Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Botany Monitoring Report - 2010
Colin Dillingham, HFQLG Monitoring Team Leader Jan 28, 2011 Kyle Merriam, Province Ecologist Michelle Coppoletta, Botanist, Mt Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest Jim Belsher-Howe, Botanist, Mt Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest Lynée Crawford, Botanist, Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest Chris Christofferson, Botanist, Feather River Ranger District, Plumas National Forest Jessica Pijoan, Botanist, Lassen National Forest Allison Sanger, Botanist, Lassen National Forest Susan Urie, Botanist, Tahoe National Forest
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to document findings of the cumulative monitoring efforts accomplished from 2002 through 2010 by the Lassen, Plumas and Tahoe National Forest botanists. Monitoring in 2010 included both Implementation and Effectiveness monitoring. Implementation monitoring of units treated in 2009 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. A new comprehensive effectiveness monitoring plan to assess whether HFQLG activities impact TES or special interest plant species was prepared on July 28, 2009. 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?
Question 31: Did new infestations of noxious weeds occur during or following project implementation?
Sample Sizes 1
Page 2 February 4, 2011
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 was amended in 2008 by Jim Baldwin and Colin Dillingham and is filed http://cdb.fs.usda.gov/content/dav/fs/NFS/Plumas/Program/HFQLG/Monitoring/Statistics/Compliance_ precision_20080512.xls. 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 2010 HFQLG Botany Monitoring program included both implementation and effectiveness monitoring. In 2010, 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 8 17 8
2008 16 27 6 47 16 47
2009 15 11 6 22 42 22
2010 15 19 7 15 10 15
Total Number Units Sampled 199 122 69 126 113 126
* - Number of units sampled for effectiveness monitoring only includes post-treatment sampling. Additional pre-treatment sampling efforts have been completed and will be included in the sample pool after post-treatment sampling is completed. Questions 28b and 31 utilize Treated Stand Structure Monitoring (TSSM) data. In addition, 19 randomly selected units were monitored in 2005 that were not part of the TSSM data set.
Question 7 – Were TES plants surveyed and protected? Our sample pool to answer this question was developed by reviewing the entire list of units treated in 2009 and determining which of these
Page 3 February 4, 2011
treated units had mitigations for TES plants. All 15 units available were sampled under the HFQLG monitoring protocol in 2010.
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 2009 and determining which of these treated units had mitigations for noxious weeds. There were 19 units with noxious weed control areas/mitigations; and all 19 units were sampled under the protocol.
Question 28a – How do TES plant species respond to resource management activities? Pre- treatment data was collected for 3 species (closed-lip penstemon, Carex petasata, Stenotus lanuginosa) in 2010 in 10 treatment units. Post-treatment effects were evaluated for closed-lip penstemon (10 units), Follett’s wild mint (2), long-stiped campion (2), Layne’s Butterwort (2) and lens-pod milkvetch (4) in 20 HFQLG treatment and control units in 2010. Most of these evaluations remeasured areas previously monitored; however, 7 were new post-treatment measurements and only new unit evaluations are shown in Table 2. In addition, an extensive analysis was completed on historical closed-lip penstemon monitoring data collected from 27 treatment units and two controls.
Question 28b - Did new occurrences of TES species become established during or following project implementation? Data from the ongoing Treated Stand Structure Monitoring (TSSM) was used to answer this question. Fifteen additional units (107 total TSSM units) were monitored for post-treatment data in 2010. One hundred and seven randomly selected units that previously didn’t have TES plants occurrences were examined after harvest to determine if any new TES plant occurrences had occurred in response to management activities.
Question 29/30 – 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. Twelve populations were monitored in 2010, ten of these were new in the sample pool and two were remeasured. The two remeasured units are not included in Table 1.
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. Sixteen additional units (107 total TSSM units) were monitored for post-treatment data in 2010. 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 noxious weeds are recorded. Cover values on an individual plot are generally rounded to the nearest 10% cover.
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.
Page 4 February 4, 2011
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 2009 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% 2009 15 93% 2010 15 93%
Summary, Question 7
Out of the 15 TES protection/control areas monitored in 2010, 14 (93%) 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 met.
One site on the Hat Creek Ranger District wasn’t protected (See Appendix 3 for details). The control area was mapped and flagged, but problems with protection occurred during implementation. The mitigation measures were followed by not lighting the underburn within 50 feet of the occupied habitat. However, when the fire left planned containment lines, it burned up the occurrence and eliminated the plants (See Appendix 3 for more details).
Communication between botanists and contract administrators appears to be good, but unfortunately, there was still one failure. The breach to the plant control area was extensive to one occurrence (99% of plants lost). However, impacts to the special interest plant were restricted to only 1 of 44 known occurrences (see Appendix 3). There is still improvement needed in tracking of control areas, particularly for older projects. 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
Lessons learned from this that can improve the ability to protect plants in the future:
Page 5 February 4, 2011
a) Improve upon writing mitigation measures / Integrated Design Features (IDFs) to protect known TES and special interest plant occurrences and sub-occurrences. Amend older NEPA documents and Biological Evaluations / Biological Assessments that could better address mitigation measures / IDFs. b) Consider more specific mitigations for burn projects keeping in mind the unpredictable nature of fire. c) Improve upon communication among specialists, planners, and implementers so that special needs are revisited and discussed before implementing projects, especially when implementation occurs some time after the NEPA is completed. d) Ensure control areas are marked both on the map and on the ground for special interest plants in need of protection.
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 2010 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 Year or avoidance with documented 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% 2009 11 100% 100% 2010 19 95% 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 19 sites with weeds evaluated in 2010. All of the occurrences, except one site on Feather River Ranger District, were either treated and/or avoided during management activities.
The reason the Feather River District weed occurrences were not properly managed is due to a failure during contract preparation (see Appendix 4 for more details). The weed mitigation measures were not properly inserted into the contract. Before the sites were impacted during harvest activities, it was realized that the control areas were not in the contract. However, the sites were still impacted during harvest activities. An important lesson learned from this event is that control areas can be added to existing contracts even after contracts have been awarded.
Page 6 February 4, 2011
Equipment Cleaning Documentation
The HFQLG project area has done well in implementing the contract specifications of equipment cleaning. Equipment cleaning was documented for all of the projects investigated in 2010. Projects reviewed include South Station DFPZ and Gordon Aspen Enhancement project on the Lassen NF; Summit Mastication, Five Points Mastication, Jenkins Timber Sale, Genesee Fuels Reduction Project LaPorte Fuel Mastication Contract and Mt Hope Stewardship project on the Plumas NF; and Dinkaroo Timber Sale, Jumbuck, and Billabong Timber Sale projects on the Tahoe NF.
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.
Lessons learned to prevent impacting weed control areas in the future? 1. Contract maps should be reviewed by all specialists to confirm all required mitigations and control areas are represented on contract maps. 2. Have a field review with the contract administrator to review mitigations prior to project implementation. 3. In all contracts, there is contractual language outlining how to add additional resource protection measures. Control areas can be added to existing contract when needed.
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 2010 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 Number of treatment populations that had neutral Year units with TES plant or positive responses to monitoring sites HFQLG vegetation management activities1 2005 31 97%2 2006 7 86% 2007 12 75% 2008 6 83% 2009 6 100% 2010 7 100%
Page 7 February 4, 2011
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? Data has been collected and analyzed for long-stiped campion, Webber’s milk vetch, lens- pod milk vetch, Follett’s wild mint and closed-lip penstemon. Detailed results are included in Appendices 5-7. See Lessons Learned, below, for a short summary.
