Vegetation Management Solutions
875 Mitchell Avenue
Oroville, CA 95965
(530)532-7454
A Forest Service Enterprise
Fax. (530)532-1210
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group
Botany Monitoring Report - 2006
Prepared 9 January 2007 by Colin Dillingham, VMS Enterprise Team Ecologist with input from Allison
Sanger, Lassen National Forest, Susan Urie, Tahoe National Forest, Jim Belsher-Howe, Michelle
Coppoletta, Terry Miller, Michael Friend, Chris Christofferson and Linnea Hanson, Plumas National
Forest and Kyle Merriam, Province Ecologist.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to document findings of the monitoring efforts accomplished in 2006 by the
Lassen, Plumas and Tahoe National Forest botanists. Monitoring in 2006 included both
Implementation and Effectiveness monitoring. Implementation monitoring of units treated in 2004 and
2005 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 three years after treatment. The intent of the monitoring was to
identify what worked, what needed improvement for future projects, and as a means of providing
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 methodology described in the May 10, 2004 version of the HFQLG Monitoring Plan was used.
The following list of questions was 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?
United States Department of Agriculture
z Page 2
October 8, 2007
Sample Sizes
Linnea Hanson, Plumas National Forest Botanist, working with PSW Statistician in 1999, came up with
a TES Plant Implementation and Effectiveness 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 is filed on the K drive in the plants folder under QLG monitoring. Linnea
suggested that the sample size should be small enough so that we can implement the program.
Sample pool size of 30 units was determined. We are not currently conducting any statistical analyses
with the monitoring data, although we will be doing this in future reports. For the current report, we are
simply looking back at what we have done and providing feedback to the public and ourselves.
Sample Pools
The 2006 HFQLG Botany Monitoring program was substantial due to the inclusion of both
implementation and effectiveness monitoring questions. In 2006, 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.
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 2005 and determining which of these
treated units had mitigations for TES plants. The HFQLG area botanists met in February and April
2006 and made a list of potential units. There were 28 units with TES control areas; so all units
were sampled under the protocol.
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 2005 and determining which of these
treated units had mitigations for noxious weeds. There were 9 units with noxious weed control
areas/mitigations; so all units were sampled under the protocol.
Question 28 – How do TES plant species respond to resource management activities? In April
2006 the botanists and HFQLG Implementation Team met to revise how Question 28 and 29
would be better answered. Previously all TES implementation-monitoring (Question 7) units were
included in the sample pool to answer the TES effectiveness question. The group decided to focus
on units where we can get good pretreatment data to increase the quality of the data. The group
dropped approximately 60 units without good pretreatment monitoring data that were on the
schedule to monitor in the next two years. Plans were made to add approximately the same
number of units into the pool. Twenty units had pretreatment data collected in 2006.
Question 28b - Did new occurrences of TES species become established during or following
project implementation? Data from the Timber Stand Structure monitoring was used to answer
this question. 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 – Were existing infestations of noxious weeds eliminated or contained? See
question 30 below, these questions are related and will be answered with the same sample pool.
Question 30 – 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.
Eight populations were monitored in 2006.
z Page 3
October 8, 2007
Question 31 – Did new infestations of noxious weeds occur during or following project
implementation? Data from the Timber Stand Structure monitoring was used to answer this question.
Seven randomly selected units that previously didn’t have noxious weed occurrences were examined
after harvest to determine if any new noxious weeds had become established in response to
management activities.
Document Review
Monitoring included a focused office review of the Biological Evaluation (BE) and Botany Input for each
project. The Environmental Assessment (EA) for each project was then crosschecked with these
documents to see that the TES plant and weed recommendations were carried over into the EA for
each project. Treatment units that were selected for monitoring were first checked (in the office) to see
if they had either weed or TES species. For treatment units that did have these species, the units were
field checked to see that plant protection or weed mitigation measures were applied and followed.
RESULTS
Document Review
The results of document review on the Lassen NF showed that Biological Evaluations and Input
documents for botany were thorough and generally complete, with most occurrences of TES plants and
weeds listed for each project. These documents were generally quite specific in describing the
integrated design features for both TES plants and weed occurrences for each project. In
crosschecking to see that integrated design features were incorporated into the final environmental
document of each project, it was found that the botany recommendations were included. The Plumas
and Tahoe had similar thorough and complete documents for evaluations and reports completed in the
past 4 or 5 years. However, there were some older projects across the HFQLG Pilot Project that did
not have easily accessible biological evaluations, plant protection plans or noxious weed assessments.
