Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group
Botany Monitoring Report - 2010
Colin Dillingham, HFQLG Monitoring Team Leader
Jan 28, 2011
Kyle Merriam, Province Ecologist
Michelle Coppoletta, Botanist, Mt Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
Jim Belsher-Howe, Botanist, Mt Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
Lynée Crawford, Botanist, Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
Chris Christofferson, Botanist, Feather River Ranger District, Plumas National Forest
Jessica Pijoan, Botanist, Lassen National Forest
Allison Sanger, Botanist, Lassen National Forest
Susan Urie, Botanist, Tahoe National Forest
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to document findings of the cumulative monitoring efforts accomplished
from 2002 through 2010 by the Lassen, Plumas and Tahoe National Forest botanists. Monitoring in
2010 included both Implementation and Effectiveness monitoring. Implementation monitoring of units
treated in 2009 was conducted to determine if recommended mitigations and treatments were
accomplished as planned. Effectiveness monitoring was completed to determine what response
Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive (TES) or noxious weed species had to mitigations and
treatments or if new occurrences were found in project areas after treatment. The intent of the
monitoring was to identify what worked, what needs improvement for future projects, and to provide
documentation for internal Forest Service review as well as to the public. This annual monitoring is
required under the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (HFQLG).
METHODS
The monitoring methodology described in the May 10, 2004 version of the HFQLG Monitoring Plan
was used for implementation monitoring. A new comprehensive effectiveness monitoring plan to
assess whether HFQLG activities impact TES or special interest plant species was prepared on July
28, 2009. The following questions are addressed.
Implementation Monitoring Questions
Question 7: Were Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) plants surveyed and protected?
Question 8: Were noxious weed introductions prevented and existing infestations suppressed?
Effectiveness Monitoring Questions
Question 28: How do TES plant species respond to resource management activities? Did new
occurrences of TES plant species occur during or following project implementation?
Question 29: Were existing infestations of noxious weeds eliminated or contained?
Question 30: Were all new infestations of noxious weeds eliminated or did some become established?
Question 31: Did new infestations of noxious weeds occur during or following project implementation?
Sample Sizes
1
 Page 2
February 4, 2011
Linnea Hanson, Plumas National Forest Botanist, working with PSW Statistician in 1999, came up with
a TES Plant Implementation Monitoring scheme to achieve 90% compliance rate and 3.4 % precision
level using a sample size of 300 units in pool # 2 (to answer questions 7 and 8). The sampling scheme
was amended in 2008 by Jim Baldwin and Colin Dillingham and is filed
http://cdb.fs.usda.gov/content/dav/fs/NFS/Plumas/Program/HFQLG/Monitoring/Statistics/Compliance_
precision_20080512.xls. Linnea suggested that the sample size should be small enough so that we
can implement the program. An annual sample pool size of 60 units was determined (30 for TES and
30 for weeds, see below for more information). Statistical analyses of the monitoring data have been
limited to effectiveness monitoring results. We have evaluated observational data to formulate general
assessments of HFQLG Implementation and Effectiveness and to provide feedback to the public and
ourselves.
Sample Pools
The 2010 HFQLG Botany Monitoring program included both implementation and effectiveness
monitoring. In 2010, four sample pools were developed to answer both the implementation monitoring
questions as well as the effectiveness monitoring questions. Each sample pool had up to 30 project
treatment units included.
Table 1. Number of HFQLG project sites (i.e. timber sale harvest units) sampled to answer each
monitoring question on an annual basis. The total number of units does not count units
sampled in separate years to answer the same question.
Monitoring Question
7
8
28a*
28b*
29/30*
31*
2002
9
1
-
-
-
-
2003
29
5
-
5
-
5
2004
26
11
-
1
8
1
2005
31
17
31
23
12
23
2006
28
9
7
5
8
5
2007
30
22
12
8
17
8
2008
16
27
6
47
16
47
2009
15
11
6
22
42
22
2010
15
19
7
15
10
15
Total Number Units Sampled
199
122
69
126
113
126
* - Number of units sampled for effectiveness monitoring only includes post-treatment sampling.
Additional pre-treatment sampling efforts have been completed and will be included in the sample pool
after post-treatment sampling is completed. Questions 28b and 31 utilize Treated Stand Structure
Monitoring (TSSM) data. In addition, 19 randomly selected units were monitored in 2005 that were not
part of the TSSM data set.
Question 7 – Were TES plants surveyed and protected? Our sample pool to answer this question
was developed by reviewing the entire list of units treated in 2009 and determining which of these
 Page 3
February 4, 2011
treated units had mitigations for TES plants. All 15 units available were sampled under the HFQLG
monitoring protocol in 2010.
Question 8 – Were noxious weed introductions prevented and existing infestations
suppressed? The sample pool to answer this question was developed in a similar method to
Question 7; by reviewing the entire list of units treated in 2009 and determining which of these
treated units had mitigations for noxious weeds. There were 19 units with noxious weed control
areas/mitigations; and all 19 units were sampled under the protocol.
Question 28a – How do TES plant species respond to resource management activities? Pretreatment data was collected for 3 species (closed-lip penstemon, Carex petasata, Stenotus
lanuginosa) in 2010 in 10 treatment units. Post-treatment effects were evaluated for closed-lip
penstemon (10 units), Follett’s wild mint (2), long-stiped campion (2), Layne’s Butterwort (2) and
lens-pod milkvetch (4) in 20 HFQLG treatment and control units in 2010. Most of these evaluations
remeasured areas previously monitored; however, 7 were new post-treatment measurements and
only new unit evaluations are shown in Table 2. In addition, an extensive analysis was completed
on historical closed-lip penstemon monitoring data collected from 27 treatment units and two
controls.
Question 28b - Did new occurrences of TES species become established during or following
project implementation? Data from the ongoing Treated Stand Structure Monitoring (TSSM)
was used to answer this question. Fifteen additional units (107 total TSSM units) were monitored
for post-treatment data in 2010. One hundred and seven randomly selected units that previously
didn’t have TES plants occurrences were examined after harvest to determine if any new TES
plant occurrences had occurred in response to management activities.
Question 29/30 – Were existing infestations of noxious weeds eliminated or contained? Were all
new infestations of noxious weeds eliminated or did some become established? Units that had
previous noxious weed implementation monitoring and/or units that had treatments to noxious weed
species were included in the sample pool to answer questions 29 and 30. Twelve populations were
monitored in 2010, ten of these were new in the sample pool and two were remeasured. The two
remeasured units are not included in Table 1.
Question 31 – Did new infestations of noxious weeds occur during or following project
implementation?
Data from the ongoing Treated Stand Structure Monitoring (TSSM) was used to answer this question.
Sixteen additional units (107 total TSSM units) were monitored for post-treatment data in 2010. Data
on shrub, grass and forb cover were recorded at 15 sampling plots per unit during TSSM field
monitoring. TSSM field data collection protocols specify that percent cover data for noxious weeds are
recorded. Cover values on an individual plot are generally rounded to the nearest 10% cover.
Plot-level percent cover data for each species were divided by the total number of plots in a unit to
calculate a weighted percent cover. The weighted percent cover data were then totaled for each
species at each unit. These calculations gave an average percent cover per species per unit for both
the pre- and post- treatment monitoring data.
 Page 4
February 4, 2011
RESULTS
Implementation Monitoring Questions
Question 7: Were Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) plants surveyed and protected?
The specific questions that were addressed included the following: 1) Were protection measures
adequately documented and flagged on the ground, 2) Were control areas printed on contract maps
and 3) Did protection measures get implemented at plant occurrences? Table 2 below presents a
summary of the data collected to address question 2) “Were the protection measures implemented at
the plant occurrences?” which is considered the most critical element. Summary tables for individual
unit monitoring during the 2009 sampling effort are presented in Appendix 1.
Table 2. Monitoring results of botany control areas in the HFQLG Pilot Project
Number Control Areas
Percent of Control Areas
Year
monitored
successfully protected
2002
9
89%
2003
29
59%
2004
26
88%
2005
31
77%
2006
28
100%
2007
30
93%
2008
16
81%
2009
15
93%
2010
15
93%
Summary, Question 7
Out of the 15 TES protection/control areas monitored in 2010, 14 (93%) were protected as planned.
The minimum level of protection considered successful would be to have 90% of control areas
protected as planned. Therefore, this objective was met.
One site on the Hat Creek Ranger District wasn’t protected (See Appendix 3 for details). The control
area was mapped and flagged, but problems with protection occurred during implementation. The
mitigation measures were followed by not lighting the underburn within 50 feet of the occupied habitat.
However, when the fire left planned containment lines, it burned up the occurrence and eliminated the
plants (See Appendix 3 for more details).
Communication between botanists and contract administrators appears to be good, but unfortunately,
there was still one failure. The breach to the plant control area was extensive to one occurrence (99%
of plants lost). However, impacts to the special interest plant were restricted to only 1 of 44 known
occurrences (see Appendix 3). There is still improvement needed in tracking of control areas,
particularly for older projects. Continued coordination between the timber sale and service contract
administrators and botanists needs to occur to ensure control areas are established, mapped on timber
sale area and service contract maps, and clearly understood by both botanists and timber sale and
service contract administrators.