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 2010 monitoring season one-year post-treatment data were available for a total of 107 units, and 15 of these units also had five-year post-treatment data. These 107 units had been randomly selected according to TSSM 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 107 units, and at five-year post-treatment for fifteen of the 107 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 closed-lip penstemon, long-stiped campion, lens-pod milk vetch, and Follett’s wild mint are attached as appendices 5-7. Please refer to the appendices for the complete reports. Further data collection and analysis is planned. The following summaries are considered preliminary.
The response of closed-lip penstemon, Penstemon personatus, following a variety of forest harvest treatments was analyzed using frequency data (Appendix 5). High intensity treatments, such as clearcutting and shelterwood harvest, resulted in a significant decline in closed-lip penstemon frequency. Moderate intensity treatments, such as mechanical thinning and overstory removal, did not result in a significant decline in closed-lip penstemon frequency. Closed-lip penstemon frequency is most likely to decline in the first year or two following treatment; however it may rebound to pre- treatment levels after three to five years. The first year after treatment response of long-stiped campion to mechanical thinning was evaluated using a census method (Appendix 6). Post-treatment monitoring determined that the 2010 flowering population (104 plants) was between the lower count (61 - 2009) and upper count (118 - 2007) of pre- treatment population counts. Therefore, preliminary results indicate that the mechanical thin treatment caused no change to the population.
The response of lens-pod milk vetch to hand thin and mechanical thin treatments was evaluated using plot based plant counts. Populations of lens-pod milk vetch remained stable in mechanical thin and hand thin treatments over time (years 1 through 6 post-treatment) and there was not a significant change in numbers.
Follett’s wild mint showed no difference between the plots that were treated with Group Selection harvest and the control plots. There was also no significant interaction between the treatments and time. There was a significant effect of year (p=0.01; ά = 0.05) which did not appear related to
Page 8 February 4, 2011 treatment. The number of stems within all of the plots (whether they were treated or controls) was significantly lower in 2008, than in either 2006 or 2010. The number of stems was not significantly different between 2006 (pre-treatment) and 2010 (three years post-treatment). This suggests that there may be relatively large natural variability in the number of Follett’s wild mint stems between years.
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 2010 surveys are presented in Appendix 1.
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% 2009 42 95% 2010 11 91% * - 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
Annual hand pulling treatment of musk thistle appears to be effective at containing populations in most situations. Annual hand pulling of Dalmatian Toadflax at one locality on the Almanor Ranger District does not appear to be effective. 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.
Page 9 February 4, 2011
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 2010, 107 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 two percent.
Twenty-five (23%) of the units had detectable invasive weed populations after treatment (Table 6). Thirteen of these units were on the Lassen National Forest and 12 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 76% of the infested Treated Stand Structure Monitoring (TSSM) plots. The percent cover tends to increase with time since 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 2010 appear to show that HFQLG treatments are providing suitable habitat and disturbances for the species to expand in extent and cover. The most drastic measured increase in cheat grass was in Antelope Border units 13B and 15B after the Boulder wildfire came through the units (Table 6).
Klamath weed and bull thistle were detected in one and five units respectively after treatment. Klamath weed and bull thistle are invasive non-native species that out-compete native plant species for water, nutrients, and space.
Although cheat grass, Klamath weed and bull thistle were the only invasive weed species recorded in the plots, the HFQLG monitoring efforts indicate a low level presence of yellow starthistle, medusahead (grass) and Scotch broom (shrub) at some of the monitoring units. However, these latter three species may or may not be associated with HFQLG activities and these small populations may have been present before the HFQLG treatments. In one instance during the 2008 monitoring effort, some musk thistle outside of the randomly located TSSM plots appears to have been brought in when equipment was not cleaned.
Page 10 February 4, 2011
Table 6. – Monitoring units with occurrences of noxious weeds. Percent cover values are the average cover for that species across the entire unit area sampled. Many plots do not have the 5-year post treatment reading yet, and therefore data is not available (marked “na”).
Project Treatment Invasive 1-Year 5-Year District Name 1 Species Unit # Pre Post Post Cheat Harvey Thin 60 0 0.67 na Eagle Lake grass 14 0 2.67 na Southside Thin Bull thistle 18 0 2.00 na Cheat Almanor Cherry Hill Thin 133 0 2.00 na grass Blacks Cheat 5 0 10.00 na Thin Ridge grass 16 0 3.33 na North Cheat 5 2.00 2.66 na Thin Coble grass 8 0 0.67 na Cheat Lassen NF Lassen Group 27068 0 6.00 na Hat Creek grass Cheat Thin 29166 0 3.33 na grass Pittville Group, Cheat 29181 0 1.33 na underburn grass Group, Cheat 30115 0 0.67 0.67 Thin grass Cabin Bull thistle 471 0 1.5 na Last Cheat 10 0 1.33 na Thin Chance grass 13 0 0.67 na Beckwourth 3 0 0.67 na Cheat Red Clover Thin 10 0 0.67 na grass
18 0 0.67 na Feather Brush Hand thin, Klamath 24 0 0.67 na River Creek pile burn Weed 13B 0 0 7.332
Plumas NF Plumas Antelope Cheat Thin 15A 0 0.67 2.67 Border grass 3 3 Mt. Hough 15B 0 0 26.7 Guard Thin Bull Thistle 16 0 0.20 na Snake Group Bull Thistle 686 0 0.07 na Waters Masticate Bull thistle 8D 0 0 0.07
1 Thin = mechanically thinned, Group = group select. 2 A wildfire burned through this unit 3 years after treatment, and may have been part of the reason there was a large increase in cheat grass in this unit. 3 A wildfire burned through these units 3 months before the September 2006 post-1 reading, and may have been part of the reason there was a large increase in cheat grass in this unit at post-5 measurement.
Page 11 February 4, 2011
Key Findings
Botany
Botany monitoring includes both Implementation and Effectiveness monitoring. Implementation monitoring of units treated in 2009 was conducted to determine if recommended mitigations and treatments were accomplished as planned. Effectiveness monitoring was completed to determine responses of Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive (TES) or noxious weed species 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. Monitoring methodologies are described in the HFQLG Monitoring Plan.
Sensitive Plant Protection
Out of the 15 threatened, endangered or sensitive (TES) plant protection/control areas monitored in 2010, 14 (93%) were protected as planned during HFQLG treatments. The minimum level of protection considered successful would be to have 90% of control areas protected as planned (though 100 percent would be optimum). Therefore, this objective was met in 2010. One site was not protected. Though mitigation measures were followed for a prescribed fire (mapping and flagging control areas; lighting the fire over 50 feet from the sensitive plant occurrence), the fire left planned containment lines and eliminated the plants. Achievement of the optimum protection level (100 percent of control areas protected during treatment) will require continuing improvements in communication between botanists and contract administrators, to ensure effective marking, awareness and avoidance of control areas.
Sensitive Plant Response to Management Activities
The first year after treatment, response of long-stiped campion to mechanical thinning was evaluated using a census method. Post-treatment monitoring determined that the 2010 flowering population (104 plants) was between the lower count (61 - 2009) and upper count (118 - 2007) of pre-treatment population counts. Therefore, preliminary results indicate that the mechanical thin treatment caused no change to the population.
The response of lens-pod milk vetch to hand thin and mechanical thin treatments was evaluated using plot based plant counts. Populations of lens-pod milk-vetch remained stable in mechanical thin and hand thin treatments over time (years 1 through 6 post-treatment) and there was not a significant change in numbers.
Follett’s wild mint showed no difference between the plots that were treated with group selection harvest and the control plots. There was also no significant interaction between the treatments and time.