Implementation Monitoring Questions
Question 7: Were Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) plants surveyed and protected?
The specific attributes that were monitored 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 1. 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
The following tables represent all available data collected in 2005.
100%
z Page 4
October 8, 2007
Lassen NF, Almanor RD
Occur Occurrence
Sale Name Species Number protected?
Botrychium BOMOPhilbrook montanum, 12, BOMIDFPZ 167 minganese
10
Yes
Comments
Year of
Implementation
Site was flagged and avoided as planned.
No control area on sale area map.
2005
Prattville
Lupinus
DFPZ 32D dalesiae
control area on map, adjacent to unit, not
flagged on ground, not impacted either.
underburn
2005
LUDA017
Yes
Lassen NF, Eagle Lake RD
Sale Name Species
Occurrence
Number
Occurrence
protected?
North Crater
West DFPZ Orcuttia
96/97
tenuis ORTE-011
Yes
Year of
Comments
Implementation
Not on sale area map. Unit boundary
did not enter suitable habitat or within
300 foot buffer of vernal pool. No
flagging at occurrence.
mech thin 2005
Lassen NF, Hat Creek RD
Sale
Occurrenc Occurrence
Year of
Species e Number protected?
Comments
Name
Implementation
Black's
Ridge Pogogyne POFL-025On sale area map, fire did not burn through
occurrence.
subdiv 3 floribunda A,B,C,D
Yes
Burn 2005
BOMI-011
Site was excluded from sale area boundary.
Botrychium BOCR-009
Riparian zone not affected by treatment, but
Cabin 26 (3 species) BOMO-007
Yes
2006
not flagged for avoidance either.
Plumas NF, Beckwourth RD
Sale Name Species
Mabie 10
Comments
Year of
Implementation
11-032-D/E
Yes
Sites were flagged and protected. 32E did
not have control area tags.
handthin 2004
11-009
Yes
Sites were flagged and avoided.
handthin 2004
ASLE
33D
Yes
core areas flagged and avoided
handthin 2005
PYLU
025A
Yes
flagged and avoided
ASLE
33A
Yes
TRLE
28-A
Yes
flagged and avoided
Not flagged on ground, but site was not
underburned.
2004
underburn
2005
underburn
2005
PYLU
Carex
Mabie 34 sheldonii
Mabie 70
Crystal
Adams 3/4
Humbug
46
Stony
Ridge 17
Occurrence Occurrence
Number protected?
z Page 5
October 8, 2007
Plumas NF, Feather River RD
Occurrence Occurrence
Number protected?
Sale Name Species
Upper
Aspen
Slate 141
stand
Lower
Slate 10o
Sidalcea
sp. Nova
Lower
Vaccinium
Slate 11k coccinium
n/a
Yes
005
Yes
027
Yes
Lower
Slate 11w
Sidalcea
sp. Nova
006
Erigeron
lassenianus
Bald Onion
var.
deficiens ERLAD-014
18
Erigeron
lassenianus
Bald Onion
var.
deficiens ERLAD-014
19
Yes
Comments
The aspen stand was flagged and
avoided.
Year of
Implementation
pile burn 2005
CA was flagged and no mastication
mastication
occurred in control area.
2005
CA around the occurrence was flagged
and avoided. Sale area map incorrectly
mastication
depicted CA.
2005
Control area flagged and avoided. Much
of flagging is gone and one of control
areas was not on sale area map.
pile burn 2005
Yes
ERLAD grows in a narrow strip adjacent to
road 23N60Y. Control Area flagged and
avoided
mastication
2005
Yes
Control Area Flagged in 2002, however,
no evidence of flagging in 2006.
Mastication did not impact site.
mastication
2005
Plumas NF, Mt Hough RD
Sale Name
Species
Spanish
Camp 11
LUDA
Spanish
Camp 6
CYFA
Spanish
Camp 6
LUDA
Meadow
Valley 10b
LUDA
Meadow
Valley 12a MOFO/ERPES
Meadow
Valley 14
LUDA
Meadow
Valley 30
LUDA
Occurrence Occurrence
Number protected?
