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 - 2007
Prepared January 30, 2008 by Colin Dillingham, VMS Enterprise Team Ecologist with input from Judy
Perkins and Allison Sanger, Lassen National Forest; Susan Urie, Tahoe National Forest; Jim BelsherHowe, Michelle Coppoletta, Michael Friend, Chris Christofferson and Linnea Hanson, Plumas National
Forest; Keith Perchemlides, Pacific Southwest Research Station; and Kyle Merriam, Province
Ecologist.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to document findings of the cumulative monitoring efforts accomplished
from 2002 through 2007 by the Lassen, Plumas and Tahoe National Forest botanists. Monitoring in
2007 included both Implementation and Effectiveness monitoring. Implementation monitoring of units
treated in 2006 was conducted to determine if recommended mitigations and treatments were
accomplished as planned. Effectiveness monitoring was completed to determine what response
Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive (TES) or noxious weed species had to mitigations and
treatments or if new occurrences were found in project areas three years after treatment. The intent of
the monitoring was to identify what worked, what 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
April 3, 2008
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 and Effectiveness Monitoring scheme to achieve 90% compliance rate
and 3.4 % precision level using a sample size of 300 units in pool # 2 (to answer questions 7 and 8).
The sampling scheme is filed on the K drive in the plants folder under QLG monitoring. Linnea
suggested that the sample size should be small enough so that we can implement the program. 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 2007 HFQLG Botany Monitoring program was substantial due to the inclusion of both
implementation and effectiveness monitoring questions. In 2007, 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
-
-
-
-
2004
26
11
-
-
8
-
2005
31
17
31
30
12
30
2006
28
9
7
7
8
7
2007
30
22
12
11
17
11
Total Number Units Sampled
150
65
50
42
45
42
* - 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 2006 and determining which of these
treated units had mitigations for TES plants. The HFQLG area botanists made a list of potential
units. There were 36 units with TES control areas; and 30 were selected randomly and sampled
under the HFQLG monitoring protocol in 2007.
z Page 3
April 3, 2008
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 2006 and determining which of these
treated units had mitigations for noxious weeds. There were 59 units with noxious weed control
areas/mitigations; and 30 units were randomly selected and sampled under the protocol. Some
nearby units were sampled in addition to the 30 selected for a total of 35 units sampled in 2007.
Question 28a – How do TES plant species respond to resource management activities? In April
2006 the botanists and HFQLG Implementation Team met to revise how Question 28 and 29 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. Pretreatment data was collected for eight species in 2007 in over 30 plots/line intercept arrays. Posttreatment effects were evaluated in 12 HFQLG treatment units in 2007.
Question 28b - Did new occurrences of TES species become established during or following
project implementation? Data from the Timber Stand Structure (TSS) monitoring were used to
answer this question. Twenty-three 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. Seventeen populations were
monitored in 2007.
Question 31 – Did new infestations of noxious weeds occur during or following project
implementation? Data from the ongoing Timber Stand Structure (TSS) monitoring was used to
answer this question. Field protocols for TSS data collection specify that percent cover data for shrubs,
grasses and forbs are rounded to the nearest 10%, with 10% being the lowest level recorded. As a
result, occurrences of noxious species with substantially less than 10% cover in a sampling plot are not
recorded in the plot data. Noxious weed species were recorded as present in the TSS data for a given
unit only when there was a minimum of 10% cover in at least one sampling plot. For many units
informal field notes were made recording the presence of noxious weeds at lower levels of cover, but
these may not have been recorded consistently across all sites and during pre-treatment monitoring.
Field notes on low level presence of noxious weeds were not used to answer this question for the 2007
report.
Data on shrub, grass and forb cover were recorded at 15 sampling plots per unit during TSS field
monitoring. Plot-level percent cover data for each species was transformed to give an average percent
cover per species per unit for both the pre and post-treatment monitoring data. As of the end of the
2007 monitoring season one-year post-treatment data were available for a total of 23 units, five of these
units also had five-year post-treatment data completed.
z Page 4
April 3, 2008
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 2007 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%
Summary, Question 7
Out of the 30 TES protection/control areas monitored in 2007, 93% were protected as planned. The
target for success is to have 90% of control areas protected as planned, so this objective was met.
There is still room for improvement, so better communication between botanists and sale
administrators is needed. There is still improvement needed in tracking the flagging of control areas.
There were comments that indicate problems with flagging in 10 of 60 (17%) of the suboccurrences
that needed flagging. Some sites that have been flagged 3 and 4 years prior to treatment need to have
the flagging refreshed. Additional coordination between the sale administrators and botanists needs to
occur, especially on the Lassen National Forest, to ensure control areas are established, mapped on
sale area maps, and clearly understood by both botanists and sale administrators.
