Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group
Botany Monitoring Report - 2011
March 30, 2012
Contributors:
Michelle Coppoletta, Associate Province Ecologist
Colin Dillingham, HFQLG Monitoring Team Leader
Kyle Merriam, Province Ecologist
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
Kirsten Bovee, Botanist, Lassen National Forest
Allison Sanger, Botanist, Lassen National Forest
Susan Urie, Botanist, Tahoe National Forest
Table of Contents
1.0
PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................................... 1
2.0
METHODS .......................................................................................................................................... 1
2.1
MONITORING QUESTIONS ............................................................................................................ 1
2.2
SAMPLE SIZES ................................................................................................................................ 1
2.3
SAMPLE POOLS.............................................................................................................................. 2
3.0
RESULTS............................................................................................................................................. 3
3.1
IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING QUESTIONS ............................................................................. 3
3.2
EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING QUESTIONS .................................................................................. 7
4.0
KEY FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................. 15
4.1
SENSITIVE PLANT PROTECTION ................................................................................................... 15
4.2
SENSITIVE PLANT RESPONSE TO MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ..................................................... 16
4.3
NOXIOUS WEEDS......................................................................................................................... 16
1.0 PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to document the results of monitoring conducted between 2002 and
2011 by Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe National Forest botanists and ecologists. Monitoring in 2011
included both implementation and effectiveness monitoring. Implementation monitoring of units
treated in 2010 was conducted to determine if recommended mitigations and treatments were
accomplished as planned. Effectiveness monitoring was completed to determine the response of
Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive (TES) plants and noxious weeds to mitigations and HFQLG
treatment activities. The intent of this monitoring effort is to highlight processes and actions that are
successful; identify factors that need improvement; and provide Forest Service personnel and
members of the public with information that will help guide adaptive management of botanical
resources in the future. This annual monitoring is required under the Herger-Feinstein Quincy
Library Group Forest Recovery Act (HFQLG).
2.0 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 was
prepared on July 28, 2009 to assess whether HFQLG activities impact TES or special interest plant
species. The HFQLG botany monitoring effort addresses the following questions:
2.1 MONITORING QUESTIONS
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?
2.2 SAMPLE SIZES
In 1999, Linnea Hanson, Plumas National Forest Botanist, worked with PSW statisticians to develop a
TES Plant Implementation Monitoring scheme to answer questions 7 and 8. They estimated that a
sample size of 300 units would be required to achieve a 90 percent compliance rate and a 3.4
1
percent precision level. This large number of sampling units was too large to be feasibly
implemented. In response, the sampling scheme was amended in 2008 by Jim Baldwin and Colin
Dillingham (available online at: http://cdb.fs.usda.gov/content/dav/fs/NFS/Plumas/Program/
HFQLG/Monitoring/Statistics/Compliance_precision_20080512.xls). This scheme set an annual
sample pool size of 60 units: 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.
Observational data have also been evaluated to formulate general assessments of HFQLG
implementation and effectiveness and to provide feedback to the public, botanists, and land
managers.
2.3 SAMPLE POOLS
The 2011 HFQLG Botany Monitoring program included both implementation and effectiveness
monitoring. In 2011, six sample pools were developed to answer the implementation and
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 Year
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
2011
25
29
4
4
11
12
Total Number Units Sampled
224
151
73
130
124
138
* 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? This sample pool was
developed by reviewing the entire list of units treated in 2010 and determining which of
these treated units had mitigations for TES plants. All of the 25 available units were
sampled under the HFQLG monitoring protocol in 2011.
 Question 8 – Were noxious weed introductions prevented and existing infestations
suppressed? The sample pool was developed by reviewing the entire list of units
treated in 2010 and determining which of these treated units had mitigations for
2
noxious weeds. There were 60 units with noxious weed control areas and/or
mitigations; 29 units were randomly selected and monitored in 2011.
 Question 28a – How do TES plant species respond to resource management activities?
Post-treatment effects were evaluated for Webber’s milkvetch (Astragalus webberi),
sticky pyrrocoma (Pyrrocoma lucida), and Layne’s ragwort (Packera layneae). In
addition, an analysis was completed on closed-lip penstemon monitoring data collected
from five treatment units and two controls over a five year period. A large-scale
summary of HFQLG botany effectiveness monitoring was also completed to identify
lessons learned and to assist future monitoring efforts.
 Question 28b - Did new occurrences of TES species become established during or
following project implementation? In 2011, data from the ongoing Treated Stand
Structure Monitoring (TSSM) were used to answer this question. Four units, which did
not have any TES plant occurrences prior to treatment, were examined after harvest to
determine if any new TES plant occurrences had occurred in response to management
activities. An additional eight units were revisited to complete the post-5 year
monitoring.
 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 for noxious weed species were included in
the sample pool to answer questions 29 and 30. Eleven infestations were monitored in
2011.
 Question 31 – Did new infestations of noxious weeds occur during or following project
implementation? Data from the ongoing Treated Stand Structure Monitoring (TSSM)
were used to answer this question. Twelve units were monitored to collect posttreatment data in 2011; four units were visited to collect data one year after treatment
and eight were revisited to collect data five years after treatment. Within units, data
describing shrub, grass and herbaceous plant cover were recorded at 15 sampling plots
per unit. TSSM field data collection protocols specify that percent cover data for noxious
weeds are also recorded within plots. Plot-level percent cover data for noxious weed
species were averaged for each TSSM unit to estimate percent cover of noxious weed
species before and after treatment.
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING QUESTIONS
QUESTION #7 – Were TES plants surveyed and protected?
The monitoring effort for Question 7 focused on evaluating the following questions:
1.
Were protection measures adequately documented and identified on the ground?
3
2.
Were control areas printed on contract maps?
3.
Were protection measures for plant occurrences implemented?
Table 2 provides a summary of the data collected to address the third question, which is considered
the most critical element. As seen in the table below, 92 percent of the control areas monitored in
2011 were successfully protected.
Table 2. Monitoring results of botany control areas in the HFQLG Pilot Project
2002
2003
2004
2005
Number Control Areas
monitored
9
29
26
31
Percent of Control Areas
successfully protected
89%
59%
88%
77%
2006
28
100%
2007
30
93%
2008
16
81%
2009
15
93%
2010
15
93%
2011
25
92%
Year
Of the 25 control areas monitored in 2011, 23 (92 percent) were protected as planned. The
minimum level of protection required to be considered successful is 90 percent of control areas
protected as planned; therefore, this objective was met.
Two sites on the Almanor Ranger District of the Lassen NF were not protected (see Appendix C for
details). Protection measures for a special interest species, hot rock daisy (Erigeron inornatus var.
calidipetris), were identified in the 2003 Decision Memo for the project; however control areas were
never explicitly designated. As a consequence, occurrences were not identified on the contract map,
were not flagged on the ground, and were subsequently not avoided by project activities. Imprecise
pre-treatment information makes it difficult to quantify the impact of the project activities on hot
rock daisy individuals within the two control areas. Observations suggest that this species is able to
tolerate disturbance; therefore the impact to these occurrences is thought to be moderate and the
overall impact to this species small.
Despite the protection failures described above, communication between botanists and contract
administrators appears to be good overall. There is still a need to improve tracking of control areas,
particularly for older projects. Continued coordination between the timber sale and service contract
administrators and botanists also needs to occur to ensure that (a) control areas are clearly
delineated on the ground, as well as on timber sale area and service contract maps, and (b) clearly
understood by both botanists and timber sale and service contract administrators.
4
LESSONS LEARNED
The following lessons have emerged from this monitoring effort and should be used to improve the
ability to protect TES plants in the future:
1. Improve communication among specialists, planners, and contract and sale
administrators. Communication between project administrators and botanists prior to
project implementation provides an excellent opportunity for feedback between the
planning and implementation stages. This is particularly critical on the Lassen NF, where
botanists are stationed at the Supervisor’s Office and not on the districts. Field review of
protection areas with both project administrators and botanists present should become
standard practice.
2. Clearly communicate mitigation measures and Integrated Design Features (IDFs) in
plant protection plans and planning documents. Botanists should prepare a sensitive
plant protection plan with maps that clearly delineate areas to be protected. Copies
should be provided to the project administrator, included in the project record, and
maintained in the botany project files. Botanists should review older NEPA documents,
Biological Evaluations, and Biological Assessments to determine if mitigation measures
and IDFs are adequate and to ensure protection during project implementation.
3. Ensure that control areas are delineated both on the ground and on contract maps. A
critical step is for the botanist and contract administrator to agree that contract maps
adequately depict protection areas. Sale area and service contract maps should be
routed to specialists prior to implementation. Botanists also need to verify that control
areas are clearly delineated in the field with control area flagging.
4. Develop mitigation measures that can be feasibly implemented. Consider factors such
as the unpredictable nature of prescribed fire when designing mitigation measures.
Make sure control measures can be clearly communicated and understood by
implementation staff and contractors.
QUESTION #8 – Were noxious weed introductions prevented and existing infestations
suppressed?
Monitoring was conducted to determine if mitigation measures for noxious weeds occurred during
project implementation. Summary results are provided in Table 3 below and unit specific 2011
monitoring information is provided in Appendix A. 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.
5
Table 3. Results from noxious weed control measure monitoring within the HFQLG Pilot Project
2002
2003
2004
2005
Number of weed sites with
treatment or avoidance
objectives in sample pool
1
5
11
17
Percentage of weed sites
with control measures
implemented
0%
100%
55%
88%
Percentage of projects
with documented
Equipment Cleaning
66%
100%
100%
93%
2006
9
100%
100%
2007
22
91%
100%
2008
27
89%
85%
2009
11
100%
100%
2010
19
95%
100%
2011
29
100%
100%
Year
Twenty nine sites with documented weed infestations were evaluated in 2011. All of the infestations
were either treated and/or avoided during management activities.
HFQLG projects have consistently implemented contract specifications related to equipment
cleaning. Equipment cleaning was documented for all of the projects investigated in 2011. Projects
reviewed include: the Fox Farm Defensible Fuel Profile Zone (DFPZ), Robbers Fuels Reduction DFPZ,
Old Station Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), and Cabin projects on the Lassen NF; the Genesee Fuels
Reduction and Black Oak Enhancement and Empire Vegetation Management projects on the Plumas
NF; and the Dinkaroo Timber Sale, Jumbuck, and Billabong Timber Sale projects on the Tahoe NF.
