[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-203203-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-203203-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","forest-regeneration-monitoring-frm-2026-discussion","Forest Regeneration Monitoring (FRM) - 2026 Discussion","","Forest Regeneration Monitoring (FRM) outlines a structured approach to assessing naturally regenerating forests in Wisconsin and determining how well silviculture prescriptions and management practices achieve desired regeneration outcomes. The program also quantifies the impact of deer browse on regeneration to support Wisconsin’s deer population goal-setting process. The discussion covers data collection status, reporting, data interpretation by site and landscape scales, program structure, and practical challenges such as irregular harvesting, shifting ownerships, invasive species, and natural variability.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/forest-regeneration-monitoring-frm-2026-discussion/203203/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/forest-regeneration-monitoring-frm-2026-discussion/203203.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"\tCallum ","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-09-04",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",10,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What are the primary goals of the FRM program?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"FRM assesses naturally regenerating forests in Wisconsin, evaluates the success of silviculture prescriptions and management practices, and provides data on deer impacts to inform deer population goal setting.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How does FRM structure its sampling over time?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"FRM runs on three-year cycles: Cycle 1 (2018–2020) initial stand sampling, Cycle 2 (2021–2023) first revisits, and Cycle 3 (2024–2026) second revisits with continued site inclusion.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"Why is FRM data important for forest management decisions?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"FRM supports both short-term and long-term decisions by tracking forest composition and regeneration trends, clarifying how management practices influence outcomes, and helping refine guidelines based on successes or challenges.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},203203,1788556824,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,120,123,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":125},"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},137451211410,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/2000bb0a9246f588df?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1786362646172706240","Forest Regeneration Monitoring (FRM)  \nGabe Spangler – FRM Coordinator Brad Hutnik – Forest Ecologist/Silviculturist Carmen Hardin – Applied Forestry Bureau Director  \n3/3/2026  \nToday’s Discussion  \n• Goals of FRM  \n• Status of data collection & reporting  \n• Use of FRM data  \n• Site-level  \n• Landscape-level  \n• Other uses  \n• Program structure  \nGoals of FRM  \n• Assess status of naturally regenerating forests in WI  \n• Evaluate success of silviculture prescriptions and management practices  \n• Provide data on impact of deer on forest regeneration to inform Wisconsin’s deer population goal setting process  \nWhy is This Information Important?  \nIncreases understanding of:  \n• Current forest composition, structure, and regeneration  \n• Trends in forest conditions  \n• Silvicultural and other forest management practices  \n• Interconnections between forests, deer and other stressors  \nInforms:  \n• Short-term and long-term forest management decisions  \n• Adjustments to management strategies based on regeneration successes or challenges  \n• Refinements to guidelines  \nSite Selection  \n• Counties with >30% forest cover  \n• Ownerships within each county  \n• Sampling needs based on common forest types among those ownerships within the county  \n• Most FRM sampling occurs on northern hardwoods, central hardwoods, oak, and white/red/jack pine forest types  \n• Management objective must be natural regeneration  \n• No plantations  \n• Site visit requests from foresters and landowners  \nFRM Stands Sampled by Ownership  \nRegional Sampling 2018-2025  \nRevisit Cycle  \n• FRM Functions on threeyear cycles  \n• Cycle 1: 2018-2020: Initial stand sampling  \n• Cycle 2: 2021-2023: First revisits, continued site inclusion  \n• Cycle 3: 2024-2026: Second revisits, continued  \nsite inclusion  \n• Establishment of trend data  \nFRM Stands Sampled during each 3-year Cycle  \nWhen to Stop Sampling  \n• Free to grow  \n• Stands with many stems escaping the sapling category  \n• Assess benchmarks to cease sampling for the beginning of our fourth cycle (2027)  \nChallenges of FRM Data Collection  \n• Irregular harvesting  \n• Good for forest, potentially adds noise to FRM data  \n• Natural year to year variability  \n• Browse % and other estimates  \n• Value of data coming from a single team trained together  \n• Stand boundaries redrawn, properties change hands  \n• Invasive species  \nData Interpretation  \n• Of Wisconsin's forests being managed for oak, what regions may be succeeding in regenerating this cover type?  \n• Deeper green: relatively high oak regeneration  \n• Red dot: oak regeneration lacking or localized  \nFRM-sampled oak stands \u003C15 years from harvest","cbCaivEmrn6xWIdb","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaivEmrn6xWIdb","pdf",15640460,31,"English","# Today’s Discussion\n## Goals of FRM\n## Why this information is important?\n## Site Selection\n## FRM Stands Sampled by Ownership\n## Regional Sampling 2018-2025\n## Revisit Cycle\n## When to Stop Sampling\n## Challenges of FRM Data Collection\n## Data Interpretation","[{\"question\":\"What are the primary goals of the FRM program?\",\"answer\":\"FRM assesses naturally regenerating forests in Wisconsin, evaluates the success of silviculture prescriptions and management practices, and provides data on deer impacts to inform deer population goal setting.\"},{\"question\":\"How does FRM structure its sampling over time?\",\"answer\":\"FRM runs on three-year cycles: Cycle 1 (2018–2020) initial stand sampling, Cycle 2 (2021–2023) first revisits, and Cycle 3 (2024–2026) second revisits with continued site inclusion.\"},{\"question\":\"Why is FRM data important for forest management decisions?\",\"answer\":\"FRM supports both short-term and long-term decisions by tracking forest composition and regeneration trends, clarifying how management practices influence outcomes, and helping refine guidelines based on successes or challenges.\"}]","Forest Regeneration Monitoring (FRM) - 2026 Discussion | PDF",78]