Comments
Year of
Implementation
23
Yes
73
Yes
Yes it was avoided
Underburn2005
23A
Yes
Underburn2005
75H
Yes
Yes it was avoided
Stumps and burn piles outside CA,
inside CA was protected
Stumps and burn piles outside CA,
inside CA was protected
Yes it was avoided
Three LUDA Control Areas were
avoided
handthin 2005
Yes
122a
Yes
10
Yes
Opposite side of road from treated area Underburn2005
handthin 2005
handthin 2005
handthin 2005
Tahoe NF, Sierraville RD
Sale Name Species
Wheeler
630-41
Occurrence Occurrence
Number
protected?
IVSE
TNF 14
Yes
Lahontan
TS 32 & 33 IVSE
TNF 22
Yes
Comments
Year of
Implementation
Occurrence avoided with project activities Masticate 2005
Occurrence flagged and avoided with
project.
mech thin 2005
z Page 6
October 8, 2007
Cutthroat
Fuels 73544
MEUL
Cutthroat
Fuels 73544
METR
TNF 02
Yes
Site flagged and protected with buffer from
fuel reduction project.
grapple pile
2005
TNF 02
Yes
Site flagged and protected with buffer from
fuel reduction project.
grapple pile
2005
Summary, Question 7
Out of the 28 TES protection/control areas monitored, 100% were protected as planned. Compared to
previous years, this is a huge improvement and is a testament to the adaptive management and
coordination that has occurred between the botany and sale administration departments. The
communication that the HFQLG Implementation Team has provided has been helpful in improving the
protection of botany control areas. There is still some improvement needed in tracking the flagging of
control areas. Some sites that have been flagged 3 and 4 years prior to treatment need to have the
flagging refreshed. Additional coordination between the sale administrators and botanists needs to
occur, especially on the Lassen National Forest, to ensure control areas are established, mapped on
sale area maps and understood. Sale administration was 100% effective at protecting monitored
control areas.
Lessons learned
Botanists need to be sure that the control areas are flagged on the ground immediately prior to
treatment. Five of the sites were not adequately flagged on the ground during post-treatment
evaluation, even some that were known to be flagged 3 or 4 years prior. Continuing communication
needs to be assured between sale administrators and botanists so that control areas are understood.
Control area tracking sheets (Appendix 1) should be used for all projects with botany control areas.
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. Results are shown in the tables below.
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.
Plumas NF, Mt Hough RD
Sale
Name
Jura 5
Occurrence
Number Occurrence
Year of
Species
Comments
(N_site_ID) treated?
Implementation
Treated
several
New site found nearby. No large
Yellow Star CESO3_ years, not in changes to this occurrence with
Underburn
2006
Thistle
019
sporadic treatment.
2005
Lassen NF, Eagle Lake RD
z Page 7
Sale
Name
October 8, 2007
Species
Occurrence Occurrence
Number
treated? Comments
Canada
CIARBizz 482
Thistle
008A/B
Lassen NF, Almanor RD
Sale
Name
Species
None found
Occurrence Occurrence
Number
treated?
Year of
Implementation
In no treatment area, no thistle
found during field survey.
mech thin 2005
Comments
Year of
Implementation
Mech thin
2005
LIGED-02
Yes
No control areas on sale area
map. Pulled 157 plants June 06.
Multiple treatments annually.
Whip 91
Dalmatian
toadflax
LIGED-09
Yes, but
logged
through
No control areas on sale area
map, site not protected from
logging activity. 331 plants pulled
Mech thin
2005
Battle 96
Klamath
weed
HYPE-09
Yes
CA on sale area map, site treated
annually.
Mech thin
2005
Whip 91
Dalmatian
toadflax
Lassen NF, Hat Creek RD
Sale
Occurrence Occurrence
Species
Name
Number
treated?
Pittville
Group 27TACA-032No, but
70
Medusahead
A
avoided
Pittville
Group 27TACA-032No, but
84
Medusahead
C
avoided
Cabin 26 Klamathweed HYPE-023
Black's
Ridge
Scotch
ONACA subdiv 3
Thistle
023
CA not on sale area map, no
impacts from project
Year of
Implementation
Group
selection unit
2005 (earlier?)