LESSONS LEARNED
In general, mitigations designed to prevent new noxious weed introductions and to suppress existing
infestations appear successful. Additional efforts may be required to reduce the potential for
invasion of some highly invasive and difficult to treat weed species, such as musk thistle and
medusahead. Although the 2011 monitoring results demonstrate high levels of compliance, it is
always useful to reemphasize past lessons learned so that we can continue to prevent projectrelated negative impacts associated with noxious weed invasion.
1.
Clearly communicate weed mitigation measures prior to project implementation.
Communication between project administrators and botanists prior to project
implementation provides an excellent opportunity for feedback between the planning
and implementation stages of the project. Mitigation measures should be clearly
described in planning documents and noxious weed reports. Field review of weed
control areas with both project administrators and botanists present should become
standard practice.
2. Ensure that noxious weed mitigations and control areas are clearly and accurately
delineated both on the ground and on contract maps. Sale area and service contract
maps need to be reviewed to ensure that the maps adequately communicate weed
6
mitigation sites. Botanists also need to verify that weed control areas are clearly
delineated in the field with noxious weed flagging.
3. Review contract documentation to ensure that weed mitigation measures are
incorporated. In all contracts, there is contractual language outlining how to add
additional resource protection measures. Control areas can be added to an existing
contract when needed.
3.2 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 the methodology changed in 2006. Tables
that include specific 2011 results for Question 28 are included in Appendix A. Previous years efforts
are summarized in corresponding annual reports.
Table 4. Monitoring results of TES effectiveness monitoring in the HFQLG Pilot Project
2005
Number of treatment
units with TES plant
monitoring sites
31
Percent of monitored populations that had
neutral or positive responses to HFQLG
vegetation management activities1
2
97%
2006
7
86%
2007
12
75%
2008
6
83%
2009
6
100%
2010
7
100%
2011
4
100%
Year
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).
Question 28: Part A
In 2011, post-treatment effects were evaluated for
Webber’s milkvetch (Astragalus webberi), sticky
pyrrocoma (Pyrrocoma lucida), Layne’s ragwort
(Packera layneae), and closed-lip penstemon
(Penstemon personatus). A large-scale summary of
the HFQLG botany monitoring effort was also
compiled to indentify monitoring lessons learned. The
following results have been summarized from the
preliminary monitoring reports provided as
appendices (D-H) to this report. An analysis of sticky
7
Figure 1. Monitoring Packera layneae on
serpentine soils, Plumas NF.
pyrrocoma (Pyrrocoma lucida) data has not been conducted and will be completed after the next
phase of data collection (post-3 year) is complete.
Webber’s milkvetch (Astragalus webberi)
Hand thinning and prescribed fire treatments significantly increased (p<0.001) the number of small
Webber’s milkvetch plants within the treatment unit (Figure 2). Treatments that exposed bare
ground, particularly through the construction of hand lines, were most effective at increasing
Webber’s milkvetch density. Prescribed fire and hand thinning treatments alone did not significantly
increase seed germination; like many other legume species, Webber’s milkvetch may require
damage or removal of their hard outer seed coats to stimulate germination. Hand thinning did
enhance Webber’s milkvetch growth (as indicated by stem number) by reducing canopy cover and
enhancing light conditions in the understory.
140
Plant Number
120
100
80
60
Control
40
Treatment
20
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
Year
Fig.2. Webber’s milkvetch density significantly increased in the treatment unit
between 2008 and 2011; plant numbers did not change in the control plots (p<0.001).
Future management for Webber’s milkvetch should focus on protecting established individuals while
applying landscape level treatments that (a) expose bare ground to stimulate germination and (b)
increase the amount of light that reaches the understory to promote growth of existing plants.
Future reintroduction efforts should mechanically scarify the seeds (i.e. rub them between two
layers of sandpaper) prior to planting in order to increase germination.
Layne’s ragwort (Packera layneae)
There were no significant changes in the density, size or reproductive potential of Layne’s ragwort
after the prescribed burn, suggesting that this treatment had a neutral effect. However, the increase
in the number of flowering plants within the control unit did not occur within the treatment unit.
This suggests that there may have been some negative effects of the treatment on Layne’s ragwort
such that it could not benefit from environmental conditions that promoted flowering in the control
unit. It is possible that the prescribed fire could have negatively affected Layne’s ragwort and other
8
herbaceous species through direct effects of heat
and flame contact. Many plants require the
conditions created by fire, but can still be killed or
injured by fire.
The density of Layne’s ragwort was positively
associated with bare ground and negatively
associated with canopy closure. These results suggest
that a prescribed burn, which can reduce surface
fuels and reduce overstory canopy closure, may
benefit this species by creating optimal habitat
Figure 3. Layne’s ragwort on the Plumas NF
conditions.
Although monitoring will not be completed until 2013 (five years after the treatment), a few general
recommendations can be made based on these data to improve habitat restoration efforts for
Layne’s ragwort using prescribed fire. First, successful prescribed burning treatment should have
sufficient intensity to create the kind of environmental conditions preferred by Layne’s ragwort,
including (a) reduced surface fuels and exposed bare ground; and (b) reduced overstory canopy
closure, which might also be achieved through thinning treatments. Second, consider creating
control areas to protect existing Layne’s ragwort individuals from the direct effects of burning.
Closed-lip penstemon (Penstemon personatus)
Percent Change in PEPE Cover
Sampling did not detect declines of great than 50 percent in P. personatus cover three years after
treatment; therefore hand thinning, and pile burning, mechanical thinning, and group selection
treatments are not considered detrimental to this species and no management action is required at
this time.
275%
1 year after trt
225%
3 years after trt
175%
Threshold Value
125%
75%
25%
-25%
-75%
-125%
Group Selection Mechanical Thin Hand thin/Pile
Burn
Control
Figure 4. The percent change in P. personatus cover one and three years after treatment. The red line
represents the management threshold, which is a decrease of 50% from the pre-treatment cover
estimates. The error bars represent one-sided 90 percent confidence intervals
9
The only treatment unit to show a decline greater than the stated management objective was group
selection unit Guard 442. The percent cover of P. personatus within this unit dropped by an
estimated 57 percent in the first year following group selection thinning; however three years after
treatment, the percent cover had rebounded to an estimated 21 percent more than the cover prior
to treatment. This finding supports previous observations that P. personatus cover within units may
decline in the first year or two following treatment, but is likely to rebound after year three to pretreatment levels.
Thinning treatments did not result in a significant decline in P. personatus cover over time (p=0.06,
α=0.1). The percent cover of P. personatus within treatments and controls did not differ significantly
from their pre-treatment values one or three years after treatment (Figure 4). P. personatus cover
was significantly and positively related to overstory canopy cover (p= 0.004, α=0.05), which suggests
that in areas of similar duff and litter depth higher canopy cover will generally be associated with
higher P. personatus cover.
Question 28: Part B
In 2011, data from the ongoing Treated Stand Structure monitoring (TSSM) were used to answer this
question. At the end of the 2011 monitoring season, one-year post-treatment data were available
for a total of 130 units; 23 of these units also had five-year post-treatment data. Of these, 111 were
units that had been randomly selected according to TSSM monitoring protocol. Within TSM
sampling units, plots were established and pre-treatment data recorded prior to project
implementation. Post-treatment monitoring data were collected one-year after treatment within all
111 TSSM units, and five years post-treatment within 23 of the 111 units. In addition to the TSSM
plots, a unique set of 19 units were monitored in 2005 and data were analyzed in the 2005 botany
monitoring report. No new occurrences of TES plants were located following project implementation
within any of the 130 units.
LESSONS LEARNED
Over the past seven years, botanists and ecologists from the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe National
Forests have collected and analyzed data aimed at investigating the response of rare plants to
prescribed fire, fuel reduction, and timber harvest activities implemented under the HFQLG Pilot
Project. So far, data have been collected and analyzed for eight species and four different treatment
types. Some of the overall lessons that have emerged from this effort are described below.
1. The response of individual species is often linked to the intensity of the treatment and the
species’ ecology. The species monitored naturally inhabit open sites and/or have evolved
with fire, which could explain why moderate to low intensity fire and timber harvest
treatments had negligible (and in some cases beneficial) effects. In contrast, the response to
high intensity fire or group selection harvest was variable, causing significant declines in two
disturbance intolerant species and having no effect on those species that appear to thrive in
disturbed sites.
2. Measuring environmental variables (such as canopy cover, fuel loads, duff depth, etc.) is
important when trying to explain a plant’s response to specific treatments. Understanding a
10
species’ relationship to habitat variables, such as canopy cover, fuel loads, and duff depth,
can be critical to designing effective habitat enhancement treatments for individual species.
3. Monitoring should occur over a long enough time period to capture any initial population
declines, potential recovery to pre-treatment numbers, and natural variability. In many
cases, if we had set our monitoring frame too short (i.e. limiting it to only one year after
treatment), we might have made some incorrect assumptions about the species’ overall
response.
QUESTION 29: Were existing infestations of noxious weeds eliminated or contained?
In 2011, eleven existing infestations of noxious weeds were assessed to address Question 29. These
infestations included the following five noxious weed species: yellow starthistle (Centaurea
solstitialis), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), Klamathweed (Hypericum perforatum), perennial
pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), and medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae). Of the 11
infestations monitored, ten were assessed by resurveying the entire infestation while the
medusahead site was assessed by sampling a portion of the infestation.
As seen in Figure 5 below, repeated treatments have generally been successful in eradicating small
populations of noxious weeds. Of those monitored in 2011, 70 percent were eradicated and twenty
percent were well contained. The only infestation that increased in response to treatments was one
Scotch broom occurrence (CYSC 147 in Figure 5b) within the Empire project area. In 2007,
mechanical equipment (i.e. a Skid steer) was used to pull out large broom plants; the resulting
increase in numbers represents the flush of seedlings that followed the soil disturbance associated
with the mechanical removal. Although the total number of individuals has increased at this site, the
treatments are considered successful due to the elimination of flowering individuals and continuing
eradication of seedlings.
It is important to note that the data included in this report represent only those sites where
eradication measures or control areas were prescribed; sites selected for treatment are generally
limited to areas that have some probability of success (i.e. control methods are available for the
target species and sites are small enough to control). As a consequence, larger infestations, which
are not feasibly treated, were not assessed in 2011. In addition, these data do not capture
infestations that have not been treated on an on-going basis.
11
Figure 5. Response of four noxious weed species to repeated treatments over time:
(a) starthistle, (b) Scotch broom, (c) klamathweed, and (d) perennial pepperweed
Medusahead was also monitored to determine the effect of mastication treatments on percent
cover and frequency of this invasive grass. As expected, mastication treatments resulted in a
significant decline (p = <0.0001; α= 0.5) in shrub cover. Within the treatment unit, shrub cover
dropped from an average of 35 percent cover to just over one percent cover following treatment.