Lessons learned
Lessons learned from this that can improve the ability to protect plants in the future:
 Page 5
February 4, 2011
a) Improve upon writing mitigation measures / Integrated Design Features (IDFs) to protect
known TES and special interest plant occurrences and sub-occurrences. Amend older NEPA
documents and Biological Evaluations / Biological Assessments that could better address
mitigation measures / IDFs.
b) Consider more specific mitigations for burn projects keeping in mind the unpredictable nature
of fire.
c) Improve upon communication among specialists, planners, and implementers so that special
needs are revisited and discussed before implementing projects, especially when
implementation occurs some time after the NEPA is completed.
d) Ensure control areas are marked both on the map and on the ground for special interest plants
in need of protection.
Question 8: Were noxious weed introductions prevented and existing infestations suppressed?
Monitoring of the implementation of noxious weed mitigation measures was conducted to determine if
provisions for control of noxious weeds occurred. Summary results are shown in Table 3 below. The
results from unit specific monitoring conducted in 2010 are attached in Appendix 1. Previous years
detailed unit monitoring results are shown in corresponding annual reports.
Table 3. Monitoring results of noxious weed control measures in the HFQLG Pilot Project
Number of Weed
Percent of Weed
Sites with treatment
Percent of Projects
Sites with control
Year
or avoidance
with documented
measures
objectives in sample
Equipment Cleaning
implemented
pool
2002
1
0%
66%
2003
5
100%
100%
2004
11
55%
100%
2005
17
88%
93%
2006
9
100%
100%
2007
22
91%
100%
2008
27
89%
85%
2009
11
100%
100%
2010
19
95%
100%
Administrators of timber sale and service contracts were contacted and questioned as to whether the
contract clause 6.35 (equipment cleaned and weed free) was implemented.
Summary, Question 8
There were 19 sites with weeds evaluated in 2010. All of the occurrences, except one site on Feather
River Ranger District, were either treated and/or avoided during management activities.
The reason the Feather River District weed occurrences were not properly managed is due to a
failure during contract preparation (see Appendix 4 for more details). The weed mitigation
measures were not properly inserted into the contract. Before the sites were impacted during
harvest activities, it was realized that the control areas were not in the contract. However, the
sites were still impacted during harvest activities. An important lesson learned from this event is
that control areas can be added to existing contracts even after contracts have been awarded.
 Page 6
February 4, 2011
Equipment Cleaning Documentation
The HFQLG project area has done well in implementing the contract specifications of equipment
cleaning. Equipment cleaning was documented for all of the projects investigated in 2010. Projects
reviewed include South Station DFPZ and Gordon Aspen Enhancement project on the Lassen NF;
Summit Mastication, Five Points Mastication, Jenkins Timber Sale, Genesee Fuels Reduction Project
LaPorte Fuel Mastication Contract and Mt Hope Stewardship project on the Plumas NF; and Dinkaroo
Timber Sale, Jumbuck, and Billabong Timber Sale projects on the Tahoe NF.
Lessons learned
Aggressive action prior to and during project implementation has been successful in eradicating small
populations of noxious weeds as well as preventing new occurrences. Less success has been realized
in larger populations or species more difficult to eradicate. Generally, but not universally, the
treatments designed to reduce noxious weeds appear to be preventing the occurrences from
expanding. Additional efforts are needed to reduce the potential for invasion of both musk thistle and
medusahead.
Lessons learned to prevent impacting weed control areas in the future?
1. Contract maps should be reviewed by all specialists to confirm all required mitigations and
control areas are represented on contract maps.
2. Have a field review with the contract administrator to review mitigations prior to project
implementation.
3. In all contracts, there is contractual language outlining how to add additional resource
protection measures. Control areas can be added to existing contract when needed.
Effectiveness Monitoring Questions
Question 28: How do TES plant species respond to resource management activities? Did new
occurrences of TES plant species occur during or following project implementation?
Table 4 presents a summary of TES effectiveness monitoring for the entire HFQLG Pilot Project area.
Effectiveness monitoring was initiated in 2005, although methodology changed in 2006. Tables that
include specific 2010 results for Question 28 are included in Appendix 1. Previous years efforts are
summarized in corresponding annual reports.
Table 4. Monitoring results of TES effectiveness monitoring in the HFQLG Pilot Project
Percent of monitored
Number of treatment
populations that had neutral
Year
units with TES plant
or positive responses to
monitoring sites
HFQLG vegetation
1
management activities
2
2005
31
97%
2006
7
86%
2007
12
75%
2008
6
83%
2009
6
100%
2010
7
100%
 Page 7
February 4, 2011
1.
Results are preliminary and may include both anecdotal and statistically significant changes.
Further data collection and analysis at the species level will be required before findings will be
considered final.
2.
Results presented for 2005 include monitoring of populations in protected control areas (i.e.
many of the 2005 monitored sites were not actually treated by HFQLG vegetation
management activities, rather the monitoring was conducted to ensure the populations within
protected control areas were still present after implementation of the surrounding vegetation
management activities).
Summary of Question 28, part A: How do TES plant species respond to resource management
activities? Data has been collected and analyzed for long-stiped campion, Webber’s milk vetch, lenspod milk vetch, Follett’s wild mint and closed-lip penstemon. Detailed results are included in
Appendices 5-7. See Lessons Learned, below, for a short summary.
Question 28, part B: Did new occurrences of TES plant species occur during or following
project implementation?
Data from the ongoing Treated Stand Structure monitoring (TSSM) was used to answer this question.
As of the end of the 2010 monitoring season one-year post-treatment data were available for a total of
107 units, and 15 of these units also had five-year post-treatment data. These 107 units had been
randomly selected according to TSSM monitoring protocol. Sampling plots were established and pretreatment data were recorded prior to treatment application. Post-treatment monitoring data was
collected one-year after treatment at all 107 units, and at five-year post-treatment for fifteen of the 107
units. In addition, a unique set of 19 units were monitored in 2005 and that data was analyzed in the
2005 botany monitoring report. No new occurrences of TES plants were located following project
implementation.
Lessons Learned
The following short summaries were taken from more extensive monitoring results. Monitoring reports
for closed-lip penstemon, long-stiped campion, lens-pod milk vetch, and Follett’s wild mint are attached
as appendices 5-7. Please refer to the appendices for the complete reports. Further data collection
and analysis is planned. The following summaries are considered preliminary.
The response of closed-lip penstemon, Penstemon personatus, following a variety of forest harvest
treatments was analyzed using frequency data (Appendix 5). High intensity treatments, such as
clearcutting and shelterwood harvest, resulted in a significant decline in closed-lip penstemon
frequency. Moderate intensity treatments, such as mechanical thinning and overstory removal, did not
result in a significant decline in closed-lip penstemon frequency. Closed-lip penstemon frequency is
most likely to decline in the first year or two following treatment; however it may rebound to pretreatment levels after three to five years.
The first year after treatment response of long-stiped campion to mechanical thinning was evaluated
using a census method (Appendix 6). Post-treatment monitoring determined that the 2010 flowering
population (104 plants) was between the lower count (61 - 2009) and upper count (118 - 2007) of pretreatment population counts. Therefore, preliminary results indicate that the mechanical thin treatment
caused no change to the population.
The response of lens-pod milk vetch to hand thin and mechanical thin treatments was evaluated using
plot based plant counts. Populations of lens-pod milk vetch remained stable in mechanical thin and
hand thin treatments over time (years 1 through 6 post-treatment) and there was not a significant
change in numbers.
Follett’s wild mint showed no difference between the plots that were treated with Group Selection
harvest and the control plots. There was also no significant interaction between the treatments and
time. There was a significant effect of year (p=0.01; ά = 0.05) which did not appear related to
 Page 8
February 4, 2011
treatment. The number of stems within all of the plots (whether they were treated or controls) was
significantly lower in 2008, than in either 2006 or 2010. The number of stems was not significantly
different between 2006 (pre-treatment) and 2010 (three years post-treatment). This suggests that there
may be relatively large natural variability in the number of Follett’s wild mint stems between years.
Question 29: Were existing infestations of noxious weeds eliminated or contained?
Question 30: Were all new infestations of noxious weeds eliminated or did some become
established?
Unit specific treatment effectiveness monitoring tables for 2010 surveys are presented in Appendix 1.
Table 5 presents a summary of weed effectiveness monitoring for the entire HFQLG Pilot Project area.
Effectiveness monitoring was initiated in 2004.
Table 5. Monitoring results of weed effectiveness sites in the HFQLG Pilot Project
Percent of monitored
populations that did not
exhibit increase in weed
Number of treatment
populations in response to
Year
units with weed
HFQLG vegetation
monitoring sites
management in concert with
weed eradication measures or
site avoidance*
2004
8
63%
2005
12
100%
2006
8
63%
2007
17
94%
2008
16
75%
2009
42
95%
2010
11
91%
* - Results are preliminary and may include both anecdotal and statistically significant changes. Further
data collection and analysis at the species level will be required before findings will be considered final.
Summary Questions 29 and 30
Annual hand pulling treatment of musk thistle appears to be effective at containing populations in most
situations. Annual hand pulling of Dalmatian Toadflax at one locality on the Almanor Ranger District
does not appear to be effective. Larger occurrences likely need more than once-annual visits to ensure
all seed production is eliminated. Erratic, less than annual hand pulling treatments, allow populations to
expand.
Intensive hand control is an effective technique for controlling or eradicating small musk thistle
(Carduus nutans) populations on the Sierraville Ranger District. A more aggressive musk thistle
eradication effort may be warranted in areas with larger populations. The key to successful musk thistle
control is to prevent seed production, which is the only form of reproduction.
