Vegetation Management Solutions
875 Mitchell Avenue
Oroville, CA 95965
(530)532-7454
A Forest Service Enterprise
Fax. (530)532-1210
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group
Botany Monitoring Report - 2008
Prepared January 20, 2009 by Colin Dillingham, VMS Enterprise Team Ecologist with input from Kyle
Merriam and Marti Aitken, Province Ecologists; Allison Sanger, Lassen National Forest; Susan Urie,
Tahoe National Forest; Jim Belsher-Howe, Michelle Coppoletta, Michael Friend, Lynée Crawford and
Chris Christofferson, Plumas National Forest.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to document findings of the cumulative monitoring efforts accomplished
from 2002 through 2008 by the Lassen, Plumas and Tahoe National Forest botanists. Monitoring in
2008 included both Implementation and Effectiveness monitoring. Implementation monitoring of units
treated in 2007 was conducted to determine if recommended mitigations and treatments were
accomplished as planned. Effectiveness monitoring was completed to determine what response
Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive (TES) or noxious weed species had to mitigations and
treatments or if new occurrences were found in project areas after treatment. The intent of the
monitoring was to identify what worked, what needs improvement for future projects, and to provide
documentation for internal Forest Service review as well as to the public. This annual monitoring is
required under the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (HFQLG).
METHODS
The monitoring methodology described in the May 10, 2004 version of the HFQLG Monitoring Plan
was used for implementation monitoring. Species specific monitoring plans have been developed for
effectiveness monitoring. The following questions are addressed.
Implementation Monitoring Questions
Question 7: Were Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) plants surveyed and protected?
Question 8: Were noxious weed introductions prevented and existing infestations suppressed?
Effectiveness Monitoring Questions
Question 28: How do TES plant species respond to resource management activities? Did new
occurrences of TES plant species occur during or following project implementation?
Question 29: Were existing infestations of noxious weeds eliminated or contained?
Question 30: Were all new infestations of noxious weeds eliminated or did some become established?
United States Department of Agriculture
z Page 2
January 21, 2009
Question 31: Did new infestations of noxious weeds occur during or following project implementation?
Sample Sizes
Linnea Hanson, Plumas National Forest Botanist, working with PSW Statistician in 1999, came up with
a TES Plant Implementation Monitoring scheme to achieve 90% compliance rate and 3.4 % precision
level using a sample size of 300 units in pool # 2 (to answer questions 7 and 8). The sampling scheme
is filed on the K drive in the plants folder under QLG monitoring. Linnea suggested that the sample size
should be small enough so that we can implement the program. An annual sample pool size of 60
units was determined (30 for TES and 30 for weeds, see below for more information). Statistical
analyses of the monitoring data have been limited to effectiveness monitoring results. We have
evaluated observational data to formulate general assessments of HFQLG Implementation and
Effectiveness and to provide feedback to the public and ourselves.
Sample Pools
The 2008 HFQLG Botany Monitoring program was substantial due to the inclusion of both
implementation and effectiveness monitoring questions. In 2008, four sample pools were developed to
answer both the implementation monitoring questions as well as the effectiveness monitoring
questions. Each sample pool had up to 30 project treatment units included.
Table 1. Number of HFQLG project sites (i.e. timber sale harvest units) sampled to answer each
monitoring question on an annual basis. The total number of units does not count units
sampled in separate years to answer the same question.
Monitoring Question
7
8
28a*
28b*
29/30*
31*
2002
9
1
-
-
-
-
2003
29
5
-
5
-
5
2004
26
11
-
1
8
1
2005
31
17
31
23
12
23
2006
28
9
7
5
8
5
2007
30
22
12
7
17
7
2008
16
27
6
47
16
47
Total Number Units Sampled
166
92
56
88
61
88
* - 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.
Question 7 – Were TES plants surveyed and protected? Our sample pool to answer this question
was developed by reviewing the entire list of units treated in 2007 and determining which of these
treated units had mitigations for TES plants. The HFQLG area botanists made a list of potential
units. Some of the units with TES control areas were not accessible during the 2008 field season
because of wildfires; and only 16 were sampled under the HFQLG monitoring protocol in 2007.
z Page 3
January 21, 2009
Question 8 – Were noxious weed introductions prevented and existing infestations
suppressed? The sample pool to answer this question was developed in a similar method to
Question 7; by reviewing the entire list of units treated in 2007 and determining which of these
treated units had mitigations for noxious weeds. There were 27 units with noxious weed control
areas/mitigations; and all 27 units were sampled under the protocol.
Question 28a – How do TES plant species respond to resource management activities? In April
20086 the botanists and HFQLG Implementation Team met to revise how Question 28 and 29
could be better answered. In 2005, all TES implementation-monitoring (Question 7) units were
included in the sample pool to answer the TES effectiveness question. Much of the data collected
in 2005 did not appear to as valuable to the botany group compared to what could be collected
with a different protocol. The group decided to focus on units where we could get pre-treatment
data to allow for a quantitative assessment of treatment effects. The group dropped approximately
60 units without good pre-treatment monitoring data that were on the schedule to monitor in the
next two years. Plans were made to add approximately the same number of units into the pool.
Pre-treatment data was collected for eight species in 2008 in over 20 plots/line intercept arrays.
Post-treatment effects were evaluated in 6 HFQLG treatment units in 2008.
Question 28b - Did new occurrences of TES species become established during or following
project implementation? Data from the Timber Stand Structure (TSSM) monitoring were used to
answer this question. Sixty-nine randomly selected units that previously didn’t have TES plants
occurrences were examined after harvest to determine if any new TES plant occurrences had
occurred in response to management activities.
Question 29/30 – Were existing infestations of noxious weeds eliminated or contained? Were all
new infestations of noxious weeds eliminated or did some become established? Units that had
previous noxious weed implementation monitoring and/or units that had treatments to noxious weed
species were included in the sample pool to answer questions 29 and 30. Sixteen populations were
monitored in 2008.
Question 31 – Did new infestations of noxious weeds occur during or following project
implementation?
Data from the ongoing Treated Stand Structure Monitoring (TSSM) was used to answer this question.
Forty-seven additional units (69 total TSSM units) were monitored for post-treatment data. Data on
shrub, grass and forb cover were recorded at 15 sampling plots per unit during TSSM field monitoring.