Lessons learned
Botanists need to be sure that the control areas are flagged on the ground immediately prior to
treatment. Ten of the sites were not adequately flagged on the ground during post-treatment
evaluation, even some that were known to have been previously flagged. Continuing communication
needs to be assured between sale administrators and botanists so that control areas are understood.
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.
z Page 5
April 3, 2008
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
Sites with treatment
Percent of Projects
Sites with control
with documented
Year
or avoidance
measures
Equipment Cleaning
objectives in sample
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%
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 35 sites with weeds evaluated in 2007; but only 22 of these sites had treatment/avoidance
objectives. Twenty (91% of the 22 sites) of the occurrences were either treated or avoided during
management activities and the remaining two were neither 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. However, “flag and avoidance” is used to prevent the spread of medusahead into
HFQLG project areas. In most units, known occurrences of medusahead were successfully flagged
and avoided. However, in one unit medusahead was not flagged, and the occurrence appears to have
expanded since HFQLG treatment. On the Lassen NF, 5 of 6 Klamathweed (Hypericum perforatum)
populations seem to have been eliminated with hand pulling treatment as well as both field bindweed
sites that were monitored. The ox-eye daisy at two sites (Leucanthemum vulgare) appears persistent,
despite treatment.
Despite treatment, two of the musk thistle (Carduus nutans) populations on the Sierraville Ranger
District are still present, and a third population is expanding. 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
The HFQLG project area has excelled in implementing the contract specifications of equipment
cleaning. Equipment cleaning documentation was received for the following projects: Lassen NF –
Bear Cub, Black’s Ridge, Pittville, Cabin, 44 Cal DFPZ, North Coble MP and North Coble Reoffer;
Plumas NF – Lower Slate, Deanes, Pilot, and Humbug Mastication and Timber Sale projects; Tahoe
NF –Beak T.S., Claw T.S., Hotsprings Mastication, and Wheeler DFPZ and Mastication. The Forests
have done an excellent job of implementing the contract specifications. All projects had equipment
cleaning documentation.
z Page 6
April 3, 2008
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 2007 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
or positive responses to
units with TES plant
HFQLG vegetation
monitoring sites
management activities1
2005
31
97%2
2006
7
86%
2007
12
75%
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 and Feather River Ranger Districts have sufficient pre-treatment data to
answer the question, “How do TES plant species respond to resource management activities?”
Several responses by various sensitive and special interest plant species were recorded and are
illustrated in the tables above. 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 Timber Stand Structure (TSS) monitoring was used to answer this question. As
of the end of the 2007 monitoring season one-year post-treatment data were available for a total of 23
units, and 5 of these units also had five-year post-treatment data. These 23 units had been randomly
selected according to TSS monitoring protocol. Sampling plots were established and pre-treatment
data were recorded prior to treatment application. Post-treatment monitoring data was collected one
year after treatment at all 23 units, and at five years post-treatment for five of the 23 units (four-year
post-treatment data were also collected at two of those five units). In addition, a unique set of 19 units
z Page 7
April 3, 2008
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. Stand alone
monitoring reports for these monitoring efforts are available at:
K:/hfqlg/monitoring/7_8_28_30_plants_weeds/summary_reports/. Please refer to the tables in
Appendix 1 to determine which units were monitored and refer to the monitoring reports for more
complete data. Further data collection and analysis is needed. The following summaries are
considered preliminary.
Photo point and plot monitoring indicated that underburning in spring had neutral to beneficial impacts
to the undescribed species Marbled-leaved toothwort, Cardamine “marmorata” species novum.
Clustered lady’s slipper, Cypripedium fasciculatum, showed population declines 1, 2 and 3-years postmastication. The population with 40 individuals declined to 4 plants post-1 year, down to 1 plant post-2
years and 5 plants post-3 years after mastication. Mastication appears to have negatively impacted
clustered lady’s slipper in this situation.
Photo point and plot monitoring indicated that underburning conducted in the spring of 2006 did not
appear to impact Eastwood’s fritillary, Fritillaria eastwoodiae. The population of Eastwood’s fritillary
increased in the immediate area of mastication.
Quincy Lupine, Lupinus dalesae, which grows on open forest floors and disturbed habitats, is present
and appears vigorous after hand thinning in Meadow Valley unit 1a, although treatment activities and
disturbance were minimal. In hand thinning unit Meadow Valley 10b, a control area was established to
protect the population from hand thinning and the number of plants within the control area was less
than half of that counted in 2005. However, judging from the conditions of the site (open and brushy)
and the lack of disturbance from project activities, this may be more a reflection of site condition than
lack of management activities. Deanes Unit 30 had a control area that was protected from hand and
mechanical thinning activities. That population decreased from 47 to 37 individuals and there appears
to have been little effect to Quincy Lupine. In summary, it appears limited treatment in Quincy Lupine
occurrences may be beneficial, while the effectiveness of control areas is not clear, but at least appears
to be maintaining the occurrences.
