsing by animals" and go from there.__
 * To Emily's question about order of doing things ... I think it's OK to suggest objectives and indicators here, just know that they might change when we do results chains. Results chains go with objectives and map how you attain an objective - see Fig 7 in Section 2A of the CMP manual for an example. This is an iterative, continuing process - it's never really done.

Emily's Comments:

I’d replace the “undesired public use” with your more specific “trespassing.” I’d then keep the strategies you have connected to trespassing, and also connect the “education/interest” and “development” direct threats. What do you mean by “public use” (threat)? Do you really mean trampling? It seems to me that (desired) public use is not directly threatening the granitic outcrop and piedmont praire. I’d say it’s probably human trampling that is the direct threat with lack of education as an indirect threat (because they don’t know that they shouldn’t trample the little plants). Your and “education/interest” indirect threat would work fine with this adjustment, though the “development of adjacent properties” would probably work better with the “trespassing” direct threat. I’d rephrase the “early successional habitat (threat)” to “lack of natural burning regime.” It’s the lack of burning that’s the threat to maintaining the early successional habitat of the piedmont prairie. I’d rephrase the “populations of native animals (threat)” to “overabundant deer” because it’s the deer that threaten the prairie. Native animals in general are not a threat, it’s just when they’re overabundant. The “create a deer management plan” is a good strategy. I would take off “bird surveys (strategy)” because that seems more like a way to measure a possible indicator (if “presence of native birds” were a target and indicator) instead of a strategy of how to help maintain populations of native birds. I guess there are two issues: 1) “maintaining native bird populations” is not part of the target so strategies to directly address bird populations should not be included. Alternatively, you could create a target like “native wildlife populations” of which birds would be a part and then include threats to the bird populations. 2) “bird surveys” is fundamentally not a strategy. The open standards guide defines a strategy as “a group of actions with a common focus that work together to reduce threats, capitalize on opportunities, or restore natural systems. Conducting bird surveys is an action but it in and of itself will not reduce threats to birds, or restore the natural system. It will only identify what’s there. I noticed there are a lot of objectives and indicators on the diagram. Should this be completed after doing results chains instead of before? Maybe we could discuss the chronology in class. (Sorry for so many comments. It really looks good for the most part, and there are a lot of great ideas in the diagram.)

See location on Google Maps http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&ie=UTF8&t=h&panoid=6snVbwxxZ4ekaG5qEVZsJQ&msa=0&ll=35.839681,-78.456931&spn=0.013516,0.011373&z=16&msid=109509963355249116785.000454fd3d985abdb0903

You can also visit Wake County's parcel mapping site at http://imaps.co.wake.nc.us/imaps Search by owner for Triangle Land Conservancy, then select the 2928 Watkins Rd property. Or search by address for 2928 Watkins Rd - note that the "Rd" part does **not** go into the street name filed - there's a drop-down for that, or just leave it out.

The readings directory contains TLC documents for the site - look for the TempleFlatRock.zip file.
 * 1982 11 03 Inventory.pdf - Initial inventory of site
 * 1983 01 10 EASEMENT TFR.pdf - Easement document
 * 1984 01 27 ASSIGNMENT OF EASEMENT TFR.pdf - easement assigned to TLC
 * 1995 03 06 BDR TFR.pdf - baseline documentation report (BDR) for Temple Flat Rock
 * 1996 03 01 LEASE AGREEMENT ...pdf - lease agreement between TLC and David for Temple Flat Rock
 * 2005 07 fire restoration.pdf - article about site restoration
 * news release donation TFR 32 acres.pdf - undated news release announcing donation

The following Natural Heritage documents have been uploaded to the wiki ...
 * [|Wake Exec Summary 12-12-2005.pdf]
 * [|WakeNH.pdf]

Photo of some of our initial thinking about vision and goals: [|TempleFlatRockVision.2008.08.29.jpg]


 * Questions we'd like to addressed / information we need about the site** Please compile by Wed 3 Sep 12.00.

Use this space to develop a list of additional information we need or questions we'd like answered about Temple Flat Rock. Please put your name in parens after anything you list.

//Some of Kathryn's questions:// 1. After reading the Conservation Easement Transaction, I'm intrigued by the reference date selected for restoration purposes (page 2) ... The Conservancy reserves "the right to require the restoration of the Protected Property to its condition at the time of this grant."
 * Why was this reference date (and not an earlier one) selected?
 * Was this granitic outcrop compared to other "undisturbed" outcrops in the Piedmont region to confirm an earlier reference date for restoration purposes is not needed?
 * What sort of activities did the grantor, Temple-Parker, Inc., conduct at or around this site prior to this easement transaction? That is, how do we know that Temple-Parker, Inc. did not manipulate/harm the granitic outcrop's vegetative conditions, either through direct or indirect activities? (And why did Temple-Parker, Inc. want to protect this piece of land?)

2) On page 3 of the Conservation Easement Transaction, it is stated the Conservancy has the right to inspect the property to ensure the Grantor is honoring the terms of this document. What inspection activities are used and how frequently? Can we use any of this inspection activities to aid our selection of conservation success indicators?

3) In reference to the covenants listed in the Conservation Easement Transaction ... a) TLC has the right to use hunting/trapping to manage wildlife populations, for the sole purpose of maintaining ecological balance.
 * Have there been any wildlife population control issues associated with this property?
 * If so, which species were (or are) actively managed?
 * How was (is) this species harming the granitic outcrop?

