United States
Department of
Agriculture
File Code:
Route To:
Subject:
To:
Forest
Service
Region
Seven
Vegetation Mgmt. Sol. Enterprise Team
900 Highway 36, PO Box 767
Chester, CA 96020
(530) 258-2141
2141 (TDD available)
(530) 310-4268 Voice
Date:
01/26/2010
/2010
FY2009 Treated Stand Structure Monitoring Report for HFQLG Pilot Project
Colin Dillingham,, HFQLG Monitoring Team Leader
Overview of Treated Stand Structure Monitoring current status, prepared by Lauren Payne,
Silviculturist and Executive Officer
Officer, VMS Enterprise Team.
Treated Stand Structure Monitoring (TSSM) data collection is ongoing to help address the
following four implementation questions from the HFQLG Monitoring Plan.
1): Do Silviculture and fuel treatments meet California Spotted Owl Interim Direction, fuels,
and other stand objectives?
2): Are the desired abundance and distribution of snags and logs achieved in DFPZs and Group
Selections?
3): Does the implementation of silvicultural prescriptions produce or retain desired stand
elements such as logs, canopy cover, large trees, and early seral stage?
4): Do silvicultural treatments meet California spotted owl interim direction, and fuel and stand
objectives over time?
The TSSM data is also aimed to provide quantitative measures to evaluate the following key
stand attributes. These key stand attributes are related to the implementation questions listed
above, which are shown in parenthesis.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
Has habitat for California Spotted Owl been maintained? (Q1, Q4)
Has habitat for California Spotted Owl been enhanced? (Q1, Q4)
Has habitat suitability for carnivores been maintained? (Q1, Q3)
Has habitat suitability for carnivores been enhanced? (Q1, Q3)
Hass the amount of early seral forage been maintained? (Q3)
Has the amount of early seral forage been enhanced? (Q3)
Has the number of snags > 15 inches DBH been maintained? (Q1, Q2)
Has the number of snags > 15 inches DBH been increased? (Q1, Q2)
Has the amount of logs > 20 inches in diameter been maintained? (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4)
Has the amount of logs > 20 inches in diameter been increased? (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4)
Do the fuel conditions meet the DFPZ requirements? Eg. Computed four-foot
four
flame
height at 90-percentile
le weather. (Q1, Q4)
TSSM data includes measurements of average tree diameter, average canopy cover,
cover surface fuel
loading, snags, and understory vegetation for both pre
pre- and post-treatment
treatment conditions of
randomly selected locations within stands treated under
nder the HFQLG Pilot Project. The
Caring for the Land and Serving People
Printed on Recycled Paper
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Region
Seven
Vegetation Mgmt. Sol. Enterprise Team
900 Highway 36, PO Box 767
Chester, CA 96020
(530) 258-2141
2141 (TDD available)
(530) 310-4268 Voice
methodology is based on monitoring procedures of the Forest Health Pilot except that some
modifications have been made to measure understory vegetation attributes and canopy cover.
The TSSM data set has also been used tto
o help answer additional monitoring questions such as:
25): What is the effect of treatments on fire behavior and suppression
suppression?
28): How do TES plant species respond to resource management activities?
31): Did new infestations of noxious weeds occur du
during
ring or following project implementation?
implementation
The results of these analyses are reported in the fire/fuels and botany reports separately.
TSSM Data Collection Accomplishments for 2009
By 2009, all previously collected TSSM data had been migrated into the standardized National
Common Stand Exam (CSE) database. The CSE database provides Agency-wide
wide access to the
raw field data and calculates some of the average stand attributes used for monitoring.
Along with the CSE field measurements, the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) program is used
to calculate additional attributes,, such as the average basal area of certain sized trees, trees per
acre of seedlings, the basal area of hardwoods, and the basal area and trees per acre of snags. A
review was conducted by the HFQLG Monitoring Program Manager, VMS Enterprise, and PSW
to determine and validate all stand measurements needed to help answer all monitoring questions
related to stand characteristics and ffuel loadings. Based on this review, all
ll exams through 2009
were run through the FVS model to calculate the desired stand attributes.