 Page 9
February 4, 2011
Lessons Learned
Aggressive action prior to and through project implementation has generally been successful in
eradicating small populations of noxious weeds as well as preventing new occurrences. Less success
has been realized in larger populations or species more difficult to eradicate. These efforts appear to
be limiting noxious weed spread on the Lassen, Plumas and Tahoe National Forests. Additional efforts
are needed particularly with medusahead, Dalmatian toadflax, musk thistle and yellow starthistle.
Question 31: Did new infestations of noxious weeds occur during or following project
implementation?
As of the end of 2010, 107 units have been monitored for noxious weed introductions as part of the
Treated Stand Structure Monitoring (TSSM) protocol. Prior to treatment, only one unit had an invasive
weed population detectable with the protocol. Weighted percent cover for this cheat grass population
was two percent.
Twenty-five (23%) of the units had detectable invasive weed populations after treatment (Table 6).
Thirteen of these units were on the Lassen National Forest and 12 were on the Plumas National
Forest. None of the detections occurred on the Tahoe National Forest. However, two landings on the
Leftover Timber Sale Area, Sierraville RD were found to have new populations of musk thistle, but
these units were not part of the Treated Stand Structure monitoring sample pool and are not included
for overall percentages.
Cheat grass was the species detected in 76% of the infested Treated Stand Structure Monitoring
(TSSM) plots. The percent cover tends to increase with time since treatment. Cheat grass is an
undesirable, aggressive non-native species and is monitored by HFQLG Pilot Project area botanists.
There is a substantial amount of published research demonstrating that cheat grass infestations can
have serious negative impacts on native plant populations, wildlife habitat value and ecosystem
function, and have the capacity to alter fire behavior and frequency. Cheat grass typically increases
following disturbances to soils, canopy cover and native plant populations. This species is a concern
and the monitoring data through 2010 appear to show that HFQLG treatments are providing suitable
habitat and disturbances for the species to expand in extent and cover. The most drastic measured
increase in cheat grass was in Antelope Border units 13B and 15B after the Boulder wildfire came
through the units (Table 6).
Klamath weed and bull thistle were detected in one and five units respectively after treatment. Klamath
weed and bull thistle are invasive non-native species that out-compete native plant species for water,
nutrients, and space.
Although cheat grass, Klamath weed and bull thistle were the only invasive weed species recorded in
the plots, the HFQLG monitoring efforts indicate a low level presence of yellow starthistle, medusahead
(grass) and Scotch broom (shrub) at some of the monitoring units. However, these latter three species
may or may not be associated with HFQLG activities and these small populations may have been
present before the HFQLG treatments. In one instance during the 2008 monitoring effort, some musk
thistle outside of the randomly located TSSM plots appears to have been brought in when equipment
was not cleaned.
 Page 10
February 4, 2011
Table 6. – Monitoring units with occurrences of noxious weeds. Percent cover values are the average
cover for that species across the entire unit area sampled. Many plots do not have the 5-year post
treatment reading yet, and therefore data is not available (marked “na”).
District
Eagle Lake
Lassen NF
Almanor
Project
Name
Treatment
Harvey
Thin
Southside
Thin
Cherry Hill
Thin
Blacks
Ridge
Thin
North
Coble
Thin
1
Group
Hat Creek
Thin
Pittville
Plumas NF
Beckwourth
Feather
River
Mt. Hough
1
Cabin
Last
Chance
Group,
underburn
Group,
Thin
Thin
Invasive
Species
Cheat
grass
Bull thistle
Cheat
grass
Cheat
grass
Cheat
grass
Cheat
grass
Cheat
grass
Cheat
grass
Cheat
grass
Bull thistle
Cheat
grass
Red Clover
Thin
Cheat
grass
Brush
Creek
Hand thin,
pile burn
Klamath
Weed
Antelope
Border
Thin
Cheat
grass
Guard
Snake
Waters
Thin
Group
Masticate
Bull Thistle
Bull Thistle
Bull thistle
Unit #
Pre
1-Year
Post
5-Year
Post
60
0
0.67
na
14
18
0
0
2.67
2.00
na
na
133
0
2.00
na
5
16
5
8
0
0
2.00
0
10.00
3.33
2.66
0.67
na
na
na
na
27068
0
6.00
na
29166
0
3.33
na
29181
0
1.33
na
30115
0
0.67
0.67
471
10
13
3
10
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.5
1.33
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
na
na
na
na
na
na
24
0
0.67
na
13B
15A
15B
16
686
8D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.67
3
0
0.20
0.07
0
7.33
2.67
3
26.7
na
na
0.07
2
Thin = mechanically thinned, Group = group select.
A wildfire burned through this unit 3 years after treatment, and may have been part of the reason there
was a large increase in cheat grass in this unit.
3
A wildfire burned through these units 3 months before the September 2006 post-1 reading, and may have
been part of the reason there was a large increase in cheat grass in this unit at post-5 measurement.
2
 Page 11
February 4, 2011
Key Findings
Botany
Botany monitoring includes both Implementation and Effectiveness monitoring. Implementation
monitoring of units treated in 2009 was conducted to determine if recommended mitigations and
treatments were accomplished as planned. Effectiveness monitoring was completed to determine
responses of Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive (TES) or noxious weed species to mitigations and
treatments, or if new occurrences were found in project areas after treatment. The intent of the
monitoring was to identify what worked, what needs improvement for future projects, and to provide
documentation for internal Forest Service review as well as to the public. Monitoring methodologies
are described in the HFQLG Monitoring Plan.
Sensitive Plant Protection
Out of the 15 threatened, endangered or sensitive (TES) plant protection/control areas monitored in
2010, 14 (93%) were protected as planned during HFQLG treatments. The minimum level of
protection considered successful would be to have 90% of control areas protected as planned (though
100 percent would be optimum). Therefore, this objective was met in 2010. One site was not
protected. Though mitigation measures were followed for a prescribed fire (mapping and flagging
control areas; lighting the fire over 50 feet from the sensitive plant occurrence), the fire left planned
containment lines and eliminated the plants. Achievement of the optimum protection level (100 percent
of control areas protected during treatment) will require continuing improvements in communication
between botanists and contract administrators, to ensure effective marking, awareness and avoidance
of control areas.
Sensitive Plant Response to Management Activities
The first year after treatment, response of long-stiped campion to mechanical thinning was evaluated
using a census method. Post-treatment monitoring determined that the 2010 flowering population (104
plants) was between the lower count (61 - 2009) and upper count (118 - 2007) of pre-treatment
population counts. Therefore, preliminary results indicate that the mechanical thin treatment caused no
change to the population.
The response of lens-pod milk vetch to hand thin and mechanical thin treatments was evaluated using
plot based plant counts. Populations of lens-pod milk-vetch remained stable in mechanical thin and
hand thin treatments over time (years 1 through 6 post-treatment) and there was not a significant
change in numbers.
Follett’s wild mint showed no difference between the plots that were treated with group selection
harvest and the control plots. There was also no significant interaction between the treatments and
time.
The response of closed-lip penstemon following a variety of past forest harvest treatments was
analyzed using frequency data. This data was collected on historical treatments that have similar onthe-ground effects to mechanical group selection and DFPZ construction. High intensity treatments,
such as clearcutting and shelterwood harvest, resulted in a significant decline in closed-lip penstemon
frequency. Moderate intensity treatments, such as mechanical thinning and overstory removal, did not
result in a significant decline in closed-lip penstemon frequency. Closed-lip penstemon frequency is
most likely to decline in the first year or two following treatment; however it may rebound after year
three to pre-treatment levels.
Monitoring also looks for new occurrences of TES plants species after HFQLG project implementation.
No new occurrences have been found in the 107 units surveyed before and after project
implementation through the past 10 years.
 Page 12
February 4, 2011
Noxious Weeds
Monitoring examines the effect of HFQLG activities and associated weed control and prevention
measures on the establishment, eradication and spread of noxious weeds. There were 19 sites with
weeds evaluated in 2010. All of the occurrences except one, were treated and/or avoided during
management activities. The inadequate treatment of the one weed site was due to an oversight
during contract preparation. The weed mitigation measures were not properly inserted into the
contract. Eleven projects were reviewed in 2010 for equipment cleaning documentation. All projects
had equipment cleaning documentation in the project files.
There were 11 sites with weeds evaluated in 2010 to determine if existing weed populations were
eliminated or contained. There was a 91 percent success rate in eliminating or containing the weed
populations in 2010, although all of these would be considered small, relatively easy sites to treat. For
example, careful annual hand-pulling treatment of the musk thistle (Carduus nutans) populations on the
Sierraville Ranger District appears to eliminate small populations. Aggressive action prior to and
through project implementation has generally been successful in eradicating small populations of
noxious weeds. Less success has been realized in larger populations or species more difficult to
eradicate. With these species or populations, high intensity of control, with multiple treatments per year
and possibly including treatments other than hand pulling, appears to be warranted HFQLG weed
control efforts appear to be limiting noxious weed spread on the Lassen, Plumas and Tahoe National
Forests. Additional efforts are needed particularly with medusahead, Dalmatian toadflax, musk thistle
and yellow starthistle.
Twenty-five of 107 units monitored (23%) had substantial new populations of invasive species one to
five years after treatment, and populations seem to expand once established. New populations include
Klamath weed, which is on the California Department of Agriculture (2003) noxious weed list, and cheat
grass and bull thistle, which are not. Regardless, all of these species are highly invasive and potentially
threatened ecosystem health and function.
 Page 13
February 4, 2011
Appendix 1.
The following tables represent summaries of all available data collected in 2010 for questions 7, 8, 28,
29 and 30.
