ruby pipeline project wyoming, utah, nevada, and oregon · a restoration and revegetation plans for...

COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

Po s t -Res to ra t i on Mon i to r ing Annua l Repo r t Yea r One Mon i to r i ng (2012)

Ruby Pipeline Project Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon

Prepared for

Ruby Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

Two North Nevada Avenue Colorado Springs, CO 80903

January 2013

9193 South Jamaica Street

Englewood, CO 80112

Contents Section Page

IS101112094744PDX\RUBY_YEAR1ANNUALMONITORINGREPORT III COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1-1

2 Methods ................................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Noxious and Invasive Weed Monitoring ...................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Upland Vegetation and BSC Monitoring Site Reconnaissance and Suitability Assessment ............ 2-2 2.3 Seed Mix Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 2-3 2.4 Seedling Monitoring .................................................................................................................... 2-4 2.5 Horsebrush Monitoring ............................................................................................................... 2-5 2.6 Biological Soil Crust Monitoring .................................................................................................. 2-5 2.7 Access Road Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 2-6 2.8 Soil Stability Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 2-7

3 Results .................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Monitoring Site Reconnaissance and Suitability Assessment ....................................................... 3-1 3.2 Noxious and Invasive Weed Monitoring ...................................................................................... 3-2

3.2.1 Spring Monitoring Event ................................................................................................. 3-2 3.2.2 Fall Weed Monitoring Event ......................................................................................... 3-13 3.2.3 Wyoming ...................................................................................................................... 3-14 3.2.4 Utah ............................................................................................................................. 3-14 3.2.5 Nevada ......................................................................................................................... 3-15 3.2.6 Oregon ......................................................................................................................... 3-22

3.3 Seed Mix Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 3-33 3.3.1 Performance Criteria .................................................................................................... 3-33 3.3.2 Wyoming ...................................................................................................................... 3-35 3.3.3 Utah ............................................................................................................................. 3-38 3.3.4 Nevada ......................................................................................................................... 3-40 3.3.5 Oregon ......................................................................................................................... 3-44

3.4 Seedling Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 3-46 3.4.1 Wyoming ...................................................................................................................... 3-46 3.4.2 Utah ............................................................................................................................. 3-48 3.4.3 Nevada ......................................................................................................................... 3-48 3.4.4 Oregon ......................................................................................................................... 3-53

3.5 Horsebrush Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 3-55 3.6 Biological Soil Crust Monitoring ................................................................................................ 3-55 3.7 Access Road Monitoring ............................................................................................................ 3-56 3.8 Soil Stability Monitoring ............................................................................................................ 3-57

3.8.1 Seed Mix Sites .............................................................................................................. 3-57 3.8.2 Access Roads ................................................................................................................ 3-63

4 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Noxious Weed Sites .................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2 Seed Mix Sites ............................................................................................................................. 4-2 4.3 Seedling Sites .............................................................................................................................. 4-3 4.4 Horsebrush Sites ......................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.5 Biological Soil Crust Sites ............................................................................................................. 4-3 4.6 Access Road Sites ........................................................................................................................ 4-4 4.7 Soil Stability Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 4-4

CONTENTS

IS101112094744PDX\RUBY_YEAR1ANNUALMONITORINGREPORT IV COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

5 Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Year One Monitoring Conclusions ............................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Year One Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 5-2

5.2.1 Site Maintenance ........................................................................................................... 5-2 5.2.2 Future Monitoring Efforts ............................................................................................. 5-15

6 References .............................................................................................................................................. 6-1

Figures 1 Ruby Pipeline Project 2 Establishment of the Monitoring and Control Plots at a Seed Mix Monitoring Site 3 Schematic of Pin Flag Placement in BSC Monitoring Quadrats

Tables 1 Total Monitoring Sites per State ............................................................................................................. 1-2 2 Noxious and Invasive Weed Monitoring Sites by Type per State ............................................................. 2-1 3 Daubenmire Cover Class Categories........................................................................................................ 2-2 4 Upland Vegetation and BSC Monitoring Sites by Type per State.............................................................. 2-2 5 Categories Used in Point-Intercept Transects ......................................................................................... 2-4 6 Disturbance Categories........................................................................................................................... 2-4 7 Soil Stability Class Ratings ....................................................................................................................... 2-7 8 Monitoring Sites Relocated During Year One Spring Monitoring Event .................................................... 3-1 9 Upland Vegetation and BSC Monitoring Sites Inaccessible During Year One Spring Monitoring Event ..... 3-1 10 Noxious Weed Species Found in Wyoming During Year One Spring Monitoring Event............................. 3-3 11 Noxious Weed Species Found in Utah During Year One Spring Monitoring Event .................................... 3-3 12 Noxious Weeds Found in Nevada During Year One Spring Monitoring Event........................................... 3-4 13 Noxious Weeds Found in Oregon During Year One Spring Monitoring Event ........................................... 3-8 14 Invasive Weed Species Documented During Year One Spring Monitoring Event .................................... 3-13 15 Summary of Noxious and Invasive Weed Monitoring Results During Year One Fall Monitoring Event ... 3-14 16 Summary of Noxious and Invasive Weed Monitoring Results in Wyoming During Year One Fall

Monitoring Event ................................................................................................................................. 3-14 17 Noxious and Invasive Weed Monitoring Results in Wyoming During Year One Fall Monitoring Event.... 3-14 18 Summary of Noxious and Invasive Weed Monitoring Results in Utah During Year One Fall

Monitoring Event ................................................................................................................................. 3-14 19 Noxious and Invasive Weed Monitoring Results in Utah During Year One Fall Monitoring Event ........... 3-15 20 Summary of Noxious and Invasive Weed Monitoring Results in Nevada During Year One Fall

Monitoring Event ................................................................................................................................. 3-15 21 Noxious and Invasive Weed Monitoring Results in Nevada During Year One Fall Monitoring Event ....... 3-16 22 Summary of Noxious and Invasive Weed Monitoring Results in Oregon During Year One Fall

Monitoring Event ................................................................................................................................. 3-22 23 Noxious and Invasive Weed Monitoring Results at Oregon BLM Sites During Year One Fall

Monitoring Event ................................................................................................................................. 3-23 24 Noxious and Invasive Weed Monitoring Results at Oregon FWNF Sites During Year One Fall

Monitoring Event ................................................................................................................................. 3-32 25 Seed Mix Sites Relocated During Year One Fall Monitoring Event ......................................................... 3-33 26 Summary of Performance Criteria for Seed Mix Sites in Wyoming, Utah, and Oregon ........................... 3-34 27 Summary of Performance Criteria for Seed Mix Sites in Nevada ........................................................... 3-35 28 Summary of Seed Mix Monitoring Results for Wyoming ....................................................................... 3-36 29 Seed Mix Monitoring Results for Wyoming ........................................................................................... 3-37 30 Summary of Seed Mix Monitoring Results for Utah............................................................................... 3-38

CONTENTS

IS101112094744PDX\RUBY_YEAR1ANNUALMONITORINGREPORT V COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

31 Seed Mix Monitoring Results for Utah .................................................................................................. 3-39 32 Summary of Seed Mix Monitoring Results for Nevada .......................................................................... 3-40 33 Seed Mix Monitoring Results for BLM Elko District Office, Nevada ........................................................ 3-41 34 Seed Mix Monitoring Results for BLM Winnemucca District Office, Nevada .......................................... 3-42 35 Seed Mix Monitoring Results for BLM Surprise Field Office, Nevada ..................................................... 3-43 36 Summary of Seed Mix Monitoring Results for Oregon........................................................................... 3-44 37 Seed Mix Monitoring Results for Oregon .............................................................................................. 3-45 38 Summary of Seedling Site Results by State ............................................................................................ 3-46 39 Seedling Sites Relocated During Year One Fall Monitoring Event .......................................................... 3-46 40 Summary of Seedling Site Results in Wyoming ...................................................................................... 3-46 41 Seedling Site Results in Wyoming ......................................................................................................... 3-47 42 Summary of Seedling Site Results in Utah ............................................................................................. 3-48 43 Seedling Site Results for Utah ............................................................................................................... 3-48 44 Summary of Seedling Site Results in Nevada ......................................................................................... 3-48 45 Seedling Site Results for Nevada ........................................................................................................... 3-49 46 Summary Seedling Site Results in Oregon ............................................................................................. 3-53 47 Seedling Site Results for Oregon ........................................................................................................... 3-54 48 Year One Fall BSC Monitoring Results ................................................................................................... 3-55 49 BSC Sites Relocated During Year One Fall Monitoring Event .................................................................. 3-55 50 BSC Sites Relocated During Year One Fall Monitoring Event .................................................................. 3-56 51 Summary of Group 1 Access Road Monitoring Sites .............................................................................. 3-56 52 Access Road Monitoring Results for Oregon ......................................................................................... 3-57 53 Soil Stability Site Results Summary ....................................................................................................... 3-57 54 Soil Stability Summary for Wyoming ..................................................................................................... 3-58 55 Soil Stability Site Results for Wyoming .................................................................................................. 3-58 56 Soil Stability Summary for Utah ............................................................................................................ 3-58 57 Soil Stability Site Results for Utah ......................................................................................................... 3-59 58 Soil Stability Summary for Nevada ........................................................................................................ 3-59 59 Soil Stability Results for Nevada ............................................................................................................ 3-60 60 Soil Stability Summary for Oregon ........................................................................................................ 3-62 61 Soil Stability Results for Oregon ............................................................................................................ 3-62 62 Soil Stability Test Results for Access Roads ........................................................................................... 3-63 63 Noxious Weed and Weed Cleaning Sites Exceeding 26 Percent Cover During Year One Monitoring ........ 5-3

Appendices A Restoration and Revegetation Plans for the Ruby Pipeline Project B Long-Term Monitoring Plan for the Ruby Pipeline Project C Noxious and Invasive Weed Lists for Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon D Seed Mixes Used for Revegetation E Complete List of Year One Monitoring Sites F Noxious and Invasive Weed Site Monitoring Results for Year One Spring and Fall G Nevada Seed Mix Monitoring and Control Plot Results for Year One Fall Monitoring H Soil Stability Test Results I Aerial Photography Mapbooks of Year One Spring and Fall Monitoring Sites J Photographic Documentation of Year One Spring and Fall Monitoring Sites

IS101112094744PDX\RUBY_YEAR1ANNUALMONITORINGREPORT VI COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

Acronyms and Abbreviations BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management

BSC biological soil crust

EDO Elko District Office

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FWNF Fremont-Winema National Forest

GPS geographic positioning system

KFO Kemmerer Field Office

KFRA Klamath Falls Resource Area

LRA Lakeview Resource Area

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

ODA Oregon Department of Agriculture

OHV off highway vehicle

Plan Long-Term Monitoring Plan

Project Ruby Pipeline Project

Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

ROW right-of-way

Ruby Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C.

SFO Surprise Field Office

SLFO Salt Lake Field Office

USFS U.S. Forest Service

UWCNF Uintah-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

WDO Winnemucca District Office

IS101112094744PDX\RUBY_YEAR1ANNUALMONITORINGREPORT 1-1 COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL ENGINEERS, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL

SECTION 1

Introduction Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C. (Ruby) constructed the Ruby Pipeline Project (Project) between July 31, 2010, and July 28, 2011. Specifically, the Project involved the installation of approximately 670 miles of pipeline through Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon (Figure 1). Restoration and revegetation efforts in areas disturbed by the Project were completed in 2011 in accordance with the Revegetation Plan for the Ruby Pipeline Project. As part of the Project’s long–term monitoring program specified in Ruby’s Long-Term Monitoring Plan (Plan; Walsh Environmental, 2012), post-restoration vegetation monitoring is being conducted to ensure revegetation efforts along the pipeline comply with requirements set forth by the following agencies:

• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) • Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • U.S. Forest Service (USFS) • Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Oregon Department of State Lands FIGURE 1 Ruby Pipeline Project

SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION


The goals of the Project’s long-term monitoring program are to document that the plant community restoration, noxious and invasive weed abatement, and soil-surface stability objectives are being achieved, and to identify right-of-way (ROW) segments where additional restoration work may be necessary. As discussed in the Plan, the establishment of desirable perennial vegetative cover will be assessed through the detailed evaluation of upland, wetland, and riparian monitoring plots. Areas within the ROW and within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) identified during pre-construction monitoring as having a high infestation of noxious and invasive weeds will also be monitored, and all equipment cleaning stations will be monitored for weed colonization. Table 1 provides the total monitoring sites per state. Per the Plan, upland vegetation monitoring (at the seed-mix, seedling, access road, and horsebrush [Tetradymia sp.] sites) and biological soil crust (BSC) monitoring is to occur annually, and noxious and invasive weed monitoring biannually during the growing season for a minimum of 5 years (and up to 10 years) following the completion of the planting and restoration activities. Monitoring of wetland and riparian area revegetation efforts will not be conducted by CH2M HILL, and is therefore not discussed within this report. Monitoring will be conducted beyond the fifth year if performance criteria have not been met, as agreed upon by the FERC and the land management agencies identified above.

TABLE 1 Total Monitoring Sites per State

State Tota

l # o

f M

onito

ring

Site

s1

# Si

tes

Mon

itore

d du

ring

Sprin

g

# Si

tes

Inac

cess

ible

du

ring

Sprin

g

# Si

tes

Com

bine

d du

ring

Sprin

g2

# Si

tes

Relo

cate

d du

ring

Sprin

g

# Si

tes

Rem

oved

Pos

t-Sp

ring3

# Si

tes

Mon

itore

d du

ring

Fall

# Si

tes

Inac

cess

ible

du

ring

Fall

# Si

tes

Com

bine

d du

ring

Fall2

# Si

tes

Relo

cate

d du

ring

Fall

Wyoming 35 35 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0

Utah 52 49 3 0 0 0 50 2 0 2

Nevada 247 244 3 1 3 1 246 0 73 11

Oregon 150 143 7 1 0 7 131 12 6 2

Total 484 471 13 2 3 8 462 14 79 15

1 Total includes all types of monitoring sites (weed, upland vegetation, and BSC). 2 Combined sites are not counted as inaccessible, because the field teams did visit each combined site. 3 The eight sites removed following the Year One spring monitoring event will not be monitored during any future monitoring events.

This report documents the results of the Year One monitoring (2012), which was conducted in two efforts, in spring (from June 18 through July 4, 2012) and in fall (from September 10 through October 25, 2012). Spring monitoring event activities included an initial field reconnaissance and assessment of suitability for all other monitoring sites (including upland vegetation and BSC sites). Fall monitoring activities included the first monitoring effort for the revegetation monitoring sites. A total of 484 of sites were identified in the Plan for monitoring (including weed, upland vegetation, and BSC sites). Eight of these sites were removed from the list of monitoring sites following the Year One spring monitoring event due to private property and landowner issues, and will no longer be monitored during future monitoring events. With eight of the original 484 sites removed, that left 476 sites to be monitored during Year One fall monitoring. During the fall monitoring event, an additional 14 sites were inaccessible due to private property issues that were not encountered during the spring monitoring event. Therefore, a total of 462 sites within the ROW and adjacent areas that were monitored during the Year One fall monitoring event. Eleven of the 14 sites where private property issues were encountered will no longer be monitored during future events, while the other three sites may be able to be accessed during Year Two monitoring. Appendix E provides details regarding the removal and combination of sites during Year One monitoring.

During the fall monitoring event, one major impact to the restoration of the pipeline was the Barry Point Forest Fire, which burned approximately 93,000 acres in the area of the Fremont-Winema National Forest. The fire began on August 6, 2012, and affected a 5-mile stretch of the ROW, from milepost 634.5 to milepost 639.5. The

SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION


fire was reported as 100 percent contained on September 5, 2012. According to the Plan (Walsh Environmental, 2012), new plots can be established at a monitoring site if the earlier plots become unacceptable through an event such as flooding, excessive off-highway vehicle travel, or wildfire. If the plots cannot be successfully relocated then other options would be explored with FERC and the appropriate land management agencies. The acceptability of the burned plots was assessed during the fall monitoring event; observations about these sites are discussed in Section 3.3.

Section 2 of this report describes the methodologies used during the Year One monitoring. Section 3 includes the results of the field reconnaissance and suitability assessments of all monitoring sites, spring and fall noxious and invasive weed monitoring, and the fall upland vegetation and BSC monitoring. Section 4 presents a discussion of these results and Section 5 presents the conclusions and recommendations. Section 6 lists all references used within this report. Appendix A contains a copy of the restoration and revegetation plans for the Project prepared for the individual states. A copy of the Long Term Monitoring Plan is included as Appendix B. Appendix C is a combined list of noxious and invasive weed species for all states through which the Project passes. Appendix D contains lists of the seed mixes used in the revegetation effort. Appendix E includes the complete list of Year One monitoring sites. Appendix F contains the comprehensive results from the Year One spring and fall noxious and invasive weed site monitoring. Appendix G includes the expanded results of the Nevada seed mix sites with control plot data. Soil stability test data sheets and results are found in Appendix H. Photographic documentation of all monitoring sites is included in Appendix I. An aerial photography mapbook of these sites is provided as Appendix J.

This report will be filed with the FERC January 2013.


SECTION 2

Methods

2.1 Noxious and Invasive Weed Monitoring A noxious weed is defined as “any plant designated by a Federal, State, or county government as injurious to public health, agriculture, recreation, wildlife or property” (Sheley et al., 1999). The destructive nature of these noxious weed species, whether devaluing a commercial crop, injuring livestock, or destroying wildlife habitat, makes their eradication and/or control a top priority. Each state’s noxious weed council or its equivalent determines which plant species are designated noxious for that state and the resulting list is posted on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s online introduced, invasive, and noxious plants database (USDA, 2012). A list of noxious weeds for the states through which the Project traverses (Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon) is included in Appendix C. Invasive species are not part of the native plant community, and are also known as nonnative species whose introduction causes or may cause harm to the environment, economy, or human health (Executive Order 13112, 1999). These species likewise have the potential to compete with and replace native vegetation. As discussed in the Plan, Ruby must minimize noxious and invasive weed species along the ROW, on the access roads, and in other areas used during the Project. To fulfill these requirements, the Plan states that noxious and invasive weed monitoring will assess weed establishment within the ROW, at equipment cleaning stations, along access roads, and within the Sheldon NWR. Although no construction took place within the Sheldon NWR, existing roadways within it were used to access the ROW during the Project. Consequently, there are noxious and invasive weed monitoring sites located along these roadways. Sites within the Sheldon NWR were treated as access road sites, and were not subject to the same monitoring protocol as the other weed monitoring sites. Instead of determining a cover class for noxious and invasive weed species at these sites, the number of noxious weed species present was noted. Results of this monitoring will be used to develop necessary remedial actions for weed abatement and to achieve compliance. The locations of the noxious and invasive weed monitoring sites were determined based on areas identified during pre-construction monitoring as high infestation areas (i.e., areas with relative cover greater than 26 percent. Using this definition, 203 noxious and invasive weed monitoring sites were identified for the Year One spring monitoring event. Of the 203 sites, a total of eight sites were inaccessible during Year One spring monitoring due to private landowner issues or being located over 0.25 miles from the ROW. As noted previously, these eight sites were removed from future monitoring. Of the 195 sites monitored during the Year One fall monitoring event, an additional 11 sites were removed from future monitoring due to being located on private property, over 0.25 miles from the ROW, or near biological hazards (bee farms), leaving a total of 184 sites that were monitored during the fall monitoring event (Table 2). Appendix E provides details of each site, whether it was monitored, removed from future monitoring, or combined, and the reasons why. In addition to monitoring the sites listed in Table 2, Ruby will also report any new weed infestations identified along the ROW to FERC and the land management agencies.

Results of this monitoring will be used to develop necessary remedial actions for weed abatement and to achieve compliance.

TABLE 2 Noxious and Invasive Weed Monitoring Sites by Type per State

State Equipment Cleaning Station Site Noxious Weed Site Noxious Weed Site in Sheldon NWR Total Number of Sites

Wyoming 0 1 -- 1

Utah 2 1 -- 3

Nevada 5 4 101 110

Oregon 12 58 -- 70

Total 19 64 101 184*

* This total does not include the eight sites removed from future monitoring following completion of the Year One spring monitoring event, nor does it include the 11 sites that were inaccessible during the Year One fall monitoring event.

SECTION 2 - METHODS


The location and extent of noxious and invasive weed species at the monitoring sites were visually determined by the field teams. For sites with a limited number of weed species present, the field team collected a point feature using a sub-meter accurate handheld Trimble geographic positioning system (GPS) unit to note the overall site location, and recorded the Daubenmire cover class categories (Daubenmire, 1959) for each plant species (noxious, invasive, and desirable) present. For sites with a larger weed infestation, the boundary of the infestation was mapped using a GPS unit, and the Daubenmire cover class categories were used to define relative cover by noxious and invasive weed species in relation to the other non-weed species present in the infestation area. The Daubenmire cover class method assigns a number to a range of cover percentages, the midpoints of which are used in final calculations (Table 3).

TABLE 3 Daubenmire Cover Class Categories

Cover Class Range of Coverage Midpoint of Range

1 0 - 5% 2.5%

2 5- 25% 15.0%

3 25 - 50% 37.5%

4 50 - 75% 62.5%

5 75 - 95% 85.0%

6 95 - 100% 97.5%

Note: Coverage ranges were revised slightly based on A Canopy Coverage Method of Vegetational Analysis. R. Daubenmire. Northwest Science. Volume 33, No 1, 1959.

2.2 Upland Vegetation and BSC Monitoring Site Reconnaissance and Suitability Assessment

Upland vegetation and BSC monitoring site locations were identified using a desktop, stratified randomization process to select sites that are representative of the surrounding terrain, soils, vegetation, and land use. Upland vegetation monitoring sites include seed mix, seedling, and horsebrush areas along the ROW, and areas along access roads used during construction. BSC monitoring sites include areas within the ROW with BSC inoculations. Descriptions of each of these types of monitoring sites, except the horsebrush monitoring sites, are provided in Sections 5.1, 5.2, and 5.4 of the Plan. A total of 281 monitoring sites (Table 4) were included in the pre-monitoring site reconnaissance, which was performed concurrently with the Year One spring monitoring at the noxious and invasive weed monitoring sites. During the pre-monitoring site reconnaissance, four seed mix sites, two seedling sites, and one BSC site were inaccessible due to locked gates and hazardous terrain along the access roads. Field teams conducted an initial reconnaissance of all proposed potential monitoring sites to confirm that each site was safely and reasonably accessible, and that site locations were representative of their type and surrounding conditions. Field teams were instructed to relocate inaccessible and/or non-representative sites to the nearest appropriate location. Field teams attempted to monitor all 281 sites during the Year One fall monitoring event, and were only unable to access one seedling site (the same seedling site inaccessible during the spring monitoring event) and two access road sites.