While down wood measurements are collected and loaded into the CSE database, neither the
CSE program nor FVS are currently
ntly able to calculate the fuel loadings based on the sample
design. The raw down wood data is currently being exported from CSE into an Excel
spreadsheet to hand calculate fuel loadings.
In 2009 an access database was developed and put into use to capture
re the collected (CSE) data as
well as FVS computations and down wood spreadsheet calculations. The access database is also
being expanded to indicate what treatments were applied to the various sampled stands, as well
as what Directives and project speci
specific objectives apply to each treatment unit.
There are currently three distinct planning intervals that represent some variation in management
direction and objectives. They are:
• 1999 – 2001; Herger-Feinstein
Feinstein Quincy Library Group Act, Forest LRMPs and individual
i
project NEPA
• 2001 – 2004; Herger-Feinstein
Feinstein Quincy Library Group Act, 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest
Plan Amendment,, Forest LRMPs and individual project NEPA
• 2004 – Present; Herger-Feinstein
Feinstein Quincy Library Group Act, 200
2004 Sierra Nevada Forest
Plan Amendment,, Forest LRMPs and individual project NEPA
Caring for the Land and Serving People
Printed on Recycled Paper
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Region
Seven
Vegetation Mgmt. Sol. Enterprise Team
900 Highway 36, PO Box 767
Chester, CA 96020
(530) 258-2141
2141 (TDD available)
(530) 310-4268 Voice
While the primary intent of the HFQLG TSSM monitoring is not to monitor effectiveness in
meeting individual project objectives as identified above, it does seem imperative to include
these considerations when
en answering the HFQLG monitoring questions.
2009 Data Summary
In 2009 TSSM data was collected on 7 stands prior to treatment, 21 stands one year after
treatment, and 4 stands five years after treatment. To date, a total of 260 stand measurements
have been collected since year 2001. TSSM data has been collected on a total of 159 prepre
treatment stands, 91 post-one
one year treatment stands, and 10 post
post-five
five year treatment stands.
Of the pre-treatment
treatment stands, 56 fall within the Eastside ecological zone, 6 fall within a transition
zone, and 97 fall within the Westside eco
ecological zone. Most of the monitoring in the Westside
zone has occurred since 2006. Over 90% of the post
post-one
one year treatment data for Westside stands
has been collected between 2008
2008-2009,
2009, and represents less than half (roughly 40%) of the prepre
treatment stands
nds monitored on the Westside to date.
With the current sample size, particularly the number of post
post-one
one year treatment stands that have
been monitored, broader and more comprehensive analysis is beginning to be conducted. This
reflects an emphasis shift from data collection, compilation and processing, to data analysis and
discussion. In 2009, TSSM analysis focused primarily on meeting fuels objectives and snag
retention objectives (monitoring questions 1 and 2, above).
Fuels and Fire Behavior
All TSSM
M data was loaded into the FVS program and the Fire and Fuels Extension (FFE) within
FVS was used to calculate predicted flame lengths and other wildfire results based on local 90th
percentile weather conditions. The results of projected fire behavior bas
based
ed on the TSSM data
collected thus far are further described in the 2009 HFQLG Fire/Fuels Report. There are caveats
to be considered when reviewing fire modeling and projected fire effects. While fire modeling
can provide a means for comparison (for exam
example pre-treatment versus post-one
one year burn
results), results should not be considered absolute without further local verification and model
validation. For example, initial modeling results indicate a significant drop in stand mortality in
post-one year stands, but reflects a much higher (over 70%) stand mortality than would be
expected or has been observed in DFPZs that have experienced wildfire to date. Further
discussion of the results of fuels treatments in meeting fuels objectives can be found in the
th 2009
HFQLG Fire/Fuels Report.
Snag Distribution and Retention
Natural snag distribution is generally very irregular and clumpy. As such, individual stand
monitoring is insufficient in intensity to determine snag frequency or change at the stand level.
Caring for the Land and Serving People
Printed on Recycled Paper
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Region
Seven
Vegetation Mgmt. Sol. Enterprise Team
900 Highway 36, PO Box 767
Chester, CA 96020
(530) 258-2141
2141 (TDD available)
(530) 310-4268 Voice
However, with the large TSSM sample size at the landscape scale, trends are evident at a larger
landscape scale.