Frequency of closed-lip Penstemon, Penstemon personatus, following hand-thinning treatments
changed from 63.3 to 56.7 percent, but this change was not statistically significant (p = 0.18, SE 0.07).
Measures of percent cover in the same hand-thinning unit changed from 4.03 to 4.08 percent, which
was also not significant (p = 0.94). Hand-thinning does not appear to effect closed-lip Penstemon oneyear post-treatment.
There was a significant reduction in the number of flowering stems of closed-lip Penstemon (p = 0.01)
observed after a fall burn that consumed the duff layer. During this same burn the cover changed from
9.1 to 4.6 percent, although the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.31).
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 2007 surveys are presented in Appendix 1.
z Page 8
April 3, 2008
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%
* - 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
The small populations of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) monitored in 2007 were eliminated
with hand pulling treatments. Larger populations cannot be effectively suppressed with hand treatment
and an alternative treatment type is necessary, as illustrated from Mt Hough RD sites in the 2006
monitoring report.
Hand treatment of heart-podded hoary cress (Cardaria draba), Dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria), scotch
thistle (Onapardum acanthium) and Russian thistle (Acroptilon repens) has been effective at eliminating
small occurrences of these species on the Lassen NF.
Analysis was completed on experimental propane torch flaming treatments on the noxious weed grass
medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae). Treatment timing appears to be an important factor to
consider when determining the effectiveness of flaming as a method of medusahead control. There
was a significant difference between winter and spring treatment effects (n=12, p=0.01). Spring flaming
treatments reduced medusahead by an average of 95.9% (± 0.9%) cover, while winter treatments
reduced medusahead by an average of 56% (± 30.9%) cover. These preliminary results suggest that,
when timed correctly, flaming may be a useful tool for medusahead control. The equipment required to
conduct the treatment is inexpensive, relatively easy to operate, and requires little maintenance. It
presents a selective alternative to chemical treatment, has very minimal environmental impact, and
does not result in ground disturbance that usually favors invasive species colonization.
Two of the musk thistle (Carduus nutans) populations on the Sierraville Ranger District are still present
despite treatment. A more aggressive musk thistle eradication effort may be warranted. The key to
successful musk thistle control is to prevent seed production, which is the only form of reproduction.
Intensive hand control is an effective technique.
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, musk thistle and yellow starthistle.
z Page 9
April 3, 2008
Question 31: Did new infestations of noxious weeds occur during or following project
implementation?
Data from the ongoing Timber Stand Structure (TSS) monitoring was used to answer this question. As
of the end of the 2007 monitoring season one-year post-treatment data were available for a total of 23
units, and 5 of these units also had five-year post-treatment data. These 23 units had been randomly
selected according to TSS monitoring protocol. Sampling plots were established and pre-treatment
data were recorded prior to treatment application. Post-treatment monitoring data was collected one
year after treatment at all 23 units, and at five years post-treatment for five of the 23 units (four-year
post-treatment data were also collected at two of those five units). In addition, a unique set of 19 units
were monitored in 2005 and that data was analyzed in the 2005 botany monitoring report.
Summary of Question 31
None of the 23 units had noxious weeds or invasive species recorded as present before the treatments
were implemented. Eight of the 23 units (34.8%) were found to have cheat grass (Bromus tectorum)
present following treatment implementation. No exotic species of shrubs or forbs were recorded before
or after treatments. The data contain at least 24 species of forbs and 9 species of grasses. Of those,
cheat grass was the only non-native species in the TSS monitoring data and occurred only at posttreatment sites. New post-treatment cheat grass populations were found after project implementation
at Antelope Border, Last Chance and Pittville treatment units (see Question 31 Table below).
Additionally, informal field notes indicate a low level presence of bull thistle (Cirsium arvense) at some
of the monitoring units.
Question 31 Table – Monitoring units with new occurrences of noxious weeds. Percent cover values
are the average cover for that species across the entire unit area sampled.