TABLE 4 Upland Vegetation and BSC Monitoring Sites by Type per State

State Seed Mix Sites Seedling Sites Access Road Sites BSC Sites Horsebrush Sites Total Number of Sites

Wyoming 12 6 16 0 0 34

Utah 19 7 22 1 0 49

Nevada 65 30 19 3 19 136

Oregon 19 12 31 0 0 62

Total 115 55 88* 4 19 281

* Total includes 15 Group 1 and 73 Group 2 access road sites. The field teams collected additional access road site data at 14 locations along existing access road sites. Therefore, data for 102 access road sites are presented in the Results section.

SECTION 2 - METHODS


2.3 Seed Mix Monitoring One method used to establish perennial vegetation along the ROW was direct seeding. Seed mixes were developed specifically for the ROW restoration, taking into account habitat type, elevation, moisture regime, nearby native plant community, and input from participating agencies. A complete list of the seed mixes used is presented in Appendix D. There were 115 seed mix monitoring sites across the ROW: 12 in Wyoming, 19 in Utah, 65 in Nevada, and 19 in Oregon.

Each seed mix monitoring site had two plots, the ROW monitoring plot and the ROW control (or control) plot. Monitoring plots were located within the ROW, while control plots were outside the ROW. Both plots followed the same setup and monitoring protocol, allowing for a direct comparison of the revegetated and undisturbed areas. For each plot, a permanent 35 -meter by 100-meter plot was established, and photos and GPS points were collected at each corner of the plot with the Trimble unit. Three transects started at randomly selected points along the northern edge of the plot, and ran the width of the ROW, which ranged from 35 to 59 meters. GPS points were taken at the beginning and end of each transect, and a photo of each transect was taken from the end point, looking towards the beginning. Figure 2 shows the layout of the seed mix monitoring and control plots and transects. FIGURE 2 Establishment of the Monitoring and Control Plots at a Seed Mix Monitoring Site

Point-intercept and plant density data were collected along the transects. The point-intercept method uses a pin flag or other sighting device to determine what plant and/or ground cover is present along predetermined intervals along the transect line (Bonham, 1989). This information can then be analyzed to determine the total percent cover of each category for the plot. Categories used in the seed mix monitoring are listed in Table 5. Point-intercept intervals were every meter. Density involves counting the number of individuals of each species within a quadrat, which can estimate the total number of individuals within the plot. Density data were collected for three 1-meter-by-1-meter quadrats placed in representative locations along each transect, for a total of nine quadrats per plot. The presence/absence of BSC was also recorded within these quadrats, and soil samples were collected (Section 2.7). The Daubenmire cover class for any noxious and invasive weed present was recorded for both monitoring and control plots. A disturbance category based on the percent of grazed plants in the plot and/or the percent of the plot covered by OHV tracks, cattle feces, or hoof prints was assigned to the monitoring and control plots (Table 6).

SECTION 2 - METHODS


TABLE 5 Categories Used in Point-Intercept Transects

Category Subcategory

Plant Basal --

Plant Foliar --

Litter Herbaceous

Woody

Other

Biological Soil Crust Moss

Lichens

Cyanobacteria

Algae

Liverwort

Other

Rock Gravel

Large Rocks

Bedrock

Other

Bare Ground --

TABLE 6 Disturbance Categories Category Description

1 No apparent grazing, fecal droppings, hoof prints;, or OHV tire marks

2 <10% plants grazed, or plot covered by fecal droppings, hoof prints, or OHV tire marks

3 10-25% plants grazed, or plot covered by fecal droppings, hoof prints, or OHV tire marks

4 26-50% plants grazed, or plot covered by fecal droppings, hoof prints, or OHV tire marks

5 >50% plants grazed, or plot covered by fecal droppings, hoof prints, or OHV tire marks

Source: Table 5.1-2 from the Plan.

2.4 Seedling Monitoring Another method used to revegetate the ROW was the use of container-grown seedlings. Seedlings were planted in high-quality sage-grouse, pygmy rabbit, pronghorn antelope, and mule deer winter ranges and in forest areas. Eight species were planted as seedlings at various locations along the pipeline ROW: basin big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata), mountain big sagebrush (A. tridentata ssp. vaseyana), Wyoming big sagebrush (A. tridentata ssp. wyomingensis), black sagebrush (A. nova), little or low sagebrush (A. arbuscula), antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), and curl-leaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius). Fifty-five sites were chosen for monitoring: 6 in Wyoming, 7 in Utah, 30 in Nevada, and 12 in Oregon.

SECTION 2 - METHODS


A permanent 35-meter by 100-meter monitoring plot was established for each of the seedling monitoring sites. As with the seed mix monitoring plots, a GPS point and photo were taken at each corner of the monitoring plot using the Trimble unit. The number of living and dead seedlings within the monitoring plot was recorded by species. In several instances, browse tubes were found without seedlings inside. These were tallied in a separate “absent” category, because the species originally planted was unable to be determined. The survival rate of the seedlings was determined by dividing the number of living seedlings by the total number of living, dead, and absent seedlings in the plot. There was no control plot for the seedling monitoring sites. Additional information collected at seedling monitoring plots included the disturbance category for each plot and Daubenmire cover classes for any noxious weeds found within the plot. Daubenmire cover classes for plant basal cover, foliar cover, litter cover, BSC cover, rock cover, and bare ground were also collected for the entire plot.

2.5 Horsebrush Monitoring The horsebrush plant (Tetradymia sp.) has cultural and religious significance for the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe. The ROW passes near the Summit Lake Reservation in northwestern Nevada, and impacted horsebrush populations traditionally used by the Tribe. To mitigate the impact of pipeline construction on these populations, horsebrush seedlings were planted at 19 sites, each of which was chosen for monitoring. Horsebrush site monitoring followed the same plot setup and monitoring protocol as the seedling sites.

2.6 Biological Soil Crust Monitoring Biological soil crust is an important component of arid and semi-arid ecosystems, comprising up to 70 percent of the plant community in some places (Belnap, 1994). BSC prevents soil erosion by binding soil particles; and its presence is an indicator of soil surface stability (Belnap et al., 2001). BSC recovery from disturbance can be a slow process, particularly for mosses and lichens. Recovery rates depend on factors such as disturbance severity and extent, vascular plant structure, adjacent substrate condition, available inoculums, and weather. Cyanobacteria are expected to be the first BSC organism to colonize the ROW (Belnap et al., 2001). Spatial analysis of plant and soil attributes indicated areas along the ROW support BSC communities. As part of the restoration effort, several of these areas were treated with mycorrhizal innocula to increase BSC recovery. Three sites in Nevada and one site in Utah were chosen for monitoring in these areas.

At each BSC site, a 9.1-meter-by-9.1-meter monitoring plot was established with its eastern edge aligned with the milepost that was being monitored. GPS points and photos were taken at each corner of the plot with the Trimble unit. A control plot was set up in the same manner outside of the ROW. Fifteen quadrats were monitored in both the monitoring and control plots. The first quadrat was placed in the middle of the plot. The quadrat frame measured 25-centimeter by 25-centimeter, and was divided into 25 squares (Figure 3). A pin flag was dropped at the bottom right corner of each box created by the interior of the quadrat, for a total of 16 flags. At each flag, the type of BSC (algae, moss, lichen, liverwort, cyanobacteria, or none) was recorded. The observer then took five steps in a randomly chosen cardinal direction and placed the frame for the second quadrat. This process continued until all 15 quadrats were monitored. If the edge of the plot was intercepted within the five steps, the observer turned at a right angle to the original trajectory and continued taking the steps. No other information was recorded at these sites.

SECTION 2 - METHODS


FIGURE 3 Schematic of Pin Flag Placement in BSC Monitoring Quadrats

2.7 Access Road Monitoring High amounts of vehicle traffic during pipeline construction may have introduced noxious weed propagules to areas along access roads, which could lead to weed infestations. As part of the noxious weed abatement component of the monitoring plan, 88 access road sites near or along the ROW were selected for monitoring. Access roads were split into three categories. Group 1 roads were decommissioned, reclaimed, and revegetated after their use was no longer required to access the ROW. 15 Group 1 access road sites were chosen for Year One monitoring: 11 in Utah, 1 in Nevada, and 3 in Oregon. Group 2 roads are accessible to the public, but were modified in some way during pipeline construction to facilitate equipment access to the ROW. These roads were reclaimed after they were no longer needed. Seventy-three Group 2 access road sites were chosen for Year One monitoring: 16 in Wyoming, 11 in Utah, 18 in Nevada, and 28 in Oregon. Group 3 roads are also accessible to the public, but required no modification during construction. These roads will not be monitored.

Monitoring protocol for Group 1 roads followed the same protocol as for the seed mix sites. Each site had paired monitoring and control plots. The width of the plots was dependent on the width of the road, although the length of each plot was always 100 meters. As with the seed mix plots, GPS points and photos were taken at each plot corner with the Trimble unit. Transects were set up at three random locations along the northern edge of the plots, and ran perpendicular to the road. GPS points were taken at the beginning and end of each transect, and a photo of each transect was taken from the end point, looking towards the beginning. Point-intercept data were collected along the length of the transects, and density and BSC presence/absence data were collected in one quadrat per transect. Soil samples were also taken (Section 2.8). Disturbance categories were assigned for the monitoring and control plots, and Daubenmire cover classes for any noxious weeds present were recorded.

Monitoring for Group 2 Roads consisted of photopoints to document the presence/absence of any Class A or high-density noxious weeds.

SECTION 2 - METHODS


2.8 Soil Stability Monitoring Soil samples were collected at the seed mix and Group 1 access road sites to determine the degree of soil structural development and erosion resistance. Samples approximately 6 to 8 millimeters in diameter and 2 to 3 millimeters thick in size were taken at the surface and subsurface (2 to 2.5 centimeters below the surface) of each density quadrat. These samples were placed onto sieves, immersed into containers of distilled or deionized water, and checked after 5 seconds, 30 seconds, and 300 seconds (5 minutes). Stability classes were assigned based on how much of the sample remained intact after each time interval. If the soil sample remained intact after 300 seconds, the sample was raised out of the water, dipped five times, and then assigned a stability class. Table 7 describes these classes (Herrick et al., 2009). Each plot had nine surface and nine subsurface samples, the results of which were averaged to arrive at one surface and subsurface value for the entire plot.

TABLE 7 Soil Stability Class Ratings Stability

Class Criteria for Assignment to Stability Class

1 50% of structural integrity lost (melts) within 5 seconds of immersion in water, OR soil too unstable to sample (falls through sieve)

2 50% of structural integrity lost (melts) 5-30 seconds after immersion

3 50% of structural integrity lost (melts) 30-300 seconds after immersion, OR <10% of soil remains on the sieve after 5 dipping cycles.

4 10-25% of soil remains on the sieve after 5 dipping cycles




SECTION 3

Results This section provides the results of the Year One spring and fall monitoring along the Ruby Pipeline in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. Information about sites that could not be monitored is also provided. Plant establishment performance was evaluated by comparing foliar cover of vegetation in monitoring plots to foliar cover of herbaceous and woody plants in control plots. Soil stability was judged based on the soil aggregate stability test in comparison with the soil stability of the control plots. Upland revegetation on federal lands will be considered successful when vegetation on the restored ROW supports non-noxious and invasive plants that are similar in forb, grass, and woody plant density and cover to those growing on adjacent lands within the 300-foot monitoring corridor undisturbed by construction.

3.1 Monitoring Site Reconnaissance and Suitability Assessment

During the site reconnaissance and suitability assessment conducted in the spring, of the 281 upland vegetation (including seed mix, seedling, access road, and horsebrush) and BSC monitoring sites, 271 were both suitable and easily accessed. Three sites were relocated from their original location because the originally proposed monitoring locations were not considered representative. Table 8 provides a list of the sites that were relocated during the Year One spring monitoring event. In general, sites were considered not representative for several reasons:

• The original site was located within an area of the ROW that was heavily disturbed and not indicative of conditions in the adjacent areas of the ROW.

• The site overlapped with another monitoring site.

• The site was located in an area that had landowner concerns.

• The original location of the site would have required driving or hiking on hazardous terrain (i.e., steep slopes, boulder fields).

TABLE 8 Monitoring Sites Relocated During Year One Spring Monitoring Event

Site ID Site Type Nearest Original Milepost State Nearest Relocated Milepost Distance (meters) Relocated

NV-SM-3-250.0 Seed mix 250 Nevada 244 9,101

NV-SM-3-275.0 Seed mix 275 Nevada 276 974

NV-SM-3-284.0 Seed mix 284 Nevada 292 11,695

Six upland vegetation monitoring sites and one BSC monitoring site listed in Table 9 could not be accessed during the Year One spring monitoring event due to locked gates along access routes, access route not passable, or hazardous terrain (along access route or at the site itself). Therefore, the sites were not visited during the Year One spring monitoring event.

TABLE 9 Upland Vegetation and BSC Monitoring Sites Inaccessible During Year One Spring Monitoring Event

Site ID Site Type Nearest Milepost State Reason for Inaccessibility

UT-SM-2-66.5 Seed mix 66 Utah Locked gate along access route

UT-BSC-1B BSC 158 Utah Locked gate along access route

UT-SM-1B-158.5 Seed mix 158 Utah Locked gate along access route

NV-SL-3-261.3 Seedling 261 Nevada Hazardous terrain along access route

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


TABLE 9 Upland Vegetation and BSC Monitoring Sites Inaccessible During Year One Spring Monitoring Event

Site ID Site Type Nearest Milepost State Reason for Inaccessibility

NV-SM-3-261.0 Seed mix 261 Nevada Hazardous terrain along access route

NV-SM-3-263.0 Seed mix 263 Nevada Hazardous terrain along access route

OR-SL-6-603.0 Seedling 603 Oregon Access route not passable

3.2 Noxious and Invasive Weed Monitoring 3.2.1 Spring Monitoring Event A total of 203 noxious and invasive weed monitoring sites were monitored during the Year One spring monitoring event (Appendix D). Eighty-three of these were sites previously identified as having noxious weed infestations, 19 were equipment-cleaning stations, and 101 were along access roads within the Sheldon NWR. Noxious and/or invasive weeds were found at 55 of the monitoring sites, and six of the equipment cleaning stations. Of the 101 sites within the Sheldon NWR, 38 were observed to have noxious and/or invasive weed species present during the Year One spring monitoring event, while 62 of the sites within the Sheldon NWR were observed to have no noxious and/or invasive weed species present. The remaining one site within the Sheldon NWR was combined with another site that was located immediately adjacent. Detailed results from the Year One spring monitoring event are provided in Appendix D. Some plants observed were unable to be determined to the species or genus level, and are listed as unknown or “sp.”

There were six weed sites that were inaccessible due to locked gates, private landowner issues (over 2.5 miles off-ROW), or hazardous terrain:

• NW-20-006b • NW-37-001a • NW-37-001b • NW-47-001 • NW-25-008 • NW-25-011

These six weed sites will be removed from the overall monitoring site list and will not be monitored during subsequent monitoring events. The following two weed sites were each combined with an overlapping weed site: NW-31-008 (combined with CS-NV-2C), and NW-156-016 (combined with NW-332-151). Therefore, NW-31-008 and NW-156-016 will not be monitored during future monitoring events.

Weed site CS-NV-13 was visited, but inadvertently, no GPS data was collected. However, it was observed that no noxious weed species were present. Although visited, no data was collected at NW-627-077 either. Monitoring data was collected for CS-NV-13 and NW-627-077 during the Year One fall monitoring event.

A total of 14 noxious weed species were observed at the weed monitoring sites (Appendix D). The most commonly observed noxious weed species was medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae), which was found at 19, or 10 percent, of the sites across the four states traversed by the Project. Noxious weed cover ranged from less than 1 to 38 percent. Only four noxious weed species were prolific enough to meet or exceed 26 percent (Daubenmire cover class 3) of the total cover at the monitoring sites. These species include whitetop (Cardaria draba), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), and medusahead rye.

3.2.1.1 Wyoming Noxious weeds were found at the one weed site located in Wyoming (Table 10). Musk thistle (Carduus nutans) was located at this site during pre-construction monitoring, and was found here again during the Year One spring monitoring event. Wyoming does not differentiate its noxious weeds into different classes.

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


TABLE 10 Noxious Weed Species Found in Wyoming During Year One Spring Monitoring Event

Site ID

Federal Land

Agency

Noxious Weeds Observed Pre-Construction

Common Name

State Designation*

Noxious Weeds Observed During Post-

Construction Monitoring Common

Name State

Designation

NW-389-007 KFO Carduus nutans Musk thistle Noxious Carduus nutans Musk thistle Noxious

* State Designation is from the “Wyoming Weed & Pest Control Act Designated List” (Wyoming Weed and Pest Council, 2012). KFO = Kemmerer Field Office

3.2.1.2 Utah Two weed sites in Utah were documented as having noxious weeds during the Year One spring monitoring event (Table 11). One equipment cleaning station site had whitetop present. Musk thistle was documented at a noxious weed monitoring site where it had been previously identified during pre-construction monitoring. Black henbane (Hyoscyamus niger) was also found at this site. Black henbane is a Class A weed in Utah, and is of the highest priority for eradication. Whitetop and musk thistle are Class B weeds, which generally occur in small, controllable populations.

TABLE 11 Noxious Weed Species Found in Utah During Year One Spring Monitoring Event

Site ID

Federal Land

Agency


Common Name

State Designation*

Noxious Weeds Observed During Post-

Construction Monitoring Common

Name State

Designation

CS-UT-1 KFO

Cardaria draba Hoary cress B

CS-UT-17 SLFO

NW-389-004 SLFO Carduus nutans Musk thistle B Carduus nutans Musk thistle B

NW-389-004

Hysocyamus niger Black Henbane A

Note: Cleaning stations were areas designated during construction for the cleaning of equipment in order to reduce infestations. No weeds were identified at these areas during the pre-construction monitoring. Rather, because of their nature, it is assumed that cleaning station areas would likely be locations where infestations could potentially arise.

* State Designation is from “Utah’s Noxious Weed List” (Utah Weed Control Association, 2012), which classifies weeds as follows:

Class A weeds have a relatively low population size within the State and are of highest priority being an Early Detection Rapid Response (EDRR) weed.

Class B weeds have a moderate population throughout the State and generally are thought to be controllable in most areas.

Class C weeds are found extensively in the State and are thought to be beyond control. Statewide efforts would generally be towards containment of smaller infestations.

KFO = Kemmerer Field Office and SLFO = Salt Lake Field Office

3.2.1.3 Nevada Noxious weeds were documented at 17 of the 111 noxious weed sites in Nevada (Table 12). Medusahead rye was documented at one cleaning station, and whitetop was found at a noxious weed site where it had been previously documented. Fifteen of the 101 noxious weed sites in Sheldon NWR had noxious weeds present during Year One spring monitoring event. Although earlier monitoring placed whitetop at eight sites, it was found at only five of these sites. Two previously undocumented weeds were found in Sheldon NWR: Austrian peaweed (Sphaerophysa salsula) was found at seven sites, and starthistle (Centaurea sp.) was found at a site noted previously for having whitetop. Bull thistle was not found in Sheldon NWR, although earlier monitoring documented it at seven sites. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) was found at two of these sites. Austrian peaweed is a Class A weed in Nevada, and should be eradicated where found. Medusahead rye is a Class B weed, and should be eradicated where possible. The eradication of whitetop and Canada thistle, Class C weeds, is at the discretion of the state quarantine officer. The starthistle was unidentifiable beyond the generic level; therefore, its class of noxious weed was unable to be determined.

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


TABLE 12 Noxious Weeds Found in Nevada During Year One Spring Monitoring Event

Site ID Federal Land

Agency


Common Name

State Designation*

Noxious Weeds Observed During Post-Construction

Monitoring Common

Name State

Designation

CS-NV-01 SFO Taeniatherum caput-medusae

Medusahead rye

B

CS-NV-02C EDO

CS-NV-11B WDO

CS-NV-13 WDO

CS-OR-1 SFO

NW-12-006 WDO Cardaria draba Hoary cress (whitetop)

C

NW-13-001 SFO Bromus tectorum Downy brome I

NW-23-001 WDO Cardaria draba Hoary cress (whitetop)

C

NW-31-008 EDO Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed

B

NW-378-002 EDO Cardaria draba Hoary cress (whitetop)

C Cardaria draba Hoary cress (whitetop)

C

NW-431-002 EDO Cardaria draba Hoary cress (whitetop)

C

NW-627-001 Sheldon NWR Taeniatherum caput-medusae

Medusahead rye

B


Medusahead rye

B


Medusahead rye

B


Medusahead rye

B

NW-627-005 Sheldon NWR Cardaria draba Hoary cress C


Medusahead rye

B

NW-627-007 Sheldon NWR Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle I Cirsium arvense Canada thistle

C

NW-627-008 Sheldon NWR Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle I Cirsium arvense Canada thistle

C


NW-627-010 Sheldon NWR Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle I






SECTION 3 - RESULTS




Agency


Common Name

State Designation*


Monitoring Common

Name State

Designation

NW-627-016 Sheldon NWR Cardaria draba Hoary cress C Cardaria draba Hoary cress C

NW-627-017 Sheldon NWR Cardaria draba Hoary cress C Sphaerophysa salsula

Austrian peaweed

A


NW-627-018 Sheldon NWR Cardaria draba Hoary cress C Sphaerophysa salsula

Austrian peaweed

A


NW-627-019 Sheldon NWR Cardaria draba Hoary cress C Centaurea sp. Starthistle or Knapweed

?























NW-627-041 Sheldon NWR Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle I Sphaerophysa salsula

Austrian peaweed

A




SECTION 3 - RESULTS




Agency


Common Name

State Designation*


Monitoring Common

Name State

Designation




Austrian peaweed

A


Austrian peaweed

A





Austrian peaweed

A

















Austrian peaweed

A









SECTION 3 - RESULTS




Agency


Common Name

State Designation*


Monitoring Common

Name State

Designation


























* State designation from “Nevada Noxious Weed List” and “Noxious Weed Categories” (Nevada Department of Agriculture, 2012a and 2012b), which states: • Category "A": Weeds not found or limited in distribution throughout the state; actively excluded from the state and actively

eradicated wherever found; actively eradicated from nursery stock dealer premises; control required by the state in all infestations.

• Category "B": Weeds established in scattered populations in some counties of the state; actively excluded where possible, actively eradicated from nursery stock dealer premises; control required by the state in areas where populations are not well established or previously unknown to occur.

• Category "C": Weeds currently established and generally widespread in many counties of the state; actively eradicated from nursery stock dealer premises; abatement at the discretion of the state quarantine officer.

Invasive species (indicated with an “I”) are not part of the native plant community, and are also known as nonnative species whose introduction causes or may cause harm to the environment, economy or human health (Executive Order 13112, 1999).