However, even with this significant decrease in shrub cover, there was no significant increase in
medusahead frequency or percent cover one year after mastication treatments.
2010
2011
Percent Cover
30
20
10
0
Control
Mastication
Figure 6. Change in medusahead frequency within treated and untreated plots.
Table 5 presents a summary of weed effectiveness monitoring for the entire HFQLG Pilot Project
area. Effectiveness monitoring was initiated in 2004.
12
Table 5. Monitoring results of weed effectiveness sites in the HFQLG Pilot Project
2004
Number of treatment
units with weed
monitoring sites
8
Percent of monitored weed sites that did not exhibit an
increase in response to HFQLG vegetation management in
concert with weed eradication measures or site avoidance*
63%
2005
12
100%
2006
8
63%
2007
17
94%
2008
16
75%
2009
42
95%
2010
11
91%
2011
11
91%
Year
* 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.
QUESTION 30: Were all new infestations of noxious weeds eliminated or did some become
established?
Two new weed infestations, which were discovered while monitoring treatment units in 2011, were
promptly treated. Future effectiveness monitoring will determine if these treatments were effective
at containing or eradicating these new infestations.
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 for species that are 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 to develop feasible methods of control for highly invasive species such
as 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 the 2011 monitoring season, 111 units have been monitored for noxious weed
introductions as part of the Treated Stand Structure Monitoring (TSSM) protocol. Prior to treatment,
the protocol detected one invasive weed (cheatgrass) infestation within the sampling plots. The
percent cover for this cheat grass infestation was estimated at two percent.
Twenty six (24 percent) of the units had detectable invasive weed populations within the sampling
plots after treatment (Table 6). Thirteen of these units were on the Lassen National Forest and 13
were on the Plumas National Forest. None of the detections occurred on the Tahoe National Forest.
None of the species detected are currently considered high priority noxious weeds. While additional
infestations have been observed within treated units, these detections are not included due to the
lack of verifiable pre-treatment information.
13
Cheat grass was the most common species detected within the infested Treated Stand Structure
Monitoring (TSSM) plots. The percent cover of this invasive grass has generally increased over time
following treatment (see Table 6). There is a substantial amount of published research
demonstrating that infestations of this undesirable, aggressive species can have substantial negative
impacts on native plant populations, wildlife habitat value, ecosystem function, and fire behavior
and frequency. Cheat grass typically increases following disturbances to soils, canopy cover, and
native plant populations. This invasive species is not currently a CDFA-rated weed and is not
considered a high priority for control on the three HFQLG pilot project forests. Monitoring data
collected to date however, do suggest that HFQLG treatments are creating suitable habitat for this
species and encouraging increases in spatial extent and percent cover. The most drastic measured
increase in cheat grass was in Antelope Border units 13B and 15B after the Boulder wildfire burned
through the units (Table 6).
Other invasive species documented within treatment units include Klamathweed (one TSSM unit)
and bull thistle (six TSSM units). Klamathweed and bull thistle are invasive non-native species that
out-compete native plant species for water, nutrients, and space.
Although cheat grass, Klamathweed, 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) within some of the monitoring units. These three
species may or may not be associated with HFQLG activities and 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 appeared to have been brought in when equipment was not
cleaned.
Table 6. Monitoring units with noxious weed infestations documented. Percent cover values are the average cover
for that species across the entire unit area sampled. Plots that do not have 5-year post treatment data available
are marked “n/a”.
Forest
District
Eagle Lake
Almanor
Project
Name
Harvey
Southside
Southside
Cherry Hill
Blacks Ridge
Lassen
NF
North Coble
Hat Creek
Pittville
Plumas
Beckwourth
Cabin
Last Chance
Treatment
Invasive
Species
Thin
Thin
Thin
Thin
Thin
Thin
Thin
Thin
Group
Thin
Group, underburn
Cheat grass
2
Bull thistle
Bull thistle
Cheat grass
Cheat grass
Cheat grass
Cheat grass
Cheat grass
Cheat grass
Cheat grass
Cheat grass
1
60
14
18
133
5
16
5
8
27068
29166
29181
Group, Thin
Cheat grass
Bull thistle
Cheat grass
30115
471
10
Thin
14
Unit
#
Percent Cover
1-Year
5-Year
Pre-Trt
Post-Trt
Post-Trt
0
0.7
n/a
0
2.7
n/a
0
2
n/a
0
2
n/a
0
10
n/a
0
3.3
n/a
2
2.7
n/a
0
0.7
n/a
0
6
7.3
0
3.3
1.3
0
1.3
2
0
0
0
0.7
1.5
1.3
0.7
n/a
4
NF
Red Clover
Feather
River
Mt Hough
Brush Creek
Antelope
Border
Guard
Snake
Waters
1
Thin
Thin
Thin
Thin
Thin
Hand thin, pile
burn
Thin
Thin
Thin
Thin
Group
Masticate
Cheat grass
Cheat grass
Cheat grass
Cheat grass
Cheat grass
13
3
10
18
49
0
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0
6
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.6
Klamathweed
24
0
0.7
n/a
Cheat grass
Cheat grass
Cheat grass
Bull Thistle
Bull Thistle
Bull thistle
13B
15A
15B
16
686
8D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.7
3
0.2
0.1
0
7.3
2.7
26.7
n/a
n/a
0.1
2
Cheatgrass is not listed by CDFA and is not actively treated by the Forest Service at this time.
2
Bull thistle and Klamathweed are listed as C-rated weeds by CDFA. The Forest Service does not actively treat occurrences of
these species at this time.
LESSONS LEARNED
Despite noxious weed mitigations, HFQLG treatments have still resulted in new introductions of
noxious weeds. This further emphasizes the need for inclusion of prevention measures, clear
communication between botanists and implementation staff, aggressive treatment of new
infestations, and ongoing containment of existing infestations.
4.0 KEY FINDINGS
Botanical resources are monitored to determine (a) if recommended mitigations and treatments are
implemented as planned and (b) the response of threatened, endangered, and Forest Service
Sensitive (TES) plants and noxious weeds to HFQLG management actions. The intent of this
monitoring effort is to highlight processes and actions that are successful; identify factors that need
improvement; and provide Forest Service personnel and members of the public with information
that will help guide adaptive management of botanical resources in the future.
4.1 SENSITIVE PLANT PROTECTION
Of the 25 TES control areas monitored in 2011, 23 sites (or 92 percent) were protected as planned
during HFQLG treatment implementation. Two sites were not protected during project
implementation. Although protection measures were identified in the Decision Memo for the
project, control areas were never explicitly designated. As a consequence, occurrences were not
identified on the contract map, were not flagged on the ground, and were subsequently not avoided
by project activities.
The minimum level of protection required to be considered successful is 90 percent of control areas
protected as planned; therefore, even though 100 percent compliance is considered optimal, this
objective was met in 2011. Achievement of the optimum protection level will require continual
improvements in communication between botanists and project implementation staff to ensure
effective field identification, understanding, and avoidance of control areas.
15
4.2 SENSITIVE PLANT RESPONSE TO MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Over the past seven years, botanists and ecologists from the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe National
Forests have collected and analyzed data aimed at investigating the response of rare plants to
prescribed fire, fuel reduction, and timber harvest activities implemented under the HFQLG Pilot
Project. A number of lessons have emerged from this effort. First, the response of individual species
is often linked to the intensity of the treatment and the species’ ecology. The species monitored
naturally inhabit open sites and/or have evolved with fire, which could explain why moderate to low
intensity fire and timber harvest treatments had negligible (and in some cases beneficial) effects. In
contrast, the response to high intensity fire or group selection harvest was variable, causing
significant declines in two disturbance intolerant species and having no effect on those species that
appear to thrive in disturbed sites. Second, measuring environmental variables (such as canopy
cover, fuel loads, duff depth, etc.) is important when trying to explain a plant’s response to specific
treatments. Third, monitoring should occur over a long enough time period to capture any initial
population declines, potential recovery to pre-treatment numbers, and natural variability.
4.3 NOXIOUS WEEDS
The objective of noxious weed monitoring is to determine if project-related activities and associated
weed control and prevention measures are successful at limiting new introductions and containing
or controlling existing infestations. Twenty nine sites with associated mitigation or control measures
were evaluated in 2011. All of the infestations were either treated and/or avoided during
management activities and had documented equipment cleaning during project implementation.
To assess the effects of HFQLG treatments on noxious weeds, 119 treated stands were monitored
with pre- and post treatment plots (15 plots per stand). At the end of the 2011 monitoring season,
26 units (or 24 percent) had invasive weed populations present one to five years after treatment;
prior to treatment, only one unit had an invasive species recorded within the plots. These weed
species, which include cheat grass, Klamathweed, and bull thistle, appear to increase in cover once
established.
Eleven infestations of noxious weeds were also assessed to evaluate the success of weed treatment
measures. The species monitored included: yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), Scotch broom
(Cytisus scoparius), klamathweed (Hypericum perforatum), perennial pepperweed (Lepidium
latifolium), and medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae).
Overall, repeated weed treatments have generally been successful in eradicating small populations
of noxious weeds. Of those monitored in 2011, 70 percent were eradicated and twenty percent
were well contained. The only infestation that increased in response to treatments was one Scotch
broom occurrence; this site was treated in 2007 with mechanical equipment (a Skid steer) and the
resulting increase in number represents the flush of seedlings that followed the soil disturbance
associated with mechanical removal.
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; however less
success has been realized in larger populations or for species that are more difficult to eradicate.
16
Additional efforts are needed to develop feasible methods of control for highly invasive species such
as medusahead, Dalmatian toadflax, musk thistle, knapweeds, tall whitetop, Canada thistle, and
yellow starthistle.
17
APPENDIX A
The following tables represent summaries of all available data collected in 2011 for monitoring questions 7, 8, 28, 29 and 30.
QUESTION #7 – Were TES plants surveyed and protected?
Forest
Sale
Unit #
Occurrence
#
Occurrence
protected?
SC 95
19
No
SC 21,
SC96
6
No
Eblis
375
10
Yes
Red Clover DFPZ
Slapjack
Slapjack
Empire Vegetation
Management
Project
47
78
198
1
ASLE7_029c
District
Species
Sale Name
Almanor
Erigeron inornatus
var. calidipetris
Robbers Fuels
Reduction DFPZ
Eagle Lake
Astragalus pulsiferae
var. suksdorfii
Beckwourth
Feather
River
Astragalus lentiformis
TES
TES
Lassen
NF
Cypripedium
montanum
Empire Vegetation
Management
Project
4
Billabong
Billabong
20
2
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes (see
comment)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Dinkaroo
108
Yes
Jumbuck
23
Yes
Jumbuck
1
6
10
Yes
Yes
Yes
Plumas
NF
LUDA_064B
Mt Hough
Lupinus dalesiae
Tahoe
NF
CYMO2_015A
CYMO2_015B
CYMO2_015C
LUDA_064A
Sierraville
LUDA_064C
LUDA_064D
LUDA_065E
LUDA_066F
LUDA_067G
LUDA_068H
fen
spring
Comments
Contract map did not display ERINC as control areas. Site was not
flagged on ground and not avoided by project activities.