Project
Name
Antelope
Border
Antelope
Border
Antelope
Border
Antelope
Border
Last
Chance
Last
Chance
Unit
Number
Treatment
Wildfire
(year)
Boulder
(2006)
Boulder
(2006)
Boulder
(2006)
Boulder
(2006)
Years
Post
13B
Thin
13B
Thin
15A
Thin
15A
Thin
10
Thin
None
1
13
Thin
None
1
Pittville
27068
GS
None
1
Pittville
29166
Thin
None
1
Pittville
29181
GS/Underburn
None
1
Pittville
30115
GS/Thin
None
1
4
5
1
5
Invasives
Cheat
grass
Cheat
grass
Cheat
grass
Cheat
grass
Cheat
grass
Cheat
grass
Cheat
grass
Cheat
grass
Cheat
grass
Cheat
grass
Percent
Cover
6.00
7.33
0.67
2.67
1.33
0.67
6.00
3.33
1.33
0.67
Substantial new populations of cheat grass were found at eight of 23 units after treatment (seven at
one-year with an eighth unit showing cheat grass at four years after treatment). Percent cover of cheat
grass at the units one year after treatment was an average of 2.0% across the seven units with cheat
grass, with a range of 0.67% to 6.0% (individual plots had up to 50% cover). Five years after treatment,
z Page 10
April 3, 2008
cheat grass levels were found to average 5.0% for Antelope Border 15A and Antelope Border 13B (see
table above). Cheat grass may have been present at these units before treatment at levels too low to
be recorded by TSS monitoring protocol.
At this point there are only two units with cheat grass infestations where five-year post-treatment data
have been collected, and both of these were burned during the Boulder Wildfire in 2006. Based on
these two units, cheat grass populations seem to be expanding once established post-treatment, but it
is difficult to determine if this is an effect of the wildfire, of the treatment, or results from a combination of
the two disturbances. Cheat grass, although not state listed as a noxious weed, is considered to be an
undesirable, aggressive non-native species and is monitored by HFQLG Pilot Project area botanists.
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 2007 appear to show that HFQLG treatments are providing suitable
habitat and disturbances for the species to expand in extent and cover.
However, a recent publication evaluating the role of fuel breaks in the invasion of nonnative plants
(Merriam et al. 2006) evaluated two project areas in the HFQLG Pilot Project Area, Antelope-Border
and Blacks Ridge DFPZs. Similar to our results, they found cheat grass to be the most abundant
nonnative plant species. Through an analysis of variance, they found no difference in relative nonnative
abundance on the DFPZ treatments compared with adjacent wildlands.
Of the 23 units with post-treatment data, 17 were thinning treatments, three were Group Select treated,
two were masticated and one was thinned for Aspen management. Of the 17 thinning treatment units
29.4% (5 units) had post-treatment infestations of cheat grass. All three (100%) of the Group Select
treated units had new cheat grass infestations.
Lessons Learned
The site disturbances and altered growing conditions created by HFQLG treatments appear to have
allowed invasive weeds to establish new populations or increase from very low levels to larger
populations. Based on a small portion (23 units) of the overall planned sample size (280 units),
preliminary results indicate that invasive weed populations are expanding over time at treated sites and
that Group Select treatments may be more susceptible to invasive weeds than thinning treatments.
However, these results may change dramatically after all sample unit data collection is complete.
Cheat grass is a concern and it appears that in habitats favorable to cheat grass HFQLG treatments
may be providing suitable habitat for the species to expand. However, in the adjacent Stream wildfire
area on the opposite side of Antelope-Lake, there are dense patches of cheat grass present postwildfire without any mechanical treatments (Terry Miller, botanist, personal communication). This
aggressive weed is likely to continue its invasion due to both natural and man-caused disturbances.
Cheat grass was not introduced by equipment operating in the project area. Cheat grass was already
present in the Antelope-Border area prior to project activities. Equipment cleaning in these project
areas appears to have prevented new noxious weed species from becoming established.
Literature Cited
Merriam, K.E., J.E. Keeley, J.L. Beyers. 2006. The Role of Fuel Breaks in the Invasion of Nonnative
Plants. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5185, 69 p.
z Page 11
April 3, 2008
Key Findings
Question 7 – Were TES plants surveyed and protected?
Most (93 percent) of TES plant control areas were protected in 2007. The target for success is to have
90% of control areas protected as planned, so this objective was met. 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.
Question 8: Were noxious weed introductions prevented and existing infestations suppressed?
Twenty (91% of the 22 sites) of the noxious weed occurrences were either treated or avoided during
management activities and the remaining two were neither treated nor avoided during management
implementation. The Lassen NF avoided the medusahead infestations in an effort to not spread the
species. Medusahead appears to be expanding in drier, lower elevation areas of the Lassen NF, even
in untreated areas. It does particularly well on clay loam soils in sunny open sites, and in disturbed
sites. Overall, flagging and avoiding known infestations appears to be effective for HFQLG projects.
However, it is important to monitor these sites and hand-pull any new infestations before they have an
opportunity to establish. On the Lassen NF, 5 of 6 Klamathweed populations seem to have been
eliminated with treatment as well as both field bindweed sites that were monitored. The ox-eye daisy
appears persistent, despite treatment.
Two of the musk thistle populations on the Sierraville Ranger District are still present despite treatment,
and a third population is expanding despite treatment. 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
The HFQLG project area has excelled in implementing the contract specifications of equipment
cleaning. Equipment cleaning documentation was received for all 14 projects monitored. The Forests
have done an excellent job of implementing the contract specifications.