EDO = Elko District Office, NWR = National Wildlife Refuge, SFO = Surprise Field Office, and WDO = Winnemucca District Office

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


3.2.1.4 Oregon Noxious weeds were documented at 47 sites in Oregon (Table 13). Four of the twelve equipment cleaning station sites had noxious weed species present: two sites had perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), one had medusahead rye, and another had Canada and bull thistle. Noxious weeds were documented at 43 of the 69 noxious weed monitoring sites. Medusahead rye was the most commonly encountered noxious weed, found at 18 sites, 14 of which were previously documented. Canada thistle was found at 14 sites, 5 of which were previously documented. Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium) was found at two new sites, in addition to the four sites identified during previous monitoring. Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) was found at seven sites, an increase from the two sites identified earlier. Four noxious weeds not previously documented at Oregon noxious weed sites were found during the Year One spring monitoring event: spiny cocklebur (Xanthium spinosum) was found at one site, perennial pepperweed was located at five sites, poison hemlock (Conium maculatum) was found at three sites, and kochia (Kochia scoparia) was found at two sites. Eradication of field bindweed and perennial pepperweed, Class B-T weeds, is a high priority in Oregon, where the Oregon Department of Agriculture is developing a statewide management plan. The remaining noxious weeds found in Oregon are Class B weeds, meaning intensive control is determined on a site-specific basis.

TABLE 13 Noxious Weeds Found in Oregon During Year One Spring Monitoring Event

Site ID

Federal Land

Agency


Common Name

State Designation*


Monitoring Common

Name State

Designation

CS-OR-02 LRA Cirsium arvense Canada thistle B

CS-OR-02 LRA Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle B

CS-OR-03 FWNF

CS-OR-08 LRA

CS-OR-10 FWNF

CS-OR-10B FWNF

CS-OR-11 KFRA

CS-OR-12 KFRA

CS-OR-12B KFRA

CS-OR-13 KFRA Lepidium latifolium Perennial pepperweed

B-T

CS-OR-13B KFRA Lepidium latifolium Perennial pepperweed

B-T

CS-OR-14 KFRA

CS-OR-14B KFRA Taeniatherum caput-medusae

Medusahead rye

B

NW-12-013 LRA Convolvulus arvensis

Field bindweed

B-T Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed

B-T

NW-12-013 LRA Cirsium arvense Canada thistle B

NW-152-002 LRA Taeniatherum caput-medusae

Medusahead rye

B Taeniatherum caput-medusae

Medusahead rye

B

NW-152-004 LRA Cirsium arvense Canada thistle B Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle B

NW-152-004 LRA Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed

B-T

SECTION 3 - RESULTS



Site ID

Federal Land

Agency


Common Name

State Designation*


Monitoring Common

Name State

Designation


NW-152-005 Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed

B-T

NW-152-008 LRA Cirsium arvense Canada thistle B Cirsium arvense Canada thistle B


NW-152-020 LRA Conium maculatum

Poison hemlock

B Cirsium arvense Canada thistle B

NW-152-020 LRA Lepidium latifolium Perennial pepperweed

B-T

NW-152-022 LRA Cirsium arvense Canada thistle B Conium maculatum Poison hemlock

B


B-T


NW-152-023 LRA Conium maculatum Poison hemlock

B


B

NW-152-034 LRA Lepidium draba (Cardaria draba)

Whitetop (hoary cress)

B Xanthium spinosum Spiny cocklebur

B


NW-152-034 LRA Onopordum acanthium

Scotch thistle B


B-T


NW-156-008 KFRA Taeniatherum caput-medusae

Medusahead rye

B


Medusahead rye

B


Medusahead rye

B

NW-156-017 FWNF Taeniatherum caput-medusae

Medusahead rye


NW-173-020 LRA Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle B Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle B


B-T


SECTION 3 - RESULTS



Site ID

Federal Land

Agency


Common Name

State Designation*


Monitoring Common

Name State

Designation

NW-174-001 LRA Cirsium arvense Canada thistle B Onopordum acanthium

Scotch Thistle B

NW-175-003 FWNF Taeniatherum caput-medusae

Medusahead rye


NW-175-004 KFRA Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle B


Scotch thistle B Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle B

NW-184-017 Onopordum acanthium

Scotch Thistle B

NW-20-003 FWNF Cirsium sp. Thistle undetermined Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle B

NW-20-006a KFRA Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle B


Scotch Thistle B Onopordum acanthium

Scotch Thistle B


Medusahead rye

B


Scotch Thistle B Onopordum acanthium

Scotch Thistle B


Medusahead rye

B



Field bindweed

B-T Cirsium arvense Canada thistle B


Field bindweed

B-T Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed

B-T

NW-21-022 LRA Elymus repens Quackgrass none

NW-21-026 LRA Cirsium arvense Canada thistle B Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed

B-T


NW-21-037 KFRA Elymus repens Quackgrass none

NW-332-005 KFRA Carduus nutans Musk thistle B


Medusahead rye

B

NW-332-009 KFRA Cirsium arvense Canada thistle B


Medusahead rye

B


Medusahead rye

B


Medusahead rye

B

SECTION 3 - RESULTS



Site ID

Federal Land

Agency


Common Name

State Designation*


Monitoring Common

Name State

Designation


Medusahead rye

B


Medusahead rye

B Perennial pepperweed

B-T


Medusahead rye

B Perennial pepperweed

B-T


Medusahead rye

B


Medusahead rye

B


Medusahead rye

B


Medusahead rye

B


Medusahead rye


Medusahead rye

B


Medusahead rye


Medusahead rye

B


Medusahead rye


Medusahead rye

B


Medusahead rye


Medusahead rye

B


Medusahead rye


Medusahead rye

B


Medusahead rye


Medusahead rye

B


Medusahead rye

B


Medusahead rye

B


Medusahead rye

B


Medusahead rye

B


Medusahead rye


Medusahead rye

B


Medusahead rye


Medusahead rye

B


Medusahead rye


Medusahead rye

B

SECTION 3 - RESULTS



Site ID

Federal Land

Agency


Common Name

State Designation*


Monitoring Common

Name State

Designation


Medusahead rye


Medusahead rye

B


Medusahead rye


Medusahead rye

B




NW-333-002 LRA Conium maculatum Poison hemlock

B

NW-36-001 KFRA Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle B


Medusahead rye


Medusahead rye

B


Medusahead rye

B

NW-383-001 KFRA Lepidium latifolium

Perennial pepperweed

B-T Kochia scoparia Kochia B

NW-383-002 KFRA Lepidium latifolium

Perennial pepperweed

B-T Kochia scoparia Kochia B


Medusahead rye


Medusahead rye

B


Medusahead rye



Scotch thistle B Onopordum acanthium

Scotch thistle B


Medusahead rye

B


* State designation is from Noxious Weed Policy and Classification System 2012 (Oregon Department of Agriculture [ODA], 2012), Noxious weeds, for the purpose of this system, shall be designated “A” or “B” and may be given the additional designation of “T.”

“A” Designated Weed – a weed of known economic importance which occurs in the state in small enough infestations to make eradication or containment possible; or is not known to occur, but its presence in neighboring states make future occurrence in Oregon seem imminent. Recommended action: Infestations are subject to eradication or intensive control when and where found.

“B” Designated Weed – a weed of economic importance which is regionally abundant, but which may have limited distribution in some counties. Recommended action: Limited to intensive control at the state, county or regional level as determined on a site specific, case-by-case basis. Where implementation of a fully integrated statewide management plan is not feasible, biological control (when available) shall be the primary control method.

“T” Designated Weed – a priority noxious weed designated by the Oregon State Weed Board as a target for which the ODA will develop and implement a statewide management plan. “T” designated noxious weeds are species selected from either the “A” or “B” list.

BLM = U.S. Bureau of Land Management and USFS = U.S. Forest Service

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


3.2.1.5 Invasive Species Field teams also monitored for invasive species at the weed sites. Eighteen invasive weed species were identified at the weed sites (Table 14). The most commonly encountered invasive weed species was cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), which was found at 36, or 18 percent, of the weed monitoring sites. Cheatgrass was observed at 26 sites in Oregon, 8 sites in Nevada, and 2 sites in Utah. Table 14 summarizes the invasive weed species identified during the Year One spring monitoring event, including the state(s) where they were observed.

Percent cover was not recorded for invasive weed species during the Year One spring monitoring event.

TABLE 14 Invasive Weed Species Documented During Year One Spring Monitoring Event

Scientific Name Common Name State Observed (Number of Sites)

Alyssum alyssoides Pale alyssum OR(6)

Bromus inermis Smooth brome OR(1)

Bromus tectorum Cheatgrass NV(8), OR(26), UT(2)

Chorispora tenella Crossflower UT(1)

Descurainia sophia Flixweed OR(9), UT(1)

Halogeton glomeratus Saltlover NV(1)

Lactuca serriola Wild lettuce OR(1)

Lepidium perfoliatum Clasping pepperweed OR(2), NV(4)

Lolium perenne Perennial ryegrass OR(7)

Medicago sativa Alfalfa OR(2)

Melilotus officinalis Yellow sweet clover OR(1), UT(1)

Poa bulbosa Bulbous bluegrass OR(1), NV(4), UT(1)

Polygonum aviculare Prostrate knotweed OR(1), NV(2)

Salsola tragus [=kali] Russian thistle NV(6)

Secale cereale Cereal rye OR(2)

Sisymbrium altissimum Tall tumble mustard OR(5)

Taraxacum officinale Common dandelion OR(1), NV(1)

Verbascum thapsus Common mullein OR(1)

3.2.2 Fall Weed Monitoring Event Monitoring data was collected at a total of 128 noxious weed sites during the Year One fall monitoring (Table 15). Of the original 203 weed sites, eight were removed from future monitoring following completion of the spring monitoring event, an additional 11 sites were inaccessible during the fall monitoring event due to private landowner issues that were not encountered during the spring event and will also be removed from future monitoring. Fifty-six sites were combined due to sites overlapping one another or being within very close proximity to another site. These sites that overlapped each other or were within very close proximity to another site were combined in order to ensure that data would not be duplicated, which would end up distorting the overall results and conclusions. Of the 128 total sites monitored during the fall event, 109 sites were identified during pre-construction monitoring as having noxious weed infestations and 19 were designated as cleaning stations during construction. Results for individual states are discussed below. Detailed results for each site are found in Appendix F. Performance criteria for these sites were the same for all the federal land agencies except the FWNF. The FWNF requires noxious and invasive weed cover to be at least a 75 percent reduction from the highest cover recorded for each site.

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


TABLE 15 Summary of Noxious and Invasive Weed Monitoring Results During Year One Fall Monitoring Event

State # Sites Monitored # with Noxious or

Invasive Weeds Present # with ≥ 26% Noxious or

Invasive Weed Cover # Meeting Performance

Criteria*

Wyoming 1 1 0 1

Utah 3 3 1 2

Nevada 54 47 2 52

Oregon 70 67 31 34

Total 128 118 34 89

* <26% total noxious and invasive species cover

3.2.3 Wyoming One noxious weed site was monitored in Wyoming (Table 16). Individual site results are presented in Table 17. The BLM requires relative cover of noxious and invasive weeds not equal or exceed 26 percent relative cover. No noxious weeds were found, but one invasive weed, prickly Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) was found at the site.

TABLE 16 Summary of Noxious and Invasive Weed Monitoring Results in Wyoming During Year One Fall Monitoring Event

Federal Land Agency # Sites Monitored # with Noxious or



Criteria*

KFO 1 1 0 1

Total 1 1 0 1

* <26% total noxious and invasive species cover

TABLE 17 Noxious and Invasive Weed Monitoring Results in Wyoming During Year One Fall Monitoring Event Federal

Land Agency Site ID

Noxious Weed

Species State

Designation*

Noxious Weed

Cover (%) Invasive Species

Invasive Species

Cover (%)

Total Cover Noxious and

Invasive Species (%) Performance Criteria (%)

KFO NW-389-007 0 Salsola tragus 2.50 2.5 ≤ 26

Note: Shaded cells show results that currently meet performance criteria. * State Designation is from the “Wyoming Weed & Pest Control Act Designated List” (Wyoming Weed and Pest Council, 2012) KFO = Kemmerer Field Office

3.2.4 Utah Three noxious weed sites were monitored in Utah (Table 18). Individual site results are presented in Table 19. The BLM requires relative cover of noxious and invasive weeds not equal or exceed 26 percent relative cover. Noxious and invasive weeds were found at three sites; one site had cover in excess of 26 percent. A Utah Class A noxious weed, black henbane (Hyoscyamus niger), was found at one site. Three different invasive species were found at the sites. One invasive species, prickly Russian thistle, was found at all three sites.

TABLE 18 Summary of Noxious and Invasive Weed Monitoring Results in Utah During Year One Fall Monitoring Event




Criteria

KFO 1 1 1 0

SLFO 2 2 0 2

Total 3 3 1 2 KFO = Kemmerer Field Office and SLFO = Salt Lake Field Office

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


TABLE 19 Noxious and Invasive Weed Monitoring Results in Utah During Year One Fall Monitoring Event

Federal Land

Agency Site ID Noxious Weed

Species State

Designation*

Noxious Weed Cover

(%) Invasive Species

Invasive Species Cover

(%)


Invasive Species (%)

Performance Criteria (%)

KFO CS-UT-1 Hyoscyamus niger

A 2.5 Salsola tragus 37.5 40 ≤ 26

SLFO CS-UT-17 0 Salsola tragus 2.5

Bromus tectorum 2.5

Sonchus arvensis 2.5

Total 0 7.5 7.5 ≤ 26

SLFO NW-389-004 0 Salsola tragus 2.5 2.5 ≤ 26

Note: Shaded cells show results that currently meet performance criteria.

* State Designation is from “Utah’s Noxious Weed List” (Utah Weed Control Association, 2012), which classifies weeds as follows:

"Class A" weeds have a relatively low population size within the State and are of highest priority being an Early Detection Rapid Response weed.

"Class B" weeds have a moderate population throughout the State and generally are thought to be controllable in most areas.

"Class C" weeds are found extensively in the State and are thought to be beyond control. Statewide efforts would generally be towards containment of smaller infestations.

KFO = Kemmerer Field Office and SLFO = Salt Lake Field Office

3.2.5 Nevada Fifty-four noxious weed sites were monitored in Nevada (Table 20). Individual site results are found in Table 21. Due to overlapping and their close proximity, the 101 sites in the Sheldon NWR were combined into 47 sites. The performance criterion for noxious weed sites in Nevada requires relative noxious weed cover not equal or exceed 26 percent relative cover. Noxious and invasive weeds were found at 47 sites; two sites had cover in excess of 26 percent. No weeds designated “noxious” by the state of Nevada were observed in the Sheldon NWR; however, weed species designated “invasive” were identified at several sites (Table 20). Black henbane, a Class A noxious weed in Nevada, was found at one site. Nine different invasive species were found. The most commonly encountered invasive species were Russian thistle (31 sites) and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum; 29 sites).

TABLE 20 Summary of Noxious and Invasive Weed Monitoring Results in Nevada During Year One Fall Monitoring Event

Federal Land Agency # Sites Monitored # with Noxious or Invasive Weeds Present

# with ≥ 26% Noxious or Invasive Weed Cover

# Meeting Performance Criteria

EDO 2 1 1 1

SFO 1 1 0 1

SLFO 1 1 0 1

Sheldon NWR 47 43 1 46

WDO 3 1 0 3

Total 54 47 2 52

EDO = Elko District Office, NWR = National Wildlife Refuge, SFO = Surprise Field Office, SLFO = Salt Lake Field Office, and WDO = Winnemucca District Office

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


TABLE 21 Noxious and Invasive Weed Monitoring Results in Nevada During Year One Fall Monitoring Event

Federal Land Agency Site ID

Noxious Weed Species

State Designation*

Noxious Weed Cover (%) Invasive Species

Invasive Species Cover (%)

Total Cover Noxious and Invasive Species (%)


SLFO CS-NV-1 Hyoscyamus niger A 2.5 Salsola tragus 2.5

Halogeton glomeratus 15

Total 2.5 17.5 20 ≤ 26

WDO CS-NV-13 0 0 0 ≤ 26

WDO NW-12-006 0 0 0 ≤ 26

SFO NW-13-001 0 Bromus tectorum 2.5 2.5 ≤ 26

WDO NW-23-001 0 Medicago sativa 2.5

Bromus tectorum 2.5

Total 0 5 5 ≤ 26

EDO NW-378-002 0 Salsola tragus 15

Sonchus arvensis 15

Agropyron cristatum 2.5

Total 0 32.5 32.5 ≤ 26

EDO NW-31-008 0 0 0 ≤ 26

Sheldon NWR NW-627-001 0 0 0 ≤ 26

Sheldon NWR NW-627-004 0 Lepidium perfoliatum 2.5 2.5 ≤ 26

Sheldon NWR NW-627-005 0 Lepidium perfoliatum 2.5

Salsola kali 2.5

Total 0 5 5 ≤ 26

Sheldon NWR NW-627-006 0 0 0 ≤ 26

Sheldon NWR NW-627-007 0 Bromus tectorum 2.5 2.5 ≤ 26

Sheldon NWR NW-627-009 0 Salsola kali 2.5 2.5 ≤ 26

SECTION 3 - RESULTS





State Designation*





Sheldon NWR NW-627-011 0 Bromus tectorum 2.5

Lepidium perfoliatum 2.5

Sisymbrium altissimum 2.5

Total 0 7.5 7.5 ≤ 26


Bromus tectorum 2.5

Total 0 5 5 ≤ 26



Sheldon NWR NW-627-016 0 Salsola kali 15

Bromus tectorum 2.5

Total 0 17.5 17.5 ≤ 26


Bromus tectorum 2.5

Total 0 17.5 17.5 ≤ 26


Salsola kali 15

Total 0 17.5 17.5 ≤ 26


Salsola kali 15

Total 0 17.5 17.5 ≤ 26

SECTION 3 - RESULTS





State Designation*






Bromus tectorum 2.5

Total 0 17.5 17.5 ≤ 26


Sheldon NWR NW-627-023 0 0 0 ≤ 26


Salsola kali 15

Total 0 17.5 17.5 ≤ 26

Sheldon NWR NW-627-025 0 Salsola kali 15 15 ≤ 26




Sheldon NWR NW-627-029 0 Bromus tectorum 15

Salsola kali 15

Total 0 30 30 ≤ 26


Salsola kali 2.5

Total 0 5 5 ≤ 26


Bromus tectorum 2.5

Salsola kali 2.5

Total 0 7.5 7.5 ≤ 26

SECTION 3 - RESULTS





State Designation*





Sheldon NWR NW-627-035 0 Salsola kali 2.5

Bromus tectorum 2.5

Sisymbrium altissimum 2.5

Total 0 7.5 7.5 ≤ 26

Sheldon NWR NW-627-036 0 0 0 ≤ 26



Bromus tectorum 2.5

Total 0 5 5 ≤ 26




Total 0 5 5 ≤ 26



Total 0 5 5 ≤ 26


Salsola kali 2.5

Total 0 5 5 ≤ 26


Salsola kali 2.5

Total 0 5 5 ≤ 26

SECTION 3 - RESULTS





State Designation*






Salsola kali 2.5

Total 0 5 5 ≤ 26



Total 0 5 5 ≤ 26


Salsola kali 2.5

Total 0 5 5 ≤ 26


Bromus tectorum 2.5

Total 0 5 5 ≤ 26



Salsola kali 2.5

Total 0 5 5 ≤ 26


Salsola kali 2.5

Total 0 5 5 ≤ 26


SECTION 3 - RESULTS





State Designation*






Salsola kali 2.5


Total 0 7.5 7.5 ≤ 26


Bromus tectorum 2.5

Total 0 5 5 ≤ 26



Bromus tectorum 2.5

Total 0 5 5 ≤ 26



* State designation from “Nevada Noxious Weed List” and “Noxious Weed Categories” (Nevada Department of Agriculture, 2012a and 2012b), which states:

Category “A” - Weeds that are generally not found or that are limited in distribution throughout the State. Such weeds are subject to active exclusion from the state and active eradication wherever found and active eradication from the premises of a dealer of nursery stock.

Category “B” - Weeds that are generally established in scattered populations in some counties of the State. Such weeds are subject to active exclusion where possible and active eradication from the premises of a dealer of nursery stock.

Category “C” - Weeds that are generally established and generally widespread in many counties of the State. Such weeds are subject to active eradication from the premises of a dealer of nursery stock.

EDO = Elko District Office, NWR = National Wildlife Refuge, SFO = Surprise Field Office, SLFO = Salt Lake Field Office, and WDO = Winnemucca District Office

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


3.2.6 Oregon Seventy noxious weed sites were monitored in Oregon (Table 22). The FWNF and BLM sites have different performance criteria, and are discussed separately below.

TABLE 22 Summary of Noxious and Invasive Weed Monitoring Results in Oregon During Year One Fall Monitoring Event




Criteria

LRA 15 15 10 5

KFRA 48 45 20 28

FWNF 6 6 1 *

SFO 1 1 0 1

Total 70 67 31 34

* See Section 3.2.6.2 for explanation. FWNF = Fremont-Winema National Forest, KFRA = Klamath Falls Resource Area, LRA = Lakeview Resource Area, and SFO = Surprise Field Office

3.2.6.1 BLM Sites Sixty-four noxious weed sites were monitored on BLM land. Detailed results are found in Table 23. The BLM requires noxious weed cover to be no greater than 26 percent. Noxious and invasive weeds were found at 61 sites; 30 of these sites had cover in excess of 26 percent. Ten different Class B noxious weeds were found at these sites. Medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) was found at 25 sites, and bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) was found at 18 sites. Canada thistle (C. arvense) was found at 11 sites. Poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium), and spiny cocklebur (Xanthium spinosum) were each found at three sites. Musk thistle (Carduus nutans), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), Mediterranean sage (Salvia aethiopis), and puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris) were each found at two sites. Seventeen different invasive species were found at the BLM sites in Oregon. The most commonly found invasive weeds include cheatgrass (39 sites), yarrow (Achillea millefolium; 28 sites), and prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola; 27 sites).