Occurrence flagged, avoided, displayed as Control Area on contract
maps.
Occurrence Protected
Control Area for equipment
Control Area for no piles on plants
One pile was placed within the Control area, but was left unburned.
Plants appear healthy and robust.
control area for fen was protected
control area for fen was protected
There were no equipment tracks into fen. Two trees were removed
by reaching in. No drag lines were present and fen was intact. Stream
flow pattern crossed through the fen.
Fen protected, but ten musk thistle plants were found in meadow and
pulled.
The headwaters of the fen were protected and the out flowing
streams were naturally armored by small rocks.
Protected during logging operations, but impacted by cattle.
Protected during logging operations, but has been impacted by cattle.
QUESTION #8 – Were noxious weed introductions prevented and existing infestations suppressed?
Forest
District
Sale Name
Sale Unit #
Were prescribed
mitigations
followed?
Hypericum
perforatum
Fox Farm DFPZ
SC U 84
Yes
Yes
Lepidium latifolium
Robbers Fuels
Reduction DFPZ
SC 78
Yes
Yes
Occurrence at 200 plants in 2003, 1,030 in 2004, 1,600 in 2005,
178 in 2007, 120 in 2008, 57 in 2009, 260 in 2010, and 50 in
2011. Occurrence contained, but not eliminated, with
decreasing trend. Treatment effective.
Occurrence at 30 clumps in 1998. No plants observed in 2004,
2010 or 2011. Occurrence eliminated. Treatment effective.
Species
(Required)
Equipme
nt
cleaned?
Almanor
Lassen
NF
Cabin
--
Yes
Old Station WUI
--
Yes
Yes
Yes
n/a
(underbur
n)
Yes
Yes
Control area, no plans to eradicate populations
Yes
Yes
Control area, no plans to eradicate populations
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hat Creek
Lepidium latifolium
Pittville DFPZ
--
Cirsium arvense
Clarks Aspen
62
Cytisus scoparius
Empire
Vegetation
Management
Project
Plumas
NF
Imperial Mine
Mt Hough
Centaurea
solstitialis
Occurrence at 1 plant in 2005. No plants observed when
monitored yearly since 2006. Occurrence eliminated.
Treatment effective.
n/a (hand
thinning)
Hypericum
perforatum
Beckwourth
Comments
Occurrence only partially inventoried; not contained and
spreading along Highway 89. Spread a function of highway as
vector; does not appear associated with project activities.
Treatment not effective.
Genesee WUI
Fuels Reduction
and Black Oak
Enhancement
2
Yes
Yes
1
Yes
Yes
Occurrence at 40 plants in 2003, 114 in 2004, 74 in 2005, 22 in
2006, 24 in 2007, 16 in 2008, 27 in 2009, and 8 in 2010. No
plants observed in 2011. Occurrence contained with decreasing
trend. Treatment effective.
Starthistle infestation was not treated, but appears to have
been avoided by project implementation. SA report showed
vehicle washing. A new starthistle infestation was found in a
disturbed landing within the unit where it was not previously
mapped.
Forest
District
Species
(Required)
Sale Name
Billabong
Dinkaroo
Tahoe
NF
Sierraville
Carduus nutans
Jumbuck
Sale Unit #
Group 7-1
Were prescribed
mitigations
followed?
Yes
Group 6-3
Yes
No CANU4 musk thistle found
Group 6-4
Yes
No CANU4 musk thistle found
Group 12-6
Yes
No CANU4 musk thistle found
90-02
Yes
No CANU4 musk thistle found
90-06
Yes
No CANU4 musk thistle found
92-01
Yes
No CANU4 musk thistle found
92-03
Yes
No CANU4 musk thistle found
6
Yes
No CANU4 musk thistle found
10
Yes
No CANU4 musk thistle found
14
Yes
No CANU4 musk thistle found
15-1
Yes
No CANU4 musk thistle found
22
Yes
No CANU4 musk thistle found
26
Yes
No CANU4 musk thistle found
27
Yes
No CANU4 musk thistle found
33
Yes
No CANU4 musk thistle found
Equipment
cleaned?
Comments
No CANU4 musk thistle found
APPENDIX B: Botany Control Area Tracking Sheet
Project Name:
(See attached map for unit locations)
Unit number
Species
Date Flag/Tag
Completed
Flag/tag Completed by
GIS on contract Date field visit
map
with sale admin
Field Visit Completed by
APPENDIX C
Review of Failure to Protect Botany Control Area
FY2011 Lassen NF QLG Monitoring, Almanor Ranger District
Hot rock daisy (Erigeron inornatus var. calidipetris)
Occurrence numbers ERINC #6, ERINC #19
Overview of Plant Status
Erigeron inornatus var. calidipetris (hot rock daisy) is a special interest plant on the Lassen National
Forest and a California Native Plant Society List 4.3 species (uncommon in California, not very
threatened in California). Though uncommon, this plant is locally abundant in the Swain
Mountain/Bogard Buttes area of the Lassen National Forest, where 16 occurrences (with a total of 62
suboccurrences) are scattered across 60 square miles. This species is thought to tolerate moderate
disturbance because it is often documented as colonizing old landings and skid trails. At the time the
Robbers Fuels Reduction DFPZ biological evaluation was prepared, the species was inventoried when
encountered and core areas were selected for protection during vegetation management activities.
Review of Control Area Failure
The Decision Memo for the Robbers Fuels Reduction DFPZ (Robbers) project was signed in 2003, and a
Supplemental Information Report was signed in 2004. Botanical Protection Measures in the Decision
Memo include, “Maintain two undisturbed core areas of hot rock daisy (Erigeron inornatus var.
calidipetris) by flag and avoid methods. Allow disturbance in the remaining non-core areas within the
project area.”
Two occurrences of this species (ERINC #6, ERINC #19) were mapped within Robbers treatment units.
ERINC #6 was first observed in 1995, and its largest suboccurrence was mapped as 62 acres, 95% of
which was within treatment unit #95 of the Robbers project. ERINC #19 was first observed in 1999, and
its largest suboccurrence was mapped as 14 acres, 40% of which was within treatment units #21 and
#98. Specific portions of these occurrences were never explicitly designated as “core areas.” In
addition, mapping of these species was highly imprecise when they were first described in the 1990s,
and never remapped to improve accuracy. Treatment units #21, #95 and #98 were machine piled and
pile burned in FY2010. ERINC #6 and ERINC #19 were not mapped on the contract map, were not
flagged, and were not avoided by project activities.
Significance of Impact to Species
During a 2011 site visit to assess impacts of this control area failure, few plants were seen. We do not
know, however, how many plants occurred at the site prior to disturbance because the sites had not
been monitored since first documented, and the number of plants occurring even in 1995 and 1999 is
unknown. Within the treatment units, disturbance to understory plants was patchy. As this species is
thought to tolerate disturbance, the impact to these occurrences would be at most moderate, and the
overall impact to this species is small.
Lessons Learned
1. 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.
This is critical on the Lassen NF, where botanists are stationed at the Supervisor’s Office and not on
the districts. Field review of protection areas with both project administrators and botanists
present should become standard practice. In this particular incident, the imprecise language from
the 2003 Decision Memo also hindered communication of the intent of past botanists for protection
of these occurrences. Improvements have been made over the past eight years to increase
precision in how botany control measures are detailed in planning documents.
2. Collect Pre-Treatment Monitoring Data
Rare plant occurrences slated for control area protection should be monitored prior to treatment so
that if a control area failure occurs, impacts to the occurrence and the species as a whole can be
better ascertained. In addition, occurrences should be GPSed to ensure that the control area
coincides with the actual location and extent of the occurrence. The Lassen NF has GPSed many of
its rare plant sites, but many older occurrences such as these, particularly of special interest plant
species, remain imprecisely mapped.
3. Initiate and Maintain Plant Protection Plans
The botanist should prepare a sensitive plant protection plan with maps of areas to be protected and
provide a complete copy of the plan to the project administrator, file a copy in the project record and
maintain a third copy in the botany project files. This would allow all parties involved easy access to
knowledge of where protection areas are scheduled.
4. Specialists Review Contract Maps
A critical step is for the botanist and contract administrator to agree that contract maps adequately depict
where protection areas are scheduled. Sale area and service contract maps should be routed to specialists
prior to implementation.
APPENDIX D: Restoring Packera layneae on the Plumas N.F. using prescribed burning
Kyle Merriam, Sierra Cascade Ecology Program
INTRODUCTION
Packera layneae (Layne’s butterweed) is a federally listed as threatened plant species found primarily on
gabbro or serpentine soils in fire adapted chaparral and coniferous forest vegetation types. P. layneae is
considered an early successional species, occurring in openings with exposed bare ground and low
canopy cover, and thriving on disturbed sites (Figure 1).
Figure 1.Typical Packera layneae habitat on serpentine soils, Plumas National Forest.
Alteration of natural fire regimes is thought to have contributed to the decline of P. layneae (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 1996). In 2006, the Plumas National Forest (PNF) proposed a project to conduct a
small prescribed burn within a portion of a P. layneae population to determine if a low intensity
underburn might benefit this rare species. After several years of pre-treatment data collection, the PNF
treated a portion of a P. layneae occurrence by prescribed burning in 2008. The remainder of the
occurrence was not treated and used as a control. This report describes the effects of the prescribed
burn on P. layneae after three years of post-treatment data collection.
METHODS
Study Site
Packera layneae is known from western El Dorado, Tuolumne, and Yuba counties. The PNF population
occurs on serpentine soils in Yuba County, within a ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and Douglas fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) dominated plant community at 800-950 meters in elevation.