The response of closed-lip penstemon following a variety of past forest harvest treatments was analyzed using frequency data. This data was collected on historical treatments that have similar on- the-ground effects to mechanical group selection and DFPZ construction. High intensity treatments, such as clearcutting and shelterwood harvest, resulted in a significant decline in closed-lip penstemon frequency. Moderate intensity treatments, such as mechanical thinning and overstory removal, did not result in a significant decline in closed-lip penstemon frequency. Closed-lip penstemon frequency is most likely to decline in the first year or two following treatment; however it may rebound after year three to pre-treatment levels.
Monitoring also looks for new occurrences of TES plants species after HFQLG project implementation. No new occurrences have been found in the 107 units surveyed before and after project implementation through the past 10 years.
Page 12 February 4, 2011
Noxious Weeds
Monitoring examines the effect of HFQLG activities and associated weed control and prevention measures on the establishment, eradication and spread of noxious weeds. There were 19 sites with weeds evaluated in 2010. All of the occurrences except one, were treated and/or avoided during management activities. The inadequate treatment of the one weed site was due to an oversight during contract preparation. The weed mitigation measures were not properly inserted into the contract. Eleven projects were reviewed in 2010 for equipment cleaning documentation. All projects had equipment cleaning documentation in the project files.
There were 11 sites with weeds evaluated in 2010 to determine if existing weed populations were eliminated or contained. There was a 91 percent success rate in eliminating or containing the weed populations in 2010, although all of these would be considered small, relatively easy sites to treat. For example, careful annual hand-pulling treatment of the musk thistle (Carduus nutans) populations on the Sierraville Ranger District appears to eliminate small populations. Aggressive action prior to and through project implementation has generally been successful in eradicating small populations of noxious weeds. Less success has been realized in larger populations or species more difficult to eradicate. With these species or populations, high intensity of control, with multiple treatments per year and possibly including treatments other than hand pulling, appears to be warranted HFQLG weed control 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.
Twenty-five of 107 units monitored (23%) had substantial new populations of invasive species one to five years after treatment, and populations seem to expand once established. New populations include Klamath weed, which is on the California Department of Agriculture (2003) noxious weed list, and cheat grass and bull thistle, which are not. Regardless, all of these species are highly invasive and potentially threatened ecosystem health and function.
Page 13 February 4, 2011
Appendix 1.
The following tables represent summaries of all available data collected in 2010 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
Occurrence Occurrence Sale Name Species Comments Treatment Number protected? Corridor Control areas successfully DFPZ Wildland Urban Quincy Lupine LUDA_152 Yes construction Interface protected Mildred’s Control areas successfully DFPZ Meadow Valley CLMIL3_038 Yes Clarkia protected construction
Plumas NF, Beckwourth RD
Sale Occurrence Occurrence Name Species Number protected? Comments Treatment
Mabie Fall burn required in Service lens pod milk vetch ASLE_033B Yes mitigation and properly Underburn Contract implemented.
Plumas NF, Feather River RD
Occurrence Occurrence Sale Name Species Number protected? Comments Treatment
Occurrences, Slapjack mutant not Equipment excluded from 2 occurrences timber harvest 30 tan oak numbered Yes successfully. Slapjack Humboldt DFPZ 38 Lily 002 Yes Control areas successfully protected. construction
Lassen NF, Eagle Lake RD
Occurrence Occurrence Sale Name Species Comments Treatment Number protected? Gordon Disappearing Aspen Aspen MIEV-004 Yes Mitigation implemented as planned. monkeyflower Enhancement unit 812
Lassen NF, Hat Creek RD
Page 14 February 4, 2011
Sale Occurrence Occurrence Species Comments Treatment Name Number protected? Although mitigation measure North No, see Cusick’s stick seed HACU-004 followed, underburn escaped and Under burn Coble appendix 3 burned up occurrences. South Disappearing Mitigation implemented as DFPZ Station MIEV-002 Yes monkeyflower planned; control area protected. construction Unit 2 South Disappearing Mitigation implemented as DFPZ Station MIEV-002 Yes monkeyflower planned; control area protected. construction Unit 3
Tahoe NF, Sierraville RD
Sale Occurrence Occurrence Species Comments Treatment Name Number protected? Jumbuck spring is on sale area map, and Aspen spring (not fen) Yes Unit 12 spring was left intact Enhancement Jumbuck spring is on sale area map, and Aspen Spring Yes Unit 13 spring was left intact Enhancement Jumbuck Broad-nerved Logging did not affect this fen or Aspen MEUL Yes Unit 26 hump moss moss Enhancement Jumbuck Flagged and avoid and marked on Aspen Possible EPHO Yes Unit 33 map. Enhancement Tractor keep out signs posted, Aspen Jumbuck Yes Enhancement Unit 23 Fen fens marked on map and mostly excluded from unit fens marked on map and a few Aspen Jumbuck Yes Enhancement Unit 24 Fen conifers closest to the fens were left
Question 8: Were noxious weed introductions prevented and existing infestations suppressed?
Lassen NF, Hat Creek RD Occurrence Sale Occur. treated to Name Species Number protocol? Comments
Penny Squarrose CESQ- Site visited/treated in 1998, 2000, 2002, 2003 and yes Pines WUI Knapweed 004 2010. No plants present since 2000.
CIAR4- Site visited/treated in 2008 and 2010. No plants Cabin Canada thistle yes 039 present since 2008. HYPE- Site visited/treated in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, Cabin Klamathweed yes 026 2007 and 2010. No plants present since 2003. HYPE- Site treated in 2006 and no plants in 2007 or Cabin Klamathweed yes 081 2010.
Page 15 February 4, 2011
Lassen NF, Almanor RD
Occurrence Sale Occur. treated to Name Species Number protocol? Comments Clone Unit Canada thistle CIAR4-018A yes Treated annually 2002 - 2010 except 2005 121
Plumas NF, Mt Hough RD
Occurrence Sale Occur. treated to Name Species Number protocol? Comments
Genesee yellow CESO3 Fuels starthistle 0293 Yes Genesee TACA8
Fuels medusahead 0176 Yes Genesee TACA8
Fuels medusahead 0177 Yes
Plumas NF, Feather River RD
Occurrence Sale Occur. treated to Name Species Number protocol? Comments Three control areas to prevent weed spread Scotch broom Three Slapjack were impacted by operations. Contract failed and unnumbered No 129 to incorporate botany control areas from the French broom occurrences NEPA document.
Page 16 February 4, 2011
Tahoe NF, Sierraville RD
Occurrence Occurrence treated to Sale Name Species Number protocol? Comments Jumbuck Unit Musk thistle Yes 25 Canu4 00021 0 weeds found Jumbuck Unit Musk thistle Yes 3 0 weeds found Jumbuck Unit Musk thistle Yes 7 Canu4 00044 0 weeds found Jumbuck Unit Musk thistle Yes 11 0 weeds found Jumbuck Unit Musk thistle Yes 29 Canu4 00021A 0 weeds found Jumbuck Unit Musk thistle Yes 30 Canu4 00021 0 weeds found Jumbuck Unit Musk thistle Yes 31 Canu4 00021 0 weeds found Jumbuck Unit Musk thistle Yes 23 nearby, not in unit 0 weeds found Jumbuck Unit Musk thistle Yes 24 CANU4 00005C 0 weeds found Jumbuck Unit Musk thistle Canu4 00007 Yes 6 Waypoint 6CAN99 8 weeds removed
Page 17 February 4, 2011
Question 28a: How do TES plant species respond to resource management activities?