Implementation Monitoring Questions
Question 7: Were Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) plants surveyed and protected?
Plumas NF, Mt Hough RD
Occurrence
Number
Occurrence
protected?
Comments
Treatment
LUDA_152
Yes
Control areas successfully
protected
DFPZ
construction
CLMIL3_038
Yes
Control areas successfully
protected
DFPZ
construction
Species
Occurrence
Number
Occurrence
protected?
lens pod milk vetch
ASLE_033B
Yes
Sale Name
Species
Corridor
Wildland Urban Quincy Lupine
Interface
Mildred’s
Meadow Valley
Clarkia
Plumas NF, Beckwourth RD
Sale
Name
Mabie
Service
Contract
Comments
Treatment
Fall burn required in
mitigation and properly
implemented.
Underburn
Plumas NF, Feather River RD
Occurrence Occurrence
Number
protected?
Sale Name Species
Occurrences,
Slapjack mutant
not
30
tan oak numbered
Slapjack Humboldt
38
Lily
002
Yes
Comments
Treatment
Equipment excluded from 2 occurrences timber harvest
successfully.
Yes
Control areas successfully protected.
DFPZ
construction
Lassen NF, Eagle Lake RD
Sale Name
Species
Occurrence Occurrence
Number protected?
Gordon
Disappearing
Aspen
MIEV-004
monkeyflower
unit 812
Lassen NF, Hat Creek RD
Yes
Comments
Treatment
Mitigation implemented as planned.
Aspen
Enhancement
 Page 14
February 4, 2011
Sale
Name
Species
North
Coble
Cusick’s stick seed
HACU-004
Disappearing
monkeyflower
MIEV-002
Yes
Mitigation implemented as
planned; control area protected.
DFPZ
construction
Disappearing
monkeyflower
MIEV-002
Yes
Mitigation implemented as
planned; control area protected.
DFPZ
construction
Comments
Treatment
South
Station
Unit 2
South
Station
Unit 3
Occurrence Occurrence
Number protected?
Comments
Treatment
Although mitigation measure
No, see
followed, underburn escaped and Under burn
appendix 3
burned up occurrences.
Tahoe NF, Sierraville RD
Sale
Name
Species
Occurrence Occurrence
Number protected?
Jumbuck
Unit 12
spring (not fen)
Yes
Jumbuck
Unit 13
Spring
Yes
Jumbuck
Unit 26
Broad-nerved
hump moss
Jumbuck
Unit 33
Possible EPHO
Yes
Jumbuck
Unit 23
Fen
Yes
Jumbuck
Unit 24
Fen
Yes
MEUL
Yes
spring is on sale area map, and
Aspen
Enhancement
spring was left intact
Aspen
spring is on sale area map, and
Enhancement
spring was left intact
Aspen
Logging did not affect this fen or
Enhancement
moss
Aspen
Flagged and avoid and marked on
Enhancement
map.
Aspen
Tractor keep out signs posted,
Enhancement
fens marked on map and mostly
excluded from unit
Aspen
fens marked on map and a few
conifers closest to the fens were Enhancement
left
Question 8: Were noxious weed introductions prevented and existing infestations suppressed?
Lassen NF, Hat Creek RD
Sale
Name
Species
Occur.
Number
Penny
Pines WUI
Squarrose
Knapweed
CESQ004
Cabin
Canada thistle
Cabin
Klamathweed
Cabin
Klamathweed
CIAR4039
HYPE026
HYPE081
Occurrence
treated to
protocol?
yes
yes
yes
yes
Comments
Site visited/treated in 1998, 2000, 2002, 2003 and
2010. No plants present since 2000.
Site visited/treated in 2008 and 2010. No plants
present since 2008.
Site visited/treated in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006,
2007 and 2010. No plants present since 2003.
Site treated in 2006 and no plants in 2007 or
2010.
 Page 15
February 4, 2011
Lassen NF, Almanor RD
Occurrence
Sale
Occur.
treated to
Name
Species
Number
protocol?
Clone Unit
Canada thistle CIAR4-018A
yes
121
Comments
Treated annually 2002 - 2010 except 2005
Plumas NF, Mt Hough RD
Sale
Name
Genesee
Fuels
Genesee
Fuels
Genesee
Fuels
Species
yellow
starthistle
medusahead
medusahead
Occur.
Number
Occurrence
treated to
protocol?
CESO3
0293
TACA8
0176
TACA8
0177
Comments
Yes
Yes
Yes
Plumas NF, Feather River RD
Sale
Name
Slapjack
129
Species
Occur.
Number
Scotch broom
Three
and
unnumbered
French broom occurrences
Occurrence
treated to
protocol?
No
Comments
Three control areas to prevent weed spread
were impacted by operations. Contract failed
to incorporate botany control areas from the
NEPA document.
 Page 16
February 4, 2011
Tahoe NF, Sierraville RD
Sale Name Species
Jumbuck Unit
25
Jumbuck Unit
3
Jumbuck Unit
7
Jumbuck Unit
11
Jumbuck Unit
29
Jumbuck Unit
30
Jumbuck Unit
31
Jumbuck Unit
23
Jumbuck Unit
24
Jumbuck Unit
6
Musk thistle
Occurrence
Number
Canu4 00021
Occurrence
treated to
protocol? Comments
Yes
Musk thistle
Yes
Musk thistle
Yes
0 weeds found
0 weeds found
Canu4 00044
0 weeds found
Musk thistle
Yes
Musk thistle
Yes
0 weeds found
Canu4 00021A
Musk thistle
0 weeds found
Yes
Canu4 00021
Musk thistle
0 weeds found
Yes
Canu4 00021
Musk thistle
0 weeds found
Yes
nearby, not in unit
Musk thistle
Musk thistle
0 weeds found
Yes
CANU4 00005C
Canu4 00007
Waypoint 6CAN99
0 weeds found
Yes
8 weeds removed
 Page 17
February 4, 2011
Question 28a: How do TES plant species respond to resource management activities?
Lassen NF, Almanor RD
Sale Name
Deadhorse
Species
Monitoring Design
Treatment
Year
Effectiveness monitoring results 2010
BACI - Before After
No significant population change in 3
long-stiped
Control Impact
Mechanical
years pre-treatment data. Postcampion 1 treatment and 1 Thin fall 2009 treatment data Indicated no significant
control plot
change.
Lotts Aspen
BACI - Before After
Oak and
closed-lip
Control Impact
Additional data collected at this site in
Planned 2011
Pine
penstemon 1 treatment and 1
2010 for better pretreatment data
Enhancement
control plot
Lassen NF, Eagle Lake RD
Sale
Name
Species
Monitoring Design
Carex
BACI - Before After
petasata
Control Impact
Ebey
and
3 treatment and 3
Stenotus
control plots
lanuginosa
Treatment
Year
Effectiveness monitoring results 2010
Planned No significant population change in 3 years preunderburn
treatment data. Post-treatment data to be
2011
collected in 2011.
Plumas NF, Feather River RD
Project
Slapjack
Underburn
Monitoring Design
Treatment
Year
Effectiveness monitoring results
2010
BACI - Before After
Layne’s
Control Impact
butterwort 1 treatment and 1
control plot
underburn
2008
Increased Stem Number
Treatment
Effectiveness monitoring
results 2010
2006
Populations of vetch remained
stable in mechanical thin and hand
thin treatments over time.
Species
Plumas NF, Beckwourth RD
Sale
Name
Species
Monitoring Design
Mabie
lens-pod
Paired control sites with 4
62, 67,
milk
mechanical and hand thinning
142 and
vetch
treatment units.
145
 Page 18
February 4, 2011
Plumas NF, Mt Hough RD
Project
Webber’s
Milkvetch habitat
enhancement
China Grade
Unit
Webber’s
Milkvetch habitat
enhancement
China Grade
Unit
Species
Monitoring Design
Treatment
Year
Effectiveness monitoring
results 2010
Webber’s
milk vetch
BACI - Before After
Control Impact
1 treatment and 1
control area
Handthin
2008 - 2009
Pileburn
2009
Number of seedlings
significantly increased after
hand thin treatment
Webber’s
milk vetch
Experimental design,
to evaluate how fire
intensity affects
germination rates
Underburn
2010
Post-treatment data to be
collected in 2011
2007 - 2008
Data analysis has not been
completed. Look for results in
the 2011 report.
Line Intercept Data,
3 control areas,
Meadow Valley, closed-lip
2 group selection
Basin T.S.
penstemon
1 hand thin
2 mechanical thin
Moderate to low intensity
Frequency Data Analyzed old data
treatments had no negative
Mt Hough and
3 mechanical thin
to determine
closed-lip
effects, High intensity
Feather River
17 overstory removal effects of timber
penstemon
treatments had negative
Ranger District
3 shelterwood
harvest treatments
effects, populations rebounded
4 clearcut
of 1980s
3 years after treatment
BACI - Before After
Control Impact
Meadow Valley Follett’s wild
Group Selection
1 group selection
No significant effects
Project
mint
2007
unit (6 plots) and 2
control plots
Question 29: Were existing infestations of noxious weeds eliminated or contained?
Question 30: Were all new infestations of noxious weeds eliminated or did some become
established?
Lassen NF Noxious Weed Infestations Monitored for treatment effectiveness
Ranger
District and
Sale Name
Noxious
Weed
Species
Almanor
Whip 91
Dalmatian
Toadflax
Occurrence Treatment
treated? Effective?
