Kuenzler

Narrative form of conceptual model

 * SCOPE:** Kuenzler Wildlife Habitat Preserve, Chapel Hill, Southwestern Orange County, North Carolina


 * VISION:** Quiet wildlife habitat preserve with representative examples of upland and lowland forests and working farm lands characteristic of the Piedmont Region.


 * CONSERVATION TARGETS:** (1) Agricultural fields, (2) Wetlands easement, (3) Upland hardwoods, (4) Bottomland hardwoods, (5) Vernal pool, (6) Collins Creek/streams, and (7) Manmade pond

targets, wildlife/fish are nested targets)
 * POTENTIAL** threats, starting with contributing threats and ending with conservation targets (for all

I. Airport development --> Eminent domain/takings --> Upland hardwoods

II. Airport development --> Noise pollution --> [leads to two direct threats listed below]: 1) Wildlife Disturbance --> Agricultural fields, Wetlands easement, Upland hardwoods, Bottomland hardwoods, vernal pool, Collins Creek/streams, and Manmade pool

2) Disturbance of resident and guests --> Agricultural fields, Wetlands easement, Upland hardwoods, Bottomland hardwoods, Vernal pool, Collins Creek/streams, and Manmade pool a. Direct affect on re-sale of property b. Reduced potential of leasing for wildlife-related fee access activity (including hunting)

Airport development --> Economic/population growth --> Expansion of development surrounding preserve --> [leads to multiple direct threats listed numerically below] a) Outdoor/feral cats preying on birds --> Agricultural fields, Wetlands easement, Upland hardwoods, Bottomland hardwoods

b) Shrinking wildlife corridor --> Upland hardwoods, Bottomland hardwoods (Note - will a corridor even be possible to maintain - if too much development occurs, this property could become a population sink.)

c) Water pollution (chemicals, sediments) --> Wetlands easement, Collins Creek/streams, Vernal pool, Manmade pool

d) Spread of invasive species --> Agricultural fields, Wetlands easement, Upland hardwoods, Bottomland hardwoods, Collins Creek/streams (so I'm assuming invasive species would be terrestrial only)

III. Drought --> Absence of flooding pulses --> Bottomland hardwoods, Vernal pool (and Wetland easement?)

IV. Drought --> Drop in soil/vegetative moisture --> Agricultural fields, Wetlands easement (because it also includes terrestrial space) and Upland hardwoods

V. Conservation easement violations --> Agricultural fields, Wetlands easement, Upland hardwoods, Bottomland hardwoods, Vernal pool, Collins Creek/streams, and Manmade pool

(Is conservation easement violation the contributing factor and something else is the direct threat, such as deviation from best management plan for agricultural production targeting only agricultural fields and clearcutting targeting upland and bottomland hardwoods?)

VI. Loss of active management --> Tree/shrub encroachment --> Agricultural fields


 * CURRENT** threats starting with contributing threats and ending with conservation targets (for all targets, wildlife/fish are nested targets).

I. Presence of invasive --> Agricultural fields, Wetlands easement, Upland hardwoods, Bottomland hardwoods, Collins Creek/streams (assuming invasive species would be terrestrial only)

II. Absence of property fencing --> trespassing --> Upland hardwoods and Bottomland hardwoods (Do we need to list all the other habitats? The woodlands surround all other habitats.)

III. Absence of forest management --> Forest conditions deviate from condition ideals --> Upland hardwoods and Bottomland hardwoods (NOTE, I don't know if this is true! This gets at the viability assessment that I need to work on now. I just know Jutta talks as if no forest management occurs; therefore assuming there may be some issues that need to be addressed. Still don't know if there's a forest management plan that we can review for this assignment.)

IV. Absence of hunting --> Overbrowsing by deer --> Decline in species diversity --> Upland hardwoods and Bottomland hardwoods

Viability Analysis: Kuenzler Wildlife Preserve (KWP)

 * Key Ecological Attributes**

//Kathryn's comment: We should convert this to a table, like the one shown on page 41 of the CMP training guide. That way we can clearly show which attribute-indicator pairing is associated with each conservation target and insert our ideas of what the indicator ratings should be. I'll start working on that Thursday 6 November. Will post the table as a downloadable file on this wikipage.//

Overall desired state of KWP: A diverse collection of habitats (type, structure, etc) representative of the NC piedmont physiographic region that supports native and migratory wildlife.