TSSM field data collection protocols specify that percent cover data for shrubs, grasses and forbs are
rounded to the nearest 10%, with 10% being the lowest level recorded. Species with substantially less
than 10% cover in a sampling plot are not recorded in the plot data.
Documentation of noxious weed occurrences followed this same protocol. Where plot percent cover of
noxious weeds was less than 10% cover, field forms often but inconsistently included informal notes
regarding the occurrence. These informal notes were not used to answer this question for the 2008
report.
Plot-level percent cover data for each species were divided by the total number of plots in a unit to
calculate a weighted percent cover. The weighted percent cover data were then totaled for each
species at each unit. These calculations gave an average percent cover per species per unit for both
the pre- and post- treatment monitoring data.
z Page 4
January 21, 2009
RESULTS
Implementation Monitoring Questions
Question 7: Were Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) plants surveyed and protected?
The specific questions that were addressed included the following: 1) Were protection measures
adequately documented and flagged on the ground, 2) were control areas printed on contract maps
and 3) Did protection measures get implemented at plant occurrences? Table 2 below presents a
summary of the data collected to address question 2) “Were the protection measures implemented at
the plant occurrences?” which is considered the most critical element. Summary tables for individual
unit monitoring during the 2008 sampling effort are presented in Appendix 1.
Table 2. Monitoring results of botany control areas in the HFQLG Pilot Project
Number Control Areas
Percent of Control Areas
Year
monitored
successfully protected
2002
9
89%
2003
29
59%
2004
26
88%
2005
31
77%
2006
28
100%
2007
30
93%
2008
16
81%
Summary, Question 7
Out of the 16 TES protection/control areas monitored in 2008, 13 (81%) were protected as planned.
The minimum level of protection considered successful would be to have 90% of control areas
protected as planned. Therefore, this objective was not met. Two of 10 sites on the Mt Hough Ranger
District were not protected, and 1 of 5 sites on the Beckwourth Ranger District wasn’t protected.
Control areas were mapped and flagged, but problems with protection occurred during implementation.
All of the three compromised control areas appeared to have been mapped on the timber sale and
contract maps and FS contract administrators were aware of the sensitive plant sites. One of the sites
on the Mt Hough district was flagged and mapped correctly, understood by the sale administrators as a
control area. It was mostly largely avoided, however it appears a skidder drove through the control
area accidentally during one pass.
Suitable sites to answer this question were not available on the Lassen NF or the Feather River RD of
the Plumas NF and only one site (which was protected) was available on the Sierraville RD of the
Tahoe NF.
Communication between botanists and sale administrators appears to be improving, but unfortunately,
there were still three failures. Fortunately, the breaches to plant control areas were limited in extent and
impacts to sensitive plants were relatively minor (see Appendix 1, Question 7 tables). For example
three hand piles were burned in a sticky Pyrrocoma population in the Mabie project area, but only 2%
of the control area was impacted. There is still improvement needed in tracking the flagging of control
areas. Continued coordination between the timber sale and service contract administrators and
botanists needs to occur to ensure control areas are established, mapped on timber sale area and
service contract maps, and clearly understood by both botanists and timber sale and service contract
administrators.
Lessons learned
z Page 5
January 21, 2009
Botanists need to be sure that the control areas are flagged on the ground immediately prior to
treatment. Several of the sites were not adequately flagged on the ground during post-treatment
evaluation. Consideration should be made to improve the marking of control areas in high risk areas
(perhaps use plastic fencing similar to California Department of Transportation control area
techniques). Continuing communication needs to be assured between timber sale and service contract
administrators and botanists so that control areas are understood. Ensure follow-up treatments, such
as burning, are well coordinated to protect control areas. Control area boundaries should be sent to
implementation personnel as GIS files to ensure these areas are clearly and accurately mapped on
project and sale area maps. Control area tracking sheets (Appendix 2) should be used for all projects
with botany control areas.
Question 8: Were noxious weed introductions prevented and existing infestations suppressed?
Monitoring of the implementation of noxious weed mitigation measures was conducted to determine if
provisions for control of noxious weeds occurred. Summary results are shown in Table 3 below. The
results from unit specific monitoring conducted in 2007 are attached in Appendix 1. Previous years
detailed unit monitoring results are shown in corresponding annual reports.
Table 3. Monitoring results of noxious weed control measures in the HFQLG Pilot Project
Number of Weed
Percent of Weed
Percent of Projects
Sites with treatment
Sites with control
Year
with documented
or avoidance
measures
objectives in sample
Equipment Cleaning
implemented
pool
2002
1
0%
66%
2003
5
100%
100%
2004
11
55%
100%
2005
17
88%
93%
2006
9
100%
100%
2007
22
91%
100%
2008
27
89%
85%
Administrators of timber sale and service contracts were contacted and questioned as to whether the
contract clause 6.35 (equipment cleaned and weed free) was implemented.
Summary, Question 8
There were 27 sites with weeds evaluated in 2008. Twenty-four (89% of the 27 sites) of the
occurrences were either treated or avoided during management activities and the remaining three were
neither fully treated nor avoided during management implementation. Although medusahead
(Taeniatherum caput-medusae) is a noxious weed, there are currently no effective eradication methods
for large infestations of this species, and large infestations are not being treated. Flag and avoidance is
used to prevent the spread of medusahead into HFQLG project areas. However, in two units
monitored, medusahead was not flagged, and the occurrence appears to have expanded since
HFQLG treatment. On the Lassen NF, 6 of 9 Klamathweed (Hypericum perforatum) populations seem
to have been eliminated with hand pulling treatment.
Careful annual hand-pulling treatment of the musk thistle (Carduus nutans) populations on the
Sierraville Ranger District appears to eliminate small populations. The key to successful musk thistle
control is to prevent seed production, which is the only form of reproduction. Increasing intensity of
control appears to be warranted.
Equipment Cleaning Documentation
z Page 6
January 21, 2009
The HFQLG project area has done well in implementing the contract specifications of equipment
cleaning. Equipment cleaning documentation was received for nearly all of the projects reviewed.