LNF #9
No
Monitoring Comments
Plot established in 2006- pulled 331 plants, 231
plants in 2007, 626 in 2008 and 1403 in 2010.
Number of plants increasing despite hand treatment
efforts.
 Page 19
February 4, 2011
Plumas NF, Mt Hough Ranger District Noxious Weed Infestations Monitored for treatment
effectiveness
Project
Species
Monitoring Design
BACI - Before After
Empire Mastication and
Control Impact
medusahead
Burn
1 group selection
and 1 control plot
Treatment Effectiveness monitoring results
Year
2010
2011
Pretreatment data collected in
2010
Tahoe NF, Sierraville RD Noxious Weed Infestations Monitored for treatment effectiveness
Noxious
Sale Name
Occurrence
Treatment
Weed
Effectiveness Monitoring Results
and Unit
treated?
Effective?
Species
Jumbuck
Musk
Yes
Canu4 00021
0 weeds found
thistle
Unit 25
Jumbuck
Unit 3
Jumbuck
Unit 7
Jumbuck
Unit 11
Jumbuck
Unit 29
Jumbuck
Unit 30
Jumbuck
Unit 31
Jumbuck
Unit 23
Jumbuck
Unit 24
Musk
thistle
Jumbuck
Unit 6
Musk
thistle
Canu4 00044
Musk
thistle
Yes
0 weeds found
Yes
0 weeds found
Yes
0 weeds found
Musk
thistle
Canu4 00021A
Yes
0 weeds found
Musk
thistle
Canu4 00021
Yes
0 weeds found
Musk
thistle
Canu4 00021
Yes
0 weeds found
Musk
thistle
nearby, not in
unit
Yes
0 weeds found
Musk
thistle
CANU4 00005C
Yes
0 weeds found
Musk
thistle
Canu4 00007
Waypoint
6CAN99
Yes
8 weeds removed, continued hand
pulling and monitoring to eliminate
occurrence is necessary.
 Page 20
February 4, 2011
Appendix 2. Botany Control Area Tracking Sheet
Botany Control Area Tracking Sheet
Project Name:
(See attached map for unit locations)
Unit number
Species
Date Flag/Tag
Completed
Date field
Flag/tag Completed
GIS on
visit with
by
contract map
sale
admin
Field Visit
Completed by
 Page 21
February 4, 2011
Appendix 3. Review of failure to protect Special Interest Plant, Cusick’s Stick Seed.
Lassen National Forest
TES Plant Implementation Monitoring for Special Interest Plant:
Hackelia cusickii occurrence # 4
Jessica Pijoan, Assistant Forest Botanist, September 30, 2010
Hackelia cusickii (Cusick’s stick seed) occurrence # 4, at the time of recognition for 2010 QLG
monitoring, consisted of six sub-occurrences mapped to the Lassen National Forest GIS layer with
approximately 200 individuals previously recorded on a May 3, 1994, field survey form. The occurrence
is on the Hat Creek Ranger District west of Moon Reservoir and east and somewhat north of the
junction of FS roads 18 & 22 in an open western juniper stand. On July 15, 2010, the occurrence was
monitored for protection. None of the six previously known sub-occurrences or juniper trees under
which Hackelia cusickii (HACU) grows were present in the area and it was evident the area had
burned. One new previously unrecorded sub-occurrence of HACU consisting of one individual was
found a little north of the northernmost known sub-occurrence.
Large diameter, mature junipers with low sweeping branches are habitat for HACU and the species is
found growing under their canopy. Correspondence with the Hat Creek Fire Management Officer,
Debbie Mayer, informed us that in fall of 2008 there was an underburn in the HACU #4 area and firing
ignitions did not occur within 50 feet of juniper trees >12” dbh as directed by the Integrated Design
Features (IDFs). The brush burned hotter than anticipated resulting in a fair amount of tree mortality
and it is likely the resulting snags were later taken for fuel wood as the area is adjacent to FS roads 18
& 22 servicing state highways 299, 89, and 44 and nearby communities. The area is flat and easily
accessible by vehicles travelling off-road. However, there was no sign of any motorized travel,
mechanical disturbance, or other disturbance than the fire in 2010.
Consequently, any previously known existing HACU individuals in occurrence #4 and their habitat were
lost. Protection did not occur of the six sub-occurrences of HACU # 4 selected for monitoring.
Mitigations through instruction of the IDFs were followed (see IDFs below).
IDFs in the Biological Evaluation for sensitive plants for the North Coble Project signed June
6, 2001, state:
Integrated Design Features identified as part of the proposed project design which pertain to
botanical resources:
1. Identify all known botanical sites and exclude ground-disturbing activities from all identified
botanical sites and the Murken Bench Special Interest Area.
2. Retain juniper trees greater than 12 inches DBH with low, sweeping branches and mossy
understory as a source of the special interest plant Cusick’s stick seed; where feasible, retain
larger diameter juniper in the DFPZs when underburning by not firing within 50 feet of these
trees.
The North Coble Reoffer Timber Sale map does not show the HACU # 4 area as a control area, nor
was the area tagged on the ground as a control area.
There are a total of 34 Hackelia cusickii occurrences on the Lassen National Forest including HACU
occurrence #4, which as of 2010 has one additional sub-occurrence consisting of one individual. There
has been a sizable decrease to the HACU population of occurrence #4 as it has decreased from
approximately 200 individuals to one. However, on the Lassen National Forest there are 33 other
occurrences known and recorded making the overall decrease of HACU on the forest relatively minor.
The presence of one individual found in 2010 within the HACU #4 occurrence area indicates there are
viable seeds in the area. Other large junipers that survived the fire can serve as HACU habitat in the
area.
 Page 22
February 4, 2011
Lessons learned from this that can improve the ability to protect plants in the future:
e) Improve upon writing mitigation measures / IDFs to protect known TES and special interest
plant occurrences and sub-occurrences. Amend older NEPA documents and Biological
Evaluations / Biological Assessments that could better address mitigation measures / IDFs.
f) Consider more specific mitigations for burn projects keeping in mind the unpredictable nature
of fire.
g) Improve upon communication among specialists, planners, and implementers so that special
needs are revisited and discussed before implementing projects, especially when
implementation occurs some time after the NEPA is completed.
h) Ensure control areas are marked both on the map and on the ground for special interest plants
in need of protection.
 Page 23
February 4, 2011
Appendix 4. Failure to properly implement Noxious Weed control measures on the Feather
River RD, Slapjack Fuels Reduction Project.
25 Oct 2010
What was supposed to occur?
The Slapjack FEIS appendix F indicates specific controlled areas for noxious weeds were
flagged for avoidance in unit 129 in an effort to prevent spread of the species.
What actually occurred?
There were three control areas identified on the ground with noxious weed flagging. In
September 2010 Slapjack Unit 129 was examined by Chris Christofferson, District Botanist as
part of the implementation monitoring program. It was observed that the control areas were
not avoided during project activities.
What caused the failure?
1. The control areas were reviewed with the District Botanist and the contract preparer.
Initially the control areas were properly represented but the contract was revised
three times and these control areas were inadvertently deleted from the sale area
maps during the revision process.
2. The botanist was not consulted during the final contract for these units.
3. During project implementation, there was miscommunication between the sale
administrator and the district botanist regarding whether the controlled areas could
be added to the contract prior to implementation but after award of contract.
Lessons learned regarding how can this situation be avoided in the future?
4. Contract maps should be reviewed by all specialists to confirm all required
mitigations and control areas are represented on contract maps.
5. Have a field review with the contract administrator to review mitigations prior to
project implementation.
6. In all contracts, there is contractual language outlining how to add additional
resource protection measures. Control areas can be added to existing contract when
needed.
 Page 24
February 4, 2011
Appendix 5. Question 28 Effectiveness Monitoring Report
The effect of timber management activities on Penstemon personatus
on the Plumas National Forest
by Michelle Coppoletta, Kyle Merriam, Colin Dillingham, and Linnea Hanson
Penstemon personatus (closed-throated beardtongue) is a
rare species that is presently known from four counties in
the northern portion of the Sierra Nevada mountain range
(Figure 2). Most of the P. personatus occurrences (74
percent) are found within the boundary of the Plumas
National Forest (NF) where this rhizomatous perennial
occurs in 23 large but localized populations that vary in
size from thousands of individuals to less than 10.
P. personatus is currently designated as a Sensitive species
by the USDA Forest Service (USDA Forest Service 2006).
The California Native Plant Society lists P. personatus as a
1B.2 species, which indicates that it is fairly endangered in Figure 1. Penstemon personatus flower
California (California Native Plant Society 2010). Based on
this listing status, as well as the large number of populations on National Forest lands, it is
imperative to ensure that management actions do not contribute to a loss of population
viability or create a need for listing P. personatus as endangered or threatened under the
Federal Endangered Species Act.
Past observations suggest that P. personatus may tolerate or even benefit from some timber
Figure 2. Distribution of P. personatus
management practices that reduce the forest canopy (Urie, Tausch and Hanson 1989, Hanson
 Page 25
February 4, 2011
1987). Monitoring data collected in the mid-1980s attempted to quantify the effects of timber
harvest activities on P. personatus; however a comprehensive analysis of this data has never
been completed.
This paper presents the results of an analysis of frequency data collected between 1986 and
1995. The objective of this analysis was to determine the effects of different types of timber
harvest activities on P. personatus frequency. To frame our analysis, we focused on the
following questions:
1. Do timber harvest treatments result in a decline in P. personatus frequency?
2. If so, are some treatments more likely to cause a decline than others?
3. If treatments do have an effect on P. personatus, how long do the effects of the
treatments last? Do occurrences rebound over time?