A. KWP will maintain integrity as a nature preserve if surrounding land remains undeveloped or has limited development
 * I. Compatible Surrounding Land Uses**

B. Development of adjacent/nearby properties will lead to: 1. Fragmentation of the wildlife corridor/isolation of the KWP 2. Encroachment of invasive plants, house cats 3. Reduced water quality/quantity in Collins Creek 4. Increased noise pollution (cars or airplanes)

C. __Indicators__: (1) no invasive plants, (2) acceptable levels of noise pollution, (3) connectivity to adjacent natural areas, (4) maintain present water quality indicators, (5) % developed surrounding land

//Kathryn's comment: Here are my suggested changes for the indicators... Change (1) to % area with invasive plants ("no invasive plants" would be the very good rating for the indicator). Regarding (2) I don't know how we'll rate this ... how do people measure noise pollution? Regarding (3) I'm not sure what the best wording is. We're talking about vegetative corridors. Maybe we're actually wanting to measure the number of corridors - but essentially isn't this a different way of phrasing the fifth indicator? Regarding (4) not sure what the best water quality indicators are ... particular assemblage of macroinvertebrates? percent turbidity? Change (5) to % natural surrounding vegetation developed or tilled (verbatim steal from Figure 8 on page 42 of CMP training guide)// <<George 6 Nov - Strongly agree with this approach to changes - turns into more measurable attributes. I know that noise levels can be measured in terms of intensity (decibels) and frequency, but don't know at what intensity and frequency it becomes a problem for particular wildlife species. THis would require some research by TLC. +++Macroinvertebrates are a good and fairly simple approach to water quality. NC Division of Water Quality might have some other good approaches, but water column measures require pretty intense efforts because of the variability. +++On corridors, you could count the # and width of connections to surrounding natural areas - not sure what the configuration is. +++% developed / tilled land within some distance of KWP would be a good indicator. Not totally sure about tilled though - isn't some of the KWP easement for agriculture?>> (Note - Macro-invertebrates are a great way to go, plus there are some other fairly easy tests that maybe we could use such as measure of dissolved oxygen, grading streams based on look (type of substrate, bank condition, etc.) or measuring nitrogen and phosphorous levels. - Kate)

A. Is KWP large enough to support/maintain current biodiversity if surrounding land is developed? Assumption: larger is better (e.g. protecting adjacent properties is desirable) <>
 * II. Size of Area**

B. __Indicator__: size of area (base too large/too small decision on expert opinion) (Note - I think we need to ask this in terms of species. The size may be perfectly okay for small mammals and songbirds, but anything else with a larger homerange may be lost if this property becomes isolated. - Kate) A. A desired diversity/abundance of native flora and fauna (based on baseline data and the Schafale and Weakley (1990) habitat community descriptions) 1. Low elevation mesic forests --> Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest --> Piedmont Subtype 2. Low elevation mesic forests --> Basic Mesic Forest --> Piedmont Subtype 3. Low elevation dry and dry-mesic forests and woodlands --> dry oak-hickory forest 4. Low elevation dry and dry-mesic forests and woodlands --> Dry-mesic oak-hickory forest 5. Low elevation dry and dry-mesic forests and woodlands --> Basic oak-hickory forest 6. River floodplains --> Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest 7. Coastal plain depressions and water bodies --> vernal pool <>
 * III. Species composition**

B. __Indicators__: (1) no invasive plants, (2) deer population at carrying capacity, (3) continued observation of species known to occur on property (annual field surveys for birds, herps, etc)

//Kathryn's comments: I still need to reread the Schafale and Weakley (1990) community descriptions and compare the plant listing of each description with the plant listing Ed Kuenzler mentioned in the preserve's BDR. I'm not sure which of the first 5 classifications best describe the upland hardwoods found on the Kuenzler property. As for the indicators, I suggest rewording them as: Change (1) to % area with invasive plants ("no invasive plants" would be the very good rating for the indicator). <> Change (2) to estimate deer population size -- but we should perhaps measure this at the deer management unit level because deer move among multiple properties. We could also survey the trees for signs of browsing. So another indicator could be height of browsing line. I agree with Katherine that sparse ground vegetation in upland woods indicates heavy deer foraging but percent canopy cover also influences percent of ground cover -- so we measure both? <> Regarding (3) I was thinking that estimating the population size of marbled and spotted salamanders (via pitfall traps) would be good for vernal pool habitat. Ed mentioned that the vernal pool plays a critical role in larval development of these two salamanders. We could identify 3 birds/other wildlife species whose population we would estimate for upland hardwoods; ditto for bottomland hardwoods and agricultural fields. <>// (Note - Schools (NC State) could be involved in a short term (weekly?) measurement in pitfall traps, etc. since most wildlife students need experience, but it is a fairly easy thing to learn. Also, what about the winter bird breed survey? - Kate)