However, no equipment cleaning documentation was found for the Young Pine project on the Almanor
Ranger District, the Deep Red project on the Hat Creek Ranger District, or the Leftover Timber Sale
project on the Sierraville Ranger District.
There were two landings on the Sierraville Ranger District found to have new musk thistle populations
after the landings were tilled to reduce compaction. The equipment used to till the landings was not
washed, so may have been a source for the weeds. This same piece of equipment was also used on a
third interior landing (away from other vectors of seed dispersal) and it did not have a new musk thistle
infestations. The weed seeds may have come from other vectors, such as public forest visitor vehicles.
Lessons learned
Aggressive action prior to and during project implementation has been successful in eradicating small
populations of noxious weeds as well as preventing new occurrences. Less success has been realized
in larger populations or species more difficult to eradicate. Generally, but not universally, the
treatments designed to reduce noxious weeds appear to be preventing the occurrences from
expanding. Additional efforts are needed to reduce the potential for invasion of both musk thistle and
medusahead.
Effectiveness Monitoring Questions
Question 28: How do TES plant species respond to resource management activities? Did new
occurrences of TES plant species occur during or following project implementation?
Table 4 presents a summary of TES effectiveness monitoring for the entire HFQLG Pilot Project area.
Effectiveness monitoring was initiated in 2005, although methodology changed in 2006. Tables that
include specific 2008 results for Question 28 are included in Appendix 1. Previous years efforts are
summarized in corresponding annual reports.
Table 4. Monitoring results of TES effectiveness monitoring in the HFQLG Pilot Project
Percent of monitored
populations that had neutral
Number of treatment
Year
units with TES plant
or positive responses to
monitoring sites
HFQLG vegetation
1
management activities
2
2005
31
97%
2006
7
86%
2007
12
75%
2008
6
83%
1.
Results are preliminary and may include both anecdotal and statistically significant changes.
Further data collection and analysis at the species level will be required before findings will be
considered final.
2.
Results presented for 2005 include monitoring of populations in protected control areas (i.e.
many of the 2005 monitored sites were not actually treated by HFQLG vegetation
management activities, rather the monitoring was conducted to ensure the populations within
protected control areas were still present after implementation of the surrounding vegetation
management activities).
Summary of Question 28, part A: How do TES plant species respond to resource management
activities? Only the Mt Hough River Ranger Districts had sufficient pre-treatment data collected in
2008 to answer the question, “How do TES plant species respond to resource management activities?”
z Page 7
January 21, 2009
Several responses by various sensitive and special interest plant species were recorded and are
included in Appendices 1 and 3. See Lessons Learned, below, for more details.
Question 28, part B: Did new occurrences of TES plant species occur during or following
project implementation?
Data from the ongoing Treated Stand Structure monitoring (TSSM) was used to answer this question.
As of the end of the 2008 monitoring season one-year post-treatment data were available for a total of
69 units, and 6 of these units also had five-year post-treatment data. These 69 units had been
randomly selected according to TSSM monitoring protocol. Sampling plots were established and pretreatment data were recorded prior to treatment application. Post-treatment monitoring data was
collected one year after treatment at all 69 units, and at five years post-treatment for six of the 69 units.
In addition, a unique set of 19 units were monitored in 2005 and that data was analyzed in the 2005
botany monitoring report. No new occurrences of TES plants were located following project
implementation.
Lessons Learned
The following short summaries were taken from more extensive monitoring results. Monitoring reports
for the Quincy Lupine and Follett’s wild mint are attached as appendix 3. Please refer to the tables in
Appendix 1 to determine which units were monitored and for limited data presentation. Further data
collection and analysis is needed. The following summaries are considered preliminary.
Preliminary monitoring data suggest that Quincy lupine can tolerate group selection treatment activities.
The presence of Quincy lupine individuals within the treatment plot suggests that this species is tolerant
of high levels of soil disturbance and forest removal. Additional monitoring should be conducted to
confirm these preliminary findings.
Cover of closed-lip Penstemon, Penstemon personatus, following mechanical thinning and group
selection treatments had little change. Statistical analysis is forthcoming. The fact that the two group
selection treatments had closed-lip Penstemon one year after treatment in densities relatively similar to
pre-treatment conditions is remarkable. Follow-up monitoring and further data analysis in the next few
years will be educational.
From the data collected in the Follett’s wild mint, Monardella follettii, study in 2008, it is difficult to state
with certainty the effects of group selection treatments on Follett’s wild mint abundance. The presence
of Follett’s wild mint individuals within the treatment plots suggests that the species is able to tolerate a
fair amount of disturbance; Follett’s wild mint plants were found (albeit in much lower abundance) in
areas that were scraped of almost all of the duff and vegetation (i.e. skid trails) and under woody debris.
Many of the Follett’s wild mint within the treatment area were noted to be robust with multiple flowering
branches (see full report in Appendix 3).
Question 29: Were existing infestations of noxious weeds eliminated or contained?
Question 30: Were all new infestations of noxious weeds eliminated or did some become
established?
Unit specific treatment effectiveness monitoring tables for 2008 surveys are presented in Appendix 1.
z Page 8
January 21, 2009
Table 5 presents a summary of weed effectiveness monitoring for the entire HFQLG Pilot Project area.
Effectiveness monitoring was initiated in 2004.
Table 5. Monitoring results of weed effectiveness sites in the HFQLG Pilot Project
Percent of monitored
populations that did not
exhibit increase in weed
Number of treatment
populations in response to
Year
units with weed
HFQLG vegetation
monitoring sites
management in concert with
weed eradication measures or
site avoidance*
2004
8
63%
2005
12
100%
2006
8
63%
2007
17
94%
2008
16
75%
* - Results are preliminary and may include both anecdotal and statistically significant changes. Further
data collection and analysis at the species level will be required before findings will be considered final.
Summary Questions 29 and 30
One population of Dalmatian toadflax on the Almanor Ranger District is not responding to once-annual
hand pulling treatments. Increased control efforts are warranted.
Medusahead populations are not adequately being avoided and are spreading along roads and cattle
trails. The current attempt at avoidance without parallel treatment strategy is not effective.
Annual hand pulling treatment of Klamathweed appears to be effective in many situations. Larger
occurrences likely need more than once-annual visits to ensure all seed production is eliminated.