Question 28a: How do TES plant species respond to resource management activities?
Photo point and plot monitoring indicated that underburning in spring had neutral to beneficial impacts
to the undescribed species Marbled-leaved toothwort.
Clustered lady’s slipper showed population declines 1, 2 and 3-years post- mastication. The population
with 40 individuals declined to 4 plants post-1 year, down to 1 plant post-2 years and 5 plants post-3
years after mastication. Mastication appears to have negatively impacted clustered lady’s slipper in this
situation.
Photo point and plot monitoring indicated that underburning in spring did not appear to impact
Eastwood’s fritillary. The population of Eastwood’s fritillary increased in the immediate area of
mastication.
Quincy Lupine which grows on open forest floors and disturbed habitats, is present and appears
vigorous after hand thinning. Small, non-significant declines were observed in each of two control
areas that were established to protect the populations. In summary, it appears limited treatment in
Quincy Lupine occurrences may be beneficial, while the effectiveness of control areas is not clear, but
at least appears to be maintaining the occurrences.
Hand-thinning does not appear to effect closed-lip Penstemon one-year post-treatment.
z Page 12
April 3, 2008
Fall burns that consume the duff layer had a statistically significant negative impact on the number of
flowering stems of closed-lip Penstemon, and although the cover changed from 9.1 to 4.6 percent, the
difference was not statistically significant.
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 23 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, musk thistle and yellow starthistle.
Question 31: Did new infestations of noxious weeds occur during or following project
implementation?
There were 23 units with post-treatment data; 17 were thinning treatments, three were Group Select
treated, two were masticated and one was thinned for Aspen restoration. Of the 17 thinning treatment
units 29.4% (5 units) had post-treatment infestations of cheat grass. Post-treatment data are available
for only three Group Select units at present. All three (100%) of the Group Select treated units had new
cheat grass infestations. The site disturbances and altered growing conditions created by HFQLG
treatments appear to have allowed invasive weeds to establish new populations or increase from very
low levels to larger populations. Based on a small portion (23 units) of the overall planned sample size
(280 units), preliminary results indicate that invasive weed populations are expanding over time at
treated sites and that Group Select treatments may be more susceptible to invasive weeds than
thinning treatments. However, these results may change dramatically after all sample unit data
collection is complete.
z Page 13
April 3, 2008
Appendix 1.
The following tables represent summaries of all available data collected in 2007 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
Deanes
MP Thin
21
Occurrence Occurrence
Number protected?
Species
Monardella
follettii
11 B
Yes
Deanes
MP Thin
23
Arabis
constancei
11 D
Yes
Deanes
MP Thin
24
Arabis
constancei
11 C
Yes
Deanes
MP Thin
25a
Arabis
constancei
11 E
Yes
Deanes
Pyrrocoma sp.
MP Thin
nova
25a
Deanes
MP Thin
30
Arabis
constancei
Yes
4-A
No
Year of
Comments
Implementation
8 control areas were designated. All
mech thin 2006
were avoided during project
implementation.
Control Area was avoided. A large
landing (or group selection) was directly
mech thin 2006
adjacent to CA. No signs of disturbance
evident within CA.
Overall, implementation did well
avoiding the 9 very small control areas.
The treatments came very close to the mech thin 2006
boundary, but did not disturb the ARCO
or soil within
Overall, implementation did well
avoiding the 6 very small control areas.
In many cases, soil disturbance went
mech thin 2006
right up to CA boundary; however no
soil disturbance or treatments were
observed within the CAs.
Control Area was avoided during
project implementation. Treatment
activities went right up to CA boundary;
mech thin 2006
however no soil disturbance or
treatments were observed within the
CA.
Control area does not seem to have
been flagged, tagged, or avoided.
mech thin 2006
Some ground disturbance and thinning
activity in mapped CA.
Tahoe NF, Sierraville RD
Sale Name Species
CLAW 22
Ivesia
sericoleuca
Occurrence Occurrence
Number
protected?
IVSE
TNF16
Yes
Year of
Comments
Implementation
This occurrence is located away from unit
and was not affected in any way by timber mech thin 2006
activities in the area.
z Page 14
April 3, 2008
Lassen NF, Eagle Lake RD
Sale Name
Grays 35
Species
Astragalus
pulsiferae
var.
suksdorfii
Occur.
Number
Occurrence
protected?
Comments
yes
Not flagged, not disturbed
Railroad
50
A. p. var.
suksdorfii
1
yes
Railroad
51
A. p. var.
suksdorfii
13A
and
13C
yes
Railroad
51
A. p. var.
suksdorfii
13B
no
2 sub-population flagged, 1 not
flagged, 1 not previously documented.