Lassen NF, Almanor RD
Treatment Sale Name Species Monitoring Design Effectiveness monitoring results 2010 Year BACI - Before After No significant population change in 3 long-stiped Control Impact Mechanical years pre-treatment data. Post- Deadhorse campion 1 treatment and 1 Thin fall 2009 treatment data Indicated no significant control plot change. Lotts Aspen BACI - Before After Oak and closed-lip Control Impact Additional data collected at this site in Planned 2011 Pine penstemon 1 treatment and 1 2010 for better pretreatment data Enhancement control plot
Lassen NF, Eagle Lake RD
Sale Treatment Species Monitoring Design Effectiveness monitoring results 2010 Name Year Carex BACI - Before After petasata Planned No significant population change in 3 years pre- Control Impact Ebey and underburn treatment data. Post-treatment data to be 3 treatment and 3 Stenotus 2011 collected in 2011. control plots lanuginosa
Plumas NF, Feather River RD
Treatment Effectiveness monitoring results Project Species Monitoring Design Year 2010 BACI - Before After Slapjack Layne’s Control Impact underburn Increased Stem Number Underburn butterwort 1 treatment and 1 2008 control plot
Plumas NF, Beckwourth RD
Sale Effectiveness monitoring Species Monitoring Design Treatment Name results 2010 Mabie lens-pod Paired control sites with 4 Populations of vetch remained 62, 67, milk mechanical and hand thinning 2006 stable in mechanical thin and hand 142 and vetch treatment units. thin treatments over time. 145
Page 18 February 4, 2011
Plumas NF, Mt Hough RD
Treatment Effectiveness monitoring Project Species Monitoring Design Year results 2010 Webber’s BACI - Before After Handthin Milkvetch habitat Number of seedlings Webber’s Control Impact 2008 - 2009 enhancement significantly increased after milk vetch 1 treatment and 1 Pileburn China Grade hand thin treatment control area 2009 Unit Webber’s Experimental design, Milkvetch habitat Webber’s to evaluate how fire Underburn Post-treatment data to be enhancement milk vetch intensity affects 2010 collected in 2011 China Grade germination rates Unit Line Intercept Data, 3 control areas, Data analysis has not been Meadow Valley, closed-lip 2 group selection 2007 - 2008 completed. Look for results in Basin T.S. penstemon 1 hand thin the 2011 report. 2 mechanical thin Moderate to low intensity Frequency Data Analyzed old data treatments had no negative Mt Hough and 3 mechanical thin to determine closed-lip effects, High intensity Feather River 17 overstory removal effects of timber penstemon treatments had negative Ranger District 3 shelterwood harvest treatments effects, populations rebounded 4 clearcut of 1980s 3 years after treatment BACI - Before After Control Impact Meadow Valley Follett’s wild Group Selection 1 group selection No significant effects Project mint 2007 unit (6 plots) and 2 control plots
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 Occurrence Treatment Sale Name Species treated? Effective? Monitoring Comments Plot established in 2006- pulled 331 plants, 231 plants in 2007, 626 in 2008 and 1403 in 2010. Almanor Dalmatian LNF #9 No Number of plants increasing despite hand treatment Whip 91 Toadflax efforts.
Page 19 February 4, 2011
Plumas NF, Mt Hough Ranger District Noxious Weed Infestations Monitored for treatment effectiveness
Treatment Effectiveness monitoring results Project Species Monitoring Design Year 2010 BACI - Before After Empire Mastication and Control Impact Pretreatment data collected in medusahead 2011 Burn 1 group selection 2010 and 1 control plot
Tahoe NF, Sierraville RD Noxious Weed Infestations Monitored for treatment effectiveness Noxious Sale Name Occurrence Treatment Weed Effectiveness Monitoring Results and Unit treated? Effective? Species Jumbuck Musk Canu4 00021 Yes 0 weeds found Unit 25 thistle Jumbuck Musk Yes 0 weeds found Unit 3 thistle Jumbuck Musk Canu4 00044 Yes 0 weeds found Unit 7 thistle Jumbuck Musk Yes 0 weeds found Unit 11 thistle Jumbuck Musk Canu4 00021A Yes 0 weeds found Unit 29 thistle Jumbuck Musk Canu4 00021 Yes 0 weeds found Unit 30 thistle Jumbuck Musk Canu4 00021 Yes 0 weeds found Unit 31 thistle Jumbuck Musk nearby, not in Yes 0 weeds found Unit 23 thistle unit Jumbuck Musk CANU4 00005C Yes 0 weeds found Unit 24 thistle Canu4 00007 8 weeds removed, continued hand Jumbuck Musk Waypoint Yes pulling and monitoring to eliminate Unit 6 thistle 6CAN99 occurrence is necessary.
Page 20 February 4, 2011
Appendix 2. Botany Control Area Tracking Sheet
Botany Control Area Tracking Sheet Project Name: (See attached map for unit locations) Date field Date Flag/Tag Flag/tag Completed GIS on visit with Field Visit Unit number Species Completed by contract map sale Completed by admin
Page 21 February 4, 2011
Appendix 3. Review of failure to protect Special Interest Plant, Cusick’s Stick Seed.
Lassen National Forest TES Plant Implementation Monitoring for Special Interest Plant: Hackelia cusickii occurrence # 4 Jessica Pijoan, Assistant Forest Botanist, September 30, 2010
Hackelia cusickii (Cusick’s stick seed) occurrence # 4, at the time of recognition for 2010 QLG monitoring, consisted of six sub-occurrences mapped to the Lassen National Forest GIS layer with approximately 200 individuals previously recorded on a May 3, 1994, field survey form. The occurrence is on the Hat Creek Ranger District west of Moon Reservoir and east and somewhat north of the junction of FS roads 18 & 22 in an open western juniper stand. On July 15, 2010, the occurrence was monitored for protection. None of the six previously known sub-occurrences or juniper trees under which Hackelia cusickii (HACU) grows were present in the area and it was evident the area had burned. One new previously unrecorded sub-occurrence of HACU consisting of one individual was found a little north of the northernmost known sub-occurrence.
Large diameter, mature junipers with low sweeping branches are habitat for HACU and the species is found growing under their canopy. Correspondence with the Hat Creek Fire Management Officer, Debbie Mayer, informed us that in fall of 2008 there was an underburn in the HACU #4 area and firing ignitions did not occur within 50 feet of juniper trees >12” dbh as directed by the Integrated Design Features (IDFs). The brush burned hotter than anticipated resulting in a fair amount of tree mortality and it is likely the resulting snags were later taken for fuel wood as the area is adjacent to FS roads 18 & 22 servicing state highways 299, 89, and 44 and nearby communities. The area is flat and easily accessible by vehicles travelling off-road. However, there was no sign of any motorized travel, mechanical disturbance, or other disturbance than the fire in 2010.
Consequently, any previously known existing HACU individuals in occurrence #4 and their habitat were lost. Protection did not occur of the six sub-occurrences of HACU # 4 selected for monitoring. Mitigations through instruction of the IDFs were followed (see IDFs below).
IDFs in the Biological Evaluation for sensitive plants for the North Coble Project signed June 6, 2001, state:
Integrated Design Features identified as part of the proposed project design which pertain to botanical resources: 1. Identify all known botanical sites and exclude ground-disturbing activities from all identified botanical sites and the Murken Bench Special Interest Area. 2. Retain juniper trees greater than 12 inches DBH with low, sweeping branches and mossy understory as a source of the special interest plant Cusick’s stick seed; where feasible, retain larger diameter juniper in the DFPZs when underburning by not firing within 50 feet of these trees.