Erratic, less than annual hand pulling treatments, allow populations to expand.
Intensive hand control is an effective technique for controlling or eradicating small musk thistle
(Carduus nutans) populations on the Sierraville Ranger District. A more aggressive musk thistle
eradication effort may be warranted in areas with larger populations. The key to successful musk thistle
control is to prevent seed production, which is the only form of reproduction. .
Lessons Learned
Aggressive action prior to and through project implementation has generally been successful in
eradicating small populations of noxious weeds as well as preventing new occurrences. Less success
has been realized in larger populations or species more difficult to eradicate. These efforts appear to
be limiting noxious weed spread on the Lassen, Plumas and Tahoe National Forests. Additional efforts
are needed particularly with Medusahead, Dalmatian toadflax, musk thistle and yellow starthistle.
Question 31: Did new infestations of noxious weeds occur during or following project
implementation?
As of the end of 2008, sixty-nine units have been monitored for noxious weed introductions as part of
the Treated Stand Structure Monitoring (TSSM) protocol. Prior to treatment, only one unit had an
invasive weed population detectable with the protocol. Weighted percent cover for this cheat grass
population was less than one percent (0.67%).
z Page 9
January 21, 2009
Sixteen (23%) of the units had detectable invasive weed populations after treatment (Table 1). Ten of
these units were on the Lassen National Forest; six were on the Plumas National Forest. None of the
detections occurred on the Tahoe National Forest. However, two landings on the Leftover Timber Sale
Area, Sierraville RD were found to have new populations of musk thistle, but these units were not part
of the Treated Stand Structure monitoring sample pool and are not included for overall percentages.
Cheat grass was the species detected in 81% of the infested Treated Stand Structure Monitoring
(TSSM) plots. Generally, the occurrence size correlates positively with years post-treatment. Cheat
grass populations seem to be expanding once established post-treatment. Cheat grass is an
undesirable, aggressive non-native species and is monitored by HFQLG Pilot Project area botanists.
There is a substantial amount of published research demonstrating that cheat grass infestations can
have serious negative impacts on native plant populations, wildlife habitat value and ecosystem
function, and have the capacity to alter fire behavior and frequency. Cheat grass typically increases
following disturbances to soils, canopy cover and native plant populations. This species is a concern
and the monitoring data through 2008 appear to show that HFQLG treatments are providing suitable
habitat and disturbances for the species to expand in extent and cover.
For the first time, bull thistle was detected in the plots and occurred in three of the post-treatment plots.
Two of these plots were located on the Lassen NF and one was located on the Plumas NF. Last year
bull thistle was only noted in the informal field notes. Bull thistle is an invasive non-native species that
out-competes native plant species for water, nutrients, and space, and its presence in hay decreases
feeding values and lowers market price.
Although cheat grass and bull thistle were the only invasive weed species recorded in the plots,
informal field notes indicate a low level presence of yellow starthistle, medusahead (grass) and Scotch
broom (shrub) at some of the monitoring units as well as musk thistle outside of the randomly located
TSSM plots.
z Page 10
January 21, 2009
Table 1. – Monitoring units with new occurrences of noxious weeds. Percent cover values are the
average cover for that species across the entire unit area sampled.
District
Lassen NF
Eagle Lake
Project
Name
Treatment1
Harvey
T
Southside
T
Blacks Ridge
T
North Coble
T
GS
Hat Creek
T
Plumas NF
Pittville
1
Beckwourth
Mt. Hough
GS,
UB
GS,
T
Last Chance
T
Red Clover
T
Antelope
Border
T
Waters
M
Invasives?
Cheat
grass
Bull thistle
Cheat
grass
Cheat
grass
Cheat
grass
Cheat
grass
Cheat
grass
Cheat
grass
Cheat
grass
Cheat
grass
Cheat
grass
Bull thistle
T = thin, GS = group select, M = Masticate, and UB = underburn.
Unit #
Pre
Post
Years
Post
60
0
0.67
1
14
18
0
0
3.33
2.00
3
2
16
0
3.33
5
5
8
0.67
0
2.66
0.67
2-3
2
27068
0
6.00
1
29166
0
3.33
1
29181
0
1.33
1
30115
0
0.67
1
10
13
0
0
1.33
0.67
1
1
10
0
0.67
1
13B
15A
8D
0
0
0
7.33
2.67
0.07
5
5
5
z Page 11
January 21, 2009
Key Findings
Question 7 – Were TES plants surveyed and protected?
Out of the 16 TES protection/control areas monitored in 2008, 13 (81%) were protected as planned.
The minimum level of protection considered successful would be to have 90% of control areas
protected as planned. Therefore, this objective was not met. Two of 10 sites on the Mt Hough Ranger
District were not protected, and 1 of 5 sites on the Beckwourth Ranger District wasn’t protected.
Control areas were mapped and flagged, but problems with protection occurred during implementation.
There is still room for improvement, so continued improved communication between botanists and sale
administrators is needed. There is still improvement needed in tracking the flagging of control areas
and in quality of marking control areas.
Question 8: Were noxious weed introductions prevented and existing infestations suppressed?
There were 27 sites with weeds evaluated in 2008. Twenty-four (89% of the 27 sites) of the
occurrences were either treated or avoided during management activities and the remaining three were
neither fully treated nor avoided during management implementation. Although medusahead
(Taeniatherum caput-medusae) is a noxious weed, there are currently no effective eradication methods
for large infestations of this species, and large infestations are not being treated. Flag and avoidance is
used to prevent the spread of medusahead into HFQLG project areas. However, in two units
monitored, medusahead was not flagged, and the occurrence appears to have expanded since
HFQLG treatment. On the Lassen NF, 6 of 9 Klamathweed (Hypericum perforatum) populations seem
to have been eliminated with hand pulling treatment.
Equipment Cleaning Documentation
The HFQLG project area has done well in implementing the contract specifications of equipment
cleaning. Equipment cleaning documentation was received for nearly all of the projects reviewed.
However, no equipment cleaning documentation was found for the Young Pine project on the Almanor
Ranger District, the Deep Red project on the Hat Creek Ranger District, or the Leftover Timber Sale
project on the Sierraville Ranger District.