Methodology
In the late 1980’s, Plumas NF staff established 29 permanent transects within P. personatus
occurrences to measure the species’ response to timber harvest activities. Presence/absence
data were collected in milacre quadrats (43.56 ft2), which were placed along transects at 50
foot intervals. These data were used to calculate the frequency of P. personatus, which was
determined by calculating the total percentage of quadrats that contained at least one rooted
individual.
With the exception of two control units, all of the units were treated with one of the following
prescriptions (Figure 3):
Mechanical thinning (n=3): selective removal of trees
Overstory removal (n=17): selective removal of trees in the upper canopy
Shelterwood harvesting (n=3): removal of most trees in the unit, leaving only
those trees necessary to produce sufficient shade for regeneration
Clearcutting (n=4): removal of essentially all trees
 Page 26
February 4, 2011
Figure 3. Photographs illustrating the types of treatments analyzed: (a) shelterwood harvest (Phillip McDonald
USDA Forest Service); (b) mechanical thinning; (c) clearcut (Raumann and Soulard 2007); and (d) a P.
personatus control area on the Plumas NF.
For our analysis, we grouped the treatments into three categories: control (no treatment);
moderate intensity (mechanical thinning and overstory removal); and high intensity
(shelterwood harvesting and clearcutting). We also focused our analysis on data collected
within the first five years following treatment.
A repeated measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted to analyze the effect of
the three different treatment categories on P. personatus frequency within the first five years
following treatment. The change in frequency was calculated for each transect by comparing
pre and post-frequency values over three time periods: (a) 1-2 years after treatment, (b) 3-4
years after treatment, and (c) 5 years after treatment. For the control units, the change in
frequency was calculated using the first measurement value for comparison, rather than a pretreatment value. Plots with missing values at any of the three time periods were excluded from
the analysis.
Results and Discussion
Do timber harvest treatments result in a decline in P. personatus frequency?
If so, are some treatments more likely to cause a decline than others?
The change in P. personatus frequency was significantly different across the three treatment
types (α=0.5; p=0.03). This difference was due to the significant decline of P. personatus
frequency within the high intensity treatment units, which decreased from their pre-treatment
values by an average of 36 percent over the five years following treatment (Figure 4). The
 Page 27
February 4, 2011
change in frequency in the moderate intensity treatment units was not significantly different
than the control units; this result is consistent with past observations, which suggest that P.
personatus is able to tolerate or even benefit from low to moderate intensity timber harvest
activities (Hanson 1987, Hillaire 2001).
30%
Percentage of pre-treatment frequency
20%
10%
Control
0%
*
-10%
-20%
*
High Intensity
Moderate
Intensity
*
-30%
-40%
-50%
-60%
1-2 years
3-4 years
Time since treatment
5 years
Figure 4. Change in P. personatus frequency over time in response to the three
different treatment types. Error bars represent standard error. Asterisks (*) indicate
significant differences between treatments.
Past monitoring has demonstrated that P. personatus is able to tolerate a wide range of canopy
and light conditions. While P. personatus does occur in areas with moderate to dense
overstory canopy, some studies have shown that open canopy conditions, such as those found
in clearcuts, can promote flowering and growth of individuals (Urie et al. 1989). This suggests
that the decrease in P. personatus frequency within the high intensity treatment units is
probably not due to changes in overstory canopy alone.
Hanson (1987) observed that P. personatus appears intolerant of activities that result in high
levels of ground disturbance. High intensity treatments, such as clearcutting and shelterwood
harvest, typically result in higher levels of ground disturbance than the more moderate
treatments (i.e. mechanical thinning and overstory removal) and have the highest probability
for direct impact to individual plants. These disturbance factors, either alone or in combination
with the removal of overstory canopy, may contribute to the observed decline in P. personatus
following high intensity treatments.
How long do the effects of the treatments last? Do occurrences rebound over time?
P. personatus frequency declined significantly (α=0.5; p=0.01) within the first two years
following treatment, regardless of the treatment type (Figure 5). This result is not surprising
 Page 28
February 4, 2011
considering that plants could be directly impacted by equipment during treatment
implementation or indirectly affected by changing light conditions. These impacts would
result in an initial decline in plant frequency; however because P. personatus is rhizomatous, it
is most likely able to recover to pre-treatment levels by re-sprouting a few years after
treatment.
Percentage of pre-treatment frequency
10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
-20%
-25%
1-2 years
3-4 years
5 years
Time (years) since treatment
Figure 5. The effect of time since treatment on P. personatus frequency.
Error bars represent standard error. Note that the only value that is
significantly different from zero is the change in frequency 1-2 years
after treatment.
The results presented in Figure 5 correspond with observations made by past researchers. For
example, Zebell et al. (1991) and Dwerlkotte (1990) both reported that P. personatus
frequency tended to drop in the first year after logging and then rebound in year three to prelogging levels.
There was no significant interaction between the treatments and time, which indicates that
differences between the treatments (Figure 4) were not dependent upon the measurement year.
Conclusions
High intensity treatments, such as clearcutting and shelterwood harvest, resulted
in a significant decline in P. personatus frequency.
Moderate intensity treatments, such as mechanical thinning and overstory
removal, did not result in a significant decline in P. personatus frequency.
P. personatus frequency is most likely to decline in the first year or two following
treatment; however it may rebound after year three to pre-treatment levels.
Management Recommendations
Consider protecting a portion of P. personatus occurrences within high
intensity treatments.
Large clearcuts and overstory removal treatments are not as commonplace as they
once were on the Plumas NF; however current management activities such as group
selection harvests, which remove almost all of the trees within small (0.5-2 acre) units,
 Page 29
February 4, 2011
could be considered high intensity harvest treatments. When planning group selection
treatments, which have the potential for large amounts of soil disturbance and direct
impacts to individuals, managers may want to ensure that a portion of the P.
personatus occurrence is protected from direct impacts.
Include density or cover measurements in any future frequency monitoring
efforts.
While the results of these analyses contribute to our understanding of the response of
P. personatus to timber harvest activities, it is important to note that the only response
factor measured in this monitoring effort was frequency. Frequency provides some
insight into how treatments affect the distribution of P. personatus within a site;
however frequency data alone do not provide information on other relevant biological
indicators, such as plant abundance.
While this design is relatively quick and easy to implement in the field, and is often
recommended for rhizomatous plants such as P. personatus (Elzinga, Salzer and
Willoughby 1998), frequency can often be difficult to interpret biologically. In some
cases, the number of individuals within populations can be declining, while the
distribution of plants across the landscape remains the same (Donohue 1994). One
example of this is P. personatus frequency data collected for the Hardquartz project on
the Plumas NF. In 1984, the population estimate was at its highest (2,336 individuals),
while frequency was estimated as 63 percent (Donohue 1994). Five years later, the
population dropped to 577 individuals, while the frequency increased to 65 percent
(Donohue 1994).
If utilized further, frequency monitoring should be paired with density or cover
measurements (Donohue 1994). Incorporating these additional variables will provide
for a broader understanding of the effects of treatment activities on both the
distribution and abundance of P. personatus.
References
California Native Plant Society. 2010. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. February 11,
2010).
Donohue, B. L. 1994. Review of rare plant monitoring efforts on the Plumas National Forest,
USDA Pacific Southwest Region. 26 pages.
Dwerlkotte, R. 1990. 1990 Penstemon personatus monitoring summary for the Quincy Ranger
District. USDA Forest Service, Plumas National Forest.
Elzinga, C. L., D. W. Salzer & J. W. Willoughby. 1998. Measuring and Monitoring Plant
Populations. BLM Technical Reference 1730-1, Denver, Colorado.
Hanson, L. 1987. Species Management Guide for Penstemon persontaus. USDA Forest
Service, Plumas National Forest.
Hillaire, S. 2001. Habitat requirements of closed-throated beardtounge (Penstemon personatus
Keck.), and response after logging, including affects of KV activities and temporal
changes (1988-2001). USDA Forest Service, Plumas National Forest.
 Page 30
February 4, 2011
McDonald, P. Shelterwood cut in the Challenge Experimental Forest in the northern Sierra
Nevada's. In www.forestryimages.org, ed. 4799088. USDA Forest Service.
Raumann, C. G. & C. E. Soulard. 2007. Land-cover trends of the Sierra Nevada
Ecoregion, 1973-2000: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 20075011 In http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5011/.
Urie, S., R. Tausch & L. Hanson. 1989. A Statistical Analysis of Penstemon personatus.
USDA Forest Service, Plumas NF.
USDA Forest Service. 2006. 2006 Sensitive Plant List, Pacific Southwest Region, Region 5.
Letter from Regional Forester Weingardt. File Code: 2670. Dated July 27, 2006.
Zebell, R., B. Castro & R. Dwerlkotte. 1991. Penstemon personatus frequency monitoring,
1980-1990 -- Summary. USDA Forest Service, Plumas National Forest.
 Page 31
February 4, 2011
Appendix 6. Question 28 Effectiveness Monitoring Report
Silene occidentalis ssp longistipitata
Deadhorse Mechanical Thinning Treatment Effects
Monitoring Report – Preliminary Results, 1 year after treatment
Nov 10, 2010
Colin Dillingham
I.