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


TABLE 23 Noxious and Invasive Weed Monitoring Results at Oregon BLM Sites During Year One Fall Monitoring Event Federal Land

Agency Site ID Noxious Weed Species State

Designation* Noxious Weed

Cover (%) Invasive Species Invasive Species

Cover (%) Total Cover Noxious and


SFO CS-OR-1 Cirsium vulgare B 15 Achillea millefolium 2.5

Cirsium arvense B 2.5

TOTAL COVER 17.5 2.5 20 ≤ 26

KFRA CS-OR-11 Taeniatherum caput-medusae B 15 Achillea millefolium 2.5

Bromus tectorum 2.5

Lactuca serriola 2.5

TOTAL COVER 15 7.5 22.5 ≤ 26

KFRA CS-OR-12 0 Achillea millefolium 2.5

Bromus tectorum 2.5

TOTAL COVER 0 5 5 ≤ 26

KFRA CS-OR-12B Taeniatherum caput-medusae B 2.5 Achillea millefolium 2.5


Bromus tectorum 2.5

TOTAL COVER 2.5 7.5 10 ≤ 26

KFRA CS-OR-13 0 Achillea millefolium 2.5

Bromus tectorum 15

TOTAL COVER 0 17.5 17.5 ≤ 26

KFRA CS-OR-13B 0 Achillea millefolium 2.5

Bromus tectorum 15

TOTAL COVER 0 17.5 17.5 ≤ 26

KFRA CS-OR-14 Bromus tectorum 62.5

Lactuca serriola 15

Achillea millefolium 2.5

SECTION 3 - RESULTS








Poa bulbosa 15

Tragopogon dubius 2.5

TOTAL COVER 0 97.5 97.5 ≤ 26

KFRA CS-OR-14B Taeniatherum caput-medusae B 85 Elymus repens 37.5 122.5 ≤ 26

LRA CS-OR-2 Cirsium vulgare B 2.5 Achillea millefolium 15



LRA CS-OR-8 Tribulus terrestris B 2.5 0 2.5 ≤ 26

LRA NW-152-002 Taeniatherum caput-medusae B 15 Bromus tectorum 15

Cirsium vulgare B 15

Xanthium spinosum B 15


LRA NW-152-004 Onopordum acanthium B 2.5 Salsola tragus 15

Cirsium vulgare B 2.5


Salvia aethiopis B 2.5

Xanthium spinosum B 2.5

TOTAL COVER 12.5 15 27.5 ≤ 26

LRA NW-152-020 Conium maculatum B 62.5 Sisymbrium altissimum 37.5

Thlaspi arvense 37.5

TOTAL COVER 62.5 75 137.5 ≤ 26

SECTION 3 - RESULTS








LRA NW-152-022 Cirsium arvense B 2.5 Lactuca serriola 15

Xanthium spinosum B 2.5


LRA NW-152-023 Cirsium arvense B 37.5 Lactuca serriola 15

Conium maculatum B 2.5 Bromus tectorum 2.5

TOTAL COVER 40 17.5 57.5 ≤ 26

LRA NW-155-003 Cirsium arvense B 37.5 Achillea millefolium 2.5

Cirsium vulgare B 2.5 Lactuca serriola 2.5

Verbascum thapsus 2.5

TOTAL COVER 40 7.5 47.5 ≤ 26

KFRA NW-156-008 0 Bromus tectorum 15 15 ≤ 26

KFRA NW-156-009 0 Bromus tectorum 37.5

Agropyron cristatum 2.5


KFRA NW-156-012 0 Bromus tectorum 15




LRA NW-173-020 Cirsium arvense B 15 Bromus tectorum 37.5


Convolvulus arvensis B 15

TOTAL COVER 32.5 37.5 70 ≤ 26

LRA NW-174-001 Cirsium vulgare B 2.5 Achillea millefolium 15 17.5 ≤ 26

SECTION 3 - RESULTS








KFRA NW-175-004 0 0 0 ≤ 26

LRA NW-184-017 Cirsium arvense B 2.5 Bromus tectorum 15

Onopordum acanthium B 2.5 Thlaspi arvense 2.5

Cirsium vulgare B 2.5 Malva neglecta 2.5

TOTAL COVER 7.5 20 27.5 ≤ 26

KFRA NW-20-006A

0 0 0 ≤ 26

KFRA NW-21-037 0 Achillea millefolium 2.5 2.5 ≤ 26

KFRA NW-332-005 Cirsium vulgare B 2.5 Achillea millefolium 2.5

Taeniatherum caput-medusae B 2.5 Verbascum thapsus 2.5


KFRA NW-332-008 0 Bromus tectorum 15


TOTAL COVER 0 17.5 17.5 ≤ 26



Taeniatherum caput-medusae B 2.5 Lactuca serriola 2.5


KFRA NW-332-019 0 0 0 ≤ 26

KFRA NW-332-020 Taeniatherum caput-medusae B 15 Bromus tectorum 2.5 17.5 ≤ 26

KFRA NW-332-021 Carduus nutans B 2.5 Achillea millefolium 2.5

Cirsium vulgare B 2.5 Lactuca serriola 2.5

Bromus tectorum 2.5

SECTION 3 - RESULTS










KFRA NW-332-043 Taeniatherum caput-medusae B 2.5 Lactuca serriola 2.5


TOTAL COVER 2.5 5 7.5 ≤ 26

KFRA NW-332-047 Taeniatherum caput-medusae B 2.5 0 2.5 ≤ 26

KFRA NW-332-051 0 Achillea millefolium 2.5 2.5 ≤ 26


KFRA NW-332-068 Taeniatherum caput-medusae B 15 Bromus tectorum 15


TOTAL COVER 15 17.5 32.5 ≤ 26

KFRA NW-332-072 Taeniatherum caput-medusae B 2.5 Achillea millefolium 2.5


Bromus tectorum 2.5

TOTAL COVER 2.5 7.5 10 ≤ 26

KFRA NW-332-097 Taeniatherum caput-medusae B 37.5 Poa bulbosa 2.5 40 ≤ 26

KFRA NW-332-098 Taeniatherum caput-medusae B 15 Poa bulbosa 2.5

Bromus tectorum 15



TOTAL COVER 15 22.5 37.5 ≤ 26

KFRA NW-332-101 Taeniatherum caput-medusae B 15 Bromus tectorum 2.5 17.5 ≤ 26


SECTION 3 - RESULTS








Taeniatherum caput-medusae B 15 Bromus tectorum 15


TOTAL COVER 17.5 20 37.5 ≤ 26

KFRA NW-332-104 Taeniatherum caput-medusae B 15 Poa bulbosa 2.5

Cirsium vulgare B 2.5 Bromus tectorum 15



TOTAL COVER 17.5 22.5 40 ≤ 26


KFRA NW-332-110 Cirsium vulgare B 2.5 Bromus tectorum 37.5




TOTAL COVER 2.5 45 47.5 ≤ 26


KFRA NW-332-113 Taeniatherum caput-medusae B 15 Bromus tectorum 37.5



TOTAL COVER 15 42.5 57.5 ≤ 26

KFRA NW-332-114 Taeniatherum caput-medusae B 15 Bromus tectorum 62.5

Cirsium vulgare B 2.5 Achillea millefolium 2.5

TOTAL COVER 17.5 65 82.5 ≤ 26

SECTION 3 - RESULTS








KFRA NW-332-143 Lactuca serriola 2.5

Bromus tectorum 15

TOTAL COVER 0 17.5 17.5 ≤ 26

KFRA NW-332-148 Taeniatherum caput-medusae B 15 Bromus tectorum 15


Lactuca serriola 15



KFRA NW-332-150 Taeniatherum caput-medusae B 15 Lactuca serriola 15

Carduus nutans B 2.5 Bromus tectorum 62.5


TOTAL COVER 17.5 80 97.5 ≤ 26

KFRA NW-332-151 Taeniatherum caput-medusae B 37.5 Lactuca serriola 2.5

Bromus tectorum 37.5

Elymus repens 2.5

TOTAL COVER 37.5 42.5 80 ≤ 26

KFRA NW-332-157 Taeniatherum caput-medusae B 15 Bromus tectorum 15 30 ≤ 26

KFRA NW-332-158 0 Achillea millefolium 15

Bromus tectorum 15

Salsola kali 15

Elymus repens 37.5



SECTION 3 - RESULTS








KFRA NW-332-159 0 Bromus tectorum 37.5 37.5 ≤ 26

LRA NW-333-002 Cirsium arvense B 15 Bromus tectorum 62.5

Conium maculatum B 2.5 Lactuca serriola 15

Melilotus officinalis 15

TOTAL COVER 17.5 92.5 110 ≤ 26

KFRA NW-36-001 Cirsium arvense B 15 Lactuca serriola 2.5 17.5 ≤ 26

LRA NW-361-006 Cirsium vulgare B 2.5 0

Cirsium arvense B 15

Taeniatherum caput-medusae B 2.5

Convolvulus arvensis B 15


KFRA NW-382-042 0 Lactuca serriola 2.5

Verbascum thapsus 2.5



Bromus tectorum 2.5

Salsola kali 2.5




Bromus tectorum 2.5


TOTAL COVER 0 7.5 7.5 ≤ 26

SECTION 3 - RESULTS








KFRA NW-383-036 Cirsium vulgare B 2.5 Lactuca serriola 15

Achillea millefolium 15

Bromus tectorum 37.5

TOTAL COVER 2.5 67.5 70 ≤ 26

LRA NW-384-001 Salvia aethiopis B 2.5 Lupinus lepidus 2.5

Cirsium vulgare B 2.5 Taraxacum officinale 2.5

Tribulus terrestris B 2.5

TOTAL COVER 7.5 5 12.5 ≤ 26

LRA NW-416-003 Onopordum acanthium B 37.5 Bromus tectorum 15

Sisymbrium altissimum 15

TOTAL COVER 37.5 30 67.5 ≤ 26


* State Designation from Noxious Weed Policy and Classification System 2012 (Oregon Department of Agriculture [ODA], 2012), which states:

“A” Designated Weed – a weed of known economic importance which occurs in the state in small enough infestations to make eradication or containment possible; or is not known to occur, but its presence in neighboring states make future occurrence in Oregon seem imminent.

“B” Designated Weed – a weed of economic importance which is regionally abundant, but which may have limited distribution in some counties.

“T” Designated Weed – a priority noxious weed designated by the Oregon State Weed Board as a target for which the ODA will develop and implement a statewide management plan. “T” designated noxious weeds are species selected from the “A” or “B” list.

FWNF = Fremont-Winema National Forest, KFRA = Klamath Falls Resource Area, LRA = Lakeview Resource Area, and SFO = Surprise Field Office

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


3.2.6.2 Fremont-Winema National Forest Six noxious weed sites were monitored on FWNF land (Table 24). The FWNF requires noxious weed cover to be at least a 75 percent reduction from the highest cover recorded for each site. As this was the first year of monitoring, there is no other recorded value for comparison. Noxious and invasive weeds were found at the six monitoring sites. One of these sites had noxious weed cover in excess of 26 percent. Only Class B noxious weeds were found on FWNF land. Bull thistle was found at three sites, and medusahead rye and Scotch thistle were each found at two sites. Canada thistle and puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris) were each found at one site. The most frequently encountered invasive species, yarrow (Achillea millefolium), was found at two sites.

TABLE 24 Noxious and Invasive Weed Monitoring Results at Oregon FWNF Sites During Year One Fall Monitoring Event

Federal Land

Agency Site ID Noxious Weed

Species State

Designation*

Noxious Weed Cover

(%) Invasive Species

Invasive Species

Cover (%)


Invasive Species (%)


FWNF CS-OR-10 Tribulus terrestris B 2.5 Achillea millefolium

2.5 5 ND

FWNF CS-OR-10B 0 Lactuca serriola

2.5

Achillea millefolium

2.5

TOTAL COVER 0 5 5 ND

FWNF CS-OR-3 0 Verbascum thapsus

2.5 2.5 ND

FWNF NW-156-017 Cirsium vulgare B 62.5 Salsola kali 2.5

Taeniatherum caput-medusae

B 15 Tragopogon dubius

2.5

Carduus nutans B 15

TOTAL COVER 92.5 5 97.5 ND

FWNF NW-175-003 Carduus nutans B 2.5 0



B 2.5

TOTAL COVER 7.5 0 7.5 ND

FWNF NW-20-003 Cirsium vulgare B 2.5 0


TOTAL COVER 5 0 5 ND

* State Designation from Noxious Weed Policy and Classification System 2012 (Oregon Department of Agriculture [ODA], 2012), which states:

“A” Designated Weed – a weed of known economic importance which occurs in the state in small enough infestations to make eradication or containment possible; or is not known to occur, but its presence in neighboring states make future occurrence in Oregon seem imminent.

“B” Designated Weed – a weed of economic importance which is regionally abundant, but which may have limited distribution in some counties.

“T” Designated Weed – a priority noxious weed designated by the Oregon State Weed Board as a target for which the ODA will develop and implement a statewide management plan. “T” designated noxious weeds are species selected from the “A” or “B” list.

FWNF = Fremont-Winema National Forest

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


3.3 Seed Mix Monitoring One hundred fifteen seed mix sites were monitored during the fall monitoring (Appendix G). This includes 111 sites deemed suitable and accessible during the spring monitoring event. The remaining four sites were inaccessible during the spring monitoring event, but were accessed during the fall. Of the 115 sites monitored during the fall monitoring event, nine sites were relocated from their original location because the originally proposed monitoring locations were not considered representative. Table 25 provides a list of the sites that were relocated during the Year One fall monitoring event. In general, sites were considered not representative for several reasons:





TABLE 25 Seed Mix Sites Relocated During Year One Fall Monitoring Event

Site ID State Site Type Nearest Original

Milepost Nearest Relocated

Milepost Distance (meters)

Relocated

UT-SM-1B-158.5 Utah Seed Mix 159 161 3,863

NV-SM-3-261.0 Nevada Seed Mix 261 263 3,888

NV-SM-3-275.0 Nevada Seed Mix 275 276 980






OR-SM-7-640.0 Oregon Seed Mix 640 639 942

3.3.1 Performance Criteria Performance criteria for the seed mix sites vary by federal land agency. Requirements were similar for public lands in Wyoming, Utah, and Oregon (Table 26). During the Year One fall monitoring, foliar cover was not differentiated into herbaceous or shrub categories; this metric is presented simply as vegetative cover. Likewise, species diversity is presented as a sum of all plants (herbaceous and shrub) that were identified to the genus level. Although not a metric in determining the success of the overall restoration effort, species density is also included. Noxious and invasive weed cover data were visually estimated for the entire plot for each weed species present. Soil aggregate stability results are discussed in Section 3.7.

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


TABLE 26 Summary of Performance Criteria for Seed Mix Sites in Wyoming, Utah, and Oregon

State Federal Land

Agency Herbaceous

Cover (%) Herbaceous

Species Diversity Shrub Cover (%) Noxious Weed

Relative Cover (%) Soil Aggregate Stability Class

Wyoming KFO Canopy (foliar) cover ≥ 80 of control plot

Presence of ≥ 4 desirable species

Canopy (foliar) cover ≥ 80 of control plot

≤ 26 ≥ 2

Utah SLFO Canopy (foliar) cover ≥ 80 of control plot


Canopy (foliar) cover ≥ 60 of control plot

≤ 26 ≥ 2

Utah UWCNF Canopy (foliar) cover ≥ 80 of control plot


Not required ≤ 26 ≥ 2

Oregon LRA Canopy (foliar) grass cover ≥ 80 of control plot



Oregon FWNF Canopy (foliar) grass cover ≥ 80 of control plot


Not required At least 75% reduction in weed cover from highest

cover recorded

≥ 3

Oregon KFRA Canopy (foliar) grass cover ≥ 80 of control plot



Oregon Reclamation Canopy (foliar) grass cover ≥ 80 of control plot



FWNF = Fremont-Winema National Forest, KFO = Kemmerer Field Office, KFRA = Klamath Falls Resource Area, LRA = Lakeview Resource Area, Reclamation = U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, SLFO = Salt Lake Field Office, and UWCNF = Uintah-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

In Nevada, seed mix performance criteria vary by seed mix and BLM office (Table 27). There is some uncertainty concerning the terminology used for these sites. Crown cover and canopy cover are typically used synonymously, but they are listed as separate metrics in the performance criteria. During the fall monitoring event, only basal and canopy cover data were collected and no crown cover data are reported. Another unclear metric is minimum plants per meter, which reads as the number of plants along a linear feature. Data of this sort were not collected during the fall monitoring event; the number of plants per square meter as collected in sample quadrats is reported instead. Due to the incongruity between the metric and the data taken, this category was not used to determine if a site had fulfilled the performance criteria. Categories used for counting the number of plant life forms include tree, shrub, forb, graminoid, and BSC. The number of desirable plant species was tallied from plants identified to the species level and included native plant species as well as indigenous non-native species not listed as noxious or invasive. Data concerning the percent cover by annual plants was not collected during the fall monitoring event. Noxious and invasive weed cover data were visually estimated for the entire plot for each weed species present. Soil aggregate stability data are discussed in Section 3.7.

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


TABLE 27 Summary of Performance Criteria for Seed Mix Sites in Nevada

Seed Mix

Minimum Percent

Basal and Crown Cover

Minimum Percent Canopy Cover

Minimum Plants per

Meter

Minimum Plant Life

Forms

Minimum Desirable

Plant Species

Maximum Percent Annual

Plant Foliar Cover

Minimum Soil

Aggregate Stability Class*

EDO/WDO Shadscale 10 15 3 2 4 15 >2

EDO/WDO Low precipitation Wyoming big sagebrush

15 20 5 2 4 15 >2

EDO/WDO High precipitation Wyoming big sagebrush

20 25 7 3 6 10 >3

EDO/WDO Low sagebrush 20 25 7 3 6 5 >3

EDO/WDO Predisturbance big sagebrush and bitterbrush

20 25 7 3 6 10 >3

EDO/WDO Mountain big sagebrush 35 45 9 3 8 5 >4

EDO/WDO Black sagebrush 20 25 5 3 5 10 >3

EDO/WDO Little sagebrush 20 25 5 3 5 10 >3

EDO/WDO Black greasewood 15 20 3 2 3 5 >1.5

EDO/WDO Alkali sacaton 15 20 5 1 2 0 >1.5

EDO/WDO Sandy big sagebrush 20 25 5 2 3 5 0

EDO/WDO Fire fuel break 15 20 5 2 2 10 >3

SFO low precipitation Wyoming big sagebrush

15 20 5 2 4 15 >2

SFO low sagebrush 20 25 7 3 6 5 >3

SFO mountain big sagebrush 35 45 9 3 8 5 >4

SFO Black Greasewood 15 20 3 2 3 5 >1.5

SFO sandy big sagebrush 20 25 5 2 3 5 0

* Aggregate stability measures the amount of stable aggregates against flowing water. A slake test measures the stability of soil when exposed to rapid wetting. EDO = Elko District Office, SFO = Surprise Field Office, WDO = Winnemucca District Office,

3.3.2 Wyoming This section of the ROW crosses land managed by the BLM Kemmerer Field Office (KFO). Twelve seed mix sites were monitored here (Table 28, Appendix G). Individual site results are presented in Table 29. These sites were most successful compared to sites in the other three states in the noxious and invasive weed category. None of the monitoring plots had weeds present, although one site had weeds in the control plot. Eight sites (75 percent) had at least four desirable species, meeting the species diversity criterion. Values for this category ranged from 0 to 12 species. Two sites had at least 80 percent of the vegetative cover of the control plot. These sites were also the only sites to fulfill all performance criteria. Plant density values in the monitoring plots ranged from 1 to 39 plants per square meter, compared with 11 to 45 plants per square meter in the control plots. Disturbance data were recorded for all 12 sites. Four sites had no signs of disturbance, while three sites were over 50 percent disturbed. Measure of disturbance ranged from no signs of disturbance to sites with greater than 50 percent disturbance across the site (3 sites).

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


TABLE 28 Summary of Seed Mix Monitoring Results for Wyoming

State # Sites Monitored

Number of Sites Fulfilling Performance Criteria

Percent Cover Species Diversity Noxious and Invasive Weeds All Criteria

WY 12 2 8 12 2

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


TABLE 29 Seed Mix Monitoring Results for Wyoming

Federal Land

Agency Seed Mix Site ID

Vegetation

Noxious and Invasive Weed Cover (%)*

Soils Stability

Disturbance Category Percent Cover Species Diversity

(# of Desirable Species) Species Density

(per m2) Control Plot Monitoring Plot

Performance Criteria

Control Plot

Monitoring Plot

Current Performance (Monitoring/

Control) Performance

Criteria Control

Plot Monitoring

Plot Performance

Criteria Control

Plot Monitoring

Plot Control

Plot Monitoring

Plot Performance

Criteria Surface Sub-

surface Surface Sub-

surface Control

Plot Monitoring

Plot

KFO Sagebrush steppe

WY-SM-1A-4.5 37 7 19 30 9 0 ≥4 16 1 0 15 ≤26 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 ≥2 1 1


WY-SM-1A-8.0 44 0 0 35 ND ND ≥4 ND ND 0 2.5 ≤26 2.8 1.1 1.0 1.0 ≥2 1 1

KFO Salt-desert shrub

WY-SM-1A-13.0 64 33 52 51 4 5 ≥4 15 11 0 2.5 ≤26 ND ND 1.2 1.3 ≥2 1 2


WY-SM-1A-19.1 27 3 11 22 7 1 ≥4 11 <1 0 5 ≤26 1.4 1.4 2.1 2.6 ≥2 1 1


WY-SM-1A-22.0 44 0 0 35 8 2 ≥4 14 1 2.5 2.5 ≤26 2.7 2.8 1.3 1.8 ≥2 1 1


WY-SM-1A-27.4 53 4 8 42 11 8 ≥4 26 4 0 17.5 ≤26 ND ND ND ND ≥2 2 3

KFO Mountain big sagebrush

WY-SM-1A-33.0 75 28 37 60 10 4 ≥4 23 17 5 17.5 ≤26 1.2 2.7 1.0 1.2 ≥2 3 5


WY-SM-1A-37.0 83 14 17 66 17 6 ≥4 28 16 5 17.5 ≤26 2.7 1.6 1.1 1.1 ≥2 4 4


WY-SM-1A-40.0 72 27 38 58 15 12 ≥4 37 13 2.5 25 ≤26 1.3 4.1 1.3 2.3 ≥2 3 3


WY-SM-1A-42.0 73 27 37 58 5 10 ≥4 45 39 15 60 ≤26 2.8 1.0 1.8 1.2 ≥2 4 5


WY-SM-1A-45.0 50 31 62 40 13 12 ≥4 22 35 2.5 20 ≤26 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 ≥2 5 5


WY-SM-1A-47.0 51 18 35 41 7 6 ≥4 19 32 7.5 5 ≤26 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.2 ≥2 2 4

* Noxious weed list is from the Wyoming Weed and Pest Council (2012) and invasive list is from Early Detection & Distribution Mapping System (EDDMapS, 2012).

KFO = Kemmerer Field Office and ND = no data collected due to extenuating site circumstances or field team oversight.