There were two landings on the Sierraville Ranger District found to have new musk thistle populations
after the landings were tilled to reduce compaction. The equipment used to till the landings was not
washed, so may have been a source for the weeds. This same piece of equipment was also used on a
third interior landing (away from other vectors of seed dispersal) and it did not have a new musk thistle
infestations. The weed seeds may have come from other vectors, such as public forest visitor vehicles.
Question 28a: How do TES plant species respond to resource management activities?
Preliminary monitoring data suggest that Quincy lupine can tolerate group selection treatment activities.
The presence of Quincy lupine individuals within the treatment plot suggests that this species is tolerant
of high levels of soil disturbance and forest removal.
Percent cover of closed-lip Penstemon, Penstemon personatus, following mechanical thinning and
group selection treatments had little change. The fact that the two group selection treatments had
closed-lip Penstemon one year after treatment in densities relatively similar to pre-treatment conditions
is remarkable.
From the data collected in the Follett’s wild mint study in 2008, it is difficult to state with certainty the
effects of group selection treatments on Follett’s wild mint abundance. The presence of Follett’s wild
mint individuals within the treatment plots suggests that the species is able to tolerate a fair amount of
disturbance; Follett’s wild mint plants were found (albeit in much lower abundance) in areas that were
scraped of almost all of the duff and vegetation (i.e. skid trails) and under woody debris.
z Page 12
January 21, 2009
Question 28b: Did new occurrences of TES plant species occur during or following project
implementation?
No new occurrences of TES plant species were found in 69 monitored units.
Question 29 : Were existing infestations of noxious weeds eliminated or contained? and
Question 30: Were all new infestations of noxious weeds eliminated or did some become
established?
Aggressive action prior to and through project implementation has generally been successful in
eradicating small populations of noxious weeds as well as preventing new occurrences. Less success
has been realized in larger populations or species more difficult to eradicate. These efforts appear to
be limiting noxious weed spread on the Lassen, Plumas and Tahoe National Forests. Additional efforts
are needed particularly with Medusahead, Dalmatian toadflax, musk thistle and yellow starthistle.
Question 31: Did new infestations of noxious weeds occur during or following project
implementation?
Sixteen of 69 units monitored had substantial new populations of invasive species one to five years
after treatment, and populations seem to expand once established. Neither cheat grass nor bull thistle
are currently designated as noxious species on either the federal or California noxious weed lists.
However, both species are highly invasive and potentially threatened ecosystem health and function.
z Page 13
January 21, 2009
Appendix 1.
The following tables represent summaries of all available data collected in 2008 for questions 7, 8, 28,
29 and 30.
Implementation Monitoring Questions
Question 7: Were Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) plants surveyed and protected?
Plumas NF, Mt Hough RD
Sale Name
Species
Occurrence Occurrence
Number protected?
Snake 4
Clustered
CYFA 073
Lady’s slipper
Yes
Snake 4
Clustered
CYFA 073
Lady’s slipper
Yes
Snake 3 Quincy Lupine
LUDA
023DD
No
Snake 3 Quincy Lupine LUDA 023F
No
Snake 6
Yes
Plumas Aster
OREL008
Silver 10 Quincy Lupine LUDA 028A
Yes
Silver 10 Quincy Lupine LUDA 028A
Yes
Silver 10 Quincy Lupine LUDA 028A
Yes
Silver 9
Yes
Quincy Lupine LUDA 118
Silver 11 Quincy Lupine LUDA 075H
Yes
Comments (CA = Control Area, the
area with prohibited activities)
Year of
Implementation
No disturbance within the flagged
CA. There is evidence of
underburning and mechanical
thinning in surrounding stand.
mech thin 2007
No disturbance within the flagged
CA. There is evidence of
mech thin 2007
underburning and mechanical
thinning in surrounding stand.
There is a single skid trail that runs right
through the occurrence and evidence of
mechanical treatment throughout CA.
CA was clearly marked and
mech thin 2007
tags/flagging were still visible. This
resulted in minor impacts to less than
50% of the control area. Quincy Lupine
is still present post project.
There are large log decks and a temp
road in the center of the mapped
occurrence. No flagging or CA tags mech thin 2007
present, but site was mapped on Sale
Area map.
No disturbance within the CA
mech thin 2007
No disturbance within CA. Flagging
evident and CA tags visible. Evidence
mech thin 2007
of mechanical treatment in the
surrounding stand.
No treatments occurred in the
surrounding stand. CA is flagged and mech thin 2007
visible.
No treatments occurred in the
surrounding stand. CA is flagged and mech thin 2007
visible.
95% or more of the control area
protected, although a few small trees
mech thin 2007
fell across one edge of flag line with no
apparent impacts to plants or habitat.
No disturbance within CA. Flagging and
mech thin 2007
CA tags present. Disturbance
surrounding CA.
z Page 14
January 21, 2009
Plumas NF, Beckwourth RD
Sale Name Species
Occurrence Occurrence
Number protected?
Sticky
Mabie 134
PYLU_038
Pyrrocoma
No
Trifolium
TRLE2_035
lemmonii
Yes
Mabie 24
Comments
Three hand piles constructed and burned
inside control area which prohibited this
activity. Approximately 2% of control area
impacted.
Flagging mostly gone with some remnants
barely visible. All plants protected.
Old Sloat 3
Quincy
Lupine
007B
Yes
No impacts to control area
Old Sloat 3
Quincy
Lupine
007M
Yes
No impacts to control area
Old Sloat 3
Quincy
Lupine
007O
Yes
No impacts to control area
Year of
Implementation
pile burning
2007
Pile burning
2007
Mechanically
thinned and
burned 2007
Mechanically
thinned and
burned 2007
Mechanically
thinned and
burned 2007
Tahoe NF, Sierraville RD
Sale Name Species
Occurrence Occurrence
Number
protected?
Masticonda Sticky PYLU-TNF6851002 Pyrrocoma
07
Yes
Year of
Comments
Implementation
Bitterbrush was masticated. No equipment
mastication
entered control area (Stream Zone) where
2007
Pyrrocoma is present.
z Page 15
January 21, 2009
Question 8: Were noxious weed introductions prevented and existing infestations suppressed?
Lassen NF, Almanor RD
Sale
Name
Occurrence
treated to
protocol?
