Frog Fire. Silvicultural Report Prepared by: John E. Landoski Certified Silviculturist. /s/ John E. Landoski

Transcription

1 Frog Fire Silvicultural Report Prepared by: John E. Landoski Certified Silviculturist /s/ John E. Landoski Big Valley Ranger District Modoc National Forest April 7, 2016

2 Introduction This report addresses the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the proposed alternatives to meeting the purpose and need of the project, specifically the recovery of the value of timber from the trees that were killed or damaged by the wildfire, roadside safety, and reforestation. Background The Frog Fire started on July 30, 2015 and was contained on August 8, Approximately 2,560 acres out of 4,865 acres burned at high intensity, causing greater than 75% tree mortality. The elevation ranges from 4,300 4,500 feet with annual precipitation ranging between 15 and 30 inches. Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) with scattered incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), white fir (Abies concolor) and western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) are the tree species present in the project area. Methodology for Analysis Sources of Information Sources of vegetation information and data used in this analysis are cruise volumes, the GIS vegetation (eveg) database, and walk-through examinations. Data was also received from the Remote Sensing Applications Center (RSAC) at Salt Lake City, Utah. The post-fire vegetation mapping effort for the Frog Fire Project was derived from Landsat multi-spectral imagery (RAVG), combined with field verification, to assess vegetation burn severity. Areas were classified into the four categories of tree mortality as displayed in Table 1 below. Generally, potential fire salvage treatment areas were designated where tree basal area mortality was greater than 75%. Map 1 displays the locations of the tree mortality. Table 1. Burned Area Severity Percentage Breakdown Basal Area (BA) Mortality Acres 0 - < 25% < 50% < 75% % 2,560 Total 4,865 A fire-injured tree harvest and hazard tree abatement field evaluation of the Frog Fire project was completed by Forest Health Protection (FHP) (Cluck, 2015). The field evaluation referenced Marking Guidelines for Fire-injured Trees in California (Smith and Cluck 2011) and Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region (Angwin etal. 2012). Acres in this analysis may vary slightly due to rounding errors or to minor corrections made to database sources. 1

3 Map 1: Frog Fire Tree Mortality Locations. 2

4 Management Standards and Guidelines Management direction includes standards and guidelines for project design and implementation. The following standards and guidelines apply to the general forest land allocation and are used to determine the appropriate treatment prescriptions. SNFPA FSEIS ROD Determine the need for ecosystem restoration projects following large, catastrophic disturbance events (wildfire, etc.). Objectives for restoration projects may include limiting fuel loads over the long term, restoring wildlife habitat, and recovering economic value from dead and dying trees. SNFPA FSEIS ROD Salvage harvest of dead and dying trees may be conducted to recover the economic value of this material and to support objectives for reducing hazardous fuels, improving forest health, reintroducing fire, and /or speeding recovery of old forest conditions. SNFPA FSEIS ROD Use the best available information on determining tree mortality for the purpose of salvage as developed by the Pacific Southwest Region Forest Health Protection Staff. SNFPA FSEIS ROD Design projects to recover the value of timber killed or severely injured by the disturbance. Examples are activities that would: (1) conduct timber salvage harvest in a timely manner to minimize value loss; (2) minimize harvest costs within site-specific resource constraints; and (3) remove material that local managers determine is not needed for long-term resource recovery needs. SNFPA FSEIS ROD Along maintenance level roads 3, 4, and 5 and within or immediately adjacent to (tree falling distance) administrative sites, hazard trees may be felled and removed. Along maintenance level 1 and 2 roads hazard trees will be reviewed by an appropriate resource specialist before felling. Trees that are needed to meet CWD will be left. Methods for Analysis Geographic and Temporal Bounds The geographical boundary used to analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for this analysis is the Frog Fire perimeter since all units planned for salvage and/or hazard tree removal are within the fire perimeter. The project area encompasses approximately 4,875 acres. The entire area is National Forest System (NFS) land. Five years was used to be the temporal bound for future effects because it is estimated that project implementation would be completed in that timeframe. Existing Condition The wildland fire is the common event that has altered the forest vegetation within the project area. The project area was burned within a mixed severity fire that resulted in a range of impacts to the vegetation occupying the site. Prior to the Frog Fire, vegetative conditions in the project area were shaped by a combination of natural disturbances and human management events. Wildland fires, fire suppression, climate, railroad logging, grazing and the more recent drought-related mortality were the predominant abiotic and biotic influences in the project area. The area contains predominantly eastside pine vegetation types with a species composition primarily ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) with scattered incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), white fir (Abies concolor) and western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis). The understory consists of various species of grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Reduced forest cover occurs on areas of lava reefs that have shallow, rocky soils. 3