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


3.3.3 Utah This section of the ROW crosses land managed by the BLM’s Salt Lake Field Office (SLFO) and the USFS’s Uintah-Wasatch-Cache National Forest (UWCNF). Nineteen seed mix sites were monitored here (Table 30, Appendix G). Individual site results are presented in Table 31. Noxious and invasive weed data were collected at 18 sites, none of which had any weeds present. Twelve sites (63 percent) met the minimum percent vegetative cover. Two sites had the required minimum number of desirable species. Values for this category ranged between 0 and 6 species. One site fulfilled all criteria. Plant density values in the monitoring plots ranged from 0 to 64 plants per square meter, while control plots had between 1 and 92 plants per square meter. Measure of disturbance ranged between no disturbance and greater than 50 percent disturbance. Five sites had no apparent signs of disturbance, and no sites had above 50 percent disturbance.

TABLE 30 Summary of Seed Mix Monitoring Results for Utah

Federal Land Agency # Sites Monitored


Percent Cover Species Diversity Noxious and Invasive Weeds All Criteria

SLFO 18 12 2 17* 1

UWCNF 1 0 0 1 0

Total 19 12 2 18 1

* No data collected for one site.

SLFO = Salt Lake Field Office and UWCNF = Uintah-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


TABLE 31 Seed Mix Monitoring Results for Utah

Federal Land


Vegetation


Soils Stability





Control Plot

Monitoring Plot



Criteria Control

Plot Monitoring

Plot Performance

Criteria Control

Plot Monitoring

Plot Control

Plot Monitoring

Plot Performance



surface Control

Plot Monitoring

Plot

SLFO Basin big sagebrush

UT-SM-1A-49.0 52 15 28 42 4 2 ≥4 22 17 2.5 2.5 ≤26 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ≥2 4 2

SLFO Basin big sagebrush

UT-SM-1A-50.0 50 27 54 40 8 6 ≥4 36 37 0 5 ≤26 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.2 ≥2 4 4

SLFO Black sagebrush

UT-SM-1A-59.0 58 10 17 46 4 1 ≥4 30 17 0 2.5 ≤26 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 ≥2 1 3

SLFO Mountain big sagebrush

UT-SM-2-66.5 64 40 62 52 5 3 ≥4 41 19 0 2.5 ≤26 1.2 1.7 1.8 2.1 ≥2 2 3

UWCNF Forest Service UT-SM-2A-74.0 91 41 45 73 6 2 ≥4 92 39 2.5 7.5 ≤26 2.6 2.4 2.0 1.6 ≥2 2 2

SLFO Mountain big sagebrush

UT-SM-2A-76.0 78 46 59 63 5 5 ≥4 30 23 ND ND ≤26 2.9 3.3 1.4 2.1 ≥2 ND ND

SLFO NA UT-SM-1B-150.3 49 13 26 39 1 0 ≥4 3 9 40 15 ≤26 3.4 2.3 1.0 1.0 ≥2 3 3

SLFO Shadscale UT-SM-1B-158.5 46 1 2 37 2 0 ≥4 2 0 45 15 ≤26 2.8 2.8 1.2 1.4 ≥2 3 2

SLFO Greasewood UT-SM-1B-167.0 7 4 47 6 1 0 ≥4 1 0 2.5 0 ≤26 1.3 2.1 1.2 1.2 ≥2 2 2

SLFO Greasewood UT-SM-1B-170.0 0 32 0 0 2 1 ≥4 8 0 0 2.5 ≤26 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.8 ≥2 1 2

SLFO Greasewood UT-SM-1B-173.2 38 8 20 30 4 1 ≥4 3 4 2.5 15 ≤26 1.8 2.9 1.6 1.8 ≥2 4 2

SLFO Wyoming big sagebrush

UT-SM-1B-176.0 4 4 96 4 0 0 ≥4 9 0 67.5 17.5 ≤26 3.1 2.9 1.0 1.0 ≥2 1 2


UT-SM-1B-185.0 21 9 43 16 3 1 ≥4 3 7 2.5 2.5 ≤26 3.0 2.1 1.9 2.3 ≥2 2 1


UT-SM-1B-192.0 30 16 54 24 3 0 ≥4 4 18 40 15 ≤26 3.0 3.8 2.6 2.3 ≥2 1 1


UT-SM-1B-196.0 37 17 46 30 3 2 ≥4 6 15 ND ND ≤26 3.0 2.9 1.8 1.9 ≥2 ND ND


UT-SM-1B-202.0 31 57 181 25 4 3 ≥4 6 64 55 62.5 ≤26 3.0 3.0 1.9 2.0 ≥2 1 1


UT-SM-1B-213.0 25 34 137 20 3 2 ≥4 24 21 2.5 65 ≤26 2.2 1.9 1.1 1.1 ≥2 1 1

SLFO Shadscale UT-SM-1B-219.0 29 31 108 23 3 1 ≥4 10 36 0 0 ≤26 2.0 2.0 1.6 1.3 ≥2 ND ND

SLFO Shadscale UT-SM-1B-223.0 16 13 81 13 1 0 ≥4 10 3 0 0 ≤26 2.2 2.4 1.7 1.7 ≥2 1 1

* Noxious weed list is from the Utah Weed Control Association (2012) and invasive list is from Early Detection & Distribution Mapping System (EDDMapS, 2012).

ND = no data collected due to extenuating site circumstances or field team oversight, SLFO = Salt Lake Field Office, and UWCNF = Uintah-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


3.3.4 Nevada This section of the ROW crosses land managed by several offices of the BLM: the Elko District Office (EDO), the Winnemucca District Office (WDO), and the Surprise Field Office (SFO). The SFO is based in California, but manages adjacent lands in Nevada. Sixty-five seed mix sites were monitored in Nevada (Table 32, Appendix G). Results for each managing office are presented in Tables 33 to 35. Complete site results, including control plot data, are found in Appendix G. These sites were most successful at having the required number of life forms – 40 sites (62 percent) met this criterion. No site had the minimum basal cover; these values ranged from 0 to 16 percent. Eleven sites (17 percent) had the minimum percent canopy cover; canopy cover values across all sites ranged from 0 to 86 percent. Only 10 sites (15 percent) met the criterion for the number of desirable plant species present; values ranged from 0 to 10 species. No site met all the criteria. Five sites on EDO land had noxious weeds, but the percent cover at these sites did not exceed 5 percent. No other noxious weeds were found at the seed mix monitoring sites. Measure of disturbance ranged between 0 and greater than 50 percent. Six sites had no apparent disturbance, and three sites had disturbance covering greater than 50 percent of the plot.

TABLE 32 Summary of Seed Mix Monitoring Results for Nevada

Federal Land Agency

# Sites Monitored


Basal Cover Canopy Cover # Life Forms # Desirable Plant Species All Criteria

EDO 28 0 6 19 7 0

WDO 18 0 5 9 1 0

SFO 19 0 0 12 2 0

Total 65 0 11 40 10 0

EDO = Elko District Office, SFO = Surprise Field Office, and WDO = Winnemucca District Office

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


TABLE 33 Seed Mix Monitoring Results for BLM Elko District Office, Nevada

Seed Mix Site ID

Basal Cover (%) Canopy Cover (%)3 No. of Plants per Square

Meter No. of Plant Life Forms1 No. of Desirable Plant Species Aggregate Stability Class2

Monitoring Plot Noxious and Invasive

Weed Cover (%)3 Disturbance Category4

Monitoring Plot

Monitoring Plot


(minimum) Monitoring

Plot



Plot



Plot



Plot


(minimum) Surface Subsurface



Plot Control

Plot

Shadscale NV-SM-3-261.0 0 10 0 15 0 3 1 2 2 4 1.0 1.0 >2 0 0 1

Low precipitation Wyoming big sagebrush

NV-SM-3-238.0 4 15 52 20 45 5 3 2 2 4 1.8 1.7 >2 65 17.5 3


NV-SM-3-250.0 0 15 12 20 9 5 3 2 2 4 1.4 1.7 >2 0 0 2


NV-SM-3-271.0 4 15 19 20 13 5 3 2 4 4 2.0 1.9 >2 15 0 2


NV-SM-4-307.0 1 15 14 20 33 5 3 2 4 4 1.8 1.6 >2 17.5 2.5 4


NV-SM-4-314.0 3 15 25 20 15 5 2 2 2 4 2.7 1.5 >2 17.5 0 2


NV-SM-4-323.0 1 15 1 20 1 5 2 2 1 4 1.8 1.3 >2 2.5 0 2


NV-SM-5-380.0 9 15 23 20 16 5 3 2 5 4 1.6 1.9 >2 0 0 4


NV-SM-5-385.0 3 15 14 20 22 5 2 2 4 4 2.1 1.9 >2 2.5 15 3


NV-SM-5-392.0 0 15 86 20 150 5 2 2 0 4 ND ND >2 65 77.5 3

Low sagebrush NV-SM-3-279.0 1 20 1 25 5 7 3 3 4 6 1.8 1.7 >3 0 15 2


Low sagebrush NV-SM-3-301.0 0 20 3 25 12 7 3 3 7 6 1.3 2.0 >3 5 17.5 3


Low sagebrush NV-SM-4-355.0 0 20 8 25 7 7 3 3 2 6 1.1 1.1 >3 2.5 2.5 3


Predisturbance big sagebrush and bitterbrush

NV-SM-5-372.0 3 20 3 25 12 7 3 3 10 6 2.0 1.7 >3 0 2.5 2


NV-SM-5-375.0 8 20 26 25 11 7 3 3 5 6 1.7 1.7 >3 32.5 0 4


NV-SM-5-390.0 16 20 88 25 50 7 2 3 2 6 1.4 1.8 >3 0 0 2

Mountain big sagebrush NV-SM-4-343.0 0 35 4 45 1 9 2 3 2 8 1.4 1.7 >4 0 15 ND

Black sagebrush NV-SM-3-236.0 2 20 17 25 5 5 3 3 3 5 2.4 2.1 >3 30 17.5 1

Black sagebrush NV-SM-3-254.0 1 20 10 25 2 5 2 3 4 5 1.0 1.0 >3 5 0 3

Black sagebrush NV-SM-3-275.0 2 20 7 25 20 5 3 3 10 5 1.9 2.3 >3 0 0 5

Black sagebrush NV-SM-4-317.0 1 20 2 25 9 5 2 3 4 5 1.4 1.6 >3 7.5 2.5 3

Black sagebrush NV-SM-4-318.0 1 20 3 25 16 5 3 3 2 5 1.7 1.1 >3 7.5 0 ND

Black sagebrush NV-SM-4-319.0 2 20 4 25 7 5 2 3 4 5 1.3 1.9 >3 7.5 2.5 5

Black greasewood NV-SM-3-263.0 0 15 0 20 0 3 0 2 0 3 1.2 2.2 >1.5 ND ND ND

Black greasewood NV-SM-3-266.0 1 15 5 20 19 3 1 2 0 3 2.8 2.0 >1.5 ND ND ND 1. Life forms: tree, shrub, graminoid, forb, BSC. 2. Aggregate stability measures the amount of stable aggregates against flowing water. A slake test measures the stability of the soil when exposed to rapid wetting. 3 Noxious weed list is from the Nevada Department of Agriculture (2012a) and invasive list is from Early Detection & Distribution Mapping System (EDDMapS, 2012). 4 1 = no apparent grazing, fecal droppings, hoof prints, or OHV tire marks; 2 = <10% plants grazed, or plot covered by fecal droppings, hoof prints, or OHV tire marks; 3 = 10-25% plants grazed, or plot covered by fecal droppings, hoof prints, or OHV tire marks; 4 = 26-50% plants grazed, or plot covered by

fecal droppings, hoof prints, or OHV tire marks; 5 = >50% plants grazed, or plot covered by fecal droppings, hoof prints, or OHV tire marks

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


TABLE 34 Seed Mix Monitoring Results for BLM Winnemucca District Office, Nevada

Seed Mix Site ID

Basal Cover (%) Canopy Cover (%) No. of Plants per Square Meter No. of Plant Life Forms1 No. of Desirable Plant Species Aggregate Stability Class2 Monitoring Plot Noxious and Invasive

Weed Cover (%)3 Disturbance Category4

Monitoring Plot

Monitoring Plot



Plot



Plot



Plot



Plot





Plot Contol

Plot

Shadscale NV-SM-5-399.0 1 10 38 15 49 3 2 2 1 4 ND ND >2 7.5 ND 4

Shadscale NV-SM-5-406.0 0 10 7 15 10 3 2 2 2 4 ND ND >2 2.5 15 3

Shadscale NV-SM-5-488.0 0 10 2 15 0 3 0 2 0 4 2.1 1.8 >2 0 17.5 3

High precipitation Wyoming big sagebrush

NV-SM-5-486.0 5 20 34 25 69 7 2 3 1 6 1.7 1.2 >3 62.5 85 5

High precipitation Wyoming big sagebrush

NV-SM-5-529.0 1 20 6 25 3 7 3 3 5 6 2.1 4.6 >3 2.5 0 2

Mountain big sagebrush

NV-SM-5-513.0 0 35 0 45 9 9 3 3 2 8 1.6 1.7 >4 2.5 15 4


NV-SM-5-524.0 0 35 1 45 0 9 1 3 2 8 2.2 3.6 >4 0 ND 1


NV-SM-5-530.0 1 35 1 45 6 9 3 3 7 8 1.3 1.6 >4 2.5 2.5 2

Little sagebrush

NV-SM-5-505.0 0 20 2 25 2 5 1 3 0 5 1.4 1.6 >3 2.5 ND 2

Little sagebrush

NV-SM-5-507.0 2 20 0 25 2 5 2 3 0 5 1.6 1.8 >3 0 2.5 2

Little sagebrush

NV-SM-5-510.0 0 20 0 25 3 5 2 3 3 5 1.7 2.3 >3 0 2.5 3

Black greasewood

NV-SM-5-410.6 0 15 25 20 95 3 3 2 2 3 ND ND >1.5 7.5 30 3

Black greasewood

NV-SM-5-460.0 0 15 0 20 2 3 1 2 2 3 2.8 2.9 >1.5 0 0 2

Black greasewood

NV-SM-5-499.0 0 15 4 20 4 3 2 2 1 3 1.9 2.4 >1.5 7.5 45 1

Alkali sacaton NV-SM-5-487.0 5 15 23 20 92 5 0 1 0 2 1.4 1.3 >1.5 77.5 100 5

Fire fuel break NV-SM-5-395.0 0 15 44 20 51 5 3 2 0 2 ND ND >3 35 65 2

Fire fuel break NV-SM-5-445.0 0 15 0 20 97 5 2 2 2 2 2.8 2.7 >3 15 15 4

Fire fuel break NV-SM-5-501.0 0 15 0 20 0 5 0 2 0 2 1.4 1.0 >3 2.5 15 1 1. Life forms: tree, shrub, graminoid, forb, BSC.

2. Aggregate stability measures the amount of stable aggregates against flowing water. A slake test measures the stability of the soil when exposed to rapid wetting.

3 Noxious weed list is from the Nevada Department of Agriculture (2012a) and invasive list is from Early Detection & Distribution Mapping System (EDDMapS, 2012).

4. 1 = no apparent grazing, fecal droppings, hoof prints, or OHV tire marks; 2 = <10% plants grazed, or plot covered by fecal droppings, hoof prints, or OHV tire marks; 3 = 10-25% plants grazed, or plot covered by fecal droppings, hoof prints, or OHV tire marks; 4 = 26-50% plants grazed, or plot covered by fecal droppings, hoof prints, or OHV tire marks; 5 = >50% plants grazed, or plot covered by fecal droppings, hoof prints, or OHV tire marks

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


TABLE 35 Seed Mix Monitoring Results for BLM Surprise Field Office, Nevada

Seed Mix Site ID

Basal Cover (%) Canopy Cover (%) No. of Plants per Square Meter No. of Plant Life Forms1 No. of Desirable Plant Species Aggregate Stability Class2 Monitoring Plot Noxious and Invasive Weed Cover (%)3 Disturbance

Category4 Monitoring

Plot Monitoring

Plot



Plot



Plot



Plot



Plot





Plot Contol

Plot


NV-SM-5-537.0 0 15 0 20 4 5 3 2 3 4 1.0 1.3 >2 0 0 2


NV-SM-5-545.0 0 15 0 20 1 5 2 2 2 4 1.3 1.2 >2 0 17.5 2


NV-SM-5-547.0 0 15 0 20 1 5 3 2 1 4 1.1 1.1 >2 0 30 2

Low sagebrush NV-SM-5-532.0 0 20 0 25 11 7 4 3 10 6 1.4 1.4 >3 0 2.5 3


Low sagebrush NV-SM-6-571.0 3 20 7 25 3 7 2 3 2 6 ND 3.0 >3 0 5 2

Low sagebrush NV-SM-6-580.0 1 20 3 25 1 7 2 3 3 6 1.9 3.3 >3 2.5 0 3

Low sagebrush NV-SM-6-586.0 2 20 5 25 4 7 2 3 2 6 2.2 2.4 >3 2.5 0 2


NV-SM-5-544.0 0 35 0 45 1 9 2 3 3 8 1.1 1.2 >4 2.5 0 3


NV-SM-6-575.0 0 35 1 45 1 9 3 3 3 8 1.7 2.3 >4 0 2.5 2


NV-SM-6-576.0 2 35 9 45 5 9 3 3 4 8 2.0 2.1 >4 5 0 3

Black greasewood NV-SM-6-561.0 0 15 1 20 2 3 3 2 2 3 1.4 2.0 >1.5 0 0 3



Sandy big sagebrush

NV-SM-5-548.0 0 20 0 25 0 5 3 2 1 3 1.2 1.6 0 0 52.5 2

Sandy big sagebrush

NV-SM-6-550.0 0 20 1 25 11 5 3 2 1 3 1.7 1.7 0 2.5 17.5 2

Sandy big sagebrush

NV-SM-6-554.0 0 20 2 25 2 5 3 2 3 3 1.0 1.7 0 0 0 2

Sandy big sagebrush

NV-SM-6-558.0 1 20 3 25 2 5 3 2 2 3 1.9 2.1 0 0 0 3

Fire fuel break5 NV-SM-5-540.0 0 15 0 20 0 5 2 2 1 2 1.7 1.1 >3 0 2.5 1 1. Life forms: tree, shrub, graminoid, forb, BSC.

2. Aggregate stability measures the amount of stable aggregates against flowing water. A slake test measures the stability of the soil when exposed to rapid wetting.

3 Noxious weed list is from the Nevada Department of Agriculture (2012a) and invasive list is from Early Detection & Distribution Mapping System (EDDMapS, 2012).

4 1 = no apparent grazing, fecal droppings, hoof prints, or OHV tire marks; 2 = <10% plants grazed, or plot covered by fecal droppings, hoof prints, or OHV tire marks; 3 = 10-25% plants grazed, or plot covered by fecal droppings, hoof prints, or OHV tire marks; 4 = 26-50% plants grazed, or plot covered by fecal droppings, hoof prints, or OHV tire marks; 5 = >50% plants grazed, or plot covered by fecal droppings, hoof prints, or OHV tire marks

5 Criteria from EDO/WDO fuel break seed mix.

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


3.3.5 Oregon This section of the ROW passes through land managed by the BLM’s Lakeview Resource Area (LRA) and KFRA, the USFS’ FWNF, and Reclamation. Nineteen seed mix sites were monitored here (Table 36, Appendix G). Individual site results are presented in Table 37. Noxious and invasive weeds were found in 14 monitoring plots, although 13of these had noxious and/or weed cover within acceptable limits. One site had 40 percent cover of weeds, which exceeds the 26 percent threshold. Eleven sites (58 percent) had the required minimum number of desirable species. Values for this category ranged between 0 and 10 species. Only five sites had the required minimum percent vegetative cover. These five sites fulfilled all performance criteria. Plant density values in the monitoring plots ranged from 0 to14 plants per square meter, while control plots had between 0 and 95 plants per square meter. Measure of disturbance ranged between 0 and greater than 50percent. Eleven sites showed no signs of disturbance from cattle or OHV use. However, three sites that were affected by the Barry Point Forest Fire, which burned approximately 5 miles of the ROW (MP 634.5 through MP 639.5).

TABLE 36 Summary of Seed Mix Monitoring Results for Oregon

Federal Land Agency # Sites

Monitored


Percent Cover Species Diversity Noxious and

Invasive Weeds All Criteria

LRA 3 0 1 3 0

KFRA 6 4 5 5 4

FWNF 8 0 3 8 0

Reclamation 2 1 2 2 1

Total 19 5 11 18 5

FWNF = Fremont-Winema National Forest, KFRA = Klamath Falls Resource Area, LRA = Lakeview Resource Area, and Reclamation = U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


TABLE 37 Seed Mix Monitoring Results for Oregon

Federal Land


Vegetation


Soils Stability





Control Plot

Monitoring Plot



Criteria Control

Plot Monitoring

Plot Performance

Criteria Control

Plot Monitoring

Plot Control

Plot Monitoring

Plot Performance



surface Control

Plot Monitoring

Plot

FWNF Forest OR-SM-6-606.0 53 2 4 42 6 0 ≥4 19 0 0 2.5 ND 3.1 3.2 2.7 3.0 ≥3 2 2

FWNF Forest OR-SM-6-607.0 51 1 2 41 6 0 ≥4 9 0 0 0 ND 3.9 3.7 3.1 3.4 ≥3 1 1


FWNF Forest OR-SM-7-638.0 1 0 0 1 0 1 ≥4 0 0 0 2.5 ND 2.9 5.0 1.2 1.8 ≥3 1 ND


FWNF Scabland OR-SM-7-639.8 22 1 5 18 8 3 ≥4 3 1 0 2.5 ND 3.4 5.0 1.2 1.8 ≥3 1 1

FWNF Scabland OR-SM-7-641.19 55 8 15 44 8 6 ≥4 7 3 0 2.5 ND 4.0 4.7 1.5 2.0 ≥3 1 1

FWNF Forest OR-SM-7-648.0 81 4 5 65 8 8 ≥4 17 1 2.5 2.5 ND 3.0 3.7 1.4 2.0 ≥3 1 1

LRA Sagebrush steppe OR-SM-6-592.0 56 15 27 45 8 6 ≥4 11 5 37.5 2.5 ≤26 2.3 2.2 1.4 1.2 ≥2 1 1

LRA Sagebrush steppe OR-SM-6-594.0 56 8 14 45 10 2 ≥4 19 2 37.5 0 ≤26 ND ND 2.0 1.6 ≥2 2 3

LRA Sagebrush steppe OR-SM-6-599.0 64 21 33 51 4 2 ≥4 6 8 0 15 ≤26 2.7 3.1 1.8 3.9 ≥2 3 1

KFRA Low sagebrush OR-SM-7-650.0 54 2 4 43 10 2 ≥4 47 0 0 0 ≤26 5.2 2.5 1.1 1.2 ≥2 1 1

KFRA Mountain big sagebrush

OR-SM-7-652.3 79 4 5 63 4 9 ≥4 91 14 30 2.5 ≤26 3.9 3.0 1.0 1.0 ≥2 1 1

KFRA Low sagebrush OR-SM-7-657.0 45 33 73 36 8 10 ≥4 30 11 0 2.5 ≤26 2.3 2.7 1.1 1.6 ≥2 1 1

Reclamation Low sagebrush OR-SM-7-662.33 22 26 118 18 9 7 ≥4 50 4 15 40 ≤26 3.6 1.4 1.3 2.3 ≥2 3 2


OR-SM-7-663.0 70 58 83 56 3 7 ≥4 95 8 15 15 ≤26 2.9 2.9 1.1 1.0 ≥2 4 3

Reclamation Low sagebrush OR-SM-7-665.17 32 5 16 26 4 5 ≥4 24 5 2.5 2.5 ≤26 4.7 3.1 2.3 2.7 ≥2 5 2


OR-SM-7-666.2 18 12 67 14 6 5 ≥4 9 13 0 5 ≤26 4.3 5.5 1.0 1.1 ≥2 1 2

KFRA Low sagebrush OR-SM-7-671.0 28 9 32 22 3 4 ≥4 28 3 0 5 ≤26 4.3 3.4 1.2 1.5 ≥2 5 3

* No performance criteria calculated for FWNF sites. See Section 3.1 for more information. Noxious weed list is from the Oregon Department of Agriculture (2012a) and invasive list is from Early Detection & Distribution Mapping System (EDDMapS, 2012).