Comments
40
No
Records indicate erratic treatments since 2003.
Not monitored in 2007 and population increasing.
Partially treated in 2008
18
Yes
Plants pulled and removed each year 2005 - 2008
Occurrence
treated to
protocol?
Comments
Occur.
Number
Species
Fox Farm
Klamathweed
DFPZ
Young
Klamathweed
Pine
Lassen NF, Hat Creek RD
Sale
Name
Species
Occur.
Number
Big Jacks
Medusahead
28
No
Site is in the road bed and seed heads are being
spread along the road
Chutes
Klamathweed
34
Yes
No plants found since treatment in 2005
Chutes
Klamathweed
46a
Yes
Pulled and removed annually from 2002 to 2008
Chutes
Klamathweed
46b
Yes
Pulled and removed annually from 2002 to 2008
Chutes
Klamathweed
53a
Yes
No plants found since treatment in 2005
Chutes
Klamathweed
53b
Yes
No plants found since treatment in 2005
Chutes
Klamathweed
53c
Yes
North
Coble
Medusahead
40
No
No plants found since treatment in 2005
Site is on road shoulder and shows signs of seed
spread from vehicles and livestock traffic. No
evidence of flagging or avoidance during project.
Cabin
Klamathweed
26
Yes
Cabin
Klamathweed
27
Yes
No plants found since treatment in 2003.
Plants pulled and removed in 2001, 2003-2005,
2007 and 2008
Cabin
Klamathweed
44
Yes
No plants found since treatment in 2002.
Tahoe NF, Sierraville RD
Sale Name Species
Musk
Beak 70
thistle
Occurrence
Number
Occurrence
treated to
protocol?
8CN130
Yes
Comments
One plant found and pulled before seed set in
2008
z Page 16
Beak 71
Beak 72
Beak 66x
Toe 3
Toe 38
Claw 22
Claw 57
Claw 58
Claw 59
Claw 60
Claw 85x
Claw 107
Claw 205
January 21, 2009
Musk
thistle
Musk
thistle
Musk
thistle
Musk
Thistle
Musk
Thistle
Musk
Thistle
Musk
Thistle
Musk
Thistle
Musk
Thistle
Musk
Thistle
Musk
Thistle
Musk
Thistle
Musk
Thistle
Yes
No musk thistle
Yes
No weeds
Yes
No weeds
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
B rated weeds only, not treated (bull thistle
and woolly mullein)
B rated weeds only, not treated (bull thistle
and woolly mullein)
B rated weeds only, not treated (bull thistle
and woolly mullein)
B rated weeds only, not treated (bull thistle
and woolly mullein)
10 musk thistle plants found and pulled
before seed set.
B rated weeds only, not treated (bull thistle
and woolly mullein)
No weeds
B rated weeds only, not treated (bull thistle
and woolly mullein)
B rated weeds only, not treated (bull thistle
and woolly mullein)
B rated weeds only, not treated (bull thistle
and woolly mullein)
z Page 17
January 21, 2009
Question 28a: How do TES plant species respond to resource management activities?
Plumas NF, Mt Hough RD
Treatment
Year
Effectiveness monitoring results
2008
BACI - Before After
Meadow
Control Impact
Follett’s Wild
8 permanent plots: 3
Valley Units 38
Mint
controls and 5
and 46
treatment plots
Group
Selection
2007
No significant difference between
control and treatment plots;
however, sample size low and
power to detect difference relatively
low. See Appendix 3 for report.
Group
Selection
2007
Control increased 24% and
treatment increased 13% one year
after treatment. See Appendix 3
for report.
Sale Name
Species
Monitoring Design
Meadow
Valley Group
Selection Units
242 and 256
Quincy
Lupine
BACI - Before After
Control Impact
One control area was
protected in unit 256
and unit 242 was
treated with group
selection tree removal
Guard 16H
Closedlipped
Penstemon
BACI design
Six 200-ft transect in
this treatment unit
Guard 845
Closedlipped
Penstemon
BACI design
Six 200-ft transect in
this treatment unit
Group
Selection
2007
Percent cover increased from
0.44% to 0.88% cover 1st year after
group selection
Guard 442
Closedlipped
Penstemon
BACI design
Six 200-ft transect in
this treatment unit
Group
Selection
2007
Percent cover decreased from
1.13% to 0.43% cover 1st year after
group selection
Waters 29e
Closedlipped
Penstemon
BACI design
Six 200-ft transect in
this treatment unit
Faggs Control
Area
Mechanical
Percent cover increased from
Thinning 2.85% to 3.18% cover 1st year after
mechanical thinning
2007
Percent cover had little change
Pile Burning (slight decrease from 2.53% to
2.34%) after implementation of pile
2007
burn
ClosedControl Area for BACI
Control Plot
lipped
design. Six 200-ft
Penstemon transects in this control
Percent cover had little change.
1.97% cover in 2007 and 1.89%
cover in 2008.
Tahoe NF, Sierraville RD Sites monitored to determine how rare plants respond to treatment
Project
Name
Folchi
Watershed
Restoration
Species
Project Implementation
Date
Implementation Monitoring Comments
PYLU,
IVSE
Planned 2009
Pretreatment monitoring plot established to
determine effects of watershed restoration
project on sensitive species.
z Page 18
January 21, 2009
Question 29: Were existing infestations of noxious weeds eliminated or contained?
Question 30: Were all new infestations of noxious weeds eliminated or did some become
established?
Lassen NF Noxious Weed Infestations Monitored for treatment effectiveness
Ranger
District and
Sale Name
Noxious
Weed
Species
Almanor
District
Whip 91
Dalmatian
Toadflax
Occurrence Treatment
treated?
Effective?