None were disturbed.
1 sub-population flagged, 2 not
flagged. 2 sub-population not
disturbed
Occurrence 13B sub-population had a
landing area partially within the
occurrence with some probable loss
of this sub-population.
Year of
Implementation
mech thin
2006
mech thin
2006
mech thin
2006
mech thin
2006
Plumas NF, Beckwourth RD
Sale Name Species
Occurrence Occurrence
Number protected?
PYLU
Pyrrocoma
33A,B,C;
Pilot SBA lucida,
PYLU 34 A,
Trifolium
10
B, C, D, F,
lemmonii
TRLE 33A
yes
Comments
Year of
Implementation
All nine suboccurrences of both species
were protected through mechanical harvest mech thin 2006
operation.
Plumas NF, Feather River RD
Sale Name Species
Lower
Sidalcea
Slate 11W gigantea
Occurrence Occurrence
Number protected?
yes
Year of
Comments
Implementation
Control area tags present, flagging mostly
mech thin 2006
gone. No impacts to plants.
z Page 15
April 3, 2008
Lassen NF, Hat Creek RD
Sale
Occur. Occurrence
Year of
Species
Comments
Name
Number protected?
Implementation
N Coble
Outside treatment unit, not flagged, not
Hackelia
Brush 26mech thin 2006
4
yes
impacted.
cusickii
6
Pittville Limnanthus
Not flagged, but low fuels and site appears
UB 27floccosa
12
yes
burn 2006
unimpacted.
22/27-10
#12
Botrychium
7 B & C,
Flagged, not disturbed, outside sale unit
montanum,
11 B & C,
yes
boundary. All five occurrences were
mech thin 2006
Cabin 26
minganense
9
protected.
, crenulatum
Cabin Hierochloe
2
yes
Not flagged, not disturbed, outside unit.
2006 Aspen
A10
odorata
North
Pogogyne
group select
yes
Not in unit.
Coble 43 floribunda
2006
North
Pogogyne
group select
yes
Not in unit.
Coble 44 floribunda
2006
North
Pogogyne
group select
yes
Not in unit.
Coble 47 floribunda
2006
Flagged, not disturbed. Occurrence
group select
North
Pogogyne
36
yes
protected.
2006
Coble 70 floribunda
group select
North
Pogogyne
37
yes
Not flagged, not disturbed.
2006
Coble 76 floribunda
Flagged, not disturbed. Occurrence
group select
North
Pogogyne
36
yes
protected.
2006
Coble 77 floribunda
Not flagged, not disturbed. Outside treatment
North
Pogogyne
group select
11
yes
units. Access road crossed population site,
Coble 150 floribunda
2006
but didn't disturb plants.
group select
North
Pogogyne
85
yes
Not in unit.
2006
Coble 207 floribunda
North
Pogogyne
Site was fenced off, and located outside
group select
10
yes
Coble 209 floribunda
treatment unit. Undisturbed.
2006
North
Pogogyne
Coble 210 floribunda
10
yes
Site was fenced off, and located outside
treatment unit. Undisturbed.
group select
2006
North
Pogogyne
Coble 213 floribunda
85
yes
Not in unit.
group select
2006
North
Pogogyne
Coble 214 floribunda
35
yes
Outside cutting unit, but burned around pool.
Not flagged, but plants undisturbed.
group select
2006
North
Pogogyne
Coble 225 floribunda
33
One population not flagged, not disturbed. A
No, flagged
second location (no plants) WAS flagged and group select
area not
had extensive vehicle traffic through the
2006
avoided
flagged area but no plants were found.
z Page 16
April 3, 2008
Question 8: Were noxious weed introductions prevented and existing infestations suppressed?
Plumas NF, Beckwourth RD
Sale
Name
Pilot 10
Species
Occurrence
Occurrence treated or
avoided?
Number
Spotted
Knapweed
CEMA4 008
yes
Comments
Site unimpacted by project as planned.
Lassen NF, Almanor RD
Sale
Name
Species
Ox-eye Daisy
#14,
Bear Cub Klamathweed
#5
28
Occur. Occurrence
Number treated?
Comments
14, 5
treated/still
present
Not flagged. Partial treatment of weeds; both
LEVU and HYPE still present adjacent to site.
Treated in 2007.
5
treated/still
present
Not flagged. Still present; treated in 2007.
Bear Cub
Ox-eye Daisy
72
Tahoe NF, Sierraville RD
Sale Name Species
Musk
CLAW 10
Thistle
CLAW 58
Musk
Thistle
Musk
Thistle
Musk
Thistle
Musk
Thistle
Musk
Thistle
Musk
Thistle
Musk
Thistle
Musk
Thistle
CLAW 59
CLAW
121
Musk
Thistle
Musk
Thistle
CLAW 24
CLAW 57
CLAW 60
CLAW
107
CLAW
205
CLAW
85X
CLAW 44
Occurrence
Number
-
40005d
CNU40,
CNU41,
CNU41H
-
Occurrence
treated?