The North Coble Reoffer Timber Sale map does not show the HACU # 4 area as a control area, nor was the area tagged on the ground as a control area.
There are a total of 34 Hackelia cusickii occurrences on the Lassen National Forest including HACU occurrence #4, which as of 2010 has one additional sub-occurrence consisting of one individual. There has been a sizable decrease to the HACU population of occurrence #4 as it has decreased from approximately 200 individuals to one. However, on the Lassen National Forest there are 33 other occurrences known and recorded making the overall decrease of HACU on the forest relatively minor. The presence of one individual found in 2010 within the HACU #4 occurrence area indicates there are viable seeds in the area. Other large junipers that survived the fire can serve as HACU habitat in the area.
Page 22 February 4, 2011
Lessons learned from this that can improve the ability to protect plants in the future:
e) Improve upon writing mitigation measures / IDFs to protect known TES and special interest plant occurrences and sub-occurrences. Amend older NEPA documents and Biological Evaluations / Biological Assessments that could better address mitigation measures / IDFs. f) Consider more specific mitigations for burn projects keeping in mind the unpredictable nature of fire. g) Improve upon communication among specialists, planners, and implementers so that special needs are revisited and discussed before implementing projects, especially when implementation occurs some time after the NEPA is completed. h) Ensure control areas are marked both on the map and on the ground for special interest plants in need of protection.
Page 23 February 4, 2011
Appendix 4. Failure to properly implement Noxious Weed control measures on the Feather River RD, Slapjack Fuels Reduction Project. 25 Oct 2010
What was supposed to occur? The Slapjack FEIS appendix F indicates specific controlled areas for noxious weeds were flagged for avoidance in unit 129 in an effort to prevent spread of the species.
What actually occurred? There were three control areas identified on the ground with noxious weed flagging. In September 2010 Slapjack Unit 129 was examined by Chris Christofferson, District Botanist as part of the implementation monitoring program. It was observed that the control areas were not avoided during project activities.
What caused the failure? 1. The control areas were reviewed with the District Botanist and the contract preparer. Initially the control areas were properly represented but the contract was revised three times and these control areas were inadvertently deleted from the sale area maps during the revision process. 2. The botanist was not consulted during the final contract for these units. 3. During project implementation, there was miscommunication between the sale administrator and the district botanist regarding whether the controlled areas could be added to the contract prior to implementation but after award of contract.
Lessons learned regarding how can this situation be avoided in the future? 4. Contract maps should be reviewed by all specialists to confirm all required mitigations and control areas are represented on contract maps. 5. Have a field review with the contract administrator to review mitigations prior to project implementation. 6. In all contracts, there is contractual language outlining how to add additional resource protection measures. Control areas can be added to existing contract when needed.
Page 24 February 4, 2011
Appendix 5. Question 28 Effectiveness Monitoring Report
The effect of timber management activities on Penstemon personatus on the Plumas National Forest by Michelle Coppoletta, Kyle Merriam, Colin Dillingham, and Linnea Hanson
Penstemon personatus (closed-throated beardtongue) is a rare species that is presently known from four counties in the northern portion of the Sierra Nevada mountain range (Figure 2). Most of the P. personatus occurrences (74 percent) are found within the boundary of the Plumas National Forest (NF) where this rhizomatous perennial occurs in 23 large but localized populations that vary in size from thousands of individuals to less than 10. P. personatus is currently designated as a Sensitive species by the USDA Forest Service (USDA Forest Service 2006). The California Native Plant Society lists P. personatus as a 1B.2 species, which indicates that it is fairly endangered in Figure 1. Penstemon personatus flower California (California Native Plant Society 2010). Based on this listing status, as well as the large number of populations on National Forest lands, it is imperative to ensure that management actions do not contribute to a loss of population viability or create a need for listing P. personatus as endangered or threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Past observations suggest that P. personatus may tolerate or even benefit from some timber
Figure 2. Distribution of P. personatus management practices that reduce the forest canopy (Urie, Tausch and Hanson 1989, Hanson
Page 25 February 4, 2011
1987). Monitoring data collected in the mid-1980s attempted to quantify the effects of timber harvest activities on P. personatus; however a comprehensive analysis of this data has never been completed. This paper presents the results of an analysis of frequency data collected between 1986 and 1995. The objective of this analysis was to determine the effects of different types of timber harvest activities on P. personatus frequency. To frame our analysis, we focused on the following questions: 1. Do timber harvest treatments result in a decline in P. personatus frequency? 2. If so, are some treatments more likely to cause a decline than others? 3. If treatments do have an effect on P. personatus, how long do the effects of the treatments last? Do occurrences rebound over time?
Methodology In the late 1980’s, Plumas NF staff established 29 permanent transects within P. personatus occurrences to measure the species’ response to timber harvest activities. Presence/absence data were collected in milacre quadrats (43.56 ft2), which were placed along transects at 50 foot intervals. These data were used to calculate the frequency of P. personatus, which was determined by calculating the total percentage of quadrats that contained at least one rooted individual. With the exception of two control units, all of the units were treated with one of the following prescriptions (Figure 3): Mechanical thinning (n=3): selective removal of trees Overstory removal (n=17): selective removal of trees in the upper canopy Shelterwood harvesting (n=3): removal of most trees in the unit, leaving only those trees necessary to produce sufficient shade for regeneration Clearcutting (n=4): removal of essentially all trees
Page 26 February 4, 2011
Figure 3. Photographs illustrating the types of treatments analyzed: (a) shelterwood harvest (Phillip McDonald USDA Forest Service); (b) mechanical thinning; (c) clearcut (Raumann and Soulard 2007); and (d) a P. personatus control area on the Plumas NF.
For our analysis, we grouped the treatments into three categories: control (no treatment); moderate intensity (mechanical thinning and overstory removal); and high intensity (shelterwood harvesting and clearcutting). We also focused our analysis on data collected within the first five years following treatment. A repeated measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted to analyze the effect of the three different treatment categories on P. personatus frequency within the first five years following treatment. The change in frequency was calculated for each transect by comparing pre and post-frequency values over three time periods: (a) 1-2 years after treatment, (b) 3-4 years after treatment, and (c) 5 years after treatment. For the control units, the change in frequency was calculated using the first measurement value for comparison, rather than a pre- treatment value. Plots with missing values at any of the three time periods were excluded from the analysis. Results and Discussion
Do timber harvest treatments result in a decline in P. personatus frequency? If so, are some treatments more likely to cause a decline than others?
The change in P. personatus frequency was significantly different across the three treatment types (α=0.5; p=0.03). This difference was due to the significant decline of P. personatus frequency within the high intensity treatment units, which decreased from their pre-treatment values by an average of 36 percent over the five years following treatment (Figure 4). The
Page 27 February 4, 2011 change in frequency in the moderate intensity treatment units was not significantly different than the control units; this result is consistent with past observations, which suggest that P. personatus is able to tolerate or even benefit from low to moderate intensity timber harvest activities (Hanson 1987, Hillaire 2001). 30%
20%
10%
Control 0%
-10% * High Intensity
treatment frequency treatment - -20% * Moderate * Intensity -30%
-40% Percentage of pre of Percentage -50%
-60% 1-2 years 3-4 years 5 years Time since treatment
Figure 4. Change in P. personatus frequency over time in response to the three different treatment types. Error bars represent standard error. Asterisks (*) indicate significant differences between treatments.