Hand pulled in
2006, 2007
and 2008
Hat Creek
No, avoidance
Big Jacks Medusahead
prescribed
occ#28
Hat Creek
No, avoidance
N Coble Medusahead
prescribed
occ#40
All plants
Hat Creek
pulled and
Chutes Klamathweed
removed
occ#34
2002 - 08
All plants
Hat Creek
pulled and
Chutes Klamathweed
removed
occ#46a
2002 - 08
All plants
Hat Creek
pulled and
Chutes Klamathweed
removed
occ#46b
2002 - 08
All plants
Hat Creek
pulled and
Chutes Klamathweed
removed
occ#53a
2003 - 08
All plants
Hat Creek
pulled and
Chutes Klamathweed
removed
occ#53b
2003 - 08
All plants
Hat Creek
pulled and
Chutes Klamathweed removed
annually 2003
occ#53c
- 06
Almanor
Fox Farm
Klamathweed
Erratic
DFPZ
occ #40
Almanor
Yes
Young Pine Klamathweed
occ #18
No
Monitoring Comments
Plants are beginning to expand in extent into
tractor skid trails. Pulled 331 in 2006; fewer
(231) plants in 2007; and population increased in
2008 when 626 were treated
No
Site is in road bed and seed heads are being
tracked along the road. No flagging observed.
No
Site is on road shoulder and shows signs of seed
spread from vehicles and livestock traffic. No
flagging found.
Yes
No plants found since treatment in 2005
Yes
Population is decreasing
Yes
Population is decreasing
Yes
No plants found since in 2008
Yes
No plants found since treatment in 2005
Yes
No plants found since treatment in 2008
No
Population is increasing. Treatment has been
erratic.
Yes
Population is decreasing
Comment: Is that what you meant to
say?
z Page 19
January 21, 2009
Hat Creek
Cabin Klamathweed
occ#26
Hat Creek
Cabin Klamathweed
occ#27
Hat Creek
Cabin Klamathweed
occ#44
Yes
Yes
No plants found since treatment in 2003
Yes
Yes
Population is decreasing
Yes
Yes
No plants found since treatment in 2002.
Tahoe NF, Sierraville RD Noxious Weed Infestations Monitored for treatment effectiveness
Sale
Name
and Unit
Pieces 4
Pieces 5
Noxious
Weed
Species
Occurrence
treated?
musk
thistle
90%
musk
thistle
100%
Treatment
Effective?
80%
Effective
Yes
Effectiveness Monitoring Results
Revisit in 2007 found 180 plants in basal rosette
stage. Revisit in 2008 found only 35 rosettes,
population decreasing.
Effective, 1 plant found and pulled in 2007, weed
free in 2008.
z Page 20
January 21, 2009
Appendix 2. Botany Control Area Tracking Sheet
Botany Control Area Tracking Sheet
Project Name:
(See attached map for unit locations)
Unit number
Species
Date Flag/Tag
Completed
Date field
Flag/tag Completed
GIS on
visit with
sale
by
contract map
admin
Field Visit
Completed by
z Page 21
January 21, 2009
Appendix 3. Question 28 Effectiveness Monitoring Report
Lupinus dalesiae monitoring
2006 Meadow Valley Group Selection Units
Michelle Coppoletta
August 26, 2008
In May of 2006, two rectangular plots were established in Meadow Valley Group Selection Units 242
and 256 to determine the effects of group selection treatments on Lupinus dalesiae (Quincy lupine)
abundance. Details of the plot location, methodology, data, etc. can be found in the original document
titled: “LUDA monitoring Notes.doc” and saved under
K:\tm02\botany\Monitoring\Lupinus_dalsiae\MV_2006_monitoring.
During the summer of 2007, one of these permanent Quincy lupine plots (GS_242) was mechanically
treated; the remaining plot (GS_256) was not treated and was used as a control for comparison of
treatment effects. The two group selection plots were revisited and read on July 24, 2008. The following
presents a summary of the pre and post-treatment monitoring data for these two plots.
Number of Individuals
The following table and figure present the number of Quincy lupine within each permanent plot prior to
and following group selection treatments.
Table 1. The number of Quincy lupine within permanent plots prior to and following treatment.
postpre-treatment treatment
Change in
Percent
count (2008)
plot #
count (2006)
number of plants
change
242 (treatment)
7
8
1
13
256 (control)
41
54
13
24
60
Number of plants
50
40
Pre-Treatment (2006)
30
Post-Treatment (2008)
20
10
0
242 (treatment)
256 (control)
Plot
Figure 1. The number of Quincy lupine within permanent plots prior to and following treatment.
Neither the treatment plot, nor the control plot, showed a decrease in the number of individuals
between 2006 and 2008. Even in the group selection plot, where all of the trees were removed and the
Quincy lupine were in an obvious area of disturbance (i.e. in the middle of a skid trail), the plants were
z Page 22
January 21, 2009
still present. The sub-plot data (included on the datasheet) for the group selection plot also show that
the Quincy lupine plants were in the same location as they were prior to treatment.
Canopy cover
This environmental variable was chosen to document the change in canopy cover following group
selection treatments. As is illustrated in the table and figure below, Quincy lupine plot GS_242 went
from 70 percent canopy cover prior to mechanical treatment to 0 percent canopy cover following
treatment. In comparison, Quincy lupine plot GS_256 went from 71 percent to 76 percent canopy
cover, demonstrating a lack of forest removal.
Table 2. Canopy cover in Quincy lupine permanent plots pre and post-treatment.
post-treatment
Change in canopy
plot #
pre-treatment (2006) (2008)
cover
242
-0.7
(treatment)
0.7
0
0.05
256 (control)
0.71
0.76
0.8
Percent Cover
0.7
0.6
Pre-Treatment (2006)
0.5
Post-Treatment (2008)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
242 (treatment)
256 (control)
Plot
Summary
While not extensive, these monitoring data suggest that Quincy lupine can tolerate group selection
treatment activities. The presence of Quincy lupine individuals within the treatment plot suggests that
this species is tolerant of high levels of soil disturbance and forest removal. Additional monitoring
should be conducted to confirm these preliminary findings.
z Page 23
January 21, 2009
Appendix 3. Question 28 Effectiveness Monitoring Report (continued)
Monardella follettii monitoring
2006 Meadow Valley Group Selection Units
Michelle Coppoletta
August 28, 2008
In August of 2006, eight permanent plots were established within (and in the vicinity of) Meadow Valley
Group Selection Units 46 and 38 to evaluate the effects of group selection treatments on Monardella
follettii (MOFO) abundance. Three of the eight plots were designated as controls where mechanical
treatment and equipment were excluded. Group selection treatments took place during the summer of
2007 and all eight plots were revisited and monitored on August 27, 2008. Details of the plot location,
methodology, data, etc. can be found in the original document titled: “MOFO Monitoring Objectives
Protocol.doc” and saved under K:\tm02\botany\Monitoring\Monardella_follettii.