Comments
None
Weeds not spreading into unit from adjacent
needed.
infested units.
Treated 6/07,
needs addtnl
Weeds do seem to be spreading along the
treatment.
road and probably spread by equipment.
None
Weeds not spreading into unit from adjacent
needed.
infested units.
None
Weeds not spreading into unit from adjacent
needed.
infested units.
None
Weeds not spreading into unit from adjacent
needed.
infested units.
None found in unit, but Musk Thistle found in
treated
adjacent unit #205b and 400 plants pulled.
None
Weeds not spreading into unit from adjacent
needed.
infested units.
None
Weeds not spreading into unit from adjacent
needed.
infested units.
None
Weeds not spreading into unit from adjacent
needed.
infested units.
Weed treated
Original weed sites were located in what
but had gone
looked like historic locations and weeds do
to seed.
not appear to be spreading.
None
Weeds not spreading into unit from adjacent
needed.
infested units.
z Page 17
April 3, 2008
Lassen NF, Hat Creek RD
Sale Name
Cabin 46
Species
Klamathweed
Cabin 47
Cabin 49
Cabin A3
Cabin A4
Klamathweed
Klamathweed
Klamathweed
Klamathweed
N.Coble
43-86 &
43-99
North
Coble 20
North
Coble 254
Blacks
Ridge 2856
Pittville UB
North 2722/27-10
N.Coble
43-86 &
43-99
North
Coble 47
North
Coble 58
North
Coble 61
North
Coble 64
North
Coble 69
North
Coble 82
North
Coble 83
North
Coble 85
North
Coble 180
North
Coble 289
Medusahead
# 59; Yellow
Starthistle #20
Field
Bindweed
Field
Bindweed
Occurrence
Occur. treated or
Number avoided?
46
treated
27,
46
treated
82
treated
44
treated
44
treated
Comments
Not flagged, no plants seen.
Not flagged, no plants seen.
Not flagged, no plants seen.
Not flagged, no plants seen.
Not flagged, no plants seen.
59
yes
#59 flagged and avoided. Starthistle was
treated, but not in or adjacent to unit.
4
yes
No plants found, treated in 2006.
4
yes
No plants found, treated in 2006.
Medusahead
22
n/a
Not flagged or treated. No impact and no
apparent spread.
Medusahead
13
no
Not flagged. Found 3 occurrences within
treatment unit, and appears to be expanding.
Medusahead
50
no
#50 not flagged or avoided - burned to edge of
occurrence.
Medusahead
55
yes
Flagged and avoided, none in unit.
Medusahead
55
yes
Flagged and avoided, none in unit.
Medusahead
56
yes
Flagged and avoided, none in unit.
Medusahead
56
yes
Flagged and avoided.
Medusahead
56
yes
Medusahead
40
n/a
Medusahead
40
n/a
Medusahead
40
n/a
Medusahead
40
n/a
Flagged and avoided, none in unit.
Not flagged, not found where shown in
documentation.
Not flagged, not found where shown in
documentation.
Not flagged, not found where shown in
documentation.
Not flagged, not found where shown in
documentation.
Medusahead
59
yes
Flagged and avoided, none in unit.
z Page 18
April 3, 2008
Question 28a: How do TES plant species respond to resource management activities?
Plumas NF, Mt Hough RD
Sale
Name
Species
Occur. Implementation Monitoring Treatment
Number
Comments
Year
Effectiveness monitoring
results 2007
Population reduced from 40
Site was flagged for
stems pre-treatment, 4 stems
avoidance however, the
post-treatment year one and
Kingsbury Clustered
11-049- control area was masticated. masticate only 1 stem was located during
Rush
Lady’s
2004 a visit on 7/12/06 postC
Population had 40 plants 9
33b
Slipper
treatment year 2. 5 plants in
Sept 2000, but only 4 stems
2007. Lesson = Mastication
relocated post-treatment.
negatively impacted CYFA.
Waters
29e
Closed-lip
Penstemon
Meadow
Valley
1a
Quincy
Lupine
Meadow
Valley 10b
Quincy
Lupine
Meadow
Follett’s
Valley 12a Wild Mint
Deanes
30
Quincy
Lupine
3
002B
075H
Hand thinning did not have a
Pre-treatment plots
Hand thin significant effect on frequency
established. Hand thin and
2006
or cover (detailed report
monitor effectiveness.
available)
No recommended
protection, treat through
occurrence and monitor
effectiveness
LUDA is present and appears
handthin vigorous. Treatment activities
2004
and disturbance were
minimal.