5 In the early 1900s, the area was likely subjected to railroad logging that harvested some of the large trees; however, the majority of the area is comprised of lava flows that limited accessibility and operability with the equipment that was available at the time. In the mid-1990 s, green and salvage timber harvest occurred over portions of the Frog Fire project area. Table 2 displays the project area cover types, pre-fire and post-fire. Table 2. Project Area Cover Types Pre and Post Frog Fire USFS Cover Type CWHR Code Acres Pre-Fire Percent of Project Area Acres Post-Fire Percent of Project Area Forest Eastside Pine EPN 4,063 83% 2,034 42% Sierran mixed conifer SMC 2 <1% 1 <1% Subtotal Forest Type 4,064 83% 2,035 42% Shrub-Herbaceous Montane Chaparral MCP 182 4% 30 1% Sagebrush SGB 209 4% 64 1% Bitterbrush BBR 393 8% 159 3% Subtotal Shrub-Herbaceous % 253 5% Barren (rock, gravel, soil) BAR 27 1% 2,576 53% Total Project Area 4, % 4, % Purpose and Need The purpose and need for the Frog Fire Salvage Project is documented within the environmental assessment. Desired Condition The land allocation for the entire Frog Fire area is General Forest. Desired conditions for the general forest allocation are identical to those described for Old Forest Emphasis Areas as documented within the Modoc National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (LMRP 1991) as amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision (SNFPA) (SNFPA FSEIS ROD 2004). The desired condition for general forest is: Forest structure and function across general forest areas generally resemble pre-settlement conditions. High levels of horizontal and vertical diversity exist at the landscape-scale (roughly 10,000 acres). Stands are composed of roughly even-aged vegetation groups, varying in size, species composition, and structure. Individual vegetation groups range from less than 0.5 to more than 5 acres in size. Tree sizes range from seedlings to very large diameter trees. Species composition varies by elevation, site productivity, and related environmental factors. Multi-tiered canopies, particularly in older forests, provide vertical heterogeneity. Dead trees, both standing and fallen, meet habitat needs of old-forest-associated species. 4

6 Where possible, areas treated to reduce fuel levels also provide for the successful establishment of early seral stage vegetation. (SNFPA FSEIS ROD 2004) Proposed Action The Frog Fire Salvage Project proposed action is documented within the environmental assessment. Monitoring The following forest vegetation monitoring would be recommended for the Frog Fire project area: Annual insect and disease mortality surveys would be accomplished by Forest Health Protection. First, third, and fifth-year survival examinations would occur within all tree seedling planted units. Planted units would be assessed for competing vegetation and the need for follow-up treatment to ensure stocking requirements are met. Environmental Consequences The Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of the No Action on the recovery of the value of timber from the trees that were killed or damaged by the wildfire, roadside safety, and reforestation. Direct and Indirect Effects Recovery of the value of timber Harvest of forest products would not occur and fuel reduction treatments would not be implemented. There would be no recovery of the economic value of any of the fire-killed or fire-damaged trees. No additional employment opportunities or wages paid to primary and service industry employees would be circulated through the local economy. Without action it would be more difficult for the local infrastructure to obtain the raw material needed to sustain operations. Although private land is available to meet the needs of the mills, competing for the raw material would be more intense as no action would essentially reduce the local land base for acquiring saw logs. Additionally, the logging operators may need to travel out of the area to operate. Roadside safety Hazard trees adjacent to roads would not be removed. The roadside hazard trees would remain within striking distance of roads. The purpose and need would not be met because the trees that are current hazards due to structural defect (including dead trees) and those that are predicted to die and become hazards in the near future would not be felled to improve safety and access. Leaving the roadside hazard trees along the specified roads would neither reduce the short and long-term risk of injury or death to forest road users nor reduce the risk of damage to roads or property along the specified roads within the project area. Roads may need to be administratively closed until hazards could be abated. Agency road maintenance costs would increase to fell the numerous hazard trees. Additionally, the no action alternative would maintain the current and long-term exposure for potential injuries to forest road users that could result from having to buck downed logs out of the roadway. Reforestation 5

7 No reforestation activities would occur. Without reforestation, the entire burned area would be left to recover naturally. Existing stand conditions would develop unaltered by active management. Generally, the sites with less than fully occupied growing space would be rapidly colonized by grasses, forbs and shrubs within two to five years. Much of the areas that burned under high severity would likely become dominated by brush species comparable to similar sites within the Scarface Fire, located adjacent to the southern boundary of the project area. Grasses, forbs and shrubs (mostly manzanita) have occupied similar sites within the Scarface Fire for almost 40 years after the fire occurrence. Where natural regeneration does not occur in amounts to re-establish forested conditions, the areas would experience a vegetation type change to brush fields that may persist for decades and potentially more than a century. The natural re-establishment of forested conditions could last a considerable amount of time and would delay the development of mature forest conditions which could provide multiple benefits such as wildlife habitat, structural diversity, visual aesthetics, and future economic opportunities through forest management. Cumulative Effects In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. For these reasons, the analysis of past actions in this section is based on current environmental conditions and the past activities that have occurred within the last 20 years. Since there is no private land ownership within the project area, only the history of treatment activities on NFS land was researched. Since 1995, approximately 15 small (< 10 acres) wildfires have occurred within the Frog Fire project area. Green and salvage harvest also occurred within the mid-1900 s over a portion of the project area. It is likely the removal of hazard trees occurred during suppression of these small fires and the harvest operations. Frog Fire suppression activities in 2015 involved construction of dozer line and hand line with many created clearings for drop points, safety zones, staging areas, and helispots. Present and On-going Actions Fuel wood cutting, fire suppression and road maintenance are present and on-going actions in the project area. Fuel wood cutting could have a beneficial effect on roadside safety if fuel wood cutters removed hazard trees. Additionally, fuel wood cutting would result in an economic recovery of value of wood that is sold or used for personal use. The effects would be negligible because of the general dispersed nature of the firewood cutting activity, the preference of firewood cutters not to cut pine or trees that have blackened bark, and the long distance of the project area to population centers. Fire suppression would have a similar beneficial effect to roadside safety where fire fighters mitigate safety concerns by felling hazardous trees while suppressing wildland fires. The hazard tree felling that is included in road maintenance activities has a beneficial effect to roadside safety because trees that are dead and/or exhibiting structural defects within falling distance of forest roads are felled to mitigate the safety hazard. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions There are no other reasonably foreseeable vegetation and fuels actions that would occur within the project area. 6