Group
selection unit
2005 (earlier?)
Yes,
annually
CA on sale area map
2005
Yes
1 plant pulled in 2003 and none
found in 2006
2005
Comments
CA not on sale area map, no
impacts from project
Summary, Question 8
All (100%) of the occurrences were represented in the NEPA documents and had either control or
avoidance management strategy followed. Most (78%) of the weed sites were either partially or
completely treated. Many of the species of weeds monitored in 2006 are extremely difficult to
eradicate, including Dalmatian toadflax, medusahead and yellow star thistle. The Lassen NF avoided
the medusahead infestations in an effort to not spread the species. Occurrence 9 of Dalmatian
Toadflax in Whip unit 91 was planned for control, but not avoidance in the NEPA document. The DFPZ
mechanical thinning treatment occurred in the population and additional disturbed habitat is now
present and available for population expansion. Limited expansion of Dalmatian Toadflax (4 young
plants in skid trails) was observed. A monitoring plot was established to track the effectiveness of the
management of this population.
Equipment Cleaning Documentation
The HFQLG project area has excelled in implementing the contract specifications of equipment
cleaning. Equipment cleaning documentation was received for the following projects: Lassen NF –
Black’s Ridge, Cone Fire Salvage, Elk DFPZ, Whip DFPZ, Pittville DFPZ and Group Select and
z Page 8
October 8, 2007
Jonesville DFPZ; Plumas NF – Last Chance/Poison DFPZ, Red Clover DFPZ and GS, Red Mtn DFPZ,
Upper Slate, Bald Onion, Mabie DFPZ, Humbug, Hungry MP, Waters DFPZ, Deanes, Guard and
Snake MP Timber Sales; Tahoe NF – Bosque, Camino, Vaca, Hotsprings Mastication, Lahontan
DFPZ, Pearl T.S., Pieces DFPZ and Wheeler DFPZ. The Forests have done an excellent job of
implementing the contract specifications.
Lessons learned
Aggressive action prior to and through 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, but the treatments appear to be preventing
the occurrences from expanding. These efforts appear to be limiting noxious weed spread on the
Lassen, Plumas and Tahoe National Forests.
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?
The following table refers to the first question only. Another table to answer to second question follows
this section.
Plumas NF, Mt Hough RD
Sale
Name
Implementation
Effectiveness monitoring
Occur. Occurrence Monitoring (2002Year of
results 2005
Species Number protected? 2003) Comments Implementation
Kingsbury
11-049Rush
CYFA
C
33b
Spanish
Camp LUDA
20
Spanish
Camp ARCO
40
23
5
No
N/A
N/A
Site was flagged for
avoidance however, the
control area was
masticated. Population
had 40 plants 9 Sept
2000, but only 4 stems
relocated posttreatment.
Two Photo points
established in 1998. No
recommended
protection, burn through
occurrence and monitor
effectiveness.
Five fixed plots
established in 1998. 3
revisited in 2004 by
Belsher-Howe, 2
relocated in 2005,
preburn data collected.
Post burn data collected
in 2006
masticate 2004
Population reduced from 40
stems pre-treatment, 4 stems
post-treatment year one and only
1 stem was located during a visit
on 7/12/06 post-treatment year 2.
Lesson = Mastication negatively
impacted CYFA.
burn 2005
LUDA still present and no
apparent population
change.
burn 2005
Preliminary post burn data
indicates ARCO tolerates
burning in areas with low
fuel accumulation but
ARCO is intolerant of hot
fires. The pre burn and
post burn numbers of
individuals is about the
same except for one plot
in which a snag fell and
burned. This is similar to
the results in unit PL1
which some plots had burn
piles. No significant
difference was detected
between burned and
unburned plots.
z Page 9
October 8, 2007
Spanish
Camp ARCO
42
5
N/A
One fixed plot
established in
burned spring
1998. Revisited in
2004
2004.
See above
Plumas NF, Feather River RD
Sale
Name Species
12
32
31
Implementation
Effectiveness
Occurrence Monitoring (2002Year of
monitoring results
2005
protected? 2003) Comments Implementation
Occur.