Experimental Design and Data Collection
In 2006, we located and permanently marked five circular plots in an area of the P. layneae occurrence
to be burned. We also established five plots in a nearby control area. Plots were located randomly, with
the only requirement being that they each contained at least 15 individual P. layneae plants. Five
individual P. layneae plants were permanently marked within each plot, for a total of 25 permanently
marked plants in the treatment area and 25 permanently marked plants in the control area. At each
sampling time the size (height and width), stem number, flowering stem number, and flower number of
each permanently marked plant were recorded. Within the circular plots, all P. layneae plants were
tallied according to four size classes: < 1 centimeters (cm) tall, 1-5 cm tall, > 5 cm tall and non-flowering,
and > 5 cm tall and flowering. Environmental data was also collected, including percent cover of
herbaceous understory vegetation, moss, bare ground, litter, coarse woody debris, and rock. Canopy
closure was measured using a spherical densiometer, and litter and duff depth were measured.
Timing
Pre-treatment data was collected in July of 2006 and 2007, and post-treatment data was collected in
July of 2009, 2010 and 2011. Data will be collected again in 2013, five years after project
implementation.
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using the statistical software program SAS 9.3 (SAS Institute 2010). Treatment
effects on P. layneae and environmental variables were evaluated with ANOVA, and linear regression
analyses were used to identify relationships between environmental variables and P. layneae.
RESULTS and DISCUSSION
Most P. layneae plants in both the control and treatment area were in two size classes; 1-5 cm in height,
or >5 cm in height and not flowering. We found very few P. layneae plants in the flowering stage or
smaller than 1 cm in height (Figure 2).
60
Plant Number
50
40
Average of > 5 cm, Flowering
30
Average of >5 cm Non-FL
20
Average of 1-5 cm
10
Average of <1 cm
0
Treatment
Control
Before
Treatment
Control
After
Figure 2. P. layneae density by size class in control and treatment plots both before and after the prescribed burn.
We found that total P. layneae density was not affected by the prescribed burn in 2008 (Figure 3). Plant
numbers in individual size classes also did not change after the 2008 prescribed burn treatment.
120
Plant Density (#)
100
80
60
Control
40
Treatment
Burn
20
0
2006
2007
2009
2010
2011
Year
Figure 3. There was no statistically significant change in average P. layneae density in either control or treatment plots over the
five year monitoring period.
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Control
Treatment
2006
2007
Burn
Flowering Plants #
The number of flowering P. layneae plants in the treatment plots did not change after the prescribed
burn in 2008, but the number of flowering plants in the control plots significantly increased during this
time period between 2007 and 2009 (Figure 4).
2009
2010
2011
Year
Figure 4. The average number of flowering P. layneae plants did not significantly change in treatment plots over the five year
monitoring period, while flowering plant numbers increased between 2007 and 2009 in the control plots (p-value for
year*treatment interaction term = 0.007) .
The prescribed burn had no significant effects on the environmental variables measured, including the
cover of bare ground, litter, coarse woody debris, rock, canopy closure and duff and litter depth. These
results suggest that the prescribed burn treatment may have been too low in intensity to have
significant effects on the environmental conditions of the P. layneae habitat (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Prescribed fire effects in P. layneae habitat.
The cover of herbaceous plant species did not change in the treatment plots after the burn, but there
was a significant increase in herbaceous cover in control plots over the same time period (Figure 6).
30
Control
25
Treatment
Cover (%)
20
15
10
0
2006
2007
Burn
5
2009
2010
Year
Figure 6. The percent cover of understory vegetation was similar in control and treatment plots prior to the burn, but was
significantly lower in treatment plots after the burn (p-value for year*treatment interaction term = 0.04).
We found that P. layneae density was positively associated with the amount of bareground exposed,
particularly for plants between 1-5 cm tall (Figure 7).
140
Plant Number
Plant Number
120
100
80
60
40
R2=0.31, p<0.001
20
0
a
0
10
20
30
40
b
Bareground Cover (%)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
R2=0.76, p<0.0001
0
10
20
30
40
Bareground Cover (%)
Figure 7. Both the total number of P. layneae plants (a) , and the number of 1-5 cm tall P. layneae plants (b) were positively
associated with the cover of bare ground.
The number of plants in the 1-5 cm tall size class was also higher in plots with less overstory canopy
closure (Figure 8).
90
2
80
R =0.12, p=0.04
Plant Number
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
45
55
65
75
85
Overstory Canopy (%)
95
105
Figure 8. The number of P. layneae plants in the 1-5 cm-tall size class was negatively associated with the amount of overstory
canopy closure.
Other P. layneae characteristics, including flower and flowering stem number and plant size were not significantly
associated with any of the environmental characteristics we measured.
CONCLUSIONS
There were no significant changes in P. layneae density, size or reproductive potential after the
prescribed burn, suggesting this treatment had a neutral effect on P. layneae. However, increases in the
number of flowering P. layneae plants observed in the control unit did not occur in the treatment unit.
This suggests that there may have been some negative effects of the treatment on P. layneae such that
it could not benefit from environmental conditions that promoted flowering in the control unit. Total
herbaceous cover similarly remained unchanged in the treatment unit but increased in control plots
over the monitoring period. It is possible that the prescribed fire could have negatively affected P.
layneae and other herbaceous species through direct effects of heat and flame contact. Many plants
require the conditions created by fire, but can still be killed or injured by fire.
P. layneae density was positively associated with the bare ground and negatively associated with canopy
closure. These results suggest that a prescribed burn which can reduce surface fuels and reduce
overstory canopy closure may benefit P. layneae by creating the kind of habitat conditions this species
prefers. The prescribed burn treatment we evaluated had no significant effect on these or any other
environmental variables measured.
Although we still have another monitoring period to complete in 2013 five years after the treatment, a
few general recommendations can be made based on these data to improve habitat restoration efforts
for P. layneae using prescribed fire. A successful prescribed burning treatment should:
Have sufficient intensity to create the kind of environmental conditions preferred by P.
layneae, including:
o reducing surface fuels and exposing bare ground; and
o reducing overstory canopy closure, which might also be achieved through thinning
treatments.
Consider creating control areas to protect existing P. layneae plants from the direct effects
of burning.
APPENDIX E: Summary of Weber’s Milkvetch HFQLG Monitoring (2008-2011)
Kyle Merriam, Jim Belsher-Howe, and Michelle Coppoletta
Introduction
Astragalus webberi (Webber’s milk vetch) is a USDA Forest Service (USFS) sensitive species known from
only 13 occurrences. The species range is limited to about 25 miles of the Indian Creek and East Branch
North Fork Feather River drainages of Plumas County, California. It is included in the California Native
Plant Society’s inventory of rare and endangered plants on list 1B.2 for species that are rare, threatened,
or endangered in California and elsewhere. Seven occurrences have been tracked since the late 1980’s.
These occurrences had an estimated total of 2,178 individuals in 1989, but by 2008 it was estimated that
these numbers had declined by 22 percent (USFS 2008).
All 13 occurrences of A. webberi are found in disturbed areas such as the sides of roads, cut banks, and
skid trails with exposed soil and high light conditions (Fig. 1). A. webberi often co-occurs with other light
requiring species such as oaks, shrubs and herbaceous understory species.
Fig. 1. A. webberi plants growing in a road cut. Most occurrences are found in open, disturbed sites.
Although the USFS has been conducting prescribed burning and thinning treatments to reduce fuel loads
and restore forest health for several decades, rare plant populations are typically not included in project
planning because of a lack of information on treatment effects and concerns over potentially extirpating
rare populations. However, the decline of A. webberi on the Plumas National Forest has led USFS
managers to consider taking a more active management approach. In 2008, the Plumas National Forest
completed a hand thinning project within a portion of an A. webberi population, followed by a
prescribed underburn conducted in 2010. The results of these first efforts to actively restore A. webberi
populations are described here.
Objectives
The primary objectives of this study were to evaluate the effect of prescribed burning and thinning on A.
webberi populations, and to quantify the environmental factors that promote Astragalus webberi size,
density, flowering, and cover.
Methods
In June 2008 we established five circular plots within the proposed treatment unit, and four plots in an
adjacent untreated area to serve as controls. Plots were re-sampled annually in late June from 2008
through 2011. Data collected included:
•
Number of A. webberi plants by size class based on stem number (<5 stems, 5-10 stems, and
>10 stems); and flowering status (flowering/non-flowering);
•
Stem number and flowering status of five permanently marked plants in both the control and
treatment units;
•
Ground cover including bare ground, rock, litter, coarse woody debris, moss, herbaceous plants,
overstory canopy closure, and duff/litter depth; and
•
Species cover and composition.
Treatments
Three different management activities occurred in the treatment unit between 2008 and 2011. After
pre-treatment data was collected in 2008, the area was thinned by hand crews in 2009 (Fig. 2).
a
b
Fig.2. Example of pre-treatment conditions in the treatment unit in 2008 (a), and after hand thinning in 2009 (b).
Surface fuels created during the hand thinning treatment were removed through pile burning in the fall
of 2009, and hand lines were created by fire crews in preparation for the prescribed burning operation
(Fig. 3). All existing A. webberi plants were avoided by these activities to minimize direct impacts,
however small patches of ground disturbance were created throughout much of the treatment unit.
Fig. 3.Hand line constructed in treatment unit in 2009 in preparation for the prescribed burn.
In 2010, the treatment unit was prescribed burned (Fig. 4). The burn was conducted to avoid existing A.
webberi plants.
Fig. 4.Prescribed burning of treatment unit in 2010.
The effect of the burn on A. webberi was evaluated in 2011. Post-treatment conditions in the treatment
unit are shown in Figure 5.
Fig. 5. Post-treatment conditions in treatment unit.
Analysis
Data were analyzed using SAS version 9.3. Differences in A. webberi density, cover, and stem number
were evaluated by testing for a significant interaction effect between year and unit (treated vs. control)
using two-way ANOVA. Relationships between environmental variables and plant cover, density and
stem number were explored using linear regression.
Results
Cover and density. A. webberi cover did not change in either the control or treatment units between
2008 and 2011. The total number of A. webberi plants increased in the treatment unit every year, but
not in the control unit (Fig. 6). This was the result of an increase in the number of plants with less than
five stems.
140
Plant Number
120
100
80
60
Control
40
Treatment
20
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
Year
Fig.6. A. webberi density significantly increased in the treatment unit between 2008 and 2011; plant numbers
did not change in the control plots (p<0.001).
The largest increase in A. webberi density occurred between 2009 and 2010 when hand lines were
constructed to prepare the treatment unit for prescribed burning (Table 1). The second largest increase
was recorded after the unit was hand thinned between 2008 and 2009. Plant numbers increased the
least after implementation of the prescribed burn between 2010 and 2011.
Table 1. A. webberi density in the treatment unit and treatment type implemented between 2008 and 2011.