One control area in unit
was flagged and avoided.
The # of LUDA within the CA
was less than half of that counted
in 2005. However, judging from
the conditions of the site (open
handthin
and brushy) and the lack of
2004
disturbance from project
activities, this may be more a
reflection of site condition than
management activities.
Plants within CA appear to be
Control area One of two
stable. Transect documented
control areas in unit. Hand
handthin
similar # of individuals as
6
thinned around control area,
2004
2005 monitoring. Area was
but control area protected.
not disturbed.
Hand piles not burned yet.
One control area was
flagged and avoided by
37 LUDA individuals found
hand thin unit. Also Deane's
(compared to 47 in 2005).
Unit 30 (mechanical thin) handthin Due to the lack of disturbance
10-C-9
had just been felled and it
2004
from project activities, there
also avoided the CA (but the
has likely been little to no
yarding has not been
effect to the LUDA at this site.
completed yet).
z Page 19
April 3, 2008
Plumas NF, Feather River RD
Sale
Name
Species
Occur.
Number
Year of
Implementation
Red
Mountain
2
Closed-lip
Penstemon
PEPE
04DD
cover decreased from 10% to 5% in one plot,
from 12 to 0.5% in second plot, had not
underburn 2005
change in third plot and increased from 8 to
18% in fourth plot
Red
Mountain
3
Closed-lip
Penstemon
PEPE
04DD
cover decreased from 15% to 0.5% in one
underburn 2005 plot, from 6 to 3% in second plot and from 8 to
0.5% in third plot.
Brush
Creek
Marbledleaved
toothwort
-
underburn spring % cover increased from 3 to 5% and # basal
4/8/2004
leaves increased from 20 to 35 leaves
Brush
Creek 12
Marbledleaved
toothwort
CA#3-006
underburn spring
2005
No apparent change in population
Brush
Creek 32
Eastwood’s
Fritillary
FREA_057
Underburn
3/17/05 (night)
No apparent change in population
Brush
Creek 31
Eastwood’s
Fritillary
FREA_058
mastication fall
2005
FREA population increased in immediate
area of treatment
Effectiveness monitoring results 2007
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
Noxious
District and
Weed
Sale Name Species
Almanor
Dalmatian
District
Toadflax
Whip 91
Eagle Lake
Scotch
44 Cal
Thistle
DFPZ 162
Eagle Lake
Dyer's woad
44 Cal
DFPZ 162
Eagle Lake
Yellow Star44 Cal
thistle
DFPZ 421
Eagle Lake
Russian
44 Cal
thistle
DFPZ 421
Eagle Lake
Round 420
Klamath
Weed
Occurrence treated?
Both in 2006 and 2007
Effectiveness Monitoring Results
Plants did not expand in extent into skid trails.
Pulled 331 in 2006 and found fewer (231)
plants in 2007.
yes
Hand pulling treatment was effective at
eliminating this small population.
yes
Hand pulling treatment was effective at
eliminating this small population.
yes
Hand pulling treatment was effective at
eliminating this small population.
yes
Hand pulling treatment was effective at
eliminating this small population.
Yes in 2002. Not treated in
2005; Yes in 2007
Hand pulling treatment was effective at
controlling this small population; one plant was
found and pulled in 2007 .
z Page 20
Eagle Lake
Round 420
April 3, 2008
Yellow
Starthistle
Eagle Lake HeartRound 420 podded
hoary cress
Eagle Lake HeartRound 420 podded
hoary cress
Treated 1999, revisited
annually through 2007; no
plants have been seen.
Treated 2003 (1 plant),
revisited annually through
2007; no plants have been
seen.
Site treated in 2003 (15
plants). Site has been
revisited on a yearly basis;
no plants have been seen.
Hand pulling treatment was effective at
eliminating this small population.
Hand pulling treatment was effective at
eliminating this small population.
Hand pulling treatment was effective at
eliminating this small population.
Tahoe NF, Sierraville RD Noxious Weed Infestations Monitored for treatment effectiveness
Sale Name
and Unit
Pieces 4
Pieces 5
Pieces 6
Pieces 8
Pieces 23
Pieces 23a
Pieces 76
Toro 41
Noxious
Weed
Species
musk
thistle
musk
thistle
musk
thistle
musk
thistle
musk
thistle
musk
thistle
musk
thistle
tall white
top
Occurrence treated?
90%
Effectiveness Monitoring Results
Not Effective - Revisit in 2007 found 180 plants
in basal rosette stage. All plants were pulled in
mid June. Site still needs revisits.
99%
Effective, 1 plant found and pulled.
100%
Effective
100%
Effective
100%
Effective
100%
Effective
100%
Effective
Occurrence avoided
Effective at preventing spread into unit.
z Page 21
April 3, 2008
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