Number
Cardamine
"marmorata" CA#3-006
sp novum
FREA
FREA
FREA_057
FREA_058
n/a
Planned for
underburn and
monitoring
underburn
spring 2005
No apparent
change in
population
n/a
Planned for
underburn and
monitoring
3/17/05 (night)
No apparent
change in
population
n/a
Planned for
mastication and
monitoring
FREA population
mastication fall
increased in
immediate area of
2005
treatment
HFQLG project area, Timber Stand Structure Monitoring Units used to answer the question, “Did new
occurrences of TES plant species occur during or following project implementation?”
Project Name
District
Unit
TES Plants found?
Antelope Border
Antelope Border
Antelope Border
Antelope Border
Mt Hough
Mt Hough
Mt Hough
Mt Hough
13b
15a
15b
no
no
no
Bidwell
Black’s Ridge
Eagle Lake
Hat Creek
22
62
26
no
no
no
Pittville South
Hat Creek
28
no
Summary Question 28
Only the Mt Hough and Feather River Ranger Districts had been collecting pretreatment data in units
that had been treated and were available to answer the question, “How do TES plant species respond
to resource management activities?” Several responses by various sensitive and special interest plant
species were recorded. This data is primarily observational, so it is difficult to test if observed trends are
z Page 10
October 8, 2007
statistically significant. However, we have modified our sampling design so that such tests will be
possible in the future. See Lessons Learned, below, for more details.
A separate pool of 7 units was established to answer the question, “Did new occurrences of TES plant
species occur during or following project implementation?” No TES plant species were found.
Lessons Learned
A strategy for better effectiveness monitoring was established to follow the lessons learned from the
2005 monitoring report. Twenty populations of TES plants had pretreatment monitoring plots
established in 2006 for future effectiveness monitoring.
The following short summaries were taken from more extensive monitoring results. Please refer to the
tables above to determine which units were monitored and refer to original monitoring forms for more
complete data.
Preliminary post burn monitoring plot data indicates Arabis constancei tolerates burning in areas with
low fuel accumulation but is intolerant of hot fires.
Photo point and plot monitoring indicated that underburning in spring did not seem to impact
Cardamine “marmorata” species novum.
Cypripedium fasciculatum showed population declines both 1- and 2-years post- mastication. The
population with 40 individuals declined to 4 plants post-1 year and down to 1 plant post-2 years after
mastication.
Photo point and plot monitoring indicated that underburning in spring did not appear to impact Fritillaria
eastwoodiae. The population of Fritillaria eastwoodiae increased in the immediate area of mastication.
Photo point monitoring indicated that underburning did not appear to be associated with any change in
the occurrence of Lupinus dalesiae.
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?
Plumas NF, Mt Hough RD
Noxious
Occurrence
Weed
Sale Name Species
treated?
Jura DFPZ Yellow Star Yes, in 2002 and
Unit 2
Thistle
2004-2006
Jura DFPZ Yellow Star Yes, in 2002,
Unit 5
Thistle
2004 and 2006
Jura DFPZ Yellow Star
Unit 5
Thistle
Jura DFPZ Yellow Star
Unit 5
Thistle
Jura DFPZ
Unit 4
Cardaria
draba
Effectiveness Monitoring Results
Population seems much smaller in 2006, 2006
treatment had not occurred before monitoring visit
Population same as previous visits, 2006 treatment
had not taken place prior to 2006 monitoring visit
No, too large to
Population with approximately 500,000 plants too
hand pull
large for hand treatment remains a serious infestation.
New occurrence first discovered in 2006. This
population is well established with about 3000 plants
No
Weed whacked in 2006, at time of monitoring visit the
Yes, in 2002 - plant had not resprouted, overall population has slowly
2006
expanded
z Page 11
October 8, 2007
Empire
DFPZ Unit
7
Medusahead
Empire
DFPZ Units
1 & 2 Medusahead
Flaming
treatment in 2006 - Spring treatments as effective as spring plus fall
2005/2006
treatment, and more effective than fall treatment.
Flaming
treatment in 2006 - Spring treatments as effective as spring plus fall
2005/2006
treatment, and more effective than fall treatment.
DFPZ: not yet
treated. Flaming
Empire
DFPZ Unit
treatment in 2006 - Spring treatments as effective as spring plus fall
2
Medusahead
2005/2006
treatment, and more effective than fall treatment.
Summary Questions 29 and 30
Yellow star thistle responds to treatment, but only when conducted annually or several times annually.
