Robinson Integrated Resource Project

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service March 2016 Robinson Integrated Resource Project Landscape Assessment Rochester Ranger District Green Mountain National Forest Towns of Rochester, Hancock, Chittenden, Stockbridge, Pittsfield, Goshen, Granville, Braintree and Bethel Windsor, Addison and Rutland Counties; Vermont For Information Contact: Jay Strand Project Team Leader Rochester Ranger District 99 Ranger Road Rochester, VT (802) x522 FAX (802) Responsible Official: Christopher Mattrick District Ranger Rochester/Middlebury Ranger Districts 99 Ranger Road Rochester, VT (802) x513

2

3 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C ; (2) fax: (202) ; or (3) program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. This document can be made available in large print. Contact Jay Strand (802) x522 or jstrand@fs.fed.us

4 Table of Contents Table of Contents... i Introduction... 1 Proposed Project Location... 1 Ecological Diversity... 3 Timber Resources Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Animals Botanical Resources Aquatic Organisms and their Habitat, and Water Quality Soil and Wetlands Fire, Fuels and Air Quality (Smoke) Recreation Resources Wilderness Visual Resources Heritage Resources Transportation System (Roads) i

5 Introduction Integrated resource projects are one of the main Forest Service strategies for achieving the 2006 Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) goals, objectives and desired future conditions at the site specific level. They consist of the planning, implementation and monitoring of multiple resource project activities that are interrelated in their geographical location, scope and intended purpose. The Robinson Integrated Resource Project (IRP) is located on the Rochester Ranger District, Green Mountain National Forest primarily within the towns of Rochester, Hancock, Chittenden, Stockbridge and Pittsfield, but also includes small portions of Goshen, Granville, Braintree and Bethel (see Project Area Map). The Robinson IRP is planned for completion in separate phases covering a three year period: Phase 1 (2015), conduct inventory and determine current resource conditions Phase 2 (2016), determine methods to obtain desired future resource conditions, and collaborate with the public to develop proposed activities Phase 3 (2017), perform formal environmental analysis of the proposed activities per the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and decide what to implement Forest Service staff has completed Phase 1 of the Robinson IRP from resource inventory information and data collected during field surveys and analysis of existing information throughout The purpose of Phase 1 is to provide enough information to understand the existing resource conditions within the project area and compare it with the desired future conditions provided by the Forest Plan. The difference between these resource conditions is the basis for determining potential management activities to consider for implementation. The Robinson IRP Landscape Assessment is the culmination of Phase 1 for this project. It provides the existing condition, desired condition, and potential management activities to bridge the differences for multiple resources within the project area. This landscape assessment is not meant to be the final word on what management activities will ultimately be chosen for implementation. It is merely a snapshot of the status of our efforts to consider the best combination of potential resource activities to meet Forest Plan direction. Although the primary focus of Forest Service efforts will be management of National Forest System (NFS) lands, there is also a strong desire to work with state agencies, towns and private landowners to develop activities that will achieve common objectives across land ownership boundaries. The Robinson IRP Landscape Assessment will be the basis for entering the next Phase of the project which is to robustly engage with the public and build on the list of potential management activities to include in our final proposal. Proposed Project Location The project area boundary follows roughly along the spine of the Green Mountains to the west, the Joseph Battell Wilderness to the north, the Braintree Mountain range to the east, and SR 100 and the height of land between Wilcox Peak, Round Mountain and Farr Peak to the south (see Project Area Map). It consists of approximately 30,446 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land (51% of the area) and 28,954 acres of non-nfs land (49% of the area) for a total of 59,400 acres. Although non-nfs land is dispersed throughout the project area, the majority is located east of SR 100 outside of the National Forest proclamation boundary. Robinson Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 1

6 The NFS lands within the project area are allocated to the following Forest Plan Management Areas each having a unique desired condition and emphasis for management to collectively achieve Forest Plan goals, objectives and desired future conditions: Management Area Acres % of Area Diverse Backcountry 3, Diverse Forest Use 15, Long National Recreation Trail Remote Backcountry Forest 1,045 3 Remote Wildlife Habitat 4, Wilderness 5, Grand Total 30, Landscape Assessment Outline This landscape assessment provides information for all resources inventoried within the project area and considered for potential project management activities. Each resource section is organized using the following outline: 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND a. General Description 2. ISSUES AND CONCERNS 3. DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION a. Optimal Condition b. Forest Plan Desired Future Condition 4. EXISTING CONDITION a. Inventory Methodology/Process b. Inventory Findings 5. GAP BETWEEN EXISTING CONDITION AND DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION a. Gap Description b. Opportunities c. Initial Possible Activity List 6. REFERENCES Robinson Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 2