Past monitoring has demonstrated that P. personatus is able to tolerate a wide range of canopy and light conditions. While P. personatus does occur in areas with moderate to dense overstory canopy, some studies have shown that open canopy conditions, such as those found in clearcuts, can promote flowering and growth of individuals (Urie et al. 1989). This suggests that the decrease in P. personatus frequency within the high intensity treatment units is probably not due to changes in overstory canopy alone.
Hanson (1987) observed that P. personatus appears intolerant of activities that result in high levels of ground disturbance. High intensity treatments, such as clearcutting and shelterwood harvest, typically result in higher levels of ground disturbance than the more moderate treatments (i.e. mechanical thinning and overstory removal) and have the highest probability for direct impact to individual plants. These disturbance factors, either alone or in combination with the removal of overstory canopy, may contribute to the observed decline in P. personatus following high intensity treatments.
How long do the effects of the treatments last? Do occurrences rebound over time?
P. personatus frequency declined significantly (α=0.5; p=0.01) within the first two years following treatment, regardless of the treatment type (Figure 5). This result is not surprising
Page 28 February 4, 2011 considering that plants could be directly impacted by equipment during treatment implementation or indirectly affected by changing light conditions. These impacts would result in an initial decline in plant frequency; however because P. personatus is rhizomatous, it is most likely able to recover to pre-treatment levels by re-sprouting a few years after treatment.
10%
5%
0%
-5%
treatment frequency treatment - -10%
-15%
Percentage of of pre Percentage -20%
-25% 1-2 years 3-4 years 5 years
Time (years) since treatment
Figure 5. The effect of time since treatment on P. personatus frequency. Error bars represent standard error. Note that the only value that is significantly different from zero is the change in frequency 1-2 years after treatment. The results presented in Figure 5 correspond with observations made by past researchers. For example, Zebell et al. (1991) and Dwerlkotte (1990) both reported that P. personatus frequency tended to drop in the first year after logging and then rebound in year three to pre- logging levels. There was no significant interaction between the treatments and time, which indicates that differences between the treatments (Figure 4) were not dependent upon the measurement year. Conclusions High intensity treatments, such as clearcutting and shelterwood harvest, resulted in a significant decline in P. personatus frequency. Moderate intensity treatments, such as mechanical thinning and overstory removal, did not result in a significant decline in P. personatus frequency. P. personatus frequency is most likely to decline in the first year or two following treatment; however it may rebound after year three to pre-treatment levels.
Management Recommendations Consider protecting a portion of P. personatus occurrences within high intensity treatments. Large clearcuts and overstory removal treatments are not as commonplace as they once were on the Plumas NF; however current management activities such as group selection harvests, which remove almost all of the trees within small (0.5-2 acre) units,
Page 29 February 4, 2011
could be considered high intensity harvest treatments. When planning group selection treatments, which have the potential for large amounts of soil disturbance and direct impacts to individuals, managers may want to ensure that a portion of the P. personatus occurrence is protected from direct impacts. Include density or cover measurements in any future frequency monitoring efforts. While the results of these analyses contribute to our understanding of the response of P. personatus to timber harvest activities, it is important to note that the only response factor measured in this monitoring effort was frequency. Frequency provides some insight into how treatments affect the distribution of P. personatus within a site; however frequency data alone do not provide information on other relevant biological indicators, such as plant abundance. While this design is relatively quick and easy to implement in the field, and is often recommended for rhizomatous plants such as P. personatus (Elzinga, Salzer and Willoughby 1998), frequency can often be difficult to interpret biologically. In some cases, the number of individuals within populations can be declining, while the distribution of plants across the landscape remains the same (Donohue 1994). One example of this is P. personatus frequency data collected for the Hardquartz project on the Plumas NF. In 1984, the population estimate was at its highest (2,336 individuals), while frequency was estimated as 63 percent (Donohue 1994). Five years later, the population dropped to 577 individuals, while the frequency increased to 65 percent (Donohue 1994). If utilized further, frequency monitoring should be paired with density or cover measurements (Donohue 1994). Incorporating these additional variables will provide for a broader understanding of the effects of treatment activities on both the distribution and abundance of P. personatus.
References California Native Plant Society. 2010. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. February 11, 2010). Donohue, B. L. 1994. Review of rare plant monitoring efforts on the Plumas National Forest, USDA Pacific Southwest Region. 26 pages. Dwerlkotte, R. 1990. 1990 Penstemon personatus monitoring summary for the Quincy Ranger District. USDA Forest Service, Plumas National Forest. Elzinga, C. L., D. W. Salzer & J. W. Willoughby. 1998. Measuring and Monitoring Plant Populations. BLM Technical Reference 1730-1, Denver, Colorado. Hanson, L. 1987. Species Management Guide for Penstemon persontaus. USDA Forest Service, Plumas National Forest. Hillaire, S. 2001. Habitat requirements of closed-throated beardtounge (Penstemon personatus Keck.), and response after logging, including affects of KV activities and temporal changes (1988-2001). USDA Forest Service, Plumas National Forest.
Page 30 February 4, 2011
McDonald, P. Shelterwood cut in the Challenge Experimental Forest in the northern Sierra Nevada's. In www.forestryimages.org, ed. 4799088. USDA Forest Service. Raumann, C. G. & C. E. Soulard. 2007. Land-cover trends of the Sierra Nevada Ecoregion, 1973-2000: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007- 5011 In http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5011/. Urie, S., R. Tausch & L. Hanson. 1989. A Statistical Analysis of Penstemon personatus. USDA Forest Service, Plumas NF. USDA Forest Service. 2006. 2006 Sensitive Plant List, Pacific Southwest Region, Region 5. Letter from Regional Forester Weingardt. File Code: 2670. Dated July 27, 2006. Zebell, R., B. Castro & R. Dwerlkotte. 1991. Penstemon personatus frequency monitoring, 1980-1990 -- Summary. USDA Forest Service, Plumas National Forest.
Page 31 February 4, 2011
Appendix 6. Question 28 Effectiveness Monitoring Report
Silene occidentalis ssp longistipitata Deadhorse Mechanical Thinning Treatment Effects Monitoring Report – Preliminary Results, 1 year after treatment Nov 10, 2010 Colin Dillingham
I. Introduction The Nature Conservancy (W-1, 1996) currently lists Silene occidentalis ssp. longistipitata as a G4T1 plant indicating that the taxon is imperiled worldwide. The G-rank reflects the condition of the entire species (secure), whereas the T-rank reflects the global situation of just the subspecies. The Nature Conservancy (W-1, 1996) gives the taxon as S1.2 in California, indicating that it is critically imperiled and the occurrences are threatened. The California Native Plant Society (W-4) lists the species as 1B.2, which indicates that it is rare, threatened, or endangered in California and 20-80% of occurrences are threatened.
It is not clear which environmental factors limit the distribution or abundance of the long-stiped campion (Dillingham and Sanger 2007). It may be lack of disturbance regime. There may be too little light reaching the forest floor outside of the forest opening currently occupied by long-stiped campion.
Monitoring at Silene occidentalis ssp longistipitata locations indicate that there is a large natural variability in the number of plants present each year. A review of annual monitoring plant census at populations on the Lassen National Forest indicate that occurrences can have annual population fluctuation of 50% and return to previous population levels without any vegetation treatment (i.e. South Fork Antelope Creek Site, Dillingham and Sanger 2007). Therefore, we can expect that some populations will increase or decrease by 50% because of natural variation and not as a response to treatment. With statistical analysis, we may be able to determine that a population has changed by a smaller amount when comparing controls to treatment areas. However, small changes in the population are not considered significant in terms of management.