Large populations cannot be effectively suppressed with hand treatment and an alternative treatment
type is necessary. A new occurrence was discovered in 2006 in Jura Unit 5, an area with two other
existing populations. It is unclear if this new occurrence was previously undetected or is a new
infestation.
Heart-podded Hoary Cress (Cardaria draba) is not responding to hand treatment efforts thus far. A
new treatment is necessary to control this noxious weed.
Propane torch flaming treatments on the noxious weed grass Medusahead have shown that spring
treatments are as effective as spring plus fall treatment, and more effective than fall treatment alone.
Not all existing populations of noxious weeds are being suppressed or contained, even with some
effort. A new occurrence of Yellow Star Thistle in Jura Unit 5 has become established, although it is
not clear that this population was not previously known.
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, hoary cress and yellow star thistle.
Question 31: Did new infestations of noxious weeds occur during or following project
implementation?
Timber Stand Structure Monitoring units were used to evaluate this question. Pre-treatment plots were
established prior to treatment, and these were examined post-treatment to determine if noxious weed
occurrences became established. These site visits consisted of a survey by a botanist to determine the
presence of new noxious weed occurrences in harvest units that previously did not have noxious
weeds. The Bidwell and Black’s Ridge units were monitored for the 1-year post-treatment monitoring in
2006. The Antelope Border units were in the 4-year post-treatment monitoring in 2006 and 1-year posttreatment monitoring occurred in 2003.
Question 31 Table – Units surveyed for new occurrences of noxious weeds
Ranger
District
Noxious
Weeds
Sale Name
Found Pretreatment?
Noxious weeds found 1 year
post-treatment
Noxious weeds found 4-years
post-treatment
z Page 12
Eagle
Lake
October 8, 2007
Bidwell 62
No
Bull thistle observed, less than
0.1% cover in unit.
No
No
No
No
Black’s
Ridge 26
Black’s
Hat Creek
Ridge 28
Antelope
Mt Hough Border 13b
No
Antelope
Mt Hough Border 15a
No
Hat Creek
Antelope
Border 15b
Antelope
Mt Hough
Border 22
Mt Hough
N/A
N/A
N/A
Cheat Grass recorded on 3
plots (20% of 15 plots) with 1060% cover.
Cheat grass found in unit,
Cheat grass recorded in 1 plot at
approximately 1% cover, but
10% cover
less than 10% cover in all plots.
No
No
No
No
No
No
Bull thistle observed, less than
0.1% cover in unit.
Summary of Question 31
There were 7 units with pre- and post-treatment vegetation plots monitored in 2006. Four (57%) of
these units had new occurrences of noxious weeds recorded. Two units had Bull thistle (Cirsium
vulgare), a C-rated noxious weed in California. This weed commonly moves into forest areas where the
soil has been disturbed and the canopy thinned or removed. It is not a species of great concern as it
generally becomes less common as other vegetation becomes established.
Cheat grass (Bromus tectorum) was recorded in two units post-treatment where it was not recorded
pre-treatment. The species was recorded during botanical surveys in the Antelope-Border project area,
but was not abundant enough to show up on any of the pre-treatment plots. Cheat grass, although not
state listed as a noxious weed, is considered to be an undesirable, aggressive non-native species and
is monitored by HFQLG Pilot Project area botanists. This species is a concern and it appears that
HFQLG treatments are providing suitable habitat for the species to expand. However, in the adjacent
Stream wildfire area on the opposite side of Antelope-Lake, there are dense patches of cheat grass
present post-wildfire without any mechanical treatments (Terry Miller, botanist, personal
communication). This aggressive weed is likely to continue its invasion whether we treat the landscape
or not.
Neither of the species is likely to have been introduced by equipment operating in the project area. The
bull thistle has a wind-disbursed seed and cheat grass was already present in the Antelope-Border
area. Equipment cleaning in these project areas appears to have prevented new noxious weed
species from becoming established.
Lessons Learned
Creating areas of new disturbance provides suitable substrate for weed invasion. The findings of
increased weed presence was expected and considered a cost of implementing the fuel reduction
projects.
Key Findings
Question 7 – Were TES plants surveyed and protected?
Yes, 100 percent of TES plant control areas were protected.