A. A desired structure of the target habitats will provide niches supportive of diverse wildlife species. For example… 1. Closed hardwood canopy necessary for certain breeding neotropical migrants 2. Long grasses/wetland sedges provides feeding and resting areas for birds 3. Gaps in the canopy and thick understory cover is suitable for certain breeding neotropical migrants 4. Open edges present along agricultural field boundaries is desirable habitat for many birds 5. A certain density of snag trees will provide habitat for woodpeckers and other cavity-nesting birds (Moorman)
 * IV. Vegetation Structure**

B. __Indicators__: (1) compare to baseline, (2) model after habitat community descriptions, and (3) recommendations from experts

//Kathryn's comment: I started to address the indicators for this KEA when offering comments for the last indicator in the previous section. I think the indicators are actually the 5 points listed under A ... % canopy cover, % grass/sedge cover, perimeter of grassland-woodland edge (or some other measure) and % snag density. What's currently listed under indicators are actually the sources we use to identify acceptable range variations for the indicators.// <>

A. A regular pattern of flooding (unaltered by direct human activities) will maintain the species composition and vegetation structure of the lowland and wetland areas
 * V. Rain Water and Flood cycle**

B. Rain amounts steady/within historical records

C. __Indicators__: regularity of 2-year, 5-year, 30-year, and 100-year floods

<>

Team visits the Kuenzler Wildlife Habitat Preserve on Monday 20 October. Here are our expectations:


 * Kathryn** expects to see a large woodlot that has received minimal management. Although forest management practices are allowed to thin trees, collect firewood, removed insect/disease infested trees, etc., I have the sense from the monitoring reports and BDR that the Kuenzlers have pretty much let nature runs its course in the woods. Nor do I expect to see a significant trail system in the woods. I'm curious to find the natural depressions in which salamanders breed. Are these actively maintained because rare salamanders are known to occupy them? I'm expecting the answer to be no. I expect the residential area to have a semi-manicured landscape, keeping with the theme of a wild surrounding. Not expecting to see any livestock on the agricultural envelope; only hay fields. Expect the restored wetland to look like it's got a decent diversity of plants (won't be at the property early enough to gauge bird diversity). Regarding the surrounding lands, I expect to see lots of natural space, but perhaps some lots with development activity. I expect a majority of the preserve's northern side to be fenced (thought I read in the monitoring reports that there have been evidence of possible trespassing). Not sure what to expect as it relates to Collins Creek on southern boundary. Guessing it will not be very wide but filled with water; dirt banks with little signs of erosion. Curious what the water quality will be of the creek. Are there any upstream pollution concerns? Expecting to learn that the 1,800 signature petition presented to the governing board for new airport last week was representing public dissension about the possible UNC airport development on part of Mrs. Kuenzler's property. Overall, I'm expecting to see a beautiful area that provides a wonderful viewscape of agriculture and natural lands, but little (if any) advertising of the nature preserve along the street approaching the house. I'm gathering that because Mrs. Kuenzler still lives there, she only entertains visitors who have received permission to access her property (either for a private tour or pre-planned workshop).

//Kuenzler Before Thoughts:// I am actually not entirely sure what to expect from our visit to the Kuenzler property. One issue I have had some trouble with when reading through the documents is determining the threats to the property. Some things I think may be issues/things I expect to see concerning the property: ·  Development around the property ·  Agricultural fields in use ·  Land cover that consists of one type of forest habitat (no micro-habitats) ·  Landowner that opposes management of the property My hope is that when we visit the property it will give us a better understanding of what could potentially threaten it and give us a better idea of what goals the landowner has for the future of the property in terms of management. //Kuenzler After Thoughts:// What we learned from our visit is completely different from the expectations I held. There was very little development that we saw when driving up to the entrance of the property (expected busy roads, especially with the potential of an airport being constructed nearby). Mrs. Kuenzler told us she did not know of any of her neighbors that were looking to sell their property (though this could change quickly). She took us on a tour around the property and we got a chance to view all of the various habitat types available. It was quite easy to see many different habitat types and cover within the forest from dense growth to fairly little ground cover. We even got to see what appeared to be ephemeral pools that are used by the different salamanders and frogs. The agricultural areas of the property were not being used for crops, but are being used for hay. One thing I did not mention in the ‘before’ thoughts was the wetland area. It was very well done, but smaller than I expected. However, Mrs. Kuenzler said the USDA checks it every year and it has been functioning well according to their standards. I think the biggest benefit to visiting the property was getting a chance to talk with the landowner. It was very unclear what she expected of the property for the future in the documents we had concerning the property. Several of the documents mentioned a ‘forever wild’ easement. Mrs. Kuenzler was very adamant that the property not be developed and that it is maintained for wildlife. When we asked about future management, she was very open to the ideas if it meant preserving/protecting wildlife. If TLC approached her with ideas it appeared she was not against the concept of no management.
 * Julia** expects to see a large open field of grass/hay, but I'm not sure if this is fenced off from the rest of the property. I don't think there are currently livestock, but it would be interesting to see the area where the pastures abutted the creek. I expect to see some beautiful hardwood forests and lots of woodpecker species. I do not have a clear idea of what the streams, depressions, or trails (if any) will look like, or what the water quality/clarity will be in the creek. I would like to assess what the neighboring community is like...does it seem like the adjacent properties are in the path of development? Will the tract of forest on the Kuenzler property be as valuable if the adjacent properties are developed? I expect to see a fairly immature wetland with low plant diversity. I do not expect to see signs of trespassing, except for a few stray pieces of trash. Depending on the width of the floodplain, I expect to see drift lines on the soil and low vegetation from the heavy rains we had in the previous months. I have no idea what the size or prominence of the house will be, but I think Jutta Kuenzler will be able to provide us with much insight into the personal reasons she and her late husband decided to conserve this property.
 * Kate:**