FWNF = Fremont-Winema National Forest, KFRA = Klamath Falls Resource Area, LRA = Lakeview Resource Area, ND = no data collected due to extenuating site circumstances or field team oversight, and Reclamation = U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


3.4 Seedling Monitoring Data were collected for 54 seedling sites (Table 38, Appendix G), as one site near MP 603 was never planted due to landowner issues during the revegetation efforts. This site will be removed from the total list of monitoring sites during Year Two monitoring. Of the 54 sites monitored during the fall monitoring event, three sites were relocated from their original location because the originally proposed monitoring locations were not considered representative. Table 39 provides a list of the sites that were relocated during the Year One fall monitoring event. In general, sites were considered not representative for several reasons:





TABLE 38 Summary of Seedling Site Results by State

State # Seedling Sites Monitored

# Sites Meeting/Exceeding Performance Criteria

% Sites Meeting/Exceeding Performance Criteria

Minimum % Survival

Maximum % Survival

Average % Survival

Wyoming 6 4 67 20 100 53

Utah 7 3 43 0 95 43

Nevada 30 21 70 0 100 56

Oregon 11 9 82 18 100 91

Total 54 37 68 10 99 59

TABLE 39 Seedling Sites Relocated During Year One Fall Monitoring Event

Site ID State Site Type Nearest Original Milepost Nearest Relocated Milepost Distance (meters) Relocated

NV-SL-3-261.3 Nevada Seedling 261 263 3,343

NV-SL-5-513.0 Nevada Seedling 513 511 2,300

OR-SL-7-654.7 Oregon Seedling 654.7 655 330

The performance criterion for all seedlings sites, as stated in the Plan, is 50 percent seedling survival. Thirty-seven sites (68 percent) met this criterion. Most seedlings still had browse tubes staked around them, although these were blown away or trampled at several sites. Seedling survival rates ranged from 0 to 100 percent, and averaged 61 percent across the length of the ROW.

3.4.1 Wyoming Four of the six seedling sites monitored in Wyoming met the criterion, for a success rate of 67 percent (Table 40). Individual site results are found in Table 41.

TABLE 40 Summary of Seedling Site Results in Wyoming

Federal Land Agency

# Seedling Sites

Monitored

# Sites Meeting/Exceeding


% Sites Meeting/Exceeding

Performance Criteria Minimum %

Survival Maximum %

Survival Average %

Survival

KFO 6 4 67 20 100 53

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


TABLE 41 Seedling Site Results in Wyoming

Federal Land

Agency Site ID

Planted Seedlings Present Plant Species # Surviving # Mortalities

Seedling Survival

(%)


(% survival)

Seedling Density

(per acre)

Noxious and Invasive Weed

Cover (%)*

KFO WY-SL-1A-7.0 Yes Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 20 10 67 17

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 20 10 67 17

Artemisia nova 10 3 77 9

Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 5 0 100 4

Total 55 23 71 ≥ 50 48 7.5

KFO WY-SL-1A-18.0 Yes Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 2 0 100 2

Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 2 0 100 2

Total 4 0 100 ≥ 50 3 2.5

KFO WY-SL-1A-31.0 Yes Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 35 30 54 ≥ 50 30 0

KFO WY-SL-1A-33.0 Yes Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 20 60 25 ≥ 50 17 7.5

KFO WY-SL-1A-34.0 Yes Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 25 25 50 ≥ 50 22 5

KFO WY-SL-1A-42.0 Yes Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 18 72 20 ≥ 50 16 87.5

* Noxious weed list is from the Wyoming Weed and Pest Council (2012) and invasive list is from Early Detection & Distribution Mapping System (EDDMapS, 2012).

KFO = Kemmerer Field Office

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


3.4.2 Utah Seedling sites in Utah had the lowest success rate, with three of the seven sites (43 percent) meeting the performance criterion (Table 42). Individual site results are located in Table 43.

TABLE 42 Summary of Seedling Site Results in Utah Federal Land

Agency # Seedling Sites

Monitored # Sites Meeting/Exceeding

Performance Criteria % Sites Meeting/Exceeding


Survival* Maximum % Survival

Average % Survival

SLFO 7 3 43 0 95 43

* For the purpose of this calculation, ND = 0. SLFO = Salt Lake Field Office

TABLE 43 Seedling Site Results for Utah

Federal Land

Agency Site ID

Planted Seedlings Present Plant Species #

Surv

ivin

g

# M

orta

litie

s

Seed

ling

Surv

ival

(%

)

Perf

orm

ance

Cr

iteria

(%

surv

ival

)

Seed

ling

Dens

ity

(per

acr

e)

Nox

ious

and

In

vasiv

e W

eed

Cove

r (%

)*

SLFO UT-SL-1A-49.0 Yes Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 95 5 95 ≥ 50 83 2.5



SLFO UT-SL-1A-60.2 Yes Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 5 95 5 ≥ 50 4 5

SLFO UT-SL-3-185.0 No unidentifiable species 55 0 ≥ 50 0 17.5

SLFO UT-SL-3-196.0 Yes Artemisia arbuscula 93 4 96 81

browse tube/no plant 38 0 0

Total 93 42 69 ≥ 50 81 42.5

SLFO UT-SL-3-229.0 Yes unidentifiable species 37 99 27 32


Total 37 104 26 ≥ 50 32 15

* Noxious weed list is from the Utah Weed Control Association (2012) and invasive list is from Early Detection & Distribution Mapping System (EDDMapS, 2012).

SLFO = Salt Lake Field Office

3.4.3 Nevada Twenty-one of the thirty seedling sites (67 percent) in Nevada met the performance criterion (Table 44). Individual site results are presented in Table 45.

TABLE 44 Summary of Seedling Site Results in Nevada Federal Land

Agency # Seedling Sites

Monitored # Sites Meeting/Exceeding

Performance Criteria % Sites Meeting/Exceeding

Performance Criteria Minimum

% Survival* Maximum % Survival

Average % Survival

EDO 11 7 64 0 100 47

SFO 15 10 67 0 98 60

WDO 4 4 100 75 82 78

Total 30 21 70 25 93 62

* For the purpose of this calculation, ND = 0.

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


TABLE 45 Seedling Site Results for Nevada

Federal Land

Agency Site ID


Seedling Survival

(%)

Performance Criteria (% survival)

Seedling Density

(per acre)


Cover (%)*

EDO NV-SL-3-261.3 Yes Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 40 5 89 35

Purshia tridentata 7 1 88 6

unidentifiable species 0 5 0 0


Total 47 49 49 ≥ 50 41 ND


Cercocarpus ledifolius 14 0 100 12

unidentifiable species 15 0 0


Total 44 103 30 ≥ 50 38 2.5



Total 61 47 56 ≥ 50 53 ND


Artemisia nova 14 0 100 12


Total 30 30 50 ≥ 50 26 0



Total 99 37 73 ≥ 50 86 2.5



Total 99 100 50 ≥ 50 86 17.5

SECTION 3 - RESULTS



Federal Land

Agency Site ID


Seedling Survival

(%)


Seedling Density

(per acre)


Cover (%)*

EDO NV-SL-4-311.0 Yes Artemisia nova 0 5 0 0


Total 0 89 0 ≥ 50 0 5

EDO NV-SL-4-317.0 No No seedlings present 0 0 0 ≥ 50 0 7.5

EDO NV-SL-4-319.0 Yes Artemisia nova 84 28 75 73


Total 84 73 54 ≥ 50 73 0

EDO NV-SL-4-320.5 Yes Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis 52 0 100 ≥ 50 45

SFO NV-SL-4-340.4 Yes Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 38 0 100 33




Total 46 8 85 ≥ 50 40 ND



Total 77 3 96 ≥ 50 67 0



Total 89 22 80 ≥ 50 77 7.5



Total 38 44 46 ≥ 50 33 17.5

EDO NV-SL-4-372.0 Yes Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 80 58 58 ≥ 50 70 0

SECTION 3 - RESULTS



Federal Land

Agency Site ID


Seedling Survival

(%)


Seedling Density

(per acre)


Cover (%)*

WDO NV-SM-5-513.0 Yes Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 88 0 100 77


Total 88 26 77 ≥ 50 77 ND

WDO NV-SL-5-517.0 Yes Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 91 8 92 79

browse tube/no plant 0 18 0 0

Total 91 26 78 ≥ 50 79 2.5

WDO NV-SL-5-528.0 Yes Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 95 3 97 83


Total 95 21 82 ≥ 50 83 2.5

WDO NV-SL-5-530.0 Yes Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 17 2 89 15


Artemisia arbuscula 50 1 98 44


browse tube/no plant 0 25 0 0

Total 91 30 75 ≥ 50 79 2.5

SFO NV-SL-5-532.0 Yes Artemisia arbuscula 58 8 88 50


Total 58 15 79 ≥ 50 50 0



Total 4 124 3 ≥ 50 3 0

SFO NV-SL-5-537.0 Yes Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 4 0 100 3


SECTION 3 - RESULTS



Federal Land

Agency Site ID


Seedling Survival

(%)


Seedling Density

(per acre)


Cover (%)*



Total 80 45 64 ≥ 50 70 0

SFO NV-SL-5-538.0 Yes unidentifiable species 14 67 17 12


Total 14 124 10 ≥ 50 12 0



Total 94 20 82 ≥ 50 82 2.5

SFO NV-SL-5-545.0 Yes unidentifiable species 81 33 71 70


Total 81 91 58 ≥ 50 70 0

SFO NV-SL-5-549.0 Yes Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 13 15 46 ≥ 50 11 0

SFO NV-SL-6-560.0 Yes Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 45 36 56 ≥ 50 39 0

SFO NV-SL-6-563.3 Yes Artemisia arbuscula 99 10 91 ≥ 50 86 0

SFO NV-SL-6-584.0 Yes Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 0 27 0 ≥ 50 0 7.5



Total 42 1 98 ≥ 50 37 2.5

* Noxious weed list is from the Nevada Department of Agriculture (2012a) and invasive list is from Early Detection & Distribution Mapping System (EDDMapS, 2012).

EDO = Elko District Office, SFO = Surprise Field Office, and WDO = Winnemucca District Office

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


3.4.4 Oregon Nine of the 11 seedlings sites (82 percent) monitored in Oregon met the performance criterion (Table 46). Individual site results are located in Table 47.

TABLE 46 Summary Seedling Site Results in Oregon

Federal Land Agency

# Seedling Sites

Monitored

# Sites Meeting/Exceeding


% Sites Meeting/Exceeding


Survival Maximum %

Survival Average %

Survival

FWNF 5 5 100 100 100 100

KFRA 6 4 67 18 100 64

Total 11 9 82 59 100 82

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


TABLE 47 Seedling Site Results for Oregon Federal

Land Agency Site ID


Seedling Survival

(%)


(% survival)

Seedling Density

(per acre)


Cover (%)*

FWNF OR-SL-6-605.5 Yes Pinus ponderosa 81 0 100 ≥ 50 70 2.5

FWNF OR-SL-6-611.5 Yes Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata 2 0 100 ≥ 50 2 2.5

FWNF OR-SL-7-638.0 Yes Pinus ponderosa 82 0 100 ≥ 50 71 0

FWNF OR-SL-7-640.0 Yes Pinus ponderosa 109 0 100 ≥ 50 95 0

KFRA OR-SL-X-643.5 Yes Pinus ponderosa 99 0 100 ≥ 50 86 7.5

KFRA OR-SL-7-652.0 Yes Pinus ponderosa 99 99 50 ≥ 50 86 2.5

KFRA OR-SL-7-654.7 Yes Artemisia arbuscula 57 35 62 50


Total 111 112 50 ≥ 50 97 7.5

FWNF OR-SL-7-660.0 Yes Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 99 0 100 ≥ 50 86

Purshia tridentata 23 0 100 ≥ 50 20

Total 122 0 100 ≥ 50 106 7.5

KFRA OR-SL-7-664.0 Yes Purshia tridentata 44 29 60 38




Total 62 275 18 ≥ 50 54 80

KFRA OR-SL-7-666.3 No Data ND ND ND ≥ 50 ND ND

KFRA OR-SL-7-671.0 Yes Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 99 0 100 86


Total 105 0 100 ≥ 50 91 7.5

* Noxious weed list is from the Nevada Department of Agriculture (2012a) and invasive list is from Early Detection & Distribution Mapping System (EDDMapS, 2012).

FWNF = Fremont-Winema National Forest, KFRA = Klamath Falls Resource Area, and ND = no data collected due to extenuating site circumstances or field team oversight.

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


3.5 Horsebrush Monitoring Nineteen horsebrush planting sites were accessed during the fall monitoring event (Appendix E). Although no specific performance criterion is listed in the Plan for these sites, it is assumed to be 50 percent seedling survival, as with the other seedling sites. However, no evidence of any planting (e.g., browse cages, stakes, or visibly apparent planted seedlings) was found at any of the 19 identified sites.

3.6 Biological Soil Crust Monitoring Four BSC sites were monitored during Year One fall monitoring (Table 48, Appendix E). This includes the one site that was inaccessible during the spring monitoring event. Of the four sites monitored during the fall monitoring event, two sites were relocated from their original location because the originally proposed monitoring locations were not considered representative. Table 49 provides a list of the sites that were relocated during the Year One fall monitoring event. In general, sites were considered not representative for several reasons:





TABLE 48 Year One Fall BSC Monitoring Results

Site ID Plot Type # BSC Points # Bare Points Percent Cover BSC

NV-BSC-3 Monitoring 0 240 0

Control 47 193 24

NV-BSC-5 Monitoring 0 240 0

Control 8 232 3

NV-BSC-5AM Monitoring 0 240 0

Control 25 215 12

UT-BSC-1B Monitoring 0 240 0

Control 33 207 16

TABLE 49 BSC Sites Relocated During Year One Fall Monitoring Event


UT-BSC-1B Utah BSC 159 161 3,473

NV-BSC-3 Nevada BSC 260 263 5,996

The stated performance criterion in the Plan is evidence of cyanobacteria colonies in the inoculated areas. No indication of BSC establishment was found at any of the sites. However, evidence of natural BSC recruitment was observed at several seed mix monitoring sites in Nevada and Utah.

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


3.7 Access Road Monitoring Eighty-eight access roads, 15 Group 1 and 73 Group 2, were monitored during the Year One fall monitoring event (Appendix E). However, additional data along each access road were collected, therefore, 102 data points are shown in Appendix E. Access roads are divided into Group 1 and Group 2 access roads (see Section 2.6). The Plan required collection of vegetation and soils data for Group 1 roads and photo-documentation only for Group 2 roads. Of the 88 sites monitored during the fall monitoring event, one site was relocated from its original location because the originally proposed monitoring locations were not considered representative. Table 50 provides information on the site that was relocated during the Year One fall monitoring event. The site was considered not representative because the original site was located within an area of the access road that was heavily disturbed and not indicative of conditions in the adjacent areas of the access road.

TABLE 50 BSC Sites Relocated During Year One Fall Monitoring Event


W-1B-543 Nevada Access Road --* --* 287

* Access road sites are not associated with a MP as they are not located along the ROW.

A summary of the 15 Group 1 access roads is presented in Table 51. Performance criteria specific to access roads is not provided in the Plan, thus criteria for the Oregon, Wyoming, and Utah seed mix sites were used. Individual site results are listed for Oregon in Table 52. Of the 15 Group 1 access roads, 12 had no vegetation in the road and were still actively used roads. Therefore, these sites received only photo-documentation; vegetation and soils data was not collected. The three sites in Oregon warranted full plot set-up (i.e., they were not regularly used roads, and had vegetation growing in them). Only one of these sites met all the performance criteria. All three were well under the threshold for noxious weed cover. Photographs of Group 2 access roads are located in Appendix I. No infestations above 26 percent relative cover were found.

TABLE 51 Summary of Group 1 Access Road Monitoring Sites

State Total Number

of Sites Total #

Monitored

# Fulfilling Performance Criteria

Total Full Plot Set-up Percent Cover Species Diversity Noxious Weeds All Criteria

Utah 11 11 0 ND ND ND ND

Nevada 1 1 0 ND ND ND ND

Oregon 3 3 3 1 1 3 1

Total 15 15 3 1 1 3 1

ND = no data collected due to extenuating site circumstances or field team oversight.

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


TABLE 52 Access Road Monitoring Results for Oregon

Site ID

Vegetation


Cover (%)

Soils Stability

Percent Cover

Species Diversity (# of Desirable

Species)

Species Density (per m2) Control Plot Monitoring Plot

Cont

rol P

lot

Mon

itorin

g Pl

ot

Curr

ent P

erfo

rman

ce

(Mon

itorin

g/

Cont

rol)

Perf

orm

ance

Crit

eria

Cont

rol P

lot

Mon

itorin

g Pl

ot

Perf

orm

ance

Crit

eria

Cont

rol P

lot

Mon

itorin

g Pl

ot

Cont

rol P

lot

Mon

itorin

g Pl

ot

Perf

orm

ance

Crit

eria

Surf

ace

Sub-

surf

ace

Surf

ace

Sub-

surf

ace

Perf

orm

ance

Crit

eria

CT-B 44 31 70 35 4 4 ≥4 38 38 0 5 ≤26 3.0 3.0 2.7 1.7 ≥2

CT-C 70 0 0 56 3 1 ≥4 15 4 0 0 ≤26 3.7 3.3 2.3 3.0 ≥2

CT-F 0 0 0 0 0 1 ≥4 0 0 0 0 ≤26 6.0 6.0 5.5 5.5 ≥2


3.8 Soil Stability Monitoring Soil samples were tested for stability at 107 seed mix and three Group 1 access road sites (Tables 53 and 62, Appendix E). No soil samples were collected at the remaining eight seed mix sites due to operator error and equipment malfunctions; however, soil samples for these eight sites will be collected and tested during Year Two monitoring. Overall, control plots ranked higher in stability than monitoring plots for both seed mix and access road sites. Field data sheets and complete test results for each site are included in Appendix H.

3.8.1 Seed Mix Sites Soil data were collected at 107 seed mix sites (Table 53). No stability class value was below 1.0. Soil surface values for the monitoring plots ranged up to 3.1, compared to a maximum of 5.2 for the control plots. The greatest subsurface value for the monitoring plots was 4.6, compared to a maximum of 5.5 in the control plots.

TABLE 53 Soil Stability Site Results Summary

State # Sites Monitored # Sites Exceeding Only

Surface Criteria # Sites Exceeding Only

Subsurface Criteria # Sites Exceeding Both

Criteria

Wyoming 11 0 1 1

Utah 19 1 3 1

Nevada 59 3 4 9

Oregon 18 1 3 2

Total 107 5 11 13

3.8.1.1 Wyoming Soil data were collected at 11 seed mix sites in Wyoming (Table 54). Individual site results are located in Table 55. Monitoring and control data were missing from one site, and control data were missing from one other site. One monitoring plot met the performance criterion for both surface and subsurface soils, while another monitoring plot passed the criterion for subsurface soils only. In contrast, four control plots met or exceeded the criteria for

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


surface soils, and three other control plots met or exceeded the criteria for subsurface soils. No control plot exceeded both surface and subsurface criteria.

TABLE 54 Soil Stability Summary for Wyoming

Federal Land Agency # Sites Monitored # Sites Exceeding Only



Criteria

KFO 11 0 1 1

KFO = Kemmerer Field Office

TABLE 55 Soil Stability Site Results for Wyoming

Federal Land Agency Site ID Site Type

Surface Performance

Criteria

Subsurface Performance

Criteria Monitoring Control Monitoring Control

KFO WY-SM-1A-4.5 Seed Mix 1.0 1.4 ≥2 1.0 1.0 ≥2


KFO WY-SM-1A-13.0 Seed Mix 1.2 ND ≥2 1.3 ND ≥2



KFO WY-SM-1A-27.4 Seed Mix ND ND ≥2 ND ND ≥2








3.8.1.2 Utah Soil data were collected for 19 seed mix sites in Utah (Table 56). Individual site results are located in Table 57. One monitoring plot met or exceeded thresholds for surface soils, and four additional monitoring plots surpassed the subsurface criterion. Only one site met or exceeded both soil and subsurface soil criteria. In contrast, eleven control plots met or exceeded both surface and subsurface criteria. Two additional control plots met the surface criterion, and another two control plots exceeded the subsurface criterion.

TABLE 56 Soil Stability Summary for Utah




Criteria

SLFO 18 0 4 1

UWCNF 1 1 0 0

Total 19 1 4 1

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


TABLE 57 Soil Stability Site Results for Utah


Surface Performance

Criteria



SLFO UT-SM-1A-49.0 Seed Mix 1.0 1.0 ≥2 1.0 1.0 ≥2



SLFO UT-SM-2-66.5 Seed Mix 1.8 1.2 ≥2 2.1 1.7 ≥2

UWCNF UT-SM-2A-74.0 Seed Mix 2.0 2.6 ≥2 1.6 2.4 ≥2


SLFO UT-SM-1B-150.3 Seed Mix 1.0 3.4 ≥2 1.0 2.3 ≥2













3.8.1.3 Nevada Soil data were collected for 59 seed mix sites in Nevada (Table 58). Individual site data are presented in Table 59. Four sites had a performance criterion value of 0; thus, these sites were considered as meeting or exceeding thresholds. Five additional monitoring plots met or exceeded both surface and subsurface soil criteria. Three other monitoring plots passed the surface criterion, and four other monitoring plots met the subsurface criterion. In contrast, 14 control plots surpassed performance criteria for both the surface and subsurface. Seven control plots exceeded the surface criterion, and four additional control plots met the subsurface criterion.