Year
Plant
Number
Treatment
%
Increase
2008
Pre-Treatment
12
2009
Hand Thin
24
100
2010
Hand Lines
82
242
2011
Prescribed Burn
107
30
Stem and Flower Number. Although the total number of stems and the number of flowering stems of
permanently tagged A. webberi plants varied between 2008 and 2011, the pattern of variation did not
differ significantly between control and treatment units. This result suggests that variation in total stem
number and flowering stem number was a response to climatic or other variables not associated with
management activities in the treatment unit.
Environmental Variables. Of all environmental variables measured, including the cover of bare ground,
rock, litter, coarse woody debris, moss, herbaceous plants, as well as overstory canopy closure and duff
depth, we found that only the amount of exposed bare ground was significantly associated with the
density of A. webberi (Fig. 7).
Plant Number (log)
R2=0.44, p<0.01
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
2
4
6
8
Bare Ground Exposed (%)
10
Fig. 7. As the amount of exposed bare ground increased, so did the density of A. webberi plants.
The average number of A. webberi stems per plant increased significantly in plots with less overstory
canopy closure (Fig. 8).
Stem Number
25
R2=0.12, p=0.03
20
15
10
5
0
70
80
90
Canopy Closure (%)
100
Fig. 8. As the amount of overstory canopy closure increased, the number of stems on A. webberi plants
decreased.
The amount of exposed bare ground varied over the four year monitoring period in the treatment unit
but not in the control. However, the changes in bare ground were relatively small, varying from between
two and nine percent of total ground cover (Fig. 9).
12
Bare Ground (%)
10
8
6
Control
4
Treatment
2
0
2008
-2
2009
2010
2011
Year
Fig.5. Bare ground cover changed significantly in the treatment unit between 2008 and 2011, but did not change
in the control plots (p<0.001).
Conclusions and Management Implications
Treatments conducted by the Plumas National Forest significantly increased the number of
small A. webberi plants in the treatment unit. These plants likely germinated in response to the
treatments.
Bare ground cover was strongly related to the density of A. webberi. Treatments that exposed
bare ground, particularly through the construction of hand lines, were most effective at
increasing A. webberi density.
Prescribed burning had a relatively small effect on the density of A. webberi.
While A. webberi germination was stimulated by the exposure of bare ground, plant growth and
size (as indicated by stem number), was enhanced by higher light conditions as a result of lower
canopy closure.
Future management should focus on protecting established individuals while applying
landscape level treatments that:
o Expose bare ground to stimulate germination of A. webberi (i.e. through the application
of prescribed fire); and
o Increase the amount of light that reaches the understory to promote growth of existing
plants.
Literature Cited
USDA Forest Service. 2008. Conservation Assessment for Astragalus webberi. Prepared by Jim BelsherHowe, Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest. 27 pp.
APPENDIX F: Investigating the effect of prescribed fire on Webber’s milkvetch (Astragalus
webberi) germination
Michelle Coppoletta, Jim Belsher-Howe, and Kyle Merriam
Introduction
Astragalus webberii is a geographically restricted legume species that is limited to 13 occurrences along
a 25 mile stretch of the Indian Creek and East Branch North Fork Feather River drainages in Plumas
County, California. Three occurrences are on lands managed exclusively by the Plumas NF, three are on
the boundary of both private and Forest Service lands, and the remaining seven occurrences are on
private lands. These occurrences support close to 2,000 individuals and cover approximately 10 acres.
Webber's milk-vetch grows in a variety of habitats that range from open, rocky areas to moderately
dense stands of hardwoods and conifers. It appears to require open conditions where the dominant
trees are widely spaced and enough sun reaches the ground to maintain adequate shrub and understory
plant cover (USDA 2009). Field observations suggest that Webber’s milk-vetch is tolerant of
disturbance; most of the known occurrences are along highways, on stabilized cut-banks, or on the edge
of the forest. Recent monitoring results also suggest that thinning treatments may be beneficial to
Webber’s milk-vetch, as long as the treatments are applied at the appropriate scale and magnitude
(Merriam et al. 2010).
Overall, this species appears to be in decline; the number of individuals within seven of the occurrences
has declined by 22 percent over the past 20 years (USDA 2009). Threats to this species include road
maintenance and construction, trash dumping, vehicle parking, and timber harvest.
Objectives
The objective of this monitoring was to determine the effects of prescribed fire and hand thinning on
Webber's milk-vetch germination. To frame our analysis, we focused on the following questions:
1. Do prescribed fire and hand thinning treatments increase Webber's milk-vetch germination one
year after treatment?
2. Did pre-treatment fuel manipulations influence fire behavior and severity within individual
plots?
3. Did collection year influence germination or seedling
vigor?
Methods
Fifteen seed plots were established in June 2010 to evaluate the
effect of prescribed fire and hand thinning on Astragalus
webberi seed germination. Twelve 2 x 2 meter seed plots, with
100 seeds per plot, were established within the treatment unit
and three were established in an adjacent untreated area. The
treatment unit was hand-thinned and materials piled and
Figure 1. Planting seed in plots
burned in 2009. Prescribed fire treatments were implemented in October of 2010. Prior to burning,
woody fuels were arranged within nine of the seed plots to test the effect of fuel loading on
germination. The untreated area was not thinned or burned.
Prior to burning, all woody fuels were removed from the plots,
weighed, and then re-applied to simulate high (12.5 tons per acre),
moderate (5 tons per acre), and low (no woody fuels) fuel loadings.
Duff and litter depth was also measured for use as a covariate in
the statistical analysis.
Figure 2. Measuring woody fuels
Figure 3. Plot treated during prescribed burn
Flame length and rate of spread were used to calculate two measures of fire behavior (based on
Rothermel and Deeming 1980):
Byram’s fireline intensity (Btu/ft/s) – estimates the rate of heat energy released per unit time
per units length of the fire front
Heat per unit area (Btu/ft2) – estimates the total amount of heat released per unit area as the
flaming front of the fire passes. In general, for the same fireline intensity, faster rates of spread
will direct less heat to the site, while slower moving fires will concentrate more heat to the site.
Statistical analysis
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare germination rates among (a) the five
different treatments: hand thinned with no underburn, hand thinned and underburned (with three
different fuel loads), and no treatment; (b) the three levels of fire severity: unburned, lightly burned,
and moderately burned; and (c) the treated and untreated plots. Germination rates were transformed
(arcsine) prior to analysis to meet the assumption of normality.
A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was used to examine the variation in fire behavior
within the nine burned plots. Pre-treatment fuel load was used as the predictor variable and the two
measures of fire behavior, fireline intensity and heat per unit area, were included as correlated response
variables. Duff and litter depth was also incorporated into the model as a covariate. Significance was
determined using Wilks’ lambda.
Post-treatment severity was assessed using the National Park Service’s Fire Monitoring Handbook
(2003). Plots were assigned a value of two if they were moderately burned and three if they were lightly
burned; no plots were found to be scorched (4) or heavily burned (1). Because post-treatment fire
severity was divided into distinct categories, the effect of fuel load (high, medium, or low) was tested
using Fisher’s exact test. Fisher’s exact test is used when you want to conduct a chi-square test, but one
or more of your cells has an expected frequency of five or less.
A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to examine the effect of collection year (2009
vs. 2010) on two measures of seedling vigor (height and leaf number). Significance was determined
using Wilks’ lambda.
Results
1. Do prescribed fire and hand thinning treatments increase Astragalus webberii germination one
year after treatment?
Prescribed fire and hand thinning treatments do not appear to increase Astragalus webberii germination
one year after treatment. Germination was not significantly correlated with pre-treatment fuel load, fire
behavior (i.e. fireline intensity or heat per unit area), or fire severity. In general, germination rates were
low across all treatment types and ranged from 1.3 to 3.3 percent (Table 1, Figure 4).
Table 1. Average number of seedlings and percent germination within treated and untreated plots .
Treatment Type
Hand thin, high fuels (12.5 tons/acre)
Hand thin, moderate fuels (5 tons/acre)
Hand thin, low fuels (no woody fuels)
Hand thin, no burn
No treatment - Control
Sample
Size (n)
3
3
3
3
3
Mean number Average Percent
of seedlings
Germination
3 (± 1)
2.7% (± 0.6%)
3 (± 3)
3% (± 2.6%)
1 (± 2)
1.3% (± 1.5%)
2 (± 1)
3.3% (± 1.5%)
3 (± 2)
1.7% (± 0.6%)
Average Germination (%)
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
HT, High fuels
HT, Moderate
fuels
HT, Low fuels
HT, no burn
No treatment
Treatment Type
Figure 4 . The average percent germination of seeds within plots that were hand thinned (HT), hand thinned and
burned with varying fuel loads, and within plots that received no treatment (controls).
2. Did artificial fuel manipulations influence fire behavior and severity within individual plots?
Pre-treatment fuel loadings did not have a significant effect on fire behavior, even with the variance
associated with duff and litter removed. In order to more accurately examine this relationship, a larger
study, with more replicates may be needed.
Table 2. Measures of fire intensity and estimates of burn severity for plots treated with prescribed fire. All plots were hand
thinned. Sample size for each plot was three.
Treatment Type
High fuel loads (12.5
tons/acre)
Moderate fuel loads (5
tons/acre)
Low fuel loads (no
woody fuels)
Fire behavior (averages)
Fireline Intensity Heat per unit
(Btu/ft2/s)
area (Btu/ft2)
Estimated burn severity
Lightly burned
Moderately burned
(% plots)
(% plots)
1.9
77.5
100
1.8
52.4
33
3.3
74.4
100
67
In contrast, fuel loadings did affect fire severity. All of the plots with high fuel loadings (12.5 tons per
acre) resulted in moderately burned plots, while all of the plots with low fuel loadings (removal of all
woody fuels) resulted in lightly burned plots. Plots with moderate fuel loadings (5 tons per acre)
produced more mixed severity results.
Burn Severity Index
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Low Fuels
Moderate Fuels (5
tons/acre)
High fuels (12.5
tons/acre)
Manipulated Fuel load
Figure 5. Estimated burn severity (based on Fire Monitoring Handbook) in response to pre-treatment fuel loadings.
Lower values represent higher severity; a value 2 of represents moderately burned and a value of 3 is lightly
burned.
3. Did collection year influence germination? Seedling vigor (height or leaf number)?
The year in which the seed were collected had no significant effect on germination or seedling vigor.
Data are presented below in Table 3.
Table 3. Summary of germination rate and seedling vigor for seed collected in 2009 and 2010.