To date, monitoring results for 91 stands have been analyzed for snag retention comparing prepre
treatment snag levels to post-one
one year levels. Snags for this analysis are those that are a
minimum of 15 inches in diameter
diameter. Detailed analysis of the TSSM snag data collected to date is
further discussed in a separate snag data analysis. Of particular note are summary statistics that
indicate thus far roughly 12% of post
post-one year treatment stands have the desired
d level of snags,
regardless of pre-treatment
treatment snag levels. Desirable snag levels vary by ecologic
ecological
al zone and
habitat prescription.
From another perspective, stands were analyzed to see if pre
pre-existing
existing snag levels were retained
regardless of whether theyy were at or below the desirable levels prior to treatment. Stands with
no measured snags within pre-treatment
treatment monitoring plots were not included in this analysis. On
average, roughly one third (34.7%) of the treated stands retained snags at either the desirable
d
threshold, or at minimum did not fall below pre
pre-treatment
treatment levels. Conversely, this would
indicate that much of the time, stands are not retaining snags after treatment, either at desirable
levels or at the initial (less than desirable) levels pri
prior to treatment.
Again it should be noted that snag densities on an individual stand level is highly variable and
consequently statistics provide little information at that scale
scale.. Certain subsets of stands (for
example those in the transition ecologica
ecologicall zone, or the Westside zone where target snag levels are
8 per acre) also present a small sample size that may limit statistical inferences. With these
considerations in mind, it is still very notable that monitoring to date indicates an overall decline
in snags and that most treated stands do not contain snags at desirable levels.
Executive Summary
Treated Stand Structure Monitoring (TSSM) data collection continued in 2009 with a total of 7
pre-treatment units, 21 post-one
one year and 4 post
post-five
five year treatment units being sampled. Since
data collection began in 2001, a total of 260 TSSM data sets have been collected, including 159
pre-treatment units, 91 post-one
one year units, and 10 post
post-five
five year units. Major strides were
completed in consolidating monitoring results and data calculations into a comprehensive access
database. Additional work was done to include project objectives to serve as monitoring
parameters within the database.
Close coordination was conducted with PSW and other resource groups to conduct further inin
depth analysis of the TSSM data collected thus far. TSSM analysis this year focused primarily
on the achievement of fire behavior objectives, noxious weed and snag retention objectives. The
fire behavior and noxious weed analyses are presented under separate headings in this report.
The analysis of snag retention to date indicates that snag objectives are not being met in most
cases. Of 91 stands that were analyzed, roughly one third (34.7%) either met snag objectives or
at minimum retained snags at pre
pre-treatment
treatment levels. Overall, only 12% of the stands met snag
objectives one year after treatment. These statistics indicate that 1) there are frequently less than
Caring for the Land and Serving People
Printed on Recycled Paper
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Region
Seven
Vegetation Mgmt. Sol. Enterprise Team
900 Highway 36, PO Box 767
Chester, CA 96020
(530) 258-2141
2141 (TDD available)
(530) 310-4268 Voice
desirable levels of snags prior to treatments and 2) in most cases snags are not being retained at
desired levels as measured one year after treatment. Further ongoing ana
analysis
lysis will be conducted
to determine causes and possible implications of these snag retention monitoring results.
Table 1. Summary statistics for the number of snags per acre by zone and the target threshold for
snags per acre.
Zone
Eastside
Transition
Westside
Grand
Total
Snags
per acre
Threshold
3
3
4
4
8
# of
surveys
48
2
2
31
8
Pretreatment
Mean
2.8
4.7
8.7
2.8
5.0
Pre-treatment
Standard
Deviation
4.0
0.9
2.8
4.6
4.1
91
3.2
4.2
Post-treatment
treatment
Mean
0.8
4.0
1.4
1.6
2.4
Posttreatment
Standard
Deviation
1.6
1.8
1.9
3.3
3.6
1.3
2.6
Further data collection and analysis of canopy cover, large logs, and spotted owl habitat
attributes is planned for 2010.
Caring for the Land and Serving People
Printed on Recycled Paper