Introduction
The Nature Conservancy (W-1, 1996) currently lists Silene occidentalis ssp. longistipitata as a G4T1
plant indicating that the taxon is imperiled worldwide. The G-rank reflects the condition of the entire
species (secure), whereas the T-rank reflects the global situation of just the subspecies. The Nature
Conservancy (W-1, 1996) gives the taxon as S1.2 in California, indicating that it is critically imperiled
and the occurrences are threatened. The California Native Plant Society (W-4) lists the species as
1B.2, which indicates that it is rare, threatened, or endangered in California and 20-80% of occurrences
are threatened.
It is not clear which environmental factors limit the distribution or abundance of the long-stiped campion
(Dillingham and Sanger 2007). It may be lack of disturbance regime. There may be too little light
reaching the forest floor outside of the forest opening currently occupied by long-stiped campion.
Monitoring at Silene occidentalis ssp longistipitata locations indicate that there is a large natural
variability in the number of plants present each year. A review of annual monitoring plant census at
populations on the Lassen National Forest indicate that occurrences can have annual population
fluctuation of 50% and return to previous population levels without any vegetation treatment (i.e. South
Fork Antelope Creek Site, Dillingham and Sanger 2007). Therefore, we can expect that some
populations will increase or decrease by 50% because of natural variation and not as a response to
treatment. With statistical analysis, we may be able to determine that a population has changed by a
smaller amount when comparing controls to treatment areas. However, small changes in the
population are not considered significant in terms of management.
II.
Methods
We are primarily concerned with maintaining self-sustaining populations at each site. The mean posttreatment population (at least 3 years of data) shall be at least equal to the minimum total number of
long-stiped campion plants found during pretreatment conditions. A decrease of up to 50% of the pretreatment population level, although not considered desirable, would be considered within the range of
natural variability for any individual year. It is the longer term population means that we are trying to
maintain. The populations should be maintained at this level through 2015 (5 years after
implementation of the thinning project).
Both positive and negative effects from proposed management activities are possible.
At the Deadhorse site, mechanical thinning operations were completed in the fall of 2009 (retain 100
trees per acre greater than 6 inches diameter at breast height). One hypothesis is that the new
disturbance could provide a suitable seedbed for the species and the opening of the canopy could
provide more light to the forest floor for population expansion. An alternate hypothesis is that the timber
harvest and prescribed burning operations may also cause direct impacts to individual plants, displace
or remove existing duff and eliminate seeds from the seed bank.
Table 1. Monitoring Areas Included in this Monitoring Report
Site Name
Occurrence
Treatment Type
Number
Deadhorse Falls
13
Mechanical Thin
Monterey Point
8
Control (for Deadhorse)
“Smitty Camp”
 Page 32
February 4, 2011
A complete census of the adult plants within the macroplots was conducted in July of each year.
Although data exists for subplots within the macroplots, no analysis at this small scale has been
attempted. It appears that the thinning treatment was applied relatively evenly across the
macroplot and no data stratification appears necessary. All data presented is for adult plants within
the entire macroplot. Although we present our data as a census, we recognize that some plants
may be missed. We feel that the percent of adult plants missed is very small, likely less than 5%.
In order to capture some of the effects of the proposed treatments, photo points were completed
and the following measurements were recorded in the four corners of each subplot:
duff depth (cm)
canopy cover (using densitometer or “moosehorn”)
shrub height in meters
A. Monitoring location
The Deadhorse and Smitty Camp long-stiped campion monitoring macroplots are located in
Tehama County. Previous versions of the monitoring protocol indicated that the Scott’s John
Creek occurrence in Butte County would be used as the control plot. Upon further investigation, it
was determined that the habitat (red fir), elevation difference and lack of juxtaposition made the
Scott’s John Creek less desirable as a control for comparison to the Deadhorse site. The Smitty
Camp control at Monterey Point was much more similar in habitat, adjacency, plot size, population
size and elevation and is considered to be a superior control plot. Specific locations are available
in the HFQLG rare plant monitoring database.
B. Intended data analysis approach
The potential population changes will be compared against the pre-treatment and control
population estimates. Under the assumption that the control population mean does not have a
greater than 25% change from the mean during the same sampling period, the population
responses would be considered to be caused by management activities, unless other evidence
suggests otherwise. In the event that the control area also changes, a more rigorous statistical
evaluation would be coordinated between Lassen NF botanists Kirsten Bovee and Allison Sanger,
and SPI monitoring coordinator Cajun James and USDA Forest Service Herger-Feinstein Quincy
Library Group monitoring coordinator Colin Dillingham.
III.
Preliminary results
The data indicates that the population increased between 2009 and 2010 at the Deadhorse site in
the immediate year after the treatment was completed (Figure 1). However, the plant count
remained in the range of the pretreatment population level and therefore the population appears to
have remained the same following the definitions established in the long-stiped campion
monitoring protocol (Dillingham et al. 2007, revised 2010). The thinning treatment reduced the
canopy from a pretreatment mean of 66 percent canopy closure down to 48 percent post-treatment
(Figure 1). There were little environmental changes to duff depth or shrub cover or height. There
was no association between annual rainfall and annual plant counts.
Although the treatment population increased between 2009 and 2010 by 170%, the control
population at Smitty Camp also increased by 210% during the same period (Figure 2). It appears
that some environmental factor could be partially responsible for the large increase in long-stiped
campion in the treatment plot.
 Page 33
February 4, 2011
140
120
100
Plants
80
% Canopy
60
Duff Depth mm
Rainfall (inches)
40
20
0
2007
2008
2009
2010
Figure 1. Preliminary Results of Deadhorse Site Plant and Environmental Data. The Deadhorse
site was treated in the fall of 2009, after the 2009 pretreatment data was collected.
200
180
160
140
120
Plants at Deadhorse
100
Plants at Smitty Camp
80
60
40
20
0
2007
2008
2009
2010
Figure 2. Preliminary Results of Deadhorse site plant data as compared to the control at Smitty
Camp. No data was collected at the control plot in 2007 or 2008. The Deadhorse site was treated
in the fall of 2009, after the 2009 pretreatment data was collected.
 Page 34
February 4, 2011
Figure 3. Photo point at Deadhorse treatment site established to show effects of treatment at
this site. The photo on the left taken during 2009 prior to treatment can be compared against
the post-treatment photo on the right taken in 2010. The thinning of the forest canopy is
evident as is the increased light reaching the forest floor.
IV.
Preliminary Management Implications
The long-stiped campion monitoring protocol (Dillingham et al. 2007) recommends that at least 3
years of post-treatment data be collected prior to making final management recommendations.
Nevertheless, it is appropriate to recognize the current trend and make preliminary management
implications now that the first year of data has been collected and analyzed. Management
implications are from the monitoring protocol prepared in 2007.
Post-treatment monitoring determined that the 2010 flowering population (104 plants) is between
the lower count (61 - 2009) and upper count (118 - 2007) of pre-treatment population counts.
Therefore, preliminary results indicate that the treatment would be considered to have no change.
The treatment would be considered to have no effect to the species. If continued monitoring
results are similar, forest thinning would be permitted in other long-stiped campion occurrence
locations.
Literature Cited:
Dillingham, Colin P. and Allison Sanger. 2007. Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Long-stiped
Campion Silene occidentalis Watson ssp. longistipitata. Report available from Lassen National
Forest. 35 pp.
Dillingham, Colin P. 2007. Silene occidentalis ssp longistipitata Monitoring Protocol Version 1.2,
revised Nov 2, 2010. Report available from Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Implementation
Team, Plumas and Lassen National Forest. 6 pp.
 Page 35
February 4, 2011
Appendix 7. Question 28 Effectiveness Monitoring Report
Lens-pod milk-vetch (Astragalus lentiformis), Mabie DFPZ Fuels Treatment
Study, Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest.
Lynée Crawford, Botanist,
Kyle Merriam, Province Ecologist
Michelle Coppoletta, Botanist
and Colin Dillingham, Ecologist
Nov 30, 2010
Lens-pod milk-vetch
Purpose
This monitoring was conducted to determine the effect of prescribed fire on the rare lens-pod milk-vetch
(Astragalus lentiformis), which is a member of the legume family. To determine if prior treatments would
influence the effect of prescribed burning on lens-pod milk-vetch, plots were established in areas that
previously had been treated by mechanical thinning, hand thinning, and in untreated control areas.
However, burning activities were either cancelled or did not impact any plots, so the effect of burning
treatments on lens-pod milk-vetch could not be evaluated. Instead, trends in lens-pod milk-vetch
abundance over time, relationships between lens-pod milk-vetch and environmental variables, and
unplanned impacts from off-highway vehicles (OHVs) are investigated in this report.
Methods
In 2006 eight permanent, circular monitoring plots were randomly established within mechanical thin
unit 62, and hand thin units 67, 70 and 142. Unit 70 contained a control area used to establish a control
plot. Plots were 25 feet in diameter and the centers of the plots were marked with rebar. The following
data were collected:
1. Number of adults
2. Number of seedlings
3. Litter and duff depth
4. Canopy cover
Mechanical and hand thinning occurred in 2004 and 2005 prior to plot establishment in 2006. Data was
collected in the summers of 2006, 2009 and 2010. OHV impacts occurred sometime between 2006 plot
establishment and 2009 data collection.
Results
Repeated measures ANOVA found a significant interaction effect between year and treatment type
(mechanical thin, hand thin, mechanical thin plus OHV-impacts, and control F=7.58, p=0.014) on
numbers of lens-pod milk-vetch individuals. Least squares post-hoc analysis determined that changes
in lens-pod milk-vetch numbers within the OHV-impact plots between years were responsible for the
significant interaction effect. There was no significant interaction between year and treatment type for
all other treatments (mechanical thin alone, hand thin, and control). See Figure 1 below for a summary
of the results.