Seed Collection Year
Percent Germination
(averages)
2009
2010
2.4% (± 2.6%)
2.7% (± 2.3%)
Seedling vigor
Height (mm)
56 (±19)
48 (±18)
Number of leaves
2.6 (±0.6)
2.8 (±0.7)
Management implications
Like many other legume species, the seeds of Astragalus webberii have a hard outer coat, which
generally needs to be damaged or removed (i.e. scarified) in order to stimulate germination. The results
of our monitoring suggest that habitat-level treatments, such as prescribed fire and hand thinning alone,
are not enough to achieve desired germination rates; therefore future reintroduction efforts should
mechanically scarify the seeds (i.e. rub them between two layers of sandpaper) prior to planting in order
to increase germination.
Although not statistically significant in this study, our findings suggest that pre-treatment manipulation
of fuel loadings can be used to influence post-treatment burn severity.
APPENDIX G: Investigating the impacts of thinning treatments on Penstemon personatus on
the Plumas NF
Michelle Coppoletta, Colin Dillingham, and Kyle Merriam
Introduction
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.
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
Figure 1. Penstemon personatus flower
Plant Society lists P. personatus as a 1B.2 species, which
indicates that it is fairly endangered in California (California Native Plant Society 2010).
Past observations suggest that P. personatus may tolerate or even benefit from management activities
that open up the forest canopy if ground disturbance is minimized (Hanson 1987, Urie, Tausch and
Hanson 1989). In the past, these types of lower impact activities have included selective removal of
scattered large trees, reduction of the canopy by 30 percent or less, and cable logging. In contrast, this
species does not appear to tolerate high impact activities, which result in high levels of soil displacement
or compaction (Hanson 1987, Coppoletta et al. 2010).
In 2006, Plumas NF botanists and Sierra Cascade Province ecologists developed objectives to guide the
P. personatus monitoring effort. The intent was to define management triggers (i.e. actions resulting
from monitoring), which would guide the future management of P. personatus on the Plumas NF. The
objectives and management response were defined as follows:
Management Objective: To maintain P. personatus frequency or percent cover of at least half
of the pre-treatment mean and to evaluate the significance of declines in P. personatus cover
relative to untreated controls.
Sampling Objective: To detect a 50 percent change in the frequency or percent cover of P.
personatus with a 90 percent confidence that our estimated mean is within 10 percent of the
true value.
Management Response: If sampling detects a decline of greater than 50 percent in P.
personatus cover or frequency after treatment, the treatment would be considered detrimental
to P. personatus occurrences and would not be advised. We will also evaluate the significance
of declines in P. personatus cover in comparison to untreated control plots.
The following summary presents the results of an analysis of P. personatus percent cover data collected
between 2006 and 2010. The objective of this monitoring effort and analysis was to determine the
effects of different types of timber harvest activities on P. personatus cover and to assess whether the
2006 management objectives were met. To frame the analysis, we focused on the following questions:
1. Were the management objectives for P. personatus met? If not, are management actions
required?
2. Do timber harvest treatments result in a decline in P. personatus cover?
3. Are environmental variables, such as overstory canopy and duff and litter depth, associated with
P. personatus cover?
Methodology
In 2006, permanent monitoring transects were established at
eleven sites within the HFQLG project area. Within sites, four to six
parallel transects (200 feet in length) were positioned at a minimum
of 50 feet apart, along a randomly located baseline. Pilot sampling
conducted in 2006 (within the Waters 29 Unit) indicated that six
transects were sufficient to meet our sampling objective, which was
to detect a 50 percent change in the mean cover of P. personatus
with a 90 percent confidence interval.
Along each transect, P. personatus cover was measured using a line
intercept methodology (described in Elzinga, Salzer and Willoughby
1998). Overstory canopy and duff/ litter depth were also measured
at 20 foot intervals. All data were input into the QLG effectiveness
monitoring database.
Figure 2. Colin Dillingham in a group
selection monitoring unit
To date, pre and post-treatment monitoring have been conducted
at eight sites. Treatments at these sites have included hand-thinning and pile burning (n=1); mechanical
thinning (n=2); and group selection (n=2). Three P. personatus monitoring sites have received no
treatment and are used as controls (see Table 1).
Table 1. Results of P. personatus line intercept monitoring. The one-sided 90% confidence interval is included in
parentheses. The threshold of concern is a decline of 50 percent from the pre-treatment cover.
Treatment
Group Selection
Mechanical Thin
Hand thin/Pile Burn
Control
Units
Percent Change in PEPE Cover
1 yr post3 yrs posttreatment
treatment
Years in which Confidence Interval
includes Threshold Value (decrease
of 50%)
Guard 442 (n=6)
-57% (-73%)
21% (-28%)
1 year post
Guard 845 (n=6)
184% (34%)
240% (105%)
Guard 15 (n=4)
81%(-21%)
Guard 16h (n=6)
33% (6%)
4% (-26%)
Waters (n=6)
60% (20%)
134% (58%)
Guard Control (n=5)
297% (46%)
Lotts Control (n=5)
240% (46%)
Treatment
Units
Percent Change in PEPE Cover
Faggs Control (n=5)
281% (-109%)
204% (-103%)
Years in which Confidence Interval
includes Threshold Value (decrease
1 and 3 years post
of 50%)
Statistical Analysis
The percent change in cover was investigated by comparing pre and post-treatment cover values over
two time periods: (a) one year after treatment and (b) three years after treatment. For the control
units, the change in cover was calculated using the first measurement value for comparison, rather than
a pre-treatment value. One-sided 90 percent confidence intervals were calculated to investigate
whether decreases in cover exceeded our stated management threshold (i.e. a decline of 50 percent
from pre-treatment cover). The management objectives did not specify the level of analysis; therefore
we evaluated changes within individual units as well as within treatment types.
A generalized linear mixed model was used to analyze the effect of the different treatments on P.
personatus cover within the first three years following treatment. Multiple linear regression was used to
investigate the relationship between environmental variables (canopy cover and duff/litter depth),
treatment, and P. personatus cover. Cover data were logit transformed for analysis. A value equal to
half of the smallest non-zero value was added to all cover values to allow for the transformation of zero
values. Data were analyzed using the statistical software programs SAS 9.3 (SAS Institute 2010) and R
version 2.14.1 (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing 2011).
Results
Were the management objectives met? If not, are management actions required?
Our stated management objective was to maintain P. personatus percent cover of at least half of the
pre-treatment mean, and to evaluate the significance of declines in P. personatus cover relative to
untreated controls. As seen in Figure 3, our management objective was met for all of the treatment
units when analyzed over the entire monitoring period, which extended up to three years after
treatment. The only treatment unit to show a decline greater than our stated management objective
was group selection unit Guard 442. The percent cover of P. personatus within this unit dropped by an
estimated 57 percent in the first year following group selection thinning; however three years after
treatment, the percent cover had rebounded to an estimated 21 percent more than the cover prior to
treatment.
This result corresponds with both past observations (Castro 1991, Zebell, Castro and Dwerlkotte 1991,
Dwerlkotte 1990) and recent P. personatus data analyses (Coppoletta et al. 2010); these observations
and analyses found that P. personatus frequency tended to drop in the first year after logging and then
rebound in year three to levels similar to pre-logging. This result is not surprising considering that plants
can be directly impacted by equipment during treatment implementation or indirectly impacted by
changing light conditions. These impacts may result in an initial decline in plant cover or 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.
Percent Change in PEPE Cover
275%
1 year after trt
3 years after trt
Threshold Value
225%
175%
125%
75%
25%
-25%
-75%
-125%
Guard 442 Guard 845
Group Selection
Guard 15
Guard 16h
Mechanical Thin
Waters
Guard
Control
Hand
thin/Pile
Burn
Lotts
Control
Faggs
Control
Control
Figure 3. The percent change in P. personatus cover within units one and three years after treatment. The red line
represents the management threshold, which is a decrease of 50% from the pre-treatment cover estimates. The
error bars represent one-sided 90 percent confidence intervals.
Percent Change in PEPE Cover
The management objective was also met when the individual units were pooled and changes within
treatments analyzed (Figure 4); none of the means (representing the estimated amount of change in
cover) or 90 percent confidence intervals dipped below the threshold of concern, which represents a
decrease of 50 percent from pre-treatment cover.
275%
225%
175%
1 year after trt
3 years after trt
Threshold Value
125%
75%
25%
-25%
-75%
-125%
Group Selection
Mechanical Thin
Hand thin/Pile Burn
Control
Figure 4. The percent change in P. personatus cover one and three years after treatment. The red line represents
the management threshold, which is a decrease of 50% from the pre-treatment cover estimates. The error bars
represent one-sided 90 percent confidence intervals
In the figure above, the confidence intervals for group selection (one year after treatment), mechanical
thinning (three years after treatment), and the control (in the second year of monitoring) all include
zero. This suggests that the difference between the percent cover of P. personatus at that time period
and the pre-treatment cover was not significantly different (α=0.1). In contrast, all of the other
estimates of change were significantly different from zero.
Conclusions:
Sampling did not detect declines of greater than 50 percent in P. personatus cover three years
after treatment; therefore treatments are not considered detrimental to this species and no
management action is required at this time.
P. personatus cover within units may decline in the first year or two following treatment;
however it has shown the ability to rebound after year three to pre-treatment levels.
Do timber harvest treatments result in a decline in P. personatus cover?
Thinning treatments did not result in a significant decline in P. personatus cover over time (p=0.06,
α=0.1). The percent cover of P. personatus within treatments and controls did not differ significantly
from their pre-treatment values one or three years after treatment (Figure 5).
Average Percent Cover of PEPE
4.5
Group Selection
4.0
Hand thin/Pile Burn
3.5
Mechanical Thin
3.0
Control
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
PreTRT
Post1
Years since treatment
Post3
Figure 5. Percent cover of P. personatus prior to treatment and one and three years after treatment. Error bars
represent standard error.
Are environmental variables, such as overstory canopy and duff and litter depth, associated with P.
personatus cover?
P. personatus cover was significantly and positively related to overstory canopy cover (p= 0.004, α=0.05)
when variables such as duff and litter depth were included in the model and held constant. This result
suggests that within areas of similar duff and litter depth higher canopy cover will generally be
associated with higher P. personatus cover.
The partial regression plots in Figure 6 below allow us to investigate the association between P.
personatus cover and each of the two explanatory variables, after accounting for the effects of the other
variable. These plots show a positive and relatively linear relationship between overstory canopy and P.
personatus cover. In contrast, duff and litter depth does not appear to have a significant effect on P.
personatus cover, when canopy cover is held constant.
1.5
1.0
0.5
-0.5
0.0
Component+Residual(Logit_PEPE)
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
Component+Residual(Logit_PEPE)
1.5
Component + Residual Plots
0.5
1.5
LN_Duff
2.5
-6
-4
-2
0
2
Logit_Canopy
Figure 6. Partial regression plots showing the relative effect of (a) duff/litter and
(b) canopy cover on P. personatus cover. Duff and litter values were log
transformed. P. personatus and overstory canopy cover were logit transformed.