Question 8: Were noxious weed introductions prevented and existing infestations suppressed?
z Page 13
October 8, 2007
Preventative measures were completed in all project areas and 100% of existing occurrences had
either control or avoidance management strategies followed. The botany task group made significant
improvements in 2006. Only 77 percent of control areas were protected in 2005 monitored sites.
Question 28a: How do TES plant species respond to resource management activities?
Underburning did not impact Cardamine “marmorata” species novum, Fritillaria eastwoodiae or Lupinus
dalesiae. Mastication had strong negative effects on Cypripedium fasciculatum but had positive effects
on Fritillaria eastwoodiae. Arabis constancei is tolerant of low intensity fire of short duration, but
intolerant of high intensity fire of long duration.
Question 28b: Did new occurrences of TES plant species occur during or following project
implementation?
No new occurrences of TES plant species were found in monitored units.
Question 29 : Were existing infestations of noxious weeds eliminated or contained? and
Question 30: Were all new infestations of noxious weeds eliminated or did some become
established?
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, whitetop and yellow star thistle.
Question 31: Did new infestations of noxious weeds occur during or following project
implementation?
Yes, four of seven units monitored had new populations of bull thistle or cheat grass.
z Page 14
October 8, 2007
Appendix 1. 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
sale
by
contract map
admin
Field Visit
Completed by
United States
Department of
Agriculture
File Code:
Route To:
Subject:
To:
Forest
Service
Lassen, Plumas, Tahoe
National Forests
Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group
Forest Recovery Act Pilot Project
P. O. Box 11500, Quincy, CA 95971-6025
(530) 283-7821 Voice
(530) 534-7984 Text (TDD)
Date: April 26, 2006
2600
Protection of Botany Control Areas
District Rangers
Following are some suggestions and lessons learned regarding botany monitoring on the Pilot
Project.
BACKGROUND
Botany control areas were monitored as part of the HFQLG Monitoring plan from 2002-2005.
Monitoring results are shown in Table 1. Because we expect 95-100 percent protection of
designated control areas, it is clear that we need to improve in this area.
Table 1. Monitoring results of botany control areas in the HFQLG Pilot Project
Number Control
Percent of Control Areas
Year
Areas monitored
successfully protected
2002
9
89%
2003
29
59%
2004
26
88%
2005
31
77%
Across the Pilot project area botanists, service contract CORs and sale administrators have been
working together in an effort to improve the successful protection of botany control areas.
Several ideas have come forward that have improved the successful protection of control areas.
We would like to share these ideas across the HFQLG Pilot project area.
LESSONS LEARNED
Enhance Plant Protection Plans
Plant protection plan documentation needs to be improved. This can be corrected by an assurance that
the botanist properly prepares a sensitive plant protection plan with maps of areas to be protected and
provides a complete copy of the plan to the project administrator, the project record/analysis file and
maintains a third copy in the botany project files. This would allow all parties involved easy access to
knowledge of where protection areas are scheduled. Botanists also need to track when control areas
are flagged and how the control areas are marked in the field.
Caring for the Land and Serving People
Printed on Recycled Paper
Improve Communication between Botanists, Service Contract CORs and Sale Administrators
Communication between project administrators and botanists provides an excellent opportunity
for feedback between the planning stage and implementation stage prior to project
implementation. Feather River Ranger District has implemented “Planning to Implementation
Meetings” to ensure that resource protection measures are implemented as needed. Field review
of protection areas with both project administrators and botanists present should become
standard practice. One field day per project would likely be adequate to provide a stage for
helpful communication.
Maintain Checklist for Transition from NEPA Document to Implementation
Document/Contract
The district botanists, working together with interdisciplinary teams, need to develop a checklist for
transition from the EIS/EA to the implementation contract. An example that the Feather River Ranger
District has modified from the Tahoe National Forest is included as an attachment.
Specialists Review Contract Maps
A critical step is for the botanist and contract administrator to ensure they agree that the contract maps
adequately depict where protection areas are scheduled. Sale area and service contract maps should
be routed to specialists prior to implementation.
For more information, please contact Colin Dillingham, HFQLG Monitoring Team Leader, at 530283-7881.
/s/ Kurt L. Winchester
KURT L. WINCHESTER
HFQLG Implementation
Team Leader
Attachment