II. Methods We are primarily concerned with maintaining self-sustaining populations at each site. The mean post- treatment population (at least 3 years of data) shall be at least equal to the minimum total number of long-stiped campion plants found during pretreatment conditions. A decrease of up to 50% of the pre- treatment population level, although not considered desirable, would be considered within the range of natural variability for any individual year. It is the longer term population means that we are trying to maintain. The populations should be maintained at this level through 2015 (5 years after implementation of the thinning project).
Both positive and negative effects from proposed management activities are possible. At the Deadhorse site, mechanical thinning operations were completed in the fall of 2009 (retain 100 trees per acre greater than 6 inches diameter at breast height). One hypothesis is that the new disturbance could provide a suitable seedbed for the species and the opening of the canopy could provide more light to the forest floor for population expansion. An alternate hypothesis is that the timber harvest and prescribed burning operations may also cause direct impacts to individual plants, displace or remove existing duff and eliminate seeds from the seed bank.
Table 1. Monitoring Areas Included in this Monitoring Report Site Name Occurrence Treatment Type Number Deadhorse Falls 13 Mechanical Thin Monterey Point 8 Control (for Deadhorse) “Smitty Camp”
Page 32 February 4, 2011
A complete census of the adult plants within the macroplots was conducted in July of each year. Although data exists for subplots within the macroplots, no analysis at this small scale has been attempted. It appears that the thinning treatment was applied relatively evenly across the macroplot and no data stratification appears necessary. All data presented is for adult plants within the entire macroplot. Although we present our data as a census, we recognize that some plants may be missed. We feel that the percent of adult plants missed is very small, likely less than 5%.
In order to capture some of the effects of the proposed treatments, photo points were completed and the following measurements were recorded in the four corners of each subplot: duff depth (cm) canopy cover (using densitometer or “moosehorn”) shrub height in meters
A. Monitoring location The Deadhorse and Smitty Camp long-stiped campion monitoring macroplots are located in Tehama County. Previous versions of the monitoring protocol indicated that the Scott’s John Creek occurrence in Butte County would be used as the control plot. Upon further investigation, it was determined that the habitat (red fir), elevation difference and lack of juxtaposition made the Scott’s John Creek less desirable as a control for comparison to the Deadhorse site. The Smitty Camp control at Monterey Point was much more similar in habitat, adjacency, plot size, population size and elevation and is considered to be a superior control plot. Specific locations are available in the HFQLG rare plant monitoring database.
B. Intended data analysis approach The potential population changes will be compared against the pre-treatment and control population estimates. Under the assumption that the control population mean does not have a greater than 25% change from the mean during the same sampling period, the population responses would be considered to be caused by management activities, unless other evidence suggests otherwise. In the event that the control area also changes, a more rigorous statistical evaluation would be coordinated between Lassen NF botanists Kirsten Bovee and Allison Sanger, and SPI monitoring coordinator Cajun James and USDA Forest Service Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group monitoring coordinator Colin Dillingham.
III. Preliminary results The data indicates that the population increased between 2009 and 2010 at the Deadhorse site in the immediate year after the treatment was completed (Figure 1). However, the plant count remained in the range of the pretreatment population level and therefore the population appears to have remained the same following the definitions established in the long-stiped campion monitoring protocol (Dillingham et al. 2007, revised 2010). The thinning treatment reduced the canopy from a pretreatment mean of 66 percent canopy closure down to 48 percent post-treatment (Figure 1). There were little environmental changes to duff depth or shrub cover or height. There was no association between annual rainfall and annual plant counts.
Although the treatment population increased between 2009 and 2010 by 170%, the control population at Smitty Camp also increased by 210% during the same period (Figure 2). It appears that some environmental factor could be partially responsible for the large increase in long-stiped campion in the treatment plot.
Page 33 February 4, 2011
140
120
100
80 Plants % Canopy 60 Duff Depth mm Rainfall (inches) 40
20
0 2007 2008 2009 2010
Figure 1. Preliminary Results of Deadhorse Site Plant and Environmental Data. The Deadhorse site was treated in the fall of 2009, after the 2009 pretreatment data was collected.
200 180 160 140 120 Plants at Deadhorse 100 Plants at Smitty Camp 80 60 40 20 0 2007 2008 2009 2010
Figure 2. Preliminary Results of Deadhorse site plant data as compared to the control at Smitty Camp. No data was collected at the control plot in 2007 or 2008. The Deadhorse site was treated in the fall of 2009, after the 2009 pretreatment data was collected.
Page 34 February 4, 2011
Figure 3. Photo point at Deadhorse treatment site established to show effects of treatment at this site. The photo on the left taken during 2009 prior to treatment can be compared against the post-treatment photo on the right taken in 2010. The thinning of the forest canopy is evident as is the increased light reaching the forest floor.
IV. Preliminary Management Implications The long-stiped campion monitoring protocol (Dillingham et al. 2007) recommends that at least 3 years of post-treatment data be collected prior to making final management recommendations. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to recognize the current trend and make preliminary management implications now that the first year of data has been collected and analyzed. Management implications are from the monitoring protocol prepared in 2007.
Post-treatment monitoring determined that the 2010 flowering population (104 plants) is between the lower count (61 - 2009) and upper count (118 - 2007) of pre-treatment population counts. Therefore, preliminary results indicate that the treatment would be considered to have no change. The treatment would be considered to have no effect to the species. If continued monitoring results are similar, forest thinning would be permitted in other long-stiped campion occurrence locations.
Literature Cited: Dillingham, Colin P. and Allison Sanger. 2007. Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Long-stiped Campion Silene occidentalis Watson ssp. longistipitata. Report available from Lassen National Forest. 35 pp.
Dillingham, Colin P. 2007. Silene occidentalis ssp longistipitata Monitoring Protocol Version 1.2, revised Nov 2, 2010. Report available from Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Implementation Team, Plumas and Lassen National Forest. 6 pp.
Page 35 February 4, 2011
Appendix 7. Question 28 Effectiveness Monitoring Report
Lens-pod milk-vetch (Astragalus lentiformis), Mabie DFPZ Fuels Treatment Study, Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest. Lynée Crawford, Botanist, Kyle Merriam, Province Ecologist Michelle Coppoletta, Botanist and Colin Dillingham, Ecologist Nov 30, 2010
Purpose Lens-pod milk-vetch This monitoring was conducted to determine the effect of prescribed fire on the rare lens-pod milk-vetch (Astragalus lentiformis), which is a member of the legume family. To determine if prior treatments would influence the effect of prescribed burning on lens-pod milk-vetch, plots were established in areas that previously had been treated by mechanical thinning, hand thinning, and in untreated control areas. However, burning activities were either cancelled or did not impact any plots, so the effect of burning treatments on lens-pod milk-vetch could not be evaluated. Instead, trends in lens-pod milk-vetch abundance over time, relationships between lens-pod milk-vetch and environmental variables, and unplanned impacts from off-highway vehicles (OHVs) are investigated in this report.
Methods In 2006 eight permanent, circular monitoring plots were randomly established within mechanical thin unit 62, and hand thin units 67, 70 and 142. Unit 70 contained a control area used to establish a control plot. Plots were 25 feet in diameter and the centers of the plots were marked with rebar. The following data were collected: 1. Number of adults 2. Number of seedlings 3. Litter and duff depth 4. Canopy cover
Mechanical and hand thinning occurred in 2004 and 2005 prior to plot establishment in 2006. Data was collected in the summers of 2006, 2009 and 2010. OHV impacts occurred sometime between 2006 plot establishment and 2009 data collection.
Results Repeated measures ANOVA found a significant interaction effect between year and treatment type (mechanical thin, hand thin, mechanical thin plus OHV-impacts, and control F=7.58, p=0.014) on numbers of lens-pod milk-vetch individuals. Least squares post-hoc analysis determined that changes in lens-pod milk-vetch numbers within the OHV-impact plots between years were responsible for the significant interaction effect. There was no significant interaction between year and treatment type for all other treatments (mechanical thin alone, hand thin, and control). See Figure 1 below for a summary of the results.
Page 36 February 4, 2011
Figure 1: Numbers of lens-pod milk-vetch individuals by treatment type over time. Hand thin and Mechanical thin treatments occurred prior to 2006. Off-highway vehicle impacts occurred between 2006 and 2009 plant counts.
140
120
100
80 Control
Hand Thin 60 Mech Thin
40 Mech Thin_OHV
20
0 2006 2009 2010
*Figure by Kyle Merriam, Province Ecologist
Linear regression analysis found that canopy cover significantly influenced lens-pod milk-vetch abundance (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Duff depth was significantly related to lens-pod milk vetch abundance. Linear regression found that this variable explained almost 32% of the variation in plant numbers (R2=0.32, p=0.03).
Page 37 February 4, 2011
Figure 3. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) impacts to Lens-pod milk-vetch, Plot 3: 2006 before OHV impacts (top left) and 2009 after OHV impacts (top right). Photo bottom left is close up of OHV trail system.
Conclusions OHV user created trails and subsequent use have significant negative impacts on the number of individuals of lens-pod milk-vetch (Figure 1). There was some evidence of rebound in population numbers in 2010, however, lens-pod milk-vetch abundance was still lower than prior to the OHV- impacts in 2006. Populations of lens-pod milk-vetch remained stable in mechanical thin and hand thin treatments over time (years 1 through 6 post-treatment) and there was not a significant change in numbers.
Lens-pod milk-vetch was more abundant in plots with lower duff depths, but was absent in areas impacted by off highway vehicles with no duff. Based on these findings, treatments that reduce duff depths such as low intensity fire, would likely be beneficial
In order to determine conclusive impacts to lens-pod milk-vetch from mechanical thin, hand thin, and prescribed fire (either underburn or pile burn) treatments, additional monitoring plots should be established within future treatment areas prior to treatment implementation.
Page 38 February 4, 2011
Appendix 8. Question 28 Effectiveness Monitoring Report
Monardella follettii monitoring Meadow Valley Group Selection Units Michelle Coppoletta November 18, 2010
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 one year after treatment (August 27, 2008) and three years after treatment (August 23, 2010). Details of the plot location, methodology, data, etc. can be found in the original document titled: “MOFO Monitoring Objectives Protocol.doc”.
The following tables and figures 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 data, which were recorded to capture changes in the physical characteristics of the eight MOFO plots following treatment. Canopy cover was also recorded, but is not presented due to the fact that the monitoring was insufficient to capture change.
Table 1. The number of MOFO stems within permanent plots prior to and following treatment.
Plot # Pre-treatment (2006) 1-year post treatment (2008) 3-year post treatment (2010) Group Selection 1 564 312 451 2 109 47 163 3 119 47 163 4 37 60 219 6 203 2 60 Control 5 291 182 291 7 625 349 Large snag fell into plot 8 180 144 165
Page 39 February 4, 2011
450
400
350
300 2006 (pre-treatment) 250 2008 (1 year post-trt) 200 2010 (3 year post-trt) 150
Average number Average ofstems 100
50
0 Group Selection Control Treatment Type
Figure 1. The average number of MOFO stems within treatment and control plots prior to and following treatment. The error bars represent the 90 percent confidence intervals.
Table 2. Average duff depth (cm) in MOFO permanent plots pre and post-treatment. The control plots are highlighted in grey.
Plot # Pre-treatment (2006) 1-year post treatment (2008) 3-year post treatment (2010) Group Selection 1 0.7 2.8 0.7 2 0.9 0.6 0.5 3 1.3 1.1 1.2 4 1.2 2.9 1.5 6 1.1 0.9 0.2 Control 5 0.8 0.9 1 7 0.7 1.3 Large snag fell into plot 8 1.2 1.8 3
Number of MOFO stems A repeated measures analysis (using a mixed-effects model) found no significant difference between the plots that were treated with Group Selection harvest and the control plots. There was also no significant interaction between the treatments and time. There was a significant effect of year (p=0.01; ά = 0.05). The number of stems within all of the plots (whether they were treated or controls) was significantly lower in 2008, than in either 2006 or 2010. The number of stems was not significantly different between 2006 (pre-treatment) and 2010 (three years post-treatment). This suggests that there may be relatively large natural variability in the number of MOFO stems between years.
Page 40 February 4, 2011
250
200
150 Control 100 GS
Mean numberMeanofstems 50
0 2006 (pre-treatment) 2008 (1 year post-trt) 2010 (3 year post-trt)
Figure 2. The average number of MOFO stems within treatment and control plots in 2006, 2008, and 2010. For all plots, the number of stems was significantly lower in 2008, compared to 2006 and 2010.
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
“Moderate” disturbance classification
Page 41 February 4, 2011
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). In the analysis, there was no significant difference between treatments of varying intensity.
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 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. This seems to be the most likely when considering the variability in both treatments and controls from year to year.
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. We need to do a power analysis using the following 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).
Environmental Data
There was no significant relationship between duff depth and number of stems.
The comparison photographs below most accurately illustrate the change in the surrounding stand following treatments.
Page 42 February 4, 2011
Photographs
Plot 1 Pre-treatment Post-treatment
Plot 2
Plot 3
Page 43 February 4, 2011
Plot 4 Pre-treatment Post-Treatment
Plot 5 (Control)
Plot 6 Pre-treatment Post-Treatment
Page 44 February 4, 2011
Plot 7 (Control)
Plot 8 (Control)
Page 45 February 4, 2011
Appendix 9: Species Specific Monitoring Plans
Additional work was completed in 2010 to prepare species specific effectiveness (Question 28) monitoring plans on the lens-pod milkvetch, Astragalus lentiformis. The following Species Specific Monitoring Plans have been completed. They are filed on the Plumas server in the following folder: O:\NFS\Plumas\Program\HFQLG\Monitoring\7_8_28_30_plants_weeds\Botany_Effectiveness_Database
Species Author Date Arabis constancei1 Michelle Coppoletta March 24, 2008 Astragalus lentiformis Lynée Crawford November 17, 2010 Astragalus pulsiferae2 Kirsten Bovee August 26, 2009 Cypripedium fasciculatum1 Matt Brown 2008 Low Sage Flats2 Kyle Merriam Jan 24, 2008 Carex petasata Allison Sanger Stenotus lanuginosus Hackelia cusickii Lupinus dalesiae Michelle Coppoletta Nov 30, 2009 Monardella follettii1 Michelle Coppoletta Sept 5, 2006 Penstemon personatus1 Colin Dillingham Dec 12, 2007 Kyle Merriam Michelle Coppoletta Pyrrocoma lucida (draft version) Lynée Crawford Nov 12, 2009 Marti Aitken Silene occidentalis ssp longistipitata Colin Dillingham July 16, 2009 1 – These versions of species specific monitoring plans are single site monitoring plans rather than general species monitoring plans. These plans should upgraded to species monitoring plans as more information becomes available. 2 – These versions of species specific monitoring plans are single site monitoring plans because only one monitoring site is available in the HFQLG Pilot Project area. If additional sites become available, the monitoring plans would be amended.