It is important to note, that treatment (i.e. whether a site was treated or not) was significantly
correlated to canopy cover (p=0.016, α=0.05); as we would expect, treated areas were associated with
lower overstory canopy cover. Because of this correlation, this variable was not included in the final
model.
The R² value measures the amount of total variation in P. personatus cover that is described by its linear
relationship with canopy cover or duff/litter depth. In our case, less than five percent of the total
variation in the data were explained by the two habitat variables that we measured. This suggests that
while overstory canopy and duff and litter depth may explain some of the variation that we see in P.
personatus cover, there are likely other factors that we did not measure that may explain more of the
variability in our data.
Recommendations:
Refine management objectives to add time dimension and to clarify the level of analysis. The
current management objective states the following:
Previous Management Objective: To maintain P. personatus frequency or percent cover of at least
half of the pre-treatment mean and to evaluate the significance of declines in P. personatus cover
relative to untreated controls.
Refined Management Objectives:
Evaluate the effect of management activities on P. personatus frequency and percent
cover;
Within treatments, maintain an average of at least half of the pre-treatment mean value
(frequency or percent cover) over the first five years following treatment; and
Evaluate the significance of declines in P. personatus relative to untreated controls.
Complete post-treatment monitoring in order to achieve our goal of at least three sites within each
treatment type; this will likely improve the experimental power of our design.
Evaluate the line-intercept cover method as a viable method for detecting change in cover for P.
personatus. The low percent cover of P. personatus makes the design extremely sensitive to very
small changes; for example, if one plant is missed, it may result in a decrease of 25 percent of the
total cover along the transect. Line-intercept is generally effective for species with dense canopies
(i.e. shrubs or matted plants), but may not be as effective for species with sparse canopies such as P.
personatus. The low percent cover of P. personatus also makes the design more susceptible to
observer error (i.e. because the sighting line is not perpendicular to the tape or if wind causes the
tape to shift).
References
California Native Plant Society. 2010. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. February 11, 2010).
Castro, B. 1991. Hardquartz Monitoring: Penstemon personatus; Analysis of data 1983-1990. USDA
Forest Service, Plumas National Forest.
Coppoletta, M., K. Merriam, C. Dillingham & L. Hanson. 2010. The effect of timber management
activities on Penstemon personatus on the Plumas National Forest. USDA Forest Service.
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.
Urie, S., R. Tausch & L. Hanson. 1989. A Statistical Analysis of Penstemon personatus.
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.
APPENDIX H: The effects of mastication and prescribed fire on medusahead (Taeniatherum
caput-medusae) cover and frequency
Michelle Coppoletta, Sierra Cascade Ecology Program
Over the past 20 years, managers of public lands in the
western United States have witnessed an explosive
spread of medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae).
This highly invasive grass is able to grow in a wide range
of climatic conditions and has been documented in plant
communities up to 7,000 feet in elevation.
Medusahead is a species of significant concern on the
Plumas NF because it occurs in relatively disturbed
areas, such as roadsides and railroad tracks, where there
is elevated risk of spread into un-invaded native plant
communities. Even more problematic, is the fact that
Figure 1. Medusahead inflorescences.
most traditional treatment methods, such as manual
removal, biological control, and chemical treatment are either impractical or ineffective.
Studies that have investigated the use of prescribed fire to control medusahead have produced variable
results. A number of studies have demonstrated that burning medusahead in late spring, prior to seed
dispersal can significantly reduce infestations (Rice 2005). In contrast, prescribed burns initiated in the
summer and fall, have not been effective due to the fact that the seeds have been dispersed and are on
or above the soil where they are protected from the heat of the fire (Kan and Pollak 2000).
Over the past six years, Plumas NF botanists have been testing a relatively new method of medusahead
control: flaming with a propane torch. Results from these trials have demonstrated that spring flaming
of small infestations can reduce the percent cover of medusahead by an average of 95 percent
(Coppoletta 2006). The major limitation with this method is that it is extremely time intensive and is not
considered practical or feasible for control of large medusahead infestations; however, these results do
suggest that high intensity fire (such as that achieved with flaming) applied prior to seed set, could be an
effective method of control for medusahead.
On the Plumas NF, mastication is one method that is commonly used to mechanically treat small
diameter trees and shrubs for fuel reduction. This treatment utilizes machinery to break up or “chew”
live and standing biomass and convert them into surface fuels. In 2010, botanists on the Plumas NF
targeted a large medusahead infestation within a proposed mastication unit, to answer the following
questions:
1. Does the frequency and percent cover of medusahead change in response to mastication and
prescribed fire treatments?
2. If so, is this change associated with (a) reduced shrub and tree cover or (b) masticated fuel
loadings?
METHODS
Field Sampling
Eighteen permanent monitoring transects were established in June of 2010 to evaluate the effect of
mastication and prescribed fire on medusahead cover and frequency. Thirteen transects were
established within the proposed treatment unit and five were established in an adjacent area where
treatments will be excluded.
The following data were collected along each transect before and after treatment:
Frequency: Presence and absence of medusahead was recorded within a nested quadrat at
five points along each transect. The size of the frequency quadrats were: (1) 10 x 10 cm; (2)
20 x 20 cm; and (3) 50 x 50 cm.
Cover: Percent cover of medusahead, shrubs, and trees was estimated (using cover classes)
within five 1m2 quadrats placed along each transect.
Fuels: surface fuel measurements were collected after mastication treatments using the
planar intercept (Brown’s transect) method along each medusahead transect. Fine (0-3”)
woody debris was tallied, course (>3”) woody debris was tallied and measured, depth/litter
depth was measured, and percent slope recorded.
Mastication treatments occurred in the summer of 2010; landscape level changes can be seen in the
photographs below (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Monitoring transect before (left) and after (right) mastication treatment.
Data Analysis
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to compare changes in medusahead frequency,
medusahead cover, and shrub cover within the treatment unit and the control. Simple linear regression
was used to evaluate the relationship between medusahead cover and overstory shrubs. Surface and
ground fuel loads were calculated using equations developed for California forests (van Wagtendonk, et
al. 1996). Descriptive statistics of surface and ground fuels by size class were calculated and used to
compare with published fuel load estimates from other masticated areas within California (i.e. Kane et
al. 2004).
RESULTS
Prior to treatment, the percent cover of medusahead in plots was negatively correlated with the amount
of overstory shrub cover (p=0.0002, α= 0.05); plots with high shrub cover had lower medusahead cover.
As expected, mastication treatments resulted in a significant decline (p = <0.0001; α= 0.05) in shrub
cover. Within the treatment unit, shrub cover dropped from an average of 35 percent to just over one
percent cover following treatment. Despite this decrease in shrub cover, there was no significant change
in medusahead frequency or percent cover one year after treatment (Figure 3).
2010
2011
60
Percent Cover
50
40
30
20
10
0
Control
Mastication
Medusahead
Control
Mastication
Shrubs
Figure 3. Change in medusahead and shrub cover within treated and untreated plots. Error bars
represent the standard error (SE).
Other studies (i.e. Wagner et al. 2001, Young and Evans 1970) have observed time lags in medusahead
invasion immediately following shrub removal; these delays are generally attributed to the presence of
perennial grasses, which can initially suppress medusahead invasion. In our study, the potential lag in
response is most likely due to the quantity of ground and surface fuels within the treatment unit, which
may suppress medusahead germination or inhibit dispersal to areas of newly created suitable habitat.
Calculated post-treatment estimates of fuel loading for woody fuels within the treatment unit and
control are presented below in Table 1 and displayed in Figure 4. There was no significant difference
between the treated unit or the control in total woody fuel loading or any of the fuel categories with the
exception of the one-hour fuels; the treatment unit contained significantly more one-hour fuels than the
control (p=0.02, α= 0.05).
Table 1. Estimates of fuel loading for woody fuel classes within masticated treatment units and control.
Unit
n
Treatment
Control
Fuel loadings (tons per acre)
1 hr
10 hr
100 hr
1000 hr
Total Woody
13
0.6 (±0.1)
4.1(±1.1)
5.6 (±2)
1.8(±1)
12.2(±2.6)
5
0.3 (±0.1)
2.9 (± 2)
6.0(±3.8)
1.9(±1.1)
11.1(±6.3)
10.0
Control
Fuel weight (tons/acre)
9.0
Treatment
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
1 hr
10 hr
100 hr
1000 hr
Fuel Types
Figure 4. Differences in fuel loadings between mastication unit and the control. The only significant
difference was in the one hour fuel category. Error bars represent the Standard Error (SE).
Total fuel loading after treatment was estimated at 12.2 (±2.6) tons per acre within the mastication unit.
Post-mastication fuel loading was concentrated in the 10 and 100 hour fuel classes, which made up 34
and 46 percent of the total woody fuel load respectively. The total estimated fuel load is toward the
lower range of estimated fuel loadings for masticated sites; for example, in their study of masticated
sites in northern California and southwestern Oregon, Kane et al. (2006) obtained total woody fuel
loadings that ranged between 6.8 and 28 tons per acre.
NEXT STEPS
The mastication unit will be treated with prescribed fire in 2012. Plots and transects will be reread to
calculate medusahead frequency and percent cover for one to five years following treatment. Analysis
will be conducted to determine the response of medusahead to treatments and to evaluate the effect of
different fuel loadings on medusahead cover within individual plots.
REFERENCES
Coppoletta, M. 2006. Testing the effects of flaming as a method of medusahead (Taeniatherum caputmedusae) control on the Plumas National Forest. Pages 56-59 in Proceedings of the California
Invasive Plant Council Symposium. Vol. 10. California Invasive Plant Council, Berkeley, CA.
Kan, T., and O. Pollak. 2000. Taeniatherum caput-medusae (L.) Nevski. Pages 309-312 in R. Randall and
M. Hoshovsky, editors. Invasive Plants of California’s Wildlands. University of California Press,
Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.
Kane, J.M., Knapp, E., Varner, JM. 2006. Variability in loading of mechanically masticated fuel beds in
northern California and southwestern Oregon. RMRS-P-41, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, pp. 341–350
Rice, P. 2005. Fire as a tool for controlling nonnative invasive plants. Center for Invasive Plant
Management, Bozeman, MT.
Van Wagdendonk JW, Benedict JM, Sydoriak WM. 1996. Physical Properties of Woody Fuel Particles of
Sierra Nevada Conifers. International Journal of Wildland Fire 6: 117–123.