Appendix a – Silviculture Report

Appendix A – Silviculture Report Bybee Vegetation Management Project High Cascades Ranger District, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest /s/ Jason Herron Date: May 5, 2011 Jason Herron, Silviculturist A-1 Bybee Vegetation Management Project I. Background The High Cascades Ranger District of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest considered the current needs of various watersheds for vegetation management, restoration and road management, and implementation of land management direction. The Bybee project planning area is located within the Upper Rogue River Watershed between Crater Lake National Park on the east, Highway 230 on the west, Highway 62 on the south, and Forest road (FR) 6535-900 on the north. Within the project planning area, vegetative conditions of all stands were evaluated to identify “candidate stands,” stands that could benefit from needed and appropriate silvicultural treatments. The Bybee project planning area was chosen for treatment because there is a need to treat diseased conditions and thin stands to provide for fire, insect, and disease resistance and release for increased tree growth. Additionally, much of the Bybee project planning area is allocated to the Matrix land allocation— which specifically calls for programmed timber harvest for both forest health and timber production. The area also includes the Foreground Retention and Big-Game Winter Range management areas, which allow for management activities that maintain or promote the scenic and big game values of the area. II. Introduction A. Bybee Project Planning Area The project planning area for the Bybee Vegetation Management Project is approximately 16,215 acres and is located on federally managed lands within the Upper Rogue River Watershed. Figure A-1 shows the Bybee project planning area. The legal description of the Bybee project planning area: sections 13 and 24-26, Township 30 South, Range 3 East; sections 6-30 and 33-36, Township 30 South, Range 4 East; sections 7 and 18, Township 30 South, Range 5 East; and sections 1 and 2, Township 31 South, Range 4 East, of the Willamette Meridian. The area is essentially a gently sloping plain with some deeply incised pumice canyons from the eruption of Mount Mazama covered by a fir-dominated mixed conifer forest in an assorted mix of patch sizes and stand conditions created by clearcutting, shelterwood cutting, and selective cutting over the past 50+ years. There are few natural openings or early seral forest conditions. A-2 Appendix A Figure A-1. Bybee project planning area B. Proposed Action and Alternatives The only candidate stands considered for treatment are those in need of some form of silvicultural intervention to support continued development into healthy, biologically diverse, and fire resilient forest and to meet Northwest Forest Plan objectives. These were further assessed concerning whether they could be treated in compliance with the Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Standards and Guidelines, as amended. If so, they were carried forward into the first draft of the proposed action and named the “Bybee Vegetation Management Project.” These vegetation treatments were then assessed and modified to minimize adverse resource impacts as much as possible, creating the final version of the proposed action. For example, all stands that met the Forest’s definition of high quality northern spotted owl habitat (261 acres), designated owl 100 acre core areas, and areas within the 300-meter protection buffers around current northern spotted owl nest sites were removed from consideration to minimize adverse effects to the local population of the northern spotted owl. Fully functional, disturbance-resilient, late seral or younger stands within the project planning area that are not in need of treatment for disease, fuels reduction, or growth would not be treated. A-3 Bybee Vegetation Management Project 1. Alternative 1 (No-Action) Alternative 1 identifies and describes the current conditions of the physical, biological, social, and economic environments within the Bybee project planning area. The term “no-action” means no change to present conditions; the current set of previously authorized restoration and management activities would continue, with none of the proposed activities under the action alternatives occurring. Under this scenario, no project activities would take place, and the resulting environmental effects of no-action would be compared to the environmental effects of permitting the proposed action, or another alternative to go forward. Alternative 1 is not designed to address the stated purpose and need. 2. Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) This alternative would treat approximately 3,622 acres with a variety of silvicultural treatments. The proposed treatments include a combination of silvicultural methods within individual units to account for variations in stand conditions and to meet multiple objectives. The total of these treatments would yield an estimated 45 million board feet (MMBF)1 of commercial volume that would be offered in multiple timber sales over a period of several years. The silvicultural treatments proposed under this alternative include: Free thinning (2,881 acres) – The removal of trees to control stand density and favor desired tree species, using a combination of thinning criteria without regard to crown position. Overstory removal (438 acres) – Trees constituting an upper canopy layer are cut to release trees or other vegetation in an understory. Shelterwood with reserves (106 acres) – A two-aged regeneration method where during harvest shelter trees are retained after regeneration has become established. Group selection (106 acres) – An uneven aged regeneration method to establish and maintain multiaged structure by removing trees in small groups. Group selection and free thinning (91 acres) – A combination of the group selection and free thinning treatments described above. Riparian Reserves would be treated following the project design criteria (PDCs) designed to achieve Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives. Overly dense, at-risk young forest (up to 80 years old) within Riparian Reserves would be thinned and/or underburned to increase their resistance to loss from stand replacing wildfire and to improve conditions for more rapid development of larger trees and forest. Root-rot pockets may be treated where the disease threatens long-term attainment of ACS objectives. A combination of logging systems would be utilized to harvest the trees: tractor, or other ground- based systems, would be used on approximately 3,381 acres, or 93 percent of the treated area. Skyline systems would be used on approximately 207 acres, or 6 percent of the treated area. In addition, one 34-acre unit, or 1 percent of the treated area, would be harvested using a helicopter. Alternative 2 would also enact the following vegetation management actions: 467 acres of natural fuels treatment units; construction of 12.9 miles of temporary roads (in 28 segments), 8.8 miles of which is located on an existing road template; decommissioning of 5.4 miles of existing system roads (in 21 segments); and implementation of several other post-harvest treatments. 1 MMBF – This is a measure of how many 1000’s board feet would be harvested from the Bybee project planning area under each alternative. For example 45,000 board feet per acre is described as 45 MMBF. A-4 Appendix A 3. Alternative 3 Alternative 3 would treat approximately 2,990 acres with a variety of commercial and non- commercial silvicultural treatments. The proposed treatments include a combination of silvicultural methods within individual units to account for variations in stand conditions and to meet multiple objectives. The total of these treatments would yield an estimated 34 MMBF of commercial volume that would be offered in multiple timber sales over a period of several years. The silvicultural treatments proposed under this alternative include: Free thinning (1,928 acres) – The removal of trees to control stand density and favor desired tree species, using a combination of thinning criteria without regard to crown position. Free thinning (retain patches for hiding cover) (500 acres) – Similar to the free thinning treatment above, except modified to maintain hiding cover patches, dense areas of second growth. Mechanical girdling and precommercial thinning (365 acres) – Mechanical girdling (or band girdling) is where a broad band of bark is removed all around a living bole, with some sapwood or without, so as to kill, or at least, weaken the tree. Precommercial thinning is the removal of trees to reduce stocking (tree density) to concentrate growth on the more desirable trees. Group selection (106 acres) – An uneven aged regeneration method to establish and maintain multiaged structure by removing trees in small groups. Group selection and free thinning (91 acres) – A combination of the group selection and free thinning treatments described above. Riparian Reserves would be treated following the PDCs designed to achieve ACS objectives as described above for alternative 2. A combination of logging systems would be utilized to harvest the trees; tractor, or other ground- based systems, would be used on approximately 2,501 acres, or 95 percent of the commercially treated area. Skyline systems would be utilized on an additional 124 acres, or 5 percent of the treated area, under this alternative. Alternative 3 would also enact the following vegetation management actions: 467 acres

Load more