7 Ecological Diversity 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND a. General Description The assessment of ecological diversity within the Robinson Integrated Resource Project (Robinson IRP) area is driven primarily by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976, which requires the agency to provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives (16 USC 1604 (g) (3) (B)). Ecological diversity is analyzed using both a coarse filter and a fine filter approach (USDA Forest Service 2006b, pp to 3-14). A coarse filter approach captures diversity by relying on management that maintains or restores the natural variety of ecosystems in an area i.e. habitat (Kaufmann et al. 1994); this approach assumes that species diversity will be maintained as a result. Rare species and/or rare habitat often pass through the coarse filter, and so we also apply a fine filter approach consisting of specific management to protect individual species, species groups, and rare habitat. This section of the Robinson IRP assessment will focus natural community/habitat and landscape diversity (above the species scale). Therefore, ecological diversity for this section of the assessment includes (1) diversity in composition of the various types and scales of ecosystems; (2) diversity in vegetation structure, including age class; and (3) diversity in function, focusing on ecosystems that are unique, old, rare, or of other ecological significance, as well as ecological processes like natural disturbances, fragmentation and connectivity associated with these ecosystems. This third element addresses part of the fine filter analysis related to ecological diversity by including an analysis of the less common ecosystems. Other sections of the overall Robinson IRP assessment will address the species level of ecological diversity, including rare plant and animal species, as well as other aspects of the ecology of the Robinson IRP area, including soils, hydrology, and wetlands. b. Forest Plan Goals and Objectives The following Forest Plan goals and objectives apply to ecological diversity for this project. Goal 2: Maintain and restore quality, amount, and distribution of habitats to produce viable and sustainable populations of native and desirable non-native plants and animals. Forest-wide composition objectives Maintain habitat types on sites that ecologically support them Increase mixedwood and softwood forests on mixedwood and softwood sites and enhance existing habitat Increase oak forests on oak sites and enhance existing habitat Increase aspen and paper birch forests Increase upland opening habitat Maintain forested and non-forested wetlands Apply long-term composition objectives in the context of these other noted composition objectives (Forest Plan, Table 2.2-1) Forest-wide age class and structure objectives Increase late-successional and old forest habitats within lands unsuitable for timber management. Robinson Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 3

8 Maintain a full range of age classes on lands suitable for timber management, including late successional, multi-age, and regenerating forest conditions (Forest Plan, Table 2.2-2) Manage at least 20% of suitable lands using uneven-age silvicultural systems to create multi-age conditions Apply extended rotations found in to the Diverse Backcountry Management Area (MA), and other suitable lands as appropriate, to enhance wildlife habitat and ecological diversity (Forest Plan, Table 2.2-3) Rare and exemplary natural communities Coordinate with VT Department of Fish and Wildlife (VTDFW) to maintain and enhance habitat conditions for the State s rare species and natural communities Goal 6: Maintain or restore ecological processes and systems on the GMNF within desired ranges of variability, including a variety of native vegetation and stream channel types, and their patterns and structural components. Manage at least 5% of each ecological type for old growth characteristics Manage oak-pine natural communities to maintain their presence and continuity through the use of disturbance, including fire use. Goal 7: Protect rare or outstanding biological, ecological, or geological areas on the GMNF. Maintain or enhance areas with rare or outstanding biological, ecological, or geological features Goal 9: Demonstrate innovative, scientifically, and ecologically sound management practices that can be applied to other lands. Develop demonstration forestry projects where state-of-the-art silvicultural practices are applied (e.g. silviculture to enhance softwoods and oaks, and for extended rotations). 2. ISSUES AND CONCERNS To address ecological diversity within the Robinson IRP area, we have identified several questions to highlight potential issues, concerns, and opportunities. Composition How does the current composition compare to Forest Plan objectives and desired conditions as well as with climate change projections? Are there habitats that are under-represented that we could create or enhance through management, like aspen-birch, oak, or upland openings? How are aspen, oak, and openings distributed across the landscape, and are there barriers to successful maintenance of or conversion to these types? What silvicultural treatments can be applied to maintain or increase the abundance of these habitats? Are hardwood stands occupying sites that are ecologically more supportive of softwoods with adequate softwood reproduction to consider conversion? Are there plantation forests of non-native species that should be converted to native species? Age Class and Structure Robinson Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 4

9 How does the current age class distribution compare to Forest Plan objectives and desired conditions? Are the regenerating or old age classes under-represented on suitable lands within any or all habitat types? How are these age classes represented within the nonfederal land base in the project area? How many acres of land are being managed using uneven-aged management, or are in an uneven-aged condition? Does it constitute at least 20% of the suitable landbase? In the Diverse Backcountry and Remote Wildlife Habitat MAs, are mature stands healthy enough to be managed for extended rotations? If not, how should stands in these MAs be managed so that the old age class objectives can still be met? Process and Function What are the landscape-scale ecological characteristics of the IRP, including historical and current disturbance and connectivity? Are there any known or potential rare, uncommon, or exemplary natural communities in the area? What is their condition and should they be reserved in another MA designation? Are there young and early mature stands within the Diverse Backcountry and Remote Wildlife Habitat MAs to which a thinning prescription could be applied for extended rotation? Are there opportunities to use prescribed fire management in and around scattered pockets of oak to maintain and enhance oak habitat? Are there barriers to connectivity within the IRP and between the IRP and important state linkages? Are there actions that could be taken in collaboration with other landowners and managers to reduce these barriers? Are any old stands showing old growth characteristics (e.g. development of unevenaged structure, average age >150 years)? 3. DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION a. Optimal Condition The Forest Plan Desired Future Condition defines the optimal condition for ecological diversity at the natural community and landscape scale on the GMNF, based on goals, objectives, and management area direction. These conditions are described below. b. Forest Plan Desired Future Condition Composition The optimal composition for the Robinson IRP area can be defined generally as a mixture of broad, large patch, and small patch natural communities in areas of the landscape that are ecologically well-suited to these communities. This mixture would include natural communities that have developed through natural disturbance processes, as well as those that have been created through direct management of vegetation. The composition objectives found in the Forest Plan represent general habitats at the broad or large patch scale, and are the most straightforward to use in defining these objectives on federal lands given our current information and technology. The optimal composition of these more general habitats on federal lands can be found in Table 1 under the columns labeled Long-term Area Objectives. The types of plant communities or habitat types that occur within a particular region, landscape, or landform are governed by several factors, including the nature of the soils and geology that underlay the community, as well as the physiography of the landscape, Robinson Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 5

10 such as landform, slope, aspect, and elevation. Plant species also compete among themselves for light, nutrients, and water, and are subject to predation by a variety of animal species. The history of land use and disturbance at a particular site also influences natural community development. The result of the interaction of all of these factors helps to define both why a particular plant community is on a particular site, and the ecological suitability of a site for a particular plant community. Ecological mapping attempts to synthesize several of these interacting factors, and map the landscape into ecological types representing, among other things, potential natural vegetation (PNV). Potential natural vegetation is defined as the plant community that would become established if all successional sequences were completed without human interference under the present environmental and floristic conditions, including those created by man (Winthers et. al. 2005), and represents the theoretical baseline for optimal composition. Ecological Land Type (ELT) maps were developed for the GMNF in the early 1980s. These maps are based on data from over 1,000 plots on which vegetation, soil, and physiographic variables were measured. These data have been analyzed over the years to identify ecological types that represent certain combinations of vegetation, soil, and physiography that recur in certain geographic regions of the GMNF. Ecological Land Types are mapped for the Robinson IRP area. In addition to ELTs, the use of aerial imagery in color and black and white also help to validate and modify the PNV predictions from ELTs based on obvious characteristics like the presence or absence of conifers in the canopy and understory of stands. Ecological maps and aerial imagery together are used to predict PNV and thereby identify optimal composition. Potential natural vegetation for the Robinson IRP area is shown in Table 1. The optimal composition (aka Long-term Area Objectives) is generally equivalent to PNV except for early successional and opening habitat. Note that the early successional aspen and birch habitats are not represented in the PNV for the area. This is a function of the definition of PNV, which does not include early successional plant communities. Early successional plant communities are likely to occur under natural disturbance regimes in the project area due to windthrow, larger blowdown events, fire, and ice storms, among other disruptions. Lorimer and White (2003) estimate that anywhere from around 1-6% of the landscape in our typical northern hardwood, mixedwood, and spruce-fir types would be in an early successional condition based on various assumptions about disturbance type and return interval. Field surveys for aspen and paper birch indicate that much of this type is succeeding to other habitats, and that there is a very limited abundance of aspen trees in general in the IRP area. Paper birch is most abundant at the higher elevations in Wilderness and Remote Backcountry Forest MAs, where it will naturally succeed to spruce-fir. Given the limited abundance of these habitats in the area, the optimal abundance of this habitat in the Robinson IRP area has been set to 1-2%. There are no natural barrens or outcrops of large enough size on federal lands in the project area to be considered a stand and be factored into the open upland PNV; there are certainly rock outcrops and cliffs in the project area, but all but the most vertical exposures are generally forested or, as at Mount Horrid, are a mix of open and forest. The open uplands on federal lands are those created and/or maintained by human intervention. These open areas are not represented in the PNV for the IRP as they would return to forest quickly after abandonment and their abandonment is a decision over which the GMNF has control. Like aspen-birch, the Forest Plan has objectives for maintaining and increasing upland opening habitats on the Forest because of its Robinson Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 6

11 importance in maintaining the abundance and distribution of a variety of plant and animal species. GMNF staff has estimated the optimal abundance for upland openings at 1-2%, as shown in Table 1 under long-term area objectives. As there are very little oak in the Robinson IRP area, mainly consisting of scattered trees, in particular in the vicinity of Mayo Meadow, there is no optimal composition identified for oak. Optimal composition for the remaining general habitats on federal lands in the project area is similar to PNV (see Table 1). Potential natural vegetation for the IRP area indicates no northern hardwood habitats would occur, although there are stands of northern hardwoods in the area that are clearly strong hardwood stands without any indication that they would naturally transition to a mix with spruce or hemlock over time. A token amount of northern hardwoods has been identified as optimal given the presence of such stands and the current abundance of northern hardwoods in the area. Age Class and Structure The optimal condition for age class and structure is to have a diversity of ages and structures present across the various habitat types within the Robinson IRP area. On federal lands, the Forest Plan identifies a variety of desired structures across various MAs. For instance, within the Diverse Backcountry and Remote Wildlife Habitat MAs, extended rotations are recommended, where forests will have a generally even-aged structure but with representative ages extending to years and older. With the extension of rotation age, these forests will also have the opportunity to develop more botanical diversity, more canopy diversity, and a more diverse structure below the canopy (Carey and Curtis 1996). The Diverse Forest Use MA will have a similar evenage structure, but with most stands and trees being less than years old. On all suitable lands, the GMNF staff may also use the shelterwood with reserves even-age regeneration method to regenerate species more tolerant of shade, which creates a twoage forest structure by leaving a light overstory of trees during regeneration harvesting. In the Wilderness and Remote Backcountry Forest MAs, as well as on unsuitable lands within suitable MAs, natural disturbance processes generally regulate structure and age class. The optimal condition for forests within these MAs is a forest age structure similar to that modeled for pre-settlement forest conditions in the Northeast by Lorimer and White (2003), with 1-6% of the landscape in early successional young age classes and 60-90% over 150 years old. For the Long Trail MA, age class and structure are not driving management in these areas and so there are no optimal conditions defined. For all suitable forested lands within the GMNF, the Forest Plan further defines age class objectives for even and uneven-age conditions. Suitable forested lands are collectively required to have at least 20% under uneven-age management, meaning forested stands and landscapes under this management will have trees of several sizes and ages. For the Robinson IRP area, suitable forested lands account for 29,855 acres, and so the minimum acreage under uneven-age management or in that condition should be at least 5,970 acres. Based on the suitable even-age management objectives in the Forest Plan (p. 11), we have calculated a preliminary range of acres in each age class by habitat types to represent the theoretical optimal age class distribution for federal lands in the IRP area (Table 2). These ranges are based on the preliminary long-term composition objectives for the area, with adjustments for conversions of hardwood and mixedwood stands to Robinson Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 7

12 aspen, birch, and opening habitats. Additional inventory may lead to adjustments in these numbers. Process and Function The optimal condition related to ecosystem process and function is that ecosystems of various types and scales are present and distributed across the project area consistent with the ecological potential of the landscape to host them, with most if not all of their full complement of associated native biodiversity. These ecosystems would be able to accommodate disturbance or change, either through being resistant to change, or being resilient and able to recover from or adapt to change with minimal losses in biodiversity. Natural disturbance processes, or human disturbances that mimic them, are able to operate within these ecosystems to enhance structural and compositional complexity. Organisms are able to move across the landscape to access habitats important to them at various life stages, or in order to find more suitable habitat. On federal lands, MA allocation and composition and structure objectives are designed to enable ecosystems on the Forest to function effectively in providing for biodiversity at several scales. These objectives represent the coarse filter approach to biodiversity, focusing on more common natural communities and species. Rare, uncommon, or outstanding examples of ecosystems of various scales are sometimes missed by the coarse filter approach. Forest Plan Goals 2 and 7 define the optimal conditions related to these less common ecosystems on federal lands. The Forest Plan requires that ecological types that are rare or outstanding are protected, and are managed to perpetuate both their value as habitat for specific species, and their value as functioning small or large patch ecosystems nested within larger scale systems. These patches generally include examples of ecological types considered very rare in Vermont (e.g. less than 6 examples), high quality examples of types rare or uncommon in Vermont or the GMNF, and outstanding examples of common habitats in Vermont or the GMNF (e.g. a patch of old growth forest). There are four such areas within the Robinson IRP area on federal lands: Mount Horrid Farr Peak Chittenden Brook Beaver Meadow Liberty Hill Hemlocks Of these four, Mount Horrid is considered highly significant to Vermont s biodiversity. It is a high quality site and represents the southernmost example of the boreal calcareous cliff natural community, playing host to the largest number of existing and historical rare plant records on the GMNF, as well as to nesting peregrine falcons. The Farr Peak site is considered state significant and consists of extensive high quality montane yellow birch-red spruce and red spruce-northern hardwood forest, extending from Goshen Mountain south to Farr Peak and east halfway to Round Mountain. The beaver meadow is not state significant, but is one of only a few sites on the GMNF where the uncommon olive-sided flycatcher has been known to nest. The hemlock area is also not considered state significant, but does include a small forest of hemlocks with several measured to be over 200 years old. For all of these sites, the optimal condition is the perpetuation of these sites and protection from disturbances or conditions that would destroy or degrade them. Robinson Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 8

13 Forest Plan Goal 6 addresses ecosystem process and function by ensuring that natural disturbance regimes are allowed to regulate some of our ecosystems. Some species and natural communities have developed in concert with disturbances that are now missing or occurring more or less frequently than in the past. In the Robinson IRP it is difficult to discern whether oaks were more prevalent than they are now, or whether were similarly scattered prior to-european settlement. Certainly fires are much less frequent now than they were during the times when Native Americans used the valleys for travel and access to hunting, as well as during early settlement times when fire was used for clearing. Consequently, species and natural communities associated with a more regular fire regime would become less common, or would be slowly replaced over time with more mesic natural communities if fire or similar disturbances continue to be absent. Old growth conditions are also rare on the Forest and in the IRP. Land clearing for homesteading and farming dramatically reduced forest cover in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Timber harvesting since land abandonment in the early 20th century has perpetuated more frequent and larger-sized disturbances than would be typical under natural disturbance regimes (i.e. from insects, disease, wind, ice). Stands that have generally remained unmanaged since land abandonment have the greatest potential to develop old growth conditions over the next 100 years. Connectivity has become increasingly understood as a critical ecosystem function, particularly in light of climate change and the need that species have to move to more suitable habitats. Recent modeling and analysis by the State of Vermont has identified a portion of an important linkage area within much of the IRP that connects forested habitat between the Green Mountains and the Upper Valley. This linkage may become an important migration corridor for species needing to move north as temperatures warm. Forest Plan Goal 6 supports ecosystem processes and functions by including a Forestwide objective to manage at least 5% of each ecological type for old growth conditions within the MAs that provide for these conditions across the Forest. In the Robinson IRP area, these conditions will occur within Wilderness and Remote Backcountry Forest MAs, and within lands unsuitable for timber management within Diverse Forest Use and Diverse Backcountry MAs. By allowing old growth conditions to develop within these MAs, the Robinson IRP will foster areas of more biological and structural complexity and diversity. The optimal condition then for ecosystem processes and function is a landscape that includes large blocks of conserved land within which natural disturbances are allowed to occur, across which species are able to move and migrate, and within which managers restore compositional and structural diversity when natural disturbances do not or cannot occur. 4. EXISTING CONDITION a. Inventory Methodology/Process Forests are generally divided into units called stands for management purposes. Stands are areas of similar tree composition and structure, and can range in size from 1 acre to over 100 acres, depending upon the variability of the terrain, underlying soils and geology, and management history. All federal lands within the GMNF have been mapped into stands over time, and those stand boundaries often change as a result of management, disturbances, inventory protocol changes, new information, and better technology. Robinson Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 9

14 Inventory data used to measure composition and age class for general habitat types on the Forest is gathered through a stand exam. A stand exam consists of a series of measurement plots placed within a stand, measuring a variety of site, topographic, tree, and other vegetation variables. The stand exam protocols have been standardized since the 1970s, although the protocols have changed periodically based on increasing needs for statistical accuracy. When stand exam is not possible, coarser measures of composition and age class are gathered through modeling with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and existing data and imagery. Stand mapping and inventory in the Robinson IRP was gathered primarily in the 1980s and 1990s, with less detailed inventory gathered since that time, particularly in newly acquired lands. The Forest Service has been re-inventorying some of these stands since 2014, and will continue this inventory through The field inventory is focusing on MAs in the suitable timber base; no new stand exam data has been or will be gathered within the Long Trail, Wilderness, or Remote Backcountry MAs, as well as on other lands unsuitable for vegetation management, although some data gathering has occurred in these areas for other purposes. As a result, stand mapping in these MAs will be based mainly on office adjustments using GIS and available imagery and feature maps. Inventories to identify and evaluate rare, uncommon, or outstanding natural communities or features were conducted intensively by Vermont Natural Heritage Inventory (VNHI) during the 1990s, and has continued periodically by VNHI and GMNF staff since then. These inventories identify rare, uncommon, and outstanding examples of plant and animal species and natural communities, and the FS has point and polygon maps of these occurrences within GIS. These inventories were limited by the state of mapping and habitat modeling technology of the time. For the Robinson IRP, GMNF staff used digital map data of soils, bedrock, ELTs, other ecological data, and stands, as well as related tabular data, to identify additional potential habitat for rare plants and natural communities that had not been investigated by VNHI. GMNF staff also used the stand data to identify old age stands that have the potential for old growth development for further investigation. Inventory for these features began in 2015 and will continue through 2017; some of this information is incorporated into this assessment, which will be updated once these inventories have been completed. b. Inventory Findings Landscape Context There are approximately 818 acres of conserved non-nfs lands within the IRP. Including the NFS lands in Wilderness and Remote Backcountry MAs, conserved lands make up approximately 29 percent of the IRP area. The IRP landscape is dominated by the Northern Green Mountains, with the White River Valley running north-south breaking the mountains between the main spine and the Braintree range Valley bottom and hill landscapes are associated with the White River and West Branch valleys. Upper mountain slope landscapes fall along the ridgelines from Farr Peak to Worth Mountain along the main spine, and from Worth Mountain east to Philadelphia Peak along the northern project boundary, and from Farr Peak east to Wilcox Peak along the southern project boundary. Composition Based on the most recently available National Land Cover Database (NLCD) (Homer et al 2015) and GMNF data, most of the Robinson IRP area is forested, with 98 percent of the federal land and 90 percent of all lands in this condition. Another 3 percent is Robinson Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 10

15 developed land primarily associated with the Route 100 corridor as well as other roads. The remaining 7 percent is comprised of mostly agricultural land along with small areas of meadow, shrub, water, and non-forested wetlands. Wetlands tend to be associated with the less developed sections of the White River and tributaries. Forests throughout the IRP area according to the NLCD are dominated by northern hardwoods, with a higher concentration of mixed and softwood forest in the Braintree range. There are no documented occurrences of floodplain forest in the White River valley here, although prior to European settlement undoubtedly there were such forests here. In the Green Mountains the montane spruce-fir forest is restricted to the upper mountain slopes along the ridgelines, while mixed forests of spruce and hardwoods or yellow birch also occur along the ridgelines and downslope, particularly from Goshen Mountain to Farr Peak. Dominant Habitats Table 1 displays the current composition of the National Forest System (NFS) lands within the Robinson IRP area by general habitat types, as well as the potential natural vegetation one would expect based on site conditions. The Robinson IRP area and the federal lands are dominated by deciduous forests, primarily northern hardwood forests; 58% of the IRP area and 49% of federal lands are dominated by this habitat type. Many of these forests have a strong beech component, and many of these beech trees have been moderately to severely damaged by beech-bark disease. There are small patches of enriched northern hardwoods, although they tend to occur as small patches with little to no evidence of calcium enrichment. Mixedwood forests of conifers and deciduous trees in this landscape tend to occur on mountain sideslopes and ridges, as well as on the hills, footslopes, and plateaus of the mountains. Mixedwood forests are about as abundant as northern hardwoods on NFS lands (43 percent) but much less common across the IRP according to the NLCD at 16 percent. Mixedwood forests in the warmer and lower elevation river valleys are predominantly northern hardwoods mixed with hemlock and white pine, while elsewhere they consist of northern hardwoods mixed with red spruce, balsam fir, and sometimes hemlock. These forests should be far more common based on PNV, which may be a result of historical land clearing in the area that removed most of the mature red spruce in the late 19 th century and early 20 th century. Red spruce is scattered to prevalent in the understories of many stands at middle and higher elevations, indicative of future potential shifts to a higher proportion of mixedwood forest over time. Uncommon Habitats Coniferous forests tend to be restricted to ridgelines and low cold places in this landscape. They are more common in the IRP as a whole (16 percent) than they are on NFS lands (4 percent). As with mixedwood forests, conifers at the higher elevations and in wetlands are mostly red spruce and balsam fir with some hemlock, while at the lower elevations conifers are mostly hemlock and white pine. Forested wetlands on NFS lands in the project area are quite uncommon and small, primarily represented by red sprucecinnamon fern swamps. Based on PNV, coniferous forests are likely to continue to be uncommon on NFS lands in the project area. Aspen and paper birch forests on NFS lands in the IRP are associated with higher elevations (paper birch) and wetter areas or pan soils mixed with spruce and fir. This habitat is early successional by nature and transitions to longer-lived habitats with time. The paper birch stands are strongly associated with spruce-fir ELTs and are in the Robinson Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 11

16 process of transitioning to spruce-fir. The aspen stands are associated with wetter soils and stands are small and scattered. The NLCD does not differentiate aspen and paper birch forests (they are included in deciduous forests), and so there is no estimate of their prevalence outside of federal lands in the IRP area. Upland openings include habitat dominated by natural vegetation, as well as habitat that is agricultural in nature. On NFS lands, these openings include: 313 acres in a grassy, shrubby, or regenerating forested state, maintained by the Forest Service as open under a 2014 decision. 66 acres of powerline corridor in a grassy and/or shrubby state maintained by the power company 33 acres of opening in a grassy and/or shrubby state that are not being maintained by the Forest Service, and include areas of access to the White River and isolated openings. 29 acres of cultivated field under special use agreement for this purpose Open uplands are more abundant in the IRP as a whole (7 percent) than on NFS lands (1.5 percent). In the IRP area grassland, shrubland, and pasture make up the bulk of the open land (6 percent). Cultivated land, while present, makes up less than one percent of the IRP composition. Non-forested wetland habitats represent less than one percent of the composition both on NFS lands and in the larger IRP. Most tend to be associated with the river valleys, although there are a handful of small scattered beaver meadows as well, notable ones being at Chittenden Brook campground and at the base of Mount Horrid. No peatlands have been documented from the analysis area. Age Class and Structure Age class and structure characteristics are difficult to ascertain for lands without field inventory data or high resolution remotely-sensed data. We currently only have age class data for NFS lands within the Robinson IRP area, which are displayed in Table 2. Dominant Age Classes Across all habitats, NFS lands are dominated by forests that are mature, with 55% of the lands in this age class; when combined with the old age class, the proportion rises to 88%. Among habitats, hardwood and softwood habitats are dominated by the mature age class, while for mixedwood and paper birch habitat the old age class dominates. When comparing age class distribution with Forest Plan objectives for suitable evenaged lands, the proportion of old age class for hardwood and softwood habitats falls toward the middle of the desired range, while for mixedwood and paper birch the old age class is near the high end of or well above the desired range. The reason for this abundance of mature and old forest habitat has to do with the historical development of forested stands within the project area. The existing age class distribution shows a bubble of mature age class stands dominating the distribution; this bubble represents all the stands that regenerated when the land was abandoned by settlers prior to federal ownership. Stands years old represent a substantial majority of the stands in the project area. In terms of habitat diversity, the young age class and the early stages of the mature age class represent the least diverse stages of forest development (Carey and Curtis 1996). Few of the existing mature and old forest stands have matured enough to develop the more complex structure, broken canopy, and natural gaps associated with old forests under natural disturbance regimes. However, beech-bark disease (BBD) has created Robinson Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 12

17 more than the usual amounts of complexity one finds in stands of this age, but at the expense of forest productivity. Usually the increase in complexity that comes with age creates additional habitat diversity, but over long periods of time. New research also suggests that the age-related increase in canopy structural complexity helps to maintain productivity in old deciduous and mixed stands (Hardiman et. al. 2013). Most trees in these mature and old forests will not reach their maximum natural lifespans for another years, and so are still relatively resistant to disturbances that fell trees of old age. However, with the stands affected by BBD, canopies are breaking up and many trees are unlikely to live to their natural lifespans, or even for another 50 years. As a result, these even-aged mature and old forests, which are at only the beginning stages of developing higher levels of habitat diversity that result from aging forests, may not have the capacity to develop this diversity naturally. Less Common Age Classes The regenerating age class does not currently exist in the Robinson IRP area (Table 2). Harvests have occurred in the past, but those stands have grown past this age class. These stands are now considered young, and are no longer providing habitat required by species that use the regenerating age class. While northern hardwoods and mixedwood habitats have a robust amount of young forest, the proportions are still below desired levels. All of the habitat types except aspen have enough acres in the mature and old age class from which to create regenerating habitat without reducing these age classes below desired amounts. Structure On NFS lands in the Robinson IRP, over 3,850 acres or 20% of the suitable federal lands are currently either in an uneven-age condition or are under management using uneven-age silvicultural techniques, which is right around the minimum 20% required by Forest Plan objectives. This will require ensuring that there is no net loss of unevenaged suitable lands, and preferably a net increase in uneven-age management in order to meet structural objectives in the Forest Plan. There are two MAs for which extended rotation ages are an important structural objective Remote Wildlife Habitat and Diverse Backcountry. These two MAs comprise about 20 percent of the IRP area, and are dominated by mature and old age classes, although the proportion of each age class varies with MA. Remote Wildlife Habitat MA is dominated by mature forest (83 percent), while Diverse Backcountry MA has similar proportions of mature and old forest (43, and 53 percent, respectively). For these MAs, the older the forest and the longer it has been since a thinning, the less likely the forest will still be commercially viable for an even-age harvest at the extended rotation age of years. In other parts of the country where extended rotations have been successfully implemented, multiple thinnings are required to extend the growth of trees well into old age. There is very limited research on extended rotations for northern hardwood forests, but it is clear that northern hardwoods species do respond to thinnings in middle age. It is unlikely that any stands in these MAs have received more than one commercial thinning during their existence. Consequently, some stands may be too old to respond to a thinning, and may require early regeneration to prevent substantial losses of commercial value; other stands may still remain thrifty and have the potential to respond to a second thinning. Managing the mature stands in these MAs for extended rotation will require adaptive management if this approach is to be successful into the future. Robinson Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 13

18 For MAs whose forest structure is primarily regulated by natural disturbance regimes (e.g. Wilderness, Remote Backcountry Forest, Long Trail, unsuitable lands), only one percent of these lands are over 150 years old. There is currently no evidence of regenerating habitat from stand-replacing natural disturbances in the project area. Individual tree-sized gaps are forming in some of the less healthy stands where beech trees are dying, to be replaced by beech saplings. In around 70 years, the bubble of stands that originated with mass land abandonment will have all started the transition to uneven-age structure. While individual tree-sized gaps will occur through tree death or ice or wind damage, these gaps will fill in from the side-growth of neighboring trees; few gaps large enough to provide quality early successional forb/shrub habitat will be created through natural disturbances until these even-aged stands start to fall apart as they near the lifespans of the resident tree species. Cumulatively these patches of 0-9 year old age class will likely comprise no more than 2% of the age class distribution under natural disturbance regimes. In the case of the project area where land abandonment created a pulse of stands of similar age that are now starting to mature, these early successional patches will probably comprise less than 2% of the age class distribution until the even-aged stands start to break up, and then will perhaps comprise more than 2% while these stands are developing initial uneven-aged conditions. Given the legacy of land use and abandonment in the project area, increases in habitat diversity will depend on natural ecosystem processes to drive stand development in these unregulated stands over the course of many decades. Process & Function Landscape Scale In 2013, the State of Vermont completed a biodiversity assessment for the State that included the development of a map and database identifying Vermont's lands and waters supporting high priority ecosystems, natural communities, habitats, and species (Austin et al. 2013). The assessment is designed to guide strategic biodiversity planning, and was developed to capture both coarse and fine filter biodiversity elements. Biodiversity conservation involves three elements: Conserving large core blocks of land and aquatic ecosystems that encompass a diversity of ecosystem types and scales, and represent the diversity of ecosystems within an ecological region (coarse filter); larger blocks have a better chance to maintain ecological processes and have the capacity to bounce back and adapt to disturbance and climate change. Conserving small patch ecosystems and rare species and their habitats that are not adequately conserved and represented in the larger blocks (fine filter). Conserving connectivity among the core blocks and small patches within and between ecological regions to facilitate species movement and migration, particularly in response to changes in climate. For Vermont, land and water are conserved for this purpose when these ecosystems are either protected from extractive or disruptive uses, or are managed sustainably to restore ecosystem composition, structure, and/or function while providing for some extractive uses. Generally speaking, core and connecting ecosystems can support sustainable management, while small patch ecosystems and rare species are protected from disturbance unless disturbance is a requirement for their viability. Within the Robinson IRP area, approximately 30,446 acres or 51% are within federal ownership and managed by the Forest Service, and are considered conserved lands. Another 818 acres or one percent of the area occurs within municipal or state forests Robinson Integrated Resource Project, Landscape Assessment Page 14