TABLE 58 Soil Stability Summary for Nevada




Criteria

EDO 27 2 1 1

WDO 14 1 1 2

SFO 18 0 2 6

Total 59 3 4 9

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


TABLE 59 Soil Stability Results for Nevada


Surface Performance

Criteria



EDO NV-SM-3-236.0 Seed Mix 2.4 3.2 >3 2.1 2.8 >3

EDO NV-SM-3-238.0 Seed Mix 1.8 2.2 >2 1.7 1.7 >2

EDO NV-SM-3-250.0 Seed Mix 1.4 2.3 >2 1.7 2.3 >2

EDO NV-SM-3-254.0 Seed Mix 1.0 1.0 >3 1.0 1.0 >3

EDO NV-SM-3-261.0 Seed Mix 1.0 2.3 >2 1.0 2.6 >2

EDO NV-SM-3-263.0 Seed Mix 1.2 1.9 >1.5 2.2 1.3 >1.5

EDO NV-SM-3-266.0 Seed Mix 2.8 2.7 >1.5 2.0 1.8 >1.5

EDO NV-SM-3-271.0 Seed Mix 2.0 2.9 >2 1.9 2.8 >2

EDO NV-SM-3-275.0 Seed Mix 1.9 2.7 >3 2.3 3.4 >3

EDO NV-SM-3-279.0 Seed Mix 1.8 2.2 >3 1.7 3.4 >3

EDO NV-SM-3-284.0 Seed Mix 1.8 2.1 >3 1.4 1.7 >3

EDO NV-SM-4-301.0 Seed Mix 1.3 1.3 >3 2.0 2.2 >3

EDO NV-SM-4-307.0 Seed Mix 1.8 1.8 >2 1.6 1.3 >2

EDO NV-SM-4-314.0 Seed Mix 2.7 1.5 >2 1.5 2.0 >2

EDO NV-SM-4-317.0 Seed Mix 1.4 1.8 >3 1.6 2.0 >3

EDO NV-SM-4-318.0 Seed Mix 1.7 2.6 >3 1.1 2.1 >3

EDO NV-SM-4-319.0 Seed Mix 1.3 2.7 >3 1.9 2.0 >3

EDO NV-SM-4-323.0 Seed Mix 1.8 2.4 >2 1.3 1.8 >2

EDO NV-SM-4-338.0 Seed Mix 1.0 1.2 >3 1.0 1.3 >3

EDO NV-SM-4-343.0 Seed Mix 1.4 1.8 >4 1.7 2.1 >4

EDO NV-SM-4-355.0 Seed Mix 1.1 2.1 >3 1.1 2.1 >3

EDO NV-SM-5-372.0 Seed Mix 2.0 2.2 >3 1.7 2.3 >3

EDO NV-SM-5-375.0 Seed Mix 1.7 2.0 >3 1.7 2.8 >3

EDO NV-SM-5-377.0 Seed Mix 1.6 1.8 >3 1.7 2.0 >3

EDO NV-SM-5-380.0 Seed Mix 1.6 2.3 >2 1.9 2.2 >2

EDO NV-SM-5-385.0 Seed Mix 2.1 2.7 >2 1.9 2.7 >2

EDO NV-SM-5-390.0 Seed Mix 1.4 2.8 >3 1.8 3.0 >3

EDO NV-SM-5-392.0 Seed Mix ND ND >2 ND ND >2

WDO NV-SM-5-395.0 Seed Mix ND ND >3 ND ND >3



WDO NV-SM-5-410.6 Seed Mix ND ND >1.5 ND ND >1.5

WDO NV-SM-5-445.0 Seed Mix 2.8 4.6 >3 2.7 4.4 >3

SECTION 3 - RESULTS


TABLE 59 Soil Stability Results for Nevada


Surface Performance

Criteria



WDO NV-SM-5-460.0 Seed Mix 2.8 4.7 >1.5 2.9 2.8 >1.5

WDO NV-SM-5-486.0 Seed Mix 1.7 1.1 >3 1.2 1.6 >3

WDO NV-SM-5-487.0 Seed Mix 1.4 1.7 >1.5 1.3 1.9 >1.5

WDO NV-SM-5-488.0 Seed Mix 2.1 2.9 >2 1.8 2.1 >2

WDO NV-SM-5-499.0 Seed Mix 1.9 3.2 >1.5 2.4 2.6 >1.5

WDO NV-SM-5-501.0 Seed Mix 1.4 2.9 >3 1.0 2.2 >3

WDO NV-SM-5-505.0 Seed Mix 1.4 2.0 >3 1.6 2.1 >3

WDO NV-SM-5-507.0 Seed Mix 1.6 2.3 >3 1.8 3.1 >3

WDO NV-SM-5-510.0 Seed Mix 1.7 2.1 >3 2.3 2.0 >3

WDO NV-SM-5-513.0 Seed Mix 1.6 3.0 >4 1.7 2.1 >4

WDO NV-SM-5-524.0 Seed Mix 2.2 2.4 >4 3.6 1.7 >4

WDO NV-SM-5-529.0 Seed Mix 2.1 2.8 >3 4.6 2.0 >3

WDO NV-SM-5-530.0 Seed Mix 1.3 1.8 >4 1.6 2.0 >4

SFO NV-SM-5-532.0 Seed Mix 1.4 1.6 >3 1.4 1.9 >3

SFO NV-SM-5-534.0 Seed Mix 1.4 1.6 >3 1.6 2.3 >3

SFO NV-SM-5-537.0 Seed Mix 1.0 2.2 >2 1.3 1.3 >2

SFO NV-SM-5-540.0 Seed Mix 1.7 1.7 >3 1.1 1.6 >3

SFO NV-SM-5-544.0 Seed Mix 1.1 1.7 >4 1.2 1.6 >4

SFO NV-SM-5-545.0 Seed Mix 1.3 2.0 >2 1.2 2.8 >2

SFO NV-SM-5-547.0 Seed Mix 1.1 2.7 >2 1.1 2.0 >2

SFO NV-SM-5-548.0 Seed Mix 1.2 1.4 0 1.6 1.7 0

SFO NV-SM-6-550.0 Seed Mix 1.7 2.3 0 1.7 2.2 0

SFO NV-SM-6-554.0 Seed Mix 1.0 1.0 0 1.7 1.4 0

SFO NV-SM-6-558.0 Seed Mix 1.9 1.6 0 2.1 2.2 0

SFO NV-SM-6-561.0 Seed Mix 1.4 1.6 >1.5 2.0 1.8 >1.5

SFO NV-SM-6-565.0 Seed Mix 2.0 3.8 >1.5 1.9 2.9 >1.5

SFO NV-SM-6-569.0 Seed Mix 1.9 2.7 >1.5 1.9 2.3 >1.5

SFO NV-SM-6-571.0 Seed Mix ND 3.0 >3 ND 2.6 >3

SFO NV-SM-6-575.0 Seed Mix 1.7 1.9 >4 2.3 2.3 >4

SFO NV-SM-6-576.0 Seed Mix 2.0 1.6 >4 2.1 2.6 >4

SFO NV-SM-6-580.0 Seed Mix 1.9 2.4 >3 3.3 2.3 >3

SFO NV-SM-6-586.0 Seed Mix 2.2 2.8 >3 2.4 2.3 >3


SECTION 3 - RESULTS


3.8.1.4 Oregon Soil data were collected at 18 seed mix sites in Oregon (Table 60). Individual site results are found in Table 61. Two monitoring plots fulfilled both surface and subsurface soil criteria, and three other monitoring plots fulfilled the surface criterion. In contrast, 15 control plots met or exceeded both surface and subsurface criteria. One additional control plot passed surface requirements.

TABLE 60 Soil Stability Summary for Oregon




Criteria

LRA 3 1 1 0

KFRA 7 0 0 0

Reclamation 2 0 1 1

FWNF 6 0 1 1

Total 18 1 3 2

TABLE 61 Soil Stability Results for Oregon


Surface Performance

Criteria



LRA OR-SM-6-592.0 Seed Mix 1.4 2.3 ≥2 1.2 2.2 ≥2

LRA OR-SM-6-594.0 Seed Mix 2.0 ND ≥2 1.6 ND ≥2

LRA OR-SM-6-599.0 Seed Mix 1.8 2.7 ≥2 3.9 3.1 ≥2

FWNF OR-SM-6-606.0 Seed Mix 2.7 3.1 ≥3 3.0 3.2 ≥3





FWNF OR-SM-7-640.0 Seed Mix ND ND ≥3 ND ND ≥3


KFRA OR-SM-7-648.0 Seed Mix 1.4 3.0 ≥3 2.0 3.7 ≥3




Reclamation OR-SM-7-662.33 Seed Mix 1.3 3.6 ≥2 2.3 1.4 ≥2


Reclamation OR-SM-7-665.17 Seed Mix 2.3 4.7 ≥2 2.7 3.1 ≥2




SECTION 3 - RESULTS


3.8.2 Access Roads Complete soil data sets were collected from three of the 15 Group 1 access road sites monitored during Year One fall monitoring (Table 62, Appendix E). These three sites were the only Group 1 access road sites that warranted full plot set-up (i.e., they were not regularly used roads, and had vegetation growing in them). Stability classes for the access road sites were higher than for the seed mix sites, perhaps because the access road soils were not as significantly disturbed as the ROW. Monitoring plot surface values ranged up to 5.5, compared to 6.0 for the control plots. Subsurface values for the monitoring plots ranged between 1.7 and 5.5, compared to a range of 3.0 to 6.0 in the control plots. The Plan does not list performance criteria for access road sites, and an appropriate proxy was unable to be determined. Control plots exceeded monitoring plots in all, except for one instance where control and monitoring subsurface values were the same. However, no monitoring surface or subsurface value was below 1.7, suggesting some degree of stability.

TABLE 62 Soil Stability Test Results for Access Roads

Site ID Site Type

Surface Subsurface

Monitoring Control Performance Criteria Monitoring Control Performance Criteria

CT-B Access Road 2.7 3.0 ND 1.7 3.0 ND

CT-C Access Road 2.3 3.7 ND 3.0 3.3 ND

CT-F Access Road 5.5 6.0 ND 5.5 6.0 ND

ND = no data; performance criteria not provided for access roads


SECTION 4

Discussion The Year One monitoring included collection of data for six different categories of monitoring sites: noxious weed sites, seed mix sites, seedling sites, horsebrush sites, biological soil crust sites, and access road sites. Data collected included cover, diversity, and density of vegetation, soil stability, and level of disturbance at monitoring locations. In general, progress towards meeting performance criteria for these metrics is limited at this point primarily because site recovery and revegetation is in the very early stages. Discussion of findings specific to each of the monitoring site types is presented below.

A variety of factors may have influenced development of the monitoring sites and/or the results presented here. These may include variations in restoration methods and timing of seeding and planting, below normal precipitation, wildfire occurrence, differences in number of noxious and invasive weeds regulated by the different states, and data collection and transmittal discrepancies.

Site restoration, including seeding and seedling planting, was conducted immediately following completion of construction for each pipeline segment. As a result, at least some of the sites were planted outside the optimum planting windows given in the individual state restoration and revegetation plans (Appendix A). Additionally, many of the seed mixes used for the restoration efforts include one or more species that are listed as invasive. These include intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium) and crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), which are listed as invasive for all counties along the pipeline, and common yarrow (Achillea millefolium) which is listed invasive in Oregon. Intermediate wheatgrass was included in three Wyoming seed mixes, 19 Utah seed mixes, and two Nevada seed mixes. Crested wheatgrass was included in five Utah seed mixes and one Nevada seed mix. Yarrow was included in five Oregon seed mixes.

Precipitation for the 2011-2012 water year (September 2011 through August 2012) was below normal throughout the entire pipeline corridor area resulting in considerably drier than normal conditions at monitoring sites. Total precipitation in Wyoming was 8.11 inches, or 63 percent of normal, for the counties (Uinta, Lincoln) in which the pipeline is located. Total precipitation in Utah (Rich, Cache, and Box Elder Counties) was 9.98 inches, or 61 percent of normal. The three counties in Nevada (Elko, Humboldt, and Washoe) averaged 4.85 inches, which is 52 percent of normal for this area. Oregon (Lake and Klamath Counties) had 8.69 inches, which is 59 percent of normal for this area. No supplemental irrigation of these sites was required by the restoration and revegetation plans (Appendix A).

Some of the Oregon sites are located in an area of a recent burn. The Barry Point fire occurred from August into early September 2012 and burned approximately 93,000 acres in southern Oregon and northern California. Approximately 5 miles of the pipeline lay within the burn area. The area burned in a mosaic pattern, typical of large wildfires, which left some vegetation in some areas and completely blackened other areas where it left no living vegetation and a deep ash covering on the ground surface. Potential for weed invasion is increased in these areas due to the resulting lack of vegetation cover. Several sample sites were located along this segment of the pipeline. In general, the pipeline ROW acted as a firebreak and little fire damage was observed within the pipeline ROW itself. On the other hand, for sites in this area that had control plots, these plots no longer provide a valid standard against which to measure monitoring plot performance.

Noxious and invasive weed regulations differ by state with a result that the number of weeds regulated by each state also differs. Wyoming lists the fewest noxious weeds with 25 species, and Oregon the greatest number with 118 species. Utah lists 28 species, and Nevada lists 47 species. Similar differences are seen on the invasive species lists. These differences in numbers of weeds regulated for each state may result in artificially inflating the results for states with larger numbers of regulated weeds in comparison with the other states along the pipeline.

Variations in data collection may have occurred because of individual field team experience, errors in data recording, and/or loss of data due to electronic file transmittal problems. Efforts to minimize these variations included pairing experienced field botanists with less experienced staff in the field, daily review of written field notes, standard protocol for transmitting of electronic files, daily transmittal of electronic data, and extensive review of electronic files following completion of the field effort.

SECTION 4 - DISCUSSION


4.1 Noxious Weed Sites Noxious weed and/or invasive weeds were found at 91 percent of noxious weed or equipment cleaning sites. There were nine sites with no documented weeds. In general, these sites lacked vegetation entirely or had only very minimal cover. Combined noxious and invasive weed cover exceeded the 26 percent criteria required for abatement in 26 percent of these sites. Data collection was standardized for the fall monitoring event and consisted of visual estimation the percent cover (using Daubenmire class) of individual species present in the 100-by-35-meter monitoring plot.

Establishment of perennial cover is essential to achieving noxious and invasive weed abatement. In general, most sites had minimal vegetative cover as observed in the Year One fall monitoring event. Vegetation present consisted of predominantly annual species. Lack of perennial cover may be due at least in part to timing of the revegetation efforts resulting in inconsistent germination at some sites and a below-normal rainfall year, with an extended dry season minimizing potential for germination of planted seeds and/or establishment by recruitment from adjacent areas. Most sites had large areas of bare ground, which encourages the establishment of noxious and invasive weeds. Additionally, noxious and invasive weeds were observed in many of the undisturbed areas adjacent to the monitoring sites, providing a ready seed source for establishment in the pipeline corridor.

Inclusion of species listed as invasive in the applied seed mixes, as described above, also increases potential for weed establishment in the pipeline corridor.

Large weed infestations were observed in some areas. This may due to presence of weeds in this area prior to construction, with weed seed remaining in the soil replaced on the site. In many case the noxious weed was present and sometimes abundant in undisturbed areas adjacent to the pipeline ROW providing a ready seed source. Weed abatement measures will need to be implemented to control the spread of noxious and invasive weeds throughout the pipeline ROW. Control of noxious and invasive weeds can be expected to be an ongoing effort within the monitoring period.

4.2 Seed Mix Sites In general, vegetation establishment at most sample sites was at the very earliest stages of development. Vegetation was generally sparse and many sites had little to no vegetation present. This may be the result of a combination of factors including timing of seeding, below normal precipitation, and competition from noxious and invasive weeds.

Results from the Year One monitoring do not include separate cover data for herbaceous and woody plant species. Cover results are given as total vegetation cover and include all vegetation encountered at sample points along the transect. The performance criteria for seed mix monitoring sites (Walsh Environmental, 2012) requires separate vegetation cover data for herbaceous and for woody plant species.

Application of seed mixes during periods outside of the recommended bloom window may not have allowed some sites sufficient time for germination to occur prior to the onset of the long dry season that is typical of the Intermountain West. Additionally, lower than normal precipitation likely contributed to the minimal or inconsistent germination at some sites. Some seeds may have germinated and developed vegetation, only to die due to extreme dry conditions.

Another potential challenge to seed mix success is presence of noxious and/or invasive weeds. A number of sites had some noxious or invasive weeds present, however weeds exceeded 26 percent cover (the level at which abatement measures are required) at only 45 sites. At this point, presence of noxious and invasive weeds is not a major factor in successful establishment of desirable plant species on these sites because overall vegetative cover is minimal at this point.

Some of the seed mix sites are in the area of the Barry Point fire. The monitoring sites generally did not suffer noticeable damage from the fire as the ROW essentially acted as a firebreak. However, for these sites, areas adjacent to monitoring sites where control plots were established, suffered extensive damage. In some areas, some vegetation is still present, but mostly consists of the unburned crowns of trees and an occasional shrub that



escaped the fire. In other areas, no living vegetation remains at all. The performance criteria for seed mix sites are based on comparison of vegetation success at the monitoring plot to well-established vegetation in a control plot. However, these control plots no longer provide a valid standard against which to measure monitoring plot performance. The extensive size of the burn area does not allow for establishment of control plots in alternative locations for these sites.

Field teams also noted some apparent discrepancies between seed mixes provided in the seed mix lists for each spread along the pipeline ROW and what was observed growing at the sites. For example, for sites along much of the western portion of the Oregon segment of the pipeline, the species Rocky Mountain bee plant was ubiquitous. The species is not native to Oregon and was not observed naturally occurring in any areas outside of the ROW. This species was included in early versions of the seed mix lists, but was removed by agency reviewers for the final planting mixes. Some discrepancies between planting lists and observed species may be a function of less than optimal germination at many sites and may be resolved as vegetation development proceeds.

4.3 Seedling Sites Planted seedling sites exhibited varying degrees of successful plant establishment. At some sites, seedlings were robust and becoming well established. At other sites, seedlings exhibited significant stress and mortalities were high. Some seedling sites are located in the area of the Barry Point fire, however, because the pipeline corridor appeared to act a firebreak, no fire damage to seedlings was observed.

Performance criteria for the seedling sites call for a minimum percent survival of 50 percent of planted species. Because original number of seedlings planted at each site was not available, results for this evaluation were estimated by field teams. The assumed total number of planted seedlings at each of the sites was arrived at by adding total number of live seedlings, total number of dead seedlings where some remnant of the plant remained, and total number of staked Vexar tubes with no plant or plant remnant observed inside. This does not take into account plants which may have been trampled or completely eaten and for which the Vexar tubing was no longer present (rogue, unstaked Vexar tubing was observed in areas outside of the pipeline corridor, presumably windblown). For seedling sites planted to Ponderosa pine where no Vexar tubing was used, the assumed total number of plants live plants plus dead plants where some remnant of the plant remained.

Using this information, survival at the seedling sites is generally high. However, this may overestimate survival rates due to the lack of initial planting amounts. At many of the sites, seedlings appear stressed. This is likely a result of below normal precipitation during the 2011-2012 water year.

4.4 Horsebrush Sites Nineteen horsebrush planting sites were accessed during the fall monitoring event. No evidence of any horsebrush plants were observed at any of the identified horsebrush monitoring sites. It was subsequently determined that none of the horsebrush sites were planted because all planting stock died in the green house prior to the scheduled planting.

4.5 Biological Soil Crust Sites No sign of BSC establishment was observed at any of the BSC monitoring sites. Recovery of BSC is a slow process that can take up to 20 years in places of higher rainfall and up to 250 years in places of lower rainfall, assuming an area is not again disturbed (Belnap, 2001). Recovery rates are dependent on many factors including type, severity, and extent of disturbance; structure of the vascular plant community; condition of adjoining areas; availability of inoculation material; and climate during and after disturbance. Because BSC organisms are only metabolically active when wet, as the amount of precipitation increases, so does the level of BSC development and lichen and moss cover (Rosenstrater et al., 2007).

Establishment of perennial cover and sufficient moisture is essential to achieve BSC recovery. Sites monitored had minimal vegetative cover. Vegetation present consisted predominantly of annual species. Lower than normal precipitation may help explain absence of BSC at this time. Lower than normal rainfall deters BSC establishment and slows or prohibits movement of propagules from adjacent areas.



The Plan states that one of the four BSC plots was inoculated with BSC propagules with the intention of comparing development of BSC at that site with the other three sites to determine effectiveness of inoculation. Field teams observed no noticeable differences in these sites during the Year One monitoring.

As an aside, there were some sites, not identified as BSC monitoring sites, in Utah and Nevada where some moss establishment was found.

4.6 Access Road Sites Access roads are divided into Group 1 and Group 2 access roads. The Plan required collection of vegetation and soils data for Group 1 roads and photo-documentation only for Group 2 roads. Of the 15 Group 1 access roads, 12 roads had no vegetation in the road and were still actively used roads. Therefore, these sites received only photo-documentation; vegetation and soils data was not collected.

The three Group 1 access road sites in Oregon warranted full plot set-up (i.e., they were not regularly used roads, and had vegetation growing in them). Currently one site, Access Road CT-B meets all performance criteria except for the sub-surface solid stability metric. All three sites were well under the threshold for noxious weed cover. Two of the sites appear to be on a trajectory toward successful revegetation. One site, Access Road CT-F does not appear to have been utilized as a road for the pipeline construction activity. Some evidence of a relict access road was found in this area, but it appears to be at least five or more years since the road was actively used as evidenced by the presence of mature shrubs and 5 to 6 foot tall saplings in the roadway. Additionally, this site is entirely within the area of the Barry Point Fire. While some vegetation did survive, much of the area, for both monitoring and control plots, is devoid of all understory vegetation. Trees are extensively burned, and many are not likely to survive.

The two access road sites that have been decommissioned and revegetated that are not in the burn area are in the very earliest stage of vegetation development compared to adjacent areas. Minimal vegetative cover is present, but these sites appear to be on a trajectory for increased vegetative development over time.

4.7 Soil Stability Monitoring Soil stability is a simple measure that can be used to assess a site’s ability to resist erosion. The surface stability measurements are correlated with current erosion resilience, while the subsurface measurements are correlated with the site’s ability to resist erosion after soil disturbance. High soil stability values are highly correlated with soil biotic integrity. This is due to soil organism producing organic compounds, the “glue” that holds soil particles together. The compounds degrade relatively rapidly, so the test values indicate to what degree biotic recovery mechanisms are functioning. Soil stability can be expected to decline in the absence of plant canopy cover or a thriving soil microbial community.