4) I still don't have a clear understanding of whether TLC is managing vegetation encroachment to ensure the granite outcrop always exists. Is soil accumulation on the outcrop okay (apparently vegetation changes on the outcrop as soil accumulates)?

5) How does TLC encourage the neighboring landowners to conduct activities that indirectly support stewardship of the easement property? Are the neighbors supportive of TLC's activities on this easement?

6) Is farmland cultivation for wheat, soybeans, corn, tobacco still occurring on any neighboring lands?

7) What sort of education activities occur at Temple Flat Rocks, if any?

8) Is Davis still leasing part of the property to graze his livestock? (His lease expired in 2006.) Is leasing right to graze some horses and goats viewed as a management tool to maintain the prairie community? (Goats eat anything; often used to remove unwanted plant species.)

//Some of Steve's questions//
 * Use of adjacent land and how it might affect the granitic outcrop
 * Farmland – what types of crops, pesticides, fertilizers might affect the plant on the outcrop
 * Logging – how can logging right up to the edge of the outcrop affect the microclimate? One of the articles mentioned an adjacent property had been logged right up to the outcrop. Will practices like that influence the successional stages?
 * How far away are the known occurrences of threatened and endangered plant species? What is the likelihood of occurrence on the TLC site?
 * Will prairie grass affect the successional stages on the granitic outcrop?
 * What are the opportunities for educational programs?
 * How could educational programs or more foot traffic affect the early successional plants?
 * Is the possible education benefit greater than the possible risk?

Julia's questions: Has TLC spoken with neighboring property owners about their mission at TFR? Are they supportive and/or would any be interested in putting an easement on their properties in the future? Is there any way to work out an agreement to prevent neighboring activities (ie. logging, ag) from negatively affecting the outcrop?

Are there written contracts about what type of educational activities can occur here? Since it is private property/access, it seems like TLC could control the amount of trampling, collecting, etc. that might go on.

Has introduction of T/E plants ever been considered? There are 2 threatened species that don't occur here, but could potentially. Maybe this property would be even more valuable with more T/E species on it.

Have any studies been done to see how long these successional stages last? The BDR (p. 6) states that they are stable for "very long periods of time", and there is no indication that they will ever change as long as the outcrop is exposed. This may be a good starting point for developing management actions...

//Kate's Questions// 1. Will species not currently present at this site, but are considered special concern/threatened/endangered and dependent on this habitat type (similar to others in Wake County/Piedmont region)going to be introduced here? 2. Have surrounding landowners been approached about potential easements or stewardship ethics/practices about their land? 3. Is public education a major component of this property? If so, what are the education goals? 4. On the property management report – monitors are asked to observe encroachment from surrounding landowners. What education/involvement efforts are being taken to make conservation more effective? 5. Are there potential insects that are considered threatened/endangered/species of concern associated with this unique early succesional community? 6. According to the easement – ‘the protected property is a natural area which provides significant habitat for fish, wildlife, and plants and has substantial value as a natural, ecological and scientific resource…’ – what wildlife is present and being managed for? 7. Have the effects of surrounding land use been studied (such as leaching of chemicals from tractor junkyard site (if still in existence))? If not, what are possible effects that have not been looked at (such as pesticides from neighboring farms)? 8. Have potential future threats that could become issues (i.e. development) been addressed? 9. The easement also states – ‘the right of visual access to and view of the Protected Property in its natural, scenic, and open condition...’ What is the definition of ‘natural’? How is the goal of maintaining an early successional habitat possible if what is ‘natural’ is succession that will eventually become forest and no longer ‘open’? 10. As listed by Covenant 4 – ‘There shall be no removal, destruction or cutting of trees or plants, planting of trees or plants, spraying with biocides...’ - How do you maintain early succession without the removal of plants that would move it into the next stage? What about encroachment of habitat from surrounding property (i.e. forest cover at the edge of the outcroppings? What about the issues of potential pesticides/herbicides/fertilizers from surrounding farms?

Debbie's comments: (1) Adjacent properties. How are adjacent property owners educated and notified of property boundaries and conservation efforts? What happened with the logging to the north that caused damage to peripheral areas? Have owners been approached about granting easements? If so, what was their response? (2) Lease agreement. Potential for harm to the outcrop from tenants and animals. For the amount of income, it doesn't seem to be worth the potential problems from leasing the propety? How does TLC decide whether or not to lease a property? (3) Lease agreement. Erosion control requirements. What areas are subject to erosion control efforts? How does this affect the outcrop? 4) Natural processes. Has TLC interceded in natural processes at the site, such as erosion control, plant control, wildlife control? (5) Property monitoring. How often is property monitored? The monitoring form doesn't seem to mention wildlife and plants?

Emily's Questions: //How does it fit in with the overall mission of TLC://1. Since 1994, how have you seen the land used or valued by the community? 2. For example, is it being used as a living laboratory of sorts or for recreational or aesthetic purposes? Or does it contribute to an ecosystem service such as clean water?3. Do many people know that there is this parcel of land with such rare ecosystem? Does knowledge of its existence provide value to community members?//The granitic outcrop://4. How much disturbance would the outcrop permit before threatening the health of the ecosystem?//The field system://5. How often has the field been burned? 6. What were the goals of burning the land? And how successful has it been in reaching those goals?7. Does the field and forested area nearby play a role in protecting the granitic outcrop? If so, what is the ecological mechanism?

Temple Flat Rock photo album from our site visit - steve http://picasaweb.google.com/stevecallen1/TempleFlatRock?authkey=K3XZugduyTE#