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