The following tables present the pre and post-treatment monitoring data for the eight MOFO plots.
Table 1 presents the number of MOFO stems recorded in each plot. Table 2 presents duff depth and
canopy cover data, which were recorded to capture changes in the physical characteristics of the eight
MOFO plots following treatment.
Table 1. The number of MOFO stems within permanent plots prior to and following treatment.
The control plots are highlighted in grey.
plot #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
pre-treatment count
564
109
119
37
291
203
625
180
postChange
treatment
number
count
stems
312
47
47
60
182
2
349
144
in
of
Percent
change
-252
-62
-72
+23
-109
-201
-276
-36
45
57
61
62
37
99
44
20
Table 2. The canopy cover and duff depth in MOFO permanent plots pre and post-treatment.
The control plots are highlighted in grey.
Average Litter depth (cm)
plot #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Canopy Cover
prepostpreposttreatment treatment Change
treatment
treatment
0.66
2.8
2.14
0
0.9
0.6
-0.3
0
1.3
1.1
-0.2
0
1.2
2.9
1.7
1
0.8
0.9
0.1
0
1.1
0.9
-0.2
0
No data
0.7
1.3
0.6
1.2
1.8
0.6
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Number of MOFO stems
In the control plots (n=3), the average difference in the number of stems between 2006 and 2008 was 140 (± 91 stems; 80% CI). On average, there was an approximate 33 percent change in the number of
stems between the two monitoring years. This suggests a relatively large natural variability in the
number of MOFO stems between years. In the treatment plots (n=5), the average difference in the
z Page 24
January 21, 2009
number of stems between 2006 (pre-treatment) and 2008 (post-treatment) was -113 (± 64 stems; 80%
CI). In these plots, the average decrease in the number of stems was 40 percent. An analysis of
variance determined that the difference between treated plots and control plots was not significant
(p=0.75; ά = 0.05).
0
Treatment plots
Control plots
Number of stems
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
Figure 1. A comparison of the average difference in number of MOFO stems within
permanent plots prior to and following treatment.
During the 2008 monitoring effort, it became apparent that some plots were more heavily impacted
than others within the treatment area; for example, two of the five treatment plots were in the middle of
a skid trail and received a much greater degree of disturbance. The photographs below provide an
example of what we classified as “high” and “moderate” disturbance within treatment plots.
“High” disturbance classification
Pre-treatment
Post-treatment
z Page 25
January 21, 2009
“Moderate” disturbance classification
Pre-treatment
Post-treatment
Figure 2 illustrates the change in MOFO stems within each plot prior to and following treatment. Those
treatment plots located within skid trails were classified as having “high” disturbance while those
treatment plots that were located off of skid trails, but still within the area of treatment, were classified as
having “moderate” disturbance. It is important to note that even the plots that were classified as
“moderate” still experienced a great deal of disturbance (i.e. debris piled on top of plants).
700
Number of individuals
600
500
400
300
pre-treatment
post-treatment
200
100
Pl
ot
2(
H)
Pl
ot
6(
H)
Pl
ot
1(
M
)
Pl
ot
3(
M
)
Pl
ot
4(
M
)
Pl
ot
5(
NT
)
Pl
ot
7(
NT
)
Pl
ot
8(
NT
)
0
Figure 2. An individual plot comparison of the number of MOFO stems prior to and following
treatment. The plots were grouped based on intensity of treatment; (H): high disturbance,
(M): moderate disturbance; and (NT): no treatment.
From this data, it is difficult to state with certainty the effects of group selection treatments on MOFO
abundance. The presence of MOFO individuals within the treatment plots suggests that the species is
able to tolerate a fair amount of disturbance; MOFO plants were found (albeit in much lower
z Page 26
January 21, 2009
abundance) in areas that were scraped of almost all of the duff and vegetation (i.e. skid trails) and
under woody debris. Many of the MOFO within the treatment area were noted to be robust with multiple
flowering branches.
The lack of significance between the control and treatment plots suggests a few different possibilities.
First, that there is no difference between treatments and controls; or in other words, the difference in
the number of MOFO stems before and after treatment is within the natural range of variability
observed for the species in the control plots.
A second, very important possibility is that we did not have enough experimental power to detect a true
difference between the control plots and the treatment plots. The power was very low (0.06), which
suggests that we likely need to add additional plots or reconsider the plot size or shape in order to gain
a more solid understanding of the treatment effects. A power analysis was conducted using the
following monitoring objective:
Objective: To be 90% certain of detecting a 20% difference in mean plant density (i.e. the
number of stems per square meter) in group selection treatment units and in control areas. We
are willing to accept a 10% chance that a false-change error occurred (conclude a change
occurred when it really did not).
To meet this objective with our current plot design, we would need to install approximately 49 treatment
plots and 24 controls. With our current design, we can be about 80% certain of detecting a 40%
difference in mean plant density (i.e. the number of stems per square meter) in group selection
treatment units and in control areas. We would also have to be willing to accept a 20% chance that a
false-change error occurred (conclude a change occurred when it really did not).
Plot physical characteristics
As seen in the photographs below, there was a large decrease in overstory canopy cover and an
increase in ground disturbance as a result of the group selection treatment. Data collected within each
individual plot show an increase in duff depth in both control and treatment plots (Figure 3). In general,
treatment plots appeared to have a greater increase in duff depth; however this difference was not
significant between the two plot types (p=0.8; ά = 0.06).
Change in Duff Depth (cm
from 2006 to 2008
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Treatment plots
Control plots
0.2
0.1
0
Figure 3. A comparison of the average difference in duff depth within permanent plots prior to
and following treatment.
Although the canopy cover across the stand changed dramatically following the group selection
treatment, individual plots did not exhibit a significant change in canopy cover. Only one plot (#4),
z Page 27
January 21, 2009
converted from a closed canopy to an open canopy following treatment. The remaining plots had an
open canopy (directly over the plot) in both 2006 and 2008, which resulted in a poor standard of
comparison.