 * TFR trampling chain moved to TFR page - george 3 Oct**


 * Working Time-line for Kuenzler Project**

//Oct. 3:// Finish Vision, Scope, Targets, and Direct/Indirect Threats; have draft conceptual model in Miradi //Oct. 10:// Meet as group on Friday in/near Durham; hopefully site visit will be scheduled by this day. //Oct. 17:// Finish drafting situation analysis (i.e., identifying goals and strategies to address threats), prioritize threats, and start drafting results chains (identify assumptions, anticipated outcomes and measurement indicators). //Oct. 24:// Continue refining situation analysis and results chain based on additional analyses of site (including field trip, spatial analyses, documentation review) //Oct. 31:// Continue refining situation analysis and results chains. Is there a way to conduct a reality test on these ideas? We should reflect on what information is missing based on other class readings (don't have to be married to CMP's guidelines to measure conservation success). //Nov. 7:// Finalize situation analysis and results chains. //Nov. 14:// Assign any remaining parts of report to be written //Nov. 21:// Edit/compile final report, start drafting presentation (ppt. + Miradi?) Goal is to avoid worrying about project over T-giving; as long as presentation development is started by today we should be in good shape. //Nov. 28:// Complete finishing touches to presentation and report //Dec. 5:// FINAL Report/presentation done!


 * Property Brief:** [|KunzlerSummary.pdf]

Initial Thoughts on Kuenzler Wildlife Habitat Preserve
//Option 1// – Kuenzler Wildlife Habitat Preserve, Chapel Hill, Southwestern Orange County, NC //Option 2// – North Carolina Piedmont Ecoregion
 * Scope:**

//Option 1// – Prime forest habitat that supports a diversity of woody and herbaceous plants and wildlife, breeding grounds for Neotropical songbirds, resting grounds for winter migrating birds, a connection between other locally important forests. //Option 2// – A mature hardwood forest rich with biodiversity and representative of the native piedmont ecosystem of North Carolina. //Option 3// – Natural prime forest supporting the conservation values of wildlife habitat, air and water quality, working farm lands and open space.
 * Vision:**

1) Bottom-land hardwood forest 2) Upland forest o //Would young pine forest buffers for bottom-land and upland forests be a target or part of the management strategy? 3) Perennial springs/brooks (or Collins Creek in particular?) 4) Pond 5) Wetlands o// Or do we identify wetlands, pond, streams/brooks and bottom-land hardwood forest as the nested targets of a floodplain? One document used the floodplain term. //6) Natural depressions (breeding habitat for salamanders) 7) Bird diversity (breeding and resting habitat emphasized in Ed Kuenzler’s writing) 8) Salamanders (globally rare and state rare species) o// Or do we select specific animals of each animal group to serve as indicators of the above habitats? o Or do we highlight some species of concern – state/federal threatened/endangered and rare species? //9) Plant diversity 10) Agricultural pasture
 * Targets:**

1) Development (residential and/or commercial?) surrounding preserve 2) UNC airport for small aircraft (new development Sept. 2008; UNC would have to take the preserve via eminent domain)
 * Threats**:

Conservation education o// Preserve hosted Earth Day celebration activities for US Dept. of the Interior in 2003. Preserve also been used in the past to conduct private land conservation outreach activities for farmers and other landowners. //Research activities o// Could focus on evaluation of wetlands restoration effort on the preserve. Could provide service-learning opportunities for students. //Protection of surrounding properties o// One equestrian neighbor expressed interest in donating its land to establish a buffer for Collins Creek.//
 * Opportunities**: