DOCSLIB.ORG

Silviculture Specialist Report Forsythe II Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Silviculture Specialist Report Forsythe II Project Silviculture Specialist Report Forsythe II Project Arapaho – Roosevelt National Forests Boulder Ranger District Boulder, Colorado November 14. 2016 Prepared By: Kevin Zimlinghaus R2 Certified Silviculturist Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Silvicultural Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 3 Regulatory Framework .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Need for Action ......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 Project Objectives ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 Silviculture Issues ................................................................................................................................................... 15 Analysis Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 17 Background ............................................................................................................................................................. 17 Data Collection ........................................................................................................................................................ 17 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................................................. 18 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Forest Plan ............................................................................................................................................................... 18 Background ............................................................................................................................................................. 21 Wildland Urban Interface ........................................................................................................................................ 23 Stand History ........................................................................................................................................................... 24 Existing Condition/Description of Vegetation Resource ........................................................................................ 25 Desired Condition ................................................................................................................................................... 33 Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................................................................... 39 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................................................. 40 No Action Alternative - Direct and Indirect Effects ........................................................................................... 41 Alternative 1 - Proposed Action .............................................................................................................................. 42 Alternative 2 ............................................................................................................................................................ 44 Alternative 3 ............................................................................................................................................................ 46 Alternative 4 ............................................................................................................................................................ 47 Activities Common to All Action Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 49 Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Action Alternatives ........................................................................ 52 Cumulative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives ................................................................................... 61 Monitoring ................................................................................................................................................................... 64 Summary...................................................................................................................................................................... 65 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................................................ 67 Appendix A Glossary (Terms, Abbreviations, and Acronyms) ................................................................................... 76 Appendix B Treatment Descriptions ........................................................................................................................... 82 Appendix C – Forest Pests and Diseases of Concern .................................................................................................. 90 Appendix D – Forest Plan Direction............................................................................................................................ 93 Page | 2 Introduction This report summarizes the potential effects on forest vegetation resources from silvicultural activities proposed for the Forsythe II Project on the Boulder Ranger District of the Arapaho/Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland. This assessment addresses how the different alternatives impact the forest vegetation within the project area proposed by the Forsythe II Environmental Analysis (EA) document. The report also addresses the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives as presented in this report. This specialist report is being prepared for the Forsythe II EA. Silvicultural Overview The Forsythe II Project proposes to restore a healthy, diverse, and fire resilient forest structure. Stand densities and fuel loadings would be reduced in a variety of vegetation types. The project seeks to increase vertical and horizontal diversity across the landscape by implementing prescriptions that are consistent with applicable management direction and consider important variables such as topography and site productivity. Restoration and fuels reduction goals can provide for the needs of wildlife and the ecosystems they depend on, and still be carried out with consideration to societal values and concerns in an urban forest. The project implementation would result in a forest ecosystem that is moving toward historic conditions and would be adaptable to seeable changes based on current and forecasted trends. The project area would be more resilient to disturbances and forest cover would be maintained over time. On a landscape scale, the forest that exists today would remain in the future. The Forsythe II landscape supports a diversity of ecosystems and vegetation types consistent with the Montane Zone and lower Subalpine Zone of the northern Front Range. The interdisciplinary team identified five primary cover types (ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, aspen, and meadows and shrublands) to use in analyzing the effects of the alternatives for the project. Dominant conifer species throughout the landscape are ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and limber pine with Engelmann spruce and Rocky Mountain juniper. Aspen is also common in much of the landscape, particularly in both the dry and mesic mixed-conifer forests. Each primary cover type would have appropriate prescriptions applied in order to meet the purpose of the project. Ponderosa pine dominated stands are found across the landscape with a mosaic of vertical and horizontal stand structures. The project would enhance these existing ponderosa pine forest stands by leaving ponderosa pine and creating openings of various sizes on south and east aspects, which are more resilient to wildland fire events and drought. Sustainable patches of Douglas-fir and other conifer species would continue to be represented on north and west aspects. Douglas-fir dominated stands are usually due to higher soil moisture on cooler more shaded northerly aspects. The project would maintain the integrity of these stands but at reduced densities because of the proximity to private residences within the wildland urban interface (WUI). Lodgepole pine is another major vegetation component within the Forsythe II project. Lodgepole pine stands are still within the historical fire regime. These stands have closed canopies, long fire return intervals (100+ years), and experience stand replacing fires that burn with high intensity and severity. Because these stands are homogenous in nature, they become susceptible to widespread
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Silvicultural Options for Young-Growth Douglas-Fir Forests: the Capitol Forest Study—Establishment and First Results Robert O
    United States Department of Silvicultural Options for Young- Agriculture Forest Service Growth Douglas-Fir Forests: Pacific Northwest Research Station The Capitol Forest Study— General Technical Report Establishment and First Results PNW-GTR-598 April 2004 Editors Robert O. Curtis, emeritus scientist, David D. Marshall, research forester, and Dean S. DeBell, (retired), Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3625-93rd Avenue SW, Olympia, WA 98512-9193. Silvicultural Options for Young-Growth Douglas-Fir Forests: The Capitol Forest Study—Establishment and First Results Robert O. Curtis, David D. Marshall, and Dean S. DeBell, Editors U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Portland, Oregon General Technical Report PNW-GTR-598 April 2004 Contributors Kamal M. Ahmed, research associate, University of Washington, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Box 352700, Seattle, WA 98195-2700 Hans Andersen, Ph.D. candidate, University of Washington, College of Forest Re- sources, Box 352112, Seattle, WA 98195-3112 Gordon A. Bradley, professor, University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, Box 352112, Seattle, WA 98195-3112 Leslie C. Brodie, forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3625-93rd Avenue SW, Olympia, WA 98512-9193 Andrew B. Carey, wildlife biologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3625-93rd Avenue SW, Olympia, WA 98512-9193 Robert O. Curtis, emeritus scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3625-93rd Avenue SW, Olympia, WA 98512-9193 Terry A. Curtis, photogrammetry supervisor, forester, Washington Department of Natu- ral Resources, Olympia, WA 98501 Dean S.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Clear-Cutting on Stream Temperature
    VOL. 6, NO. 4 WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH AUGUST 1970 Eects o[ Clear-Cuttingon StreamTemperature GEORGE W. BROWN AND JAMES T. KRYGIER OregonState University, Corvallis,Oregon 97331 Abstract. The principal source of energy for warming streams is the sun. The amount of sunlight reaching the stream may be increasedafter clear-cut logging. Average monthly maximum temperaturesincreased by 14øF and annual maximum temperaturesincreased from 57ø to 85øF one year after clear-cut logging on a small watershedin Oregon'scoast range. In a nearby watershedwhere strips of brush and trees separatedlogging units from the stream, no changesin temperature were observedthat could be attributed to clear- cutting. INTRODUCTION may cause fish mortality [Brett, 1956]. The growth of fish may be directly affectedby water Timber, water, and sport and commercialfish temperature as demonstrated on juvenile coho are the principal resourcesin the Oregon coast salmon [Brett, 1956]. In short, water tempera- range. The need for delineating the areas of ture is a major determinant of the suitability of conflict between logging and utilization of the water for many uses. other resources led to the establishment of the Research has been limited on temperature AlseaLogging-Aquatic Resources Study in 1958. changesin smallstreams from land use,although The purpose of this broadly interdisciplinary fisherybiologists have long been concernedwith study was to determine the effect of logging on the effects of deforestationon water tempera- the physical,chemical, and biologicalcharacter- ture. Meehan et al. [1969] studied the effectsof istics of small coastal streams. clear-cutting on the salmon habitat of two The purposeof this paper is to describethe southeastern Alaska streams.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Small Patch Cutting on Sugar Maple Regeneration in New Hampshire Northern Hardwoods
    Field Note Effects of Small Patch Cutting on Sugar Maple Regeneration in New Hampshire Northern Hardwoods William B. Leak, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, P. 0. Box 640, Durham, NH 03824. ABSTRACT: In many northern hardwood stands in New Hampshire and New England, partial cutting or single-tree selection result,s in understories with a high proportion of beech and other species with low timber values. Patch cutting, using small openings of about 1/4-ac in size or larger coupled with sufficient logging disturbance, has proved to be an effective way to replace understories of beech and other less valuable species with a new stand containing a high proportion of yellow and paper birch in mhture with other deciduous species. Unless present as well-developed advanced regeneration, sugar maple is seldom common in the new stands produced by small patch cutting. However, when these early successional stands reach 40-50 years of age, understories dominated by sugar maple and with lesser proportions of beech frequently develop, possibly due to the rich leajyall, lower proportions of beech litter, and/or changed light conditions. Although small patch cutting may not immediately regenerate abundant sugar maple, it appears as though this technique may help over time to maintain sugar maple as a signiJicant component of northern hardwood forests. North. J. Appl. For. 22(1):68-70. Key Words: Northern hardwoods, patch cutting, sugar maple. American beech (Fagus grand@dia) is one of the primary Sugar maple is not abundant in the new stand unless present competitors of sugar maple (Acer saccharum) when regen- as well-advanced regeneration.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Forest Management Practices for Montana
    Peter F Kolb, MSU Extension Forestry Specialist, Assistant Professor of Forest Ecology University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812-0606 [email protected] Alternative Forest Management Practices for Montana The first step of any type of land management is to formulate a set of objectives and goals for the acreage in question. While these goals will reflect the personal needs of the landowner, which may include anything from minimizing human impacts to converting a forest into a pasture, they should also take into consideration the ecological capacity of the site. Throughout history, the biggest land management failures have occurred when managers tried to impose objectives that the land was incapable of supporting. With that in mind, all forested land management goals and objectives ultimately involve which trees should be left and which trees should be removed from a particular site. The most daunting challenge to the art and science of forestry is still represented by this basic decision making process, and can result in leaving all the trees or cutting every tree. To a forest landowner, setting objectives and goals for their land may be relatively simple compared to standing in the forest and trying to decide what actions to take. Ecology Montana forests are composed of a complex mosaic of ecologically distinct zones that were created by the interaction of topography, climate, soils and historic disturbance regimes on biological organisms. Depending on the location, this mosaic can occur across the landscape as an intricate puzzle of small 5-50 acre patches to larger 1000 – 10,000 acre patches.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is a Silvicultural System?
    United States Department of Agriculture *This handout was developed from the March 2003 Silvicultural Handbook for British Columbia, British Columbia Ministry of Forests. The BC Ministry of Forests has a tremendous volume of information available on-line that is very applicable to the work we do on Prince of Wales Island. What Is a Silvicultural System? A silvicultural system is a planned program of silvicultural treatments designed to achieve specific stand structure characteristics to meet site objectives during the whole life of a stand. Figure 2.1-1 This program of treatments integrates specific harvesting, regeneration, and stand tending methods to achieve a predictable yield of benefits from the stand over time. Naming the silvicultural system has been based on the principal method of regeneration and desired age structure. Silvicultural systems on most sites have been designed to maximize the production of timber crops. Non- timber objectives, such as watershed health and wildlife production, have been less common. Recently, ecological considerations and resource objectives have increased. A silvicultural system generally has the following basic goals: • Provides for the availability of many forest resources (not just timber) through spatial and temporal distribution. • Produces planned harvests of forest products over the long term. • Accommodates biological/ecological and economic concerns to ensure sustainability of resources. • Provides for regeneration and planned seral stage development. • Effectively uses growing space and productivity to produce desired goods, services, and conditions. Forest Service R10, Tongass NF December, 2016 United States Department of Agriculture • Meets the landscape- and stand-level goals and objectives of the landowner (including allowing for a variety of future management options).
    [Show full text]
  • Harvesting Systems
    Woodlot Management Home Study Course Module 2 Harvesting Systems Preface Harvesting Systems is the second in a series of Woodlot Management Home Study Courses intended to help landowners manage their woodlots. Originally written by Brian Gilbert of LaHave Forestry Consultants Ltd., it has been rewritten by Richard Brunt and Tim Whynot. Illustrations and layout have been done by Gerald Gloade. Others modules include Introduction to Silviculture, Stand Spacing, Wildlife and Forestry, Stand Establishment, Chain Saw Use and Safety, Woodlot Ecology, Wood Utilization and Technology, and Woodlot Recreation. Each module is periodically assessed and, when necessary, revised to reflect recent developments of the subject. Also, the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources may periodically hold field days to present examples of the information in the most popular manuals. Copies of these modules are available from the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources, Extension Services Division, P.O. Box 698, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 2T9, 424-5444 or Education and Publication Services, P.O. Box 68, Truro, Nova Scotia, B2N 5B8, 893-5642. Harvesting Systems is divided into four lessons: The Clearcut System The Shelterwood System The Selection System Putting It All Together At the end of each lesson there is a quiz or exercise to reinforce what you have learned. As well, all terms bolded the first time they appear in the text are defined in the Forestry Definitions on page 32. Other sources of information are listed on page 34. Table of Contents List of Illustrations ....................................................... List of Tables ............................................................ Introduction ............................................................. LESSON ONE: The Clearcut System ......................................... General ................................................................. Clearcutting with Natural Regeneration ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of Forestry at Neff
    PRINCIPLES OF FORESTRY AT NEFF 32 Foster Street | P.O. Box 1346 | Littleton, MA 01460 T 978.952.6856 | newenglandforestry.org Principles of Forestry at New England Forestry Foundation Authors: R. Perschel, C. Pryor, B.W. Stutzman Editor: B.W. Stutzman Contents Why Forests | Page 2 Why Forestry | Page 2 Why New England Forestry Foundation | Page 3 Promoting Sound Forestry in New England | Page 3 Concentrating on the Woodland Vision | Page 3 What Are the Silvicultural Options? | Page 5 Diversity of Silvicultural Practices | Page 5 Diversity of NEFF’s Forests | Page 8 How NEFF Manages Its Forests | Page 10 Working Toward Diverse Multi-aged Forests | Page 10 Managing for Economic Benefits | Page 10 Protecting Forest, Soil, Water, and Climate | Page 15 Protecting Aesthetic, Cultural and Recreational Values | Page 17 Engaging the Community | Page 19 Ethics, Planning, Assessment and New Lands | Page 21 What Hinders Good Forestry Practices | Page 25 What Needs to Be Done | Page 25 Sources | Page 26 Principles of Forestry Why Forests The forests of New England have always supplied their inhabitants with resources for their livelihood. Native Americans thrived on abundant deer, caribou, salmon, beechnuts, chestnuts, and many other animals and plants. European settlers exploited the region’s timber and wildlife, sending ship masts and furs to Europe and clearing large swaths of forest for agriculture and livestock. For more than two centuries until the mid-nineteenth century, European settlers converted the southern New England forest into farms, towns, and cities. They cut the forests for fuel, lumber, and paper. They cleared large swaths of forest for agriculture and pasture.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed EFM Outline
    ECOTRUST FOREST MANAGEMENT, INC. FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN FEBRUARY 2009 UPDATED AND AMENDED AUGUST 2011 EFM Forest Management Plan - i - Contents Table of Contents PROPERTY DATA SUMMARIES .......................................................................................................... 1 DICKEY RIVER FOREST ............................................................................................................................. 1 GARIBALDI FOREST .................................................................................................................................. 2 SIXES RIVER FOREST ................................................................................................................................ 3 SOOES FOREST .......................................................................................................................................... 4 PURPOSE OF PLAN ................................................................................................................................. 5 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER DOCUMENTS ................................................................................................... 5 FRAMEWORK FOR GROWTH ...................................................................................................................... 5 MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATES AND REVISIONS ...................................................................................... 6 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Enhancement Activity – PLT02 – Monitoring Key Grazing Areas to Improve Grazing Management
    United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 2015 Ranking Period 1 Plant Enhancement Activity – PLT02 – Monitoring key grazing areas to improve grazing management Enhancement Description Adjust grazing management based on monitoring data. Monitor key grazing areas to determine if current grazing management is meeting management goals and objectives. A key grazing area is a small area of a grazed field that is identified as being representative of the entire field. Land Use Applicability Pastureland, Rangeland, Forestland Benefits Proper grazing management will maintain and improve vegetation and soil conditions, improve water quality, and enhance wildlife habitat. Monitoring can be utilized to determine if current grazing management actions are having the desired effect on natural resources. Monitoring enables managers to make decisions and adjust management strategies as needed. Conditions Where Enhancement Applies This enhancement applies to all acres in the operation for the selected land use. Criteria 1. Key grazing areas will be established for each grazed field 2. Each key grazing area will be monitored based on the frequency of grazing once established (i.e., more than annually if grazed multiple time per year) 3. Monitoring will include a photo for each pasture of key grazing area and use of one or more of the following techniques: a. Plant productivity determinations b. Measurements of key forage plant heights (before and after grazing) at least once per period c. Locally applicable methods such as those described in “Monitoring for Grasslands, Shrublands and Savanna Ecosystems” available at 27TUhttp://jornada.nmsu.edu/monit- assess/manuals/monitoringU27T. 4. Each grazed field will follow a written grazing plan which meets NRCS requirements Adoption Requirements This enhancement is considered adopted when there is documentation that monitoring data has been collected and used to adjust the objectives in a grazing management plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Massachusetts DWSP Watershed Forestry Program
    Review of the Massachusetts DWSP Watershed Forestry Program DWSP Science and Technical Advisory Committee1 Paul K. Barten, Mark S. Ashton, James K. Boyce, Robert T. Brooks, John P. Buonaccorsi, John L. Campbell, Scott Jackson, Matthew J. Kelty, David I. King, Chi Ho Sham, John E. Tobiason, and Mary L. Tyrrell2 November 2012 1 Massachusetts Division of Water Supply Protection, Department of Conservation and Recreation, Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. 2 Stephen DeStefano will be added as a co-author when the U.S. Geological Survey internal review process is completed. 1 Table of Contents 1 – Introduction 1 2 – System Description and Management Context 12 3 – Watershed Forest Management Principles and Practices 22 4 – Active versus Passive Watershed Forest Management 31 5 – Review of Silvicultural Methods for Watershed Forest Management 43 6 – Forest Management and Water Quality Monitoring 58 7 – Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations 69 8 – References 74 2 1 – Introduction When Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Ian Bowles, and Department of Conservation and Recreation Commissioner, Richard Sullivan (now Secretary of EOEEA), announced the Forest Heritage Plan in April 2010, they called for the Massachusetts Division of Water Supply Protection (DWSP) to reconvene an existing team of science and technical advisors to review the principles of the Office of Watershed Management’s forestry program. This group of experts was asked to review possible changes to the program. DWSP and DCR will subsequently seek community input through public meetings with its legislatively mandated watershed advisory committees after the review is presented. Fourteen scientists representing a wide range of specialties related to forest and watershed management agreed to serve on the DWSP Science and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC).
    [Show full text]
  • Regeneration of Patch Harvests in Even-Aged Northern Hardwoods in New England
    Regeneration of Patch Harvests in Even-Aged Northern Hardwoods in New England William B. Leak, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, P.O. Box 640, Durham, New Hampshire 03824. ABSTRACT: One suggested approach to converting even-aged northern hardwoods to an uneven-aged condition is the use of small-patch harvests to initiate new regeneration of desired species. Past experience indicates that such harvests may be less successful in second-growth, even-agedstands than in olderstands due to the abundance of sprouts and noncommercial species. Remeasurement of 47-yr-old patch harvests, applied to a 70-yr-old even-aged stand, growing on a beech-red maple site in New Hampshire showed that paper and yellow birch dominated the regeneration composition of patch centers. North. J. Appl. For. 20(4):18&189. Key Words: Group selection, patch selection, regeneration. Oneof the recent silvicultural concerns is how to convert Methods even-aged stands to an uneven-aged condition suitable for the continuation of a single-tree or group/patch selection system. The stand was 60 ac in size and about 70 yr old at the time Since these even-aged stands usually support understory trees of a summer harvest in 1954. The stand developed after a of the same age as the main canopy, often of undesirable clearcut for timber and railroad engine fuel in the late 1800s, species, one approach commonly utilizes small patches although a few holdovers remained. A few acres had been designed to produce new regeneration of desirable species cleared for agriculture. At the time of harvest, beech (Fagus (Kelty et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Conservation Service
    Specifications- 666 - 1 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE CONSERVATION PRACTICE SPECIFICATIONS, CONSIDERATIONS, AND REFERENCES FOREST STAND IMPROVEMENT (Acre) CODE 666 This document is intended to be used concurrently more information on site index.) D + X guidelines with the Standard for this practice. The following work best in pure stands that are under even-aged information will help to meet the criteria set forth management, and where the primary goal is timber in the standard and to complete the job sheet, thus production. enabling implementation of the practice. General Basal area (BA) guidelines are more commonly specifications are found in the job sheet, which utilized in the forestry profession and reflect the apply to all sites. Consult with a contracting cross sectional area at breast height of trees in the forester in your area or a professional forester at stand but do not give a measure of spacing the NRCS or NM State Forestry Division to obtain a between leave trees. forest management plan for your property. On-site specifications / prescriptions based on landowner A very effective, but also the most complicated, objectives and simultaneously promoting forest way to measure stand stocking is stand density health must be developed following a detailed site index. SDI uses BA and trees per acre (TPA) and inventory and with consideration to the following equals the number of trees per acre if they were all specifications. ten inches in diameter. SDI is not utilized in this document or the job sheet. Basal area and ADDITIONAL SPECIFICATIONS conversion tables showing trees per acre and Thinning or Intermediate Harvest approximate spacing are in the job sheet.
    [Show full text]