 Page 36
February 4, 2011
Figure 1: Numbers of lens-pod milk-vetch individuals by treatment type over time. Hand thin and
Mechanical thin treatments occurred prior to 2006. Off-highway vehicle impacts occurred between
2006 and 2009 plant counts.
140
120
100
Control
80
Hand Thin
60
Mech Thin
40
Mech Thin_OHV
20
0
2006
2009
2010
*Figure by Kyle Merriam, Province Ecologist
Linear regression analysis found that canopy cover significantly influenced lens-pod milk-vetch
abundance (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Duff depth was significantly related to lens-pod milk vetch abundance. Linear regression
2
found that this variable explained almost 32% of the variation in plant numbers (R =0.32, p=0.03).
 Page 37
February 4, 2011
Figure 3. Off-highway vehicle (OHV)
impacts to Lens-pod milk-vetch, Plot 3:
2006 before OHV impacts (top left) and
2009 after OHV impacts (top right). Photo
bottom left is close up of OHV trail system.
Conclusions
OHV user created trails and subsequent use have significant negative impacts on the number of
individuals of lens-pod milk-vetch (Figure 1). There was some evidence of rebound in population
numbers in 2010, however, lens-pod milk-vetch abundance was still lower than prior to the OHVimpacts in 2006. Populations of lens-pod milk-vetch remained stable in mechanical thin and hand thin
treatments over time (years 1 through 6 post-treatment) and there was not a significant change in
numbers.
Lens-pod milk-vetch was more abundant in plots with lower duff depths, but was absent in areas
impacted by off highway vehicles with no duff. Based on these findings, treatments that reduce duff
depths such as low intensity fire, would likely be beneficial
In order to determine conclusive impacts to lens-pod milk-vetch from mechanical thin, hand thin, and
prescribed fire (either underburn or pile burn) treatments, additional monitoring plots should be
established within future treatment areas prior to treatment implementation.
 Page 38
February 4, 2011
Appendix 8. Question 28 Effectiveness Monitoring Report
Monardella follettii monitoring
Meadow Valley Group Selection Units
Michelle Coppoletta
November 18, 2010
In August of 2006, eight permanent plots were established within (and in the vicinity of) Meadow Valley Group
Selection Units 46 and 38 to evaluate the effects of group selection treatments on Monardella follettii (MOFO)
abundance. Three of the eight plots were designated as controls where mechanical treatment and equipment
were excluded. Group selection treatments took place during the summer of 2007 and all eight plots were
revisited and monitored one year after treatment (August 27, 2008) and three years after treatment (August 23,
2010). Details of the plot location, methodology, data, etc. can be found in the original document titled: “MOFO
Monitoring Objectives Protocol.doc”.
The following tables and figures present the pre and post-treatment monitoring data for the eight MOFO plots.
Table 1 presents the number of MOFO stems recorded in each plot. Table 2 presents duff depth data, which
were recorded to capture changes in the physical characteristics of the eight MOFO plots following treatment.
Canopy cover was also recorded, but is not presented due to the fact that the monitoring was insufficient to
capture change.
Table 1. The number of MOFO stems within permanent plots prior to and following treatment.
Plot #
Pre-treatment (2006)
1-year post treatment (2008)
3-year post treatment (2010)
Group Selection
1
564
312
451
2
109
47
163
3
119
47
163
4
37
60
219
6
203
2
60
5
291
182
291
7
625
349
8
180
144
Control
Large snag fell into plot
165
 Page 39
February 4, 2011
450
Average number of stems
400
350
300
2006 (pre-treatment)
250
2008 (1 year post-trt)
200
2010 (3 year post-trt)
150
100
50
0
Group Selection
Control
Treatment Type
Figure 1. The average number of MOFO stems within treatment and control plots prior to and following
treatment. The error bars represent the 90 percent confidence intervals.
Table 2. Average duff depth (cm) in MOFO permanent plots pre and post-treatment. The control plots are
highlighted in grey.
Plot #
Pre-treatment (2006)
1-year post treatment (2008)
3-year post treatment (2010)
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.2
1.1
2.8
0.6
1.1
2.9
0.9
0.7
0.5
1.2
1.5
0.2
0.8
0.7
1.2
0.9
1.3
1.8
1
Group Selection
1
2
3
4
6
Control
5
7
8
Large snag fell into plot
3
Number of MOFO stems
A repeated measures analysis (using a mixed-effects model) found no significant difference between the plots
that were treated with Group Selection harvest and the control plots. There was also no significant interaction
between the treatments and time. There was a significant effect of year (p=0.01; ά = 0.05). The number of
stems within all of the plots (whether they were treated or controls) was significantly lower in 2008, than in
either 2006 or 2010. The number of stems was not significantly different between 2006 (pre-treatment) and
2010 (three years post-treatment). This suggests that there may be relatively large natural variability in the
number of MOFO stems between years.
 Page 40
February 4, 2011
Mean number of stems
250
200
150
Control
100
GS
50
0
2006 (pre-treatment)
2008 (1 year post-trt) 2010 (3 year post-trt)
Figure 2. The average number of MOFO stems within treatment and control plots in 2006, 2008, and 2010. For
all plots, the number of stems was significantly lower in 2008, compared to 2006 and 2010.
During the 2008 monitoring effort, it became apparent that some plots were more heavily impacted than others
within the treatment area; for example, two of the five treatment plots were in the middle of a skid trail and
received a much greater degree of disturbance. The photographs below provide an example of what we
classified as “high” and “moderate” disturbance within treatment plots.
“High” disturbance classification
Pre-treatment
“Moderate” disturbance classification
Post-treatment
 Page 41
February 4, 2011
Figure 2 illustrates the change in MOFO stems within each plot prior to and following treatment. Those
treatment plots located within skid trails were classified as having “high” disturbance while those treatment
plots that were located off of skid trails, but still within the area of treatment, were classified as having
“moderate” disturbance. It is important to note that even the plots that were classified as “moderate” still
experienced a great deal of disturbance (i.e. debris piled on top of plants). In the analysis, there was no
significant difference between treatments of varying intensity.
The presence of MOFO individuals within the treatment plots suggests that the species is able to tolerate a fair
amount of disturbance; MOFO plants were found (albeit in much lower abundance) in areas that were scraped
of almost all of the duff and vegetation (i.e. skid trails) and under woody debris. Many of the MOFO within the
treatment area were noted to be robust with multiple flowering branches.
The lack of significance between the control and treatment plots suggests a few different possibilities. First, that
there is no difference between treatments and controls; or in other words, the difference in the number of
MOFO stems before and after treatment is within the natural range of variability observed for the species in the
control plots. This seems to be the most likely when considering the variability in both treatments and controls
from year to year.
A second, very important possibility is that we did not have enough experimental power to detect a true
difference between the control plots and the treatment plots. We need to do a power analysis using the
following objective:
Objective: To be 90% certain of detecting a 20% difference in mean plant density (i.e. the number of
stems per square meter) in group selection treatment units and in control areas. We are willing to accept
a 10% chance that a false-change error occurred (conclude a change occurred when it really did not).
Environmental Data
There was no significant relationship between duff depth and number of stems.
The comparison photographs below most accurately illustrate the change in the surrounding stand following
treatments.
 Page 42
February 4, 2011
Photographs
Plot 1 Pre-treatment
Plot 2
Plot 3
Post-treatment
 Page 43
Plot 4
February 4, 2011
Pre-treatment
Post-Treatment
Plot 5 (Control)
Plot 6
Pre-treatment
Post-Treatment
 Page 44
Plot 7 (Control)
Plot 8 (Control)
February 4, 2011
 Page 45
February 4, 2011
Appendix 9: Species Specific Monitoring Plans
Additional work was completed in 2010 to prepare species specific effectiveness (Question 28)
monitoring plans on the lens-pod milkvetch, Astragalus lentiformis. The following Species Specific
Monitoring Plans have been completed. They are filed on the Plumas server in the following folder:
O:\NFS\Plumas\Program\HFQLG\Monitoring\7_8_28_30_plants_weeds\Botany_Effectiveness_Database
Species
1
Arabis constancei
Astragalus lentiformis
2
Astragalus pulsiferae
1
Cypripedium fasciculatum
2
Low Sage Flats
Carex petasata
Stenotus lanuginosus
Hackelia cusickii
Lupinus dalesiae
1
Monardella follettii
1
Penstemon personatus
Author
Michelle Coppoletta
Lynée Crawford
Kirsten Bovee
Matt Brown
Kyle Merriam
Allison Sanger
Date
March 24, 2008
November 17, 2010
August 26, 2009
2008
Jan 24, 2008
Michelle Coppoletta Nov 30, 2009
Michelle Coppoletta Sept 5, 2006
Colin Dillingham
Dec 12, 2007
Kyle Merriam
Michelle Coppoletta
Pyrrocoma lucida (draft version)
Lynée Crawford
Nov 12, 2009
Marti Aitken
Silene occidentalis ssp longistipitata Colin Dillingham
July 16, 2009
1
– These versions of species specific monitoring plans are single site monitoring plans rather than
general species monitoring plans. These plans should upgraded to species monitoring plans as more
information becomes available.
2
– These versions of species specific monitoring plans are single site monitoring plans because only
one monitoring site is available in the HFQLG Pilot Project area. If additional sites become available,
the monitoring plans would be amended.