Soil texture is an important factor in how the soil responds to this rapid wetting technique. Therefore, soils with different textures are not readily comparable. Sites close to each other in similar geomorphic locations can be compared with greater confidence than between sites in different geographic areas and landscape positions.

Fire can result in development of hydrophobic soils which may appear stable, but will not facilitate good infiltration or erosion resistance. Some of the Oregon sites are located in an area of a recent burn. The Barry Point fire occurred from August into early September 2012 and burned approximately 93,000 acres in southern Oregon and northern California. Approximately 5 miles of the pipeline lies within the burn area. Readings collected in this area will not be reflective of normal circumstances. High density of fungi in the soil can have the same effect.

Variations in data collection may occur because of individual field team experience, errors in data recording, or loss of data due to electronic file transmittal problems. The test is sensitive to the physical size of the sample and a larger sample may appear to be more “stable.”

For the above reasons, variability may be high in the data, particularly from state to state.



Physical sample size differences between field teams could potentially introduce bias into the data set. One field team consistently using a larger soil sample than another may result in different values, where the observed differences are due to sampling error and not necessarily to different soil characteristics.

Access Road Sites. In general, the access road sites had more stable soil than the seed mix sites. Access roads were not disturbed as deeply as the seed mix sites with less chance for mixing of subsurface and surface soils. There was also less activity on the access roads that would disrupt soil structure. There are no performance criteria for the access road sites; however, most of the monitoring plots had less stable soils than the comparable control plot.

Seed Mix Sites. Stability was greater in the control plots compared to monitoring plots, as would be expected. Very little vegetation that provides the organic compounds to stabilize soil has become established in the pipeline ROW. Control plot soils would contain more organic material both from plant detritus and soil organisms.

Forty-two percent of the control plots exceeded both surface and subsurface performance criteria; where only 8.6 percent of the monitoring plots did so. As would be expected, variability in number of plots exceeding both performance criteria among states was low in the monitoring plots (5 percent in Utah to 12 percent in Oregon), due to a similar degree of disturbance at all locations. In contrast, the control plots varied considerably between states (31 percent in Nevada to 88 percent in Oregon), reflecting the differences in non-disturbed native soil profiles in the different states.


SECTION 5

Conclusions and Recommendations The Year One spring and fall monitoring events for the Project provided the first of two seasons of Year One baseline noxious weed data, along with reconnaissance information regarding the upland vegetation and BSC monitoring sites. The results from the Year One spring monitoring event were very preliminary. The fall monitoring event provides complete baseline data for all monitoring sites. Conditions within the ROW and other designated monitoring areas will continue to evolve over the course of the monitoring.

5.1 Year One Monitoring Conclusions Results from Year One monitoring provide baseline data for the evaluation of revegetation success of future monitoring years.

The long-term goal of the restoration is to establish permanent vegetation cover with similar species densities and compositions of adjacent undisturbed areas. The restoration is intended to accomplish the following:

• Establish perennial plant cover; • Minimize noxious and invasive weed establishment; • Stabilize the soil surface; and • Restore wildlife habitat.

The purposes of the monitoring activities are to evaluate long-term soil stability; vegetation composition and cover; and occurrence of noxious and invasive weeds. This monitoring report presents the results of the Year One fall monitoring event and documents progress toward these objectives.

In general, the fall monitoring found the monitored sites to be in the very earliest stages of development, but data indicates the monitored sites are generally on a trajectory to meet performance criteria. Site recovery and revegetation can be anticipated to be an ongoing process that will continue over many years.

Noxious and/or invasive weeds are present at most sites. Cover of noxious and/or invasive weeds exceeding the 26 percent criteria at which abatement is required was noted at 26 percent of the noxious weed monitoring sites. Cover of noxious and/or invasive weeds exceeded 26 percent at 8 percent of the seed mix monitoring sites. Control of noxious and invasive weeds is anticipated to be an ongoing process throughout the vegetation establishment period. Presence of large areas of essentially bare ground throughout much of the pipeline disturbance corridor is likely to continue to support establishment of these species. Continued monitoring will help determine the efficacy of the weed abatement treatments and note any new infestations for future abatement

Vegetation cover at most sites was minimal and extensive areas of bare ground were observed throughout the monitoring area. Germination of seed mixes may have been hindered by timing of seeding and/or considerably drier than normal weather conditions. It can be anticipated that additional germination will occur through the second growing year and that vegetation cover will increase as time goes on. It is too early to determine if any trends in vegetation establishment are occurring. As vegetation continues to become established within the pipeline ROW, noticeable patterns of vegetation success or failure should become more readily apparent. Although vegetation development is expected to meet performance criteria over the life of the monitoring period, it may take several more years for the ROW to return to pre-disturbance conditions. Vegetation establishment in arid regions is generally slow and many years may be required for the vegetation communities to fully recover in the arid environment of the pipeline.

Success of seedling sites varies throughout the pipeline ROW, from sites where plants are robust and exhibiting significant new growth, to sites where observed plants are stressed and showing little, if any new growth and where mortality was high. This is possibly due to timing and methods of installation, lower than normal precipitation, and impracticality of dry season irrigation

SECTION 5 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


All horsebrush sites were visited during the fall monitoring. No horsebrush plants were found. It was later determined that none were planted due to mortality of all plant in the greenhouse.

No BSC was observed at any of the four BSC sites. BSC typically takes a long time to become established. It is anticipated that some BSC will establish on these site by the end of the 5-year monitoring period.

Access road sites were divided into Group 1 and 2 roads. Photographic documentation only was conducted at Group 2 roads. Data was collected at Group 1 roads, which were defined as roads to be decommissioned and revegetated and where the roads were no longer in active use. However, most of the Group 1 access road sites, were found to be still in active use as roads and showed no evidence of revegetation.

It is too early to determine if any trends in soil stability recovery are occurring. As vegetation and soil organisms continue to colonize the pipeline ROW, soil stability should improve. Soil structure will start to consolidate over time as well. Although soil stability is expected to meet performance criteria over the life of the monitoring period, it may take many more years for it to return to pre-disturbance levels. Soil development processes are slow and many years will be required for the soil to fully recover in the arid environment of the pipeline.

5.2 Year One Recommendations 5.2.1 Site Maintenance Management of noxious weeds is regulated according weed policy established by individual states:

• Wyoming Weed Management Strategic Plan (Wyoming State Weed Team, 2003) • The Utah Strategic Plan for Managing Noxious and Invasive Weeds (Utah Weed Control Association, 2004) • “Integrated Weed Management” (Nevada Department of Agriculture, 2012c) • “Oregon Noxious Weed Strategic Plan” (Oregon Department of Agriculture, 2012b)

Weeds listed as invasive are not regulated, but implementation of control measures is encouraged. Required weed abatement measures for this project are provided in the Plan.

It is recommended that noxious and invasive weed abatement measures be implement for sites exceeding 26 percent cover of noxious and invasive weeds. Treatment of noxious and invasive weeds will be conducted according to methods discussed in Appendix H of the Plan.

Table 63 presents the list of noxious weed and weed cleaning sites exceeding 26 percent cover of noxious or invasive weeds. In order to expedite the eradication of weeds of greatest concern first, treatment of the sites is prioritized with one being the highest priority and four the lowest. Priorities were arrived at as follows:

• Priority 1: Cover of noxious weeds exceeds 26 percent (13 sites).

• Priority 2: Noxious plus invasive weed cover exceeds 26 percent; noxious weeds less than 26 percent (14 sites).

• Priority 3: Invasive weed cover exceeds 26 percent; no noxious weeds present (three sites).

• Priority 4: Invasive weed cover exceeds 26 percent; no noxious weeds present; cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) is the dominant invasive weed (three sites).

The assumption in devising this rating scale is that sites with high noxious weed infestations should be the highest priority site for weed abatement measures in order to meet the stricter state regulatory requirement for noxious weed species. Sites with weed populations consisting predominantly or entirely of invasive weeds would follow. Sites with weed populations consisting predominantly or entirely of invasive weed with the dominant weed being cheatgrass would be the lowest priority because of the ubiquitous presence of cheatgrass and difficulty of control. According the Noxious Weed Control Plan, weed abatement measures would not be implemented for cheatgrass.

It is too early to make maintenance recommendations for establishment of vegetation cover at the monitoring sites. Where initial restoration and plant establishment efforts fail to make progress towards meeting revegetation standards after the third year, reseeding may be necessary on some ROW segments as determined by FERC and the appropriate land management agencies.



TABLE 63 Noxious Weed and Weed Cleaning Sites Exceeding 26 Percent Cover During Year One Monitoring

Treatment Priority MP

Federal Land

Agency State County Corrected ID Overall Pl Noxious Weed Noxious

Cover

Total Noxious Weed Cover Invasive Weed

Invasive Cover

Total Invasive

Weed Cover

Total Noxious

and Invasive

Weed Cover

1 648.16 FWNF Oregon Lake NW-156-017 4 - 51-75% Cirsium vulgare 62.5 Salsola kali 2.5


15 Tragopogon dubius

2.5

Carduus nutans 15

92.5 5 97.5

1 664 KFRA Oregon Klamath CS-OR-14B 5 - 76-95% Taeniatherum caput-medusae

85 Elymus repens 37.5

85 37.5 122.5

1 619.46 LRA Oregon Lake NW-152-020 5 - 76-95% Conium maculatum 62.5 Sisymbrium altissimum

37.5

Thlaspi arvense 37.5

62.5 75 137.5

1 661.96 KFRA Oregon Klamath NW-332-059 3 - 26-50% Taeniatherum caput-medusae

62.5

62.5 0 62.5

1 619.05 LRA Oregon Lake NW-152-002 5 - 76-95% Taeniatherum caput-medusae

15 Bromus tectorum

15

Cirsium vulgare 15

Xanthium spinosum

15

45 15 60





Federal Land


Cover


Invasive Cover

Total Invasive

Weed Cover

Total Noxious

and Invasive

Weed Cover

1 619.45 LRA Oregon Lake NW-152-023 5 - 76-95% Cirsium arvense 37.5 Lactuca serriola 15

Conium maculatum 2.5 Bromus tectorum

2.5

40 17.5 57.5

1 615.01 LRA Oregon Lake NW-155-003 4 - 51-75% Cirsium arvense 37.5 Achillea millefolium

2.5

Cirsium vulgare 2.5 Lactuca serriola 2.5

Verbascum thapsus

2.5

40 7.5 47.5


37.5 Poa bulbosa 2.5

37.5 2.5 40


37.5

37.5 0 37.5


37.5 Lactuca serriola 2.5

Bromus tectorum

37.5

Elymus repens 2.5

37.5 42.5 80





Federal Land


Cover


Invasive Cover

Total Invasive

Weed Cover

Total Noxious

and Invasive

Weed Cover

1 621.19 LRA Oregon Lake NW-416-003 4 - 51-75% Onopordum acanthium

37.5 Bromus tectorum

15

Sisymbrium altissimum

15

37.5 30 67.5

1 619.5 LRA Oregon Lake NW-361-006 4 - 51-75% Cirsium vulgare 2.5

Cirsium arvense 15


2.5

Convolvulus arvensis

15

35 0 35

1 614.02 LRA Oregon Lake NW-173-020 4 - 51-75% Cirsium arvense 15 Bromus tectorum

37.5

Cirsium vulgare 2.5

Convolvulus arvensis

15

32.5 37.5 70

2 614.59 LRA Oregon Lake NW-333-002 5 - 76-95% Cirsium arvense 15 Bromus tectorum

62.5

Conium maculatum 2.5 Lactuca serriola 15

Melilotus officinalis

15

17.5 92.5 110





Federal Land


Cover


Invasive Cover

Total Invasive

Weed Cover

Total Noxious

and Invasive

Weed Cover


15 Lactuca serriola 15

Carduus nutans 2.5 Bromus tectorum

62.5

Tragopogon dubius

2.5

17.5 80 97.5


15 Bromus tectorum

62.5

Cirsium vulgare 2.5 Achillea millefolium

2.5

17.5 65 82.5

2 614.78 LRA Oregon Lake NW-184-017 4 - 51-75% Cirsium arvense 2.5 Bromus tectorum

2.5

Cirsium vulgare 2.5 Malva neglecta 2.5

Thlaspi arvense 2.5

5 52.5 57.5


15 Bromus tectorum

37.5


2.5


15 42.5 57.5





Federal Land


Cover


Invasive Cover

Total Invasive

Weed Cover

Total Noxious

and Invasive

Weed Cover


15 Bromus tectorum

15


2.5

Lactuca serriola 15

Tragopogon dubius

2.5

15 35 50

2 662.25 KFRA Oregon Klamath NW-332-110 3 - 26-50% Cirsium vulgare 2.5 Bromus tectorum

37.5



2.5

Tragopogon dubius

2.5

2.5 45 47.5

2 48 KFO Utah Rich CS-UT-1 3 - 26-50% Hyoscyamus niger 2.5 Salsola tragus 37.5

Lepidium perfoliatum

2.5

2.5 40 42.5


15 Poa bulbosa 2.5

Cirsium vulgare 2.5 Bromus tectorum

15





Federal Land


Cover


Invasive Cover

Total Invasive

Weed Cover

Total Noxious

and Invasive

Weed Cover


2.5


17.5 22.5 40


15 Poa bulbosa 2.5

Bromus tectorum

15



2.5

15 22.5 37.5

2 662.55 KFRA Oregon Klamath NW-332-103 3 - 26-50% Cirsium vulgare 2.5 Achillea millefolium

2.5


15 Bromus tectorum

15


17.5 20 37.5


15 Bromus tectorum

15


2.5

15 17.5 32.5





Federal Land


Cover


Invasive Cover

Total Invasive

Weed Cover

Total Noxious

and Invasive

Weed Cover


15 Bromus tectorum

15

15 15 30

2 618.49 LRA Oregon Lake NW-152-004 4 - 51-75% Onopordum acanthium

2.5 Salsola tragus 15

Cirsium vulgare 2.5

Cirsium arvense 2.5

Salvia aethiopis 2.5

Xanthium spinosum

2.5

12.5 15 27.5

3 675.29 KFRA Oregon Klamath NW-332-158 5 - 76-95% Achillea millefolium

15

Bromus tectorum

15

Salsola kali 15

Elymus repens 37.5


0 85 85

3 382.71 EDO Nevada Elko NW-378-002 3 - 26-50% Salsola tragus 15

Sonchus arvensis

15





Federal Land


Cover


Invasive Cover

Total Invasive

Weed Cover

Total Noxious

and Invasive

Weed Cover

Agropyron cristatum

2.5

0 32.5 32.5

3 - Sheldon NWR

Nevada Sheldon NW-627-029 Bromus tectorum

15

Salsola kali 15

0 30 30

3 284 EDO Nevada Elko NV-SM-3-284.0

Bromus tectorum

2.5

Salsola kali 37.5

0 40 40


Salsola tragus 62.5

Bromus tectorum

15

Sonchus sp. 2.5

0 80 80


Salsola tragus 2.5

Halogeton glomeratus

62.5

0 65 65





Federal Land


Cover


Invasive Cover

Total Invasive

Weed Cover

Total Noxious

and Invasive

Weed Cover



15

Salsola tragus 15

0 30 30

3 486 WDO Nevada Humboldt NV-SM-5-486.0

Salsola kali 62.5

0 62.5 62.5

3 487 WDO Nevada Humboldt NV-SM-5-487.0

Salsola kali 62.5

Bromus tectorum

15

0 77.5 77.5

3 196 SLFO Utah Box Elder UT-SL-3-196.0


32.5


2.5

Salsola tragus 2.5

0 37.5 37.5

3 42 KFO Wyoming Uinta WY-SL-1A-42.0

Bromus tectorum

2.5

Descurainia sophia

2.5


2.5





Federal Land


Cover


Invasive Cover

Total Invasive

Weed Cover

Total Noxious

and Invasive

Weed Cover


62.5


15

Salsola tragus 2.5

0 87.5 0

4 662 KFRA Oregon Klamath CS-OR-14 4 - 51-75% none Bromus tectorum

62.5

Lactuca serriola 15


2.5

Poa bulbosa 15

Tragopogon dubius

2.5

0 97.5 97.5

4 673.84 KFRA Oregon Klamath NW-156-009 3 - 26-50% Bromus tectorum

37.5

Agropyron cristatum

2.5

0 40 40

4 675.29 KFRA Oregon Klamath NW-332-159 5 - 76-95% Bromus tectorum

37.5

0 37.5 37.5





Federal Land


Cover


Invasive Cover

Total Invasive

Weed Cover

Total Noxious

and Invasive

Weed Cover


Bromus tectorum

62.5


2.5

0 65 65


Bromus tectorum

15

Salsola tragus 15


2.5

0 32.5 32.5

4 395 WDO Nevada Elko NV-SM-5-395.0

Bromus tectorum

37.5

Salsola tragus 37.5


2.5

Descurainia sophia

2.5

0 80 80





Federal Land


Cover


Invasive Cover

Total Invasive

Weed Cover

Total Noxious

and Invasive

Weed Cover

4 664 KFRA Oregon Klamath OR-SL-7-664.0

Bromus tectorum

62.5


2.5

Lactuca serriola 15

0 80 80

The Priorities are defined as follows:

Priority 1: Cover of noxious weeds exceeds 26 percent (13 sites).

Priority 2: Noxious plus invasive weed cover exceeds 26 percent; noxious weeds less than 26 percent (14 sites).

Priority 3: Invasive weed cover exceeds 26 percent; no noxious weeds present (three sites).

Priority 4: Invasive weed cover exceeds 26 percent; no noxious weeds present; cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) is the dominant invasive weed (three sites).



5.2.2 Future Monitoring Efforts Additional recommendations for the monitoring efforts include clarification of and potential revisions to the monitoring protocols. Several inconsistencies were noted in the Plan and between the Plan and the individual state plans. Performance criteria in individual state plans include a measure of plant density, which is not included in the Plan. Standard operating procedures provided at the end of the Plan do not include complete collection of data as required in the Plan to determine whether sites are meeting performance criteria. They also include collection of data that is not used to show progress toward meeting performance requirements. Several data collection requirements and performance criteria metrics need clarification. For example, data is required for number of plants per meter for seed mix sites. We have assumed this is per square meter because the line-point intercept data did not include number of individual plants. The standard operating procedure for seed mix sites does not differentiate between collection of herbaceous and woody vegetation, but the performance criteria ask for this differentiation. The Nevada performance requirements include criteria for crown cover and canopy cover. In our experience, these terms are synonymous, so clarification is need on what these criteria are intended to measure. Additionally, performance criteria are not given for some required metrics, such as plant density measures at seed mix sites. We recommend aligning future monitoring protocol to match performance criteria as stated in text of Plan.

In addition, finally, several of the approved seed mixes for revegetation include plant species that are listed as invasive for the area in which the seed mix was applied. For areas where invasive weeds were included in the seed mix applied to that area, we propose considering those species to be desirable species and not to be included in calculations of total weed cover at the monitoring sites in these areas.

Overall, the ROW is moving in the upward trajectory envisioned by the project proponents and public agencies. Some parameters are proceeding slowly (e.g., BSC development) and others are doing as expected (e.g., soil stability). Continued monitoring and implementation of adaptive management as required will ensure that recovery of the pipeline ROW is successful.


SECTION 6

References Belnap, J. 1994. Potential role of cryptobiotic soil crust in semiarid rangelands. In: Monsen, S.B., and S.G. Kitchen,

eds. Proceedings—Ecology and Management of Annual Rangelands. General Technical Report INT-GTR-313. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. Pages 179-185.

Belnap, Jayne. 2012. Biological Soil Crusts: Webs of Life in the Desert. USGS Fact Sheet FS-065-1.United State Department of the Interior US Geological Survey. http://fresc.usgs.gov/products/fs/fs-065-01.pdf. Accessed on December 20, 2012.

Belnap, J., R. Rosentreter, S. Leonard, J.H. Kaltenecker, J. Williams, D. Eldridge. 2001. Biological soil crusts: Ecology and management. Technical Reference 1730-2. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO.

Bonham, C.D. 1989. Measurements for Terrestrial Vegetation. Wiley, New York.

Daubenmire, R. F. 1959. A canopy-coverage method. Northwest Science 33: 43-64.

Early Detection & Distribution Mapping System (EDDMapS). 2012. Early Detection & Distribution Mapping System. The University of Georgia - Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health. http://www.eddmaps.org/. Accessed on November 20, 2012.

Executive Order 13122. 3 CFR (1999 comp.). Invasive Species.

Herrick, J.E., J.W. Van Zee, K.M. Havstad, L.M. Burkett, and W.G. Whitford. 2009. Monitoring manual for grassland, shrubland and savanna ecosystems. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Jornada Ex¬perimental Range, Las Cruces, NM.

Nevada Department of Agriculture. 2012a. “Nevada Noxious Weed List.” http://agri.nv.gov/Plant/Noxious_Weeds/Noxious_Weed_List/. Accessed on December 12, 2012.

Nevada Department of Agriculture. 2012b. “Noxious Weed Categories.” http://agri.nv.gov/Plant/Noxious_Weeds/Noxious_Weeds_Categories/. Accessed on December 12, 2012.

Nevada Department of Agriculture. 2012c. “Integrated Weed Management.” http://agri.nv.gov/Plant/Noxious_Weeds/Control_IWM/. Accessed on December 20, 2012.

Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA). 2012a. Noxious Weed Policy and Classification System 2012. ODA Noxious Weed Control Program. http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/WEEDS/docs/weed_policy.pdf. Accessed on December 12, 2012.

Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA). 2012b. “Oregon Noxious Weed Strategic Plan.” http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/WEEDS/pages/strategic_plan_contents.aspx#Purpose. Accessed on December 20, 2012.

Sheley, R., J. Petroof, and M. Borman. 1999. Introduction to biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Pp 1-3 in R. Sheley and J.Petroff (Eds.) Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Oregon State University Press.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2012. Introduced, invasive, and noxious plants. Searchable database. http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxiousDriver. Accessed on October 10, 2012.

Utah Weed Control Association. 2004. The Utah Strategic Plan for Managing Noxious and Invasive Weeds. http://www.utahweed.org/PDF/strategic_plan.pdf. February 2004.

Utah Weed Control Association. 2012. “Utah’s Noxious Weed List.” http://www.utahweed.org/weeds.htm. Accessed on December 12, 2012.

Walsh Environmental. 2012. Long-term Monitoring Plan. Ruby Pipeline LLC. June.

SECTION 6 - REFERENCES


Wyoming State Weed Team. 2003. Wyoming Weed Management Strategic Plan. http://www.wyoweed.org/Documents/DocumentPage/WyomingStateWeedPlan.pdf. June 2003.

Wyoming Weed and Pest Council. 2012. “Wyoming Weed & Pest Control Act Designated List.” http://www.wyoweed.org/statelist.html. Accessed on December 12, 2012.