8 The Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action on the recovery of the value of timber from the trees that were killed or damaged by the wildfire, roadside safety, and reforestation. Direct and Indirect Effects Recovery of the value of timber The action alternative proposes to harvest fire-killed and damaged trees through salvage efforts on approximately 1,937 acres of the project area. The harvest would occur in selected locations of the timbered landscape within the fire perimeter in order to recover the economic timber value before marketability is drastically reduced as a consequence of insect activity, decay, and staining from fungi. There is an estimated 14,659 hundred cubic feet (ccf) (8.6 million board feet) of burned timber that would be harvested. The action alternative would result in receipts of up to an estimated $1,269,855. Timber harvest values could pay for associated fuels reduction activities. Fuel reduction activity costs that exceed timber harvest revenues could be financed through appropriated or collaborative funding when available. Employment opportunities have direct and indirect effects on the local economy. Direct effects would be associated with the primary producer. The manufacturing of lumber from the Frog Fire project would increase employment opportunities. Indirect effects account for employment in service industries that serve the lumber manufacturer. These industries would include logging, trucking, fuel supplies, etc. Indirect effects are also determined by wages. Wages paid to workers by the primary and service industries are circulated through the economy for food, housing, transportation, and other living expenses. The sum of direct and indirect effects is the total economic impact in terms of employment opportunities. The effects of this alternative would increase or retain forestry-related employment opportunities. The alternative would provide timber yield tax, administered by the State Board of Equalization. This tax is not paid by the Forest but by private timber operators and is based on the amount of timber harvested in a given year on both private and public lands. The tax is 2.9 percent of the value of the harvested timber. The taxes are collected by the state and approximately 80 percent is returned to the counties in which the timber was harvested. Roadside Safety Roadside hazard tree removal would ensure safe travel routes on 13.6 miles of Forest Service System roads for anyone who uses these roads. Management actions are taken to mitigate the hazard when risks are unacceptable. It is the responsibility of the land manager to discover and mitigate any unreasonably dangerous conditions to minimize the potential for injury to users or damage to property. There is recognized potential for a tree or tree part to fail and cause injury or damage by striking a target. It is common practice to refer to such trees as hazard or danger trees. The distinction has been that hazard trees are near structures and danger trees are along the road. Dangers trees are synonymous with hazard trees and will be simply referred to as hazard trees (Angwin et al. 2012). All standing trees, alive or dead, within areas occupied by people, structures and property present some level of hazard. Potential for failure by itself does not constitute a hazard. Hazard exists when a tree of sufficient size and mass to cause injury or damage is within striking distance of any object of value (people, property, etc.). Hazard increases with increasing tree defect, potential for failure, potential for damage, and target value (Angwin et al. 2012). Trees that fall into roadways create potential for vehicle accidents and could block egress or cause entrapment. The roadside hazard tree removal as implemented through the marking guidelines would result in reduced hazard trees within striking distance of roads. It would also reduce the amount of fire-injured trees that would likely die within striking distance of roads. The purpose of the marking guidelines is to remove those 7

9 trees that are current hazards due to structural defect (includes dead trees) and those that are predicted to die and become hazards in the near future in order to protect forest visitors and improve safety and access. Following the recommendations from the marking guidelines would retain those trees that are not deemed a current or future potential hazard in order to provide continuous forest cover that maintains high visual quality and enhances ecological and recreational values. This balance would provide healthy forest cover in a natural-appearing setting, which functionally and aesthetically satisfies visitors while providing for safety and access to the area. The roadside hazard portion of the project directly reduces the short and long-term risk of injury or death to the public, Forest Service employees and contractors and reduces damage to roads or property along traveled routes within the project area. Removal of hazard trees effectively meets the purpose and need and desired conditions within the project area by mitigating hazards and providing for public safety along specified roads. This action would also reduce the immediate and long-term exposure to potential injuries that could result from having to buck downed logs out of the roadway. Reforestation Reforestation of approximately 250 acres would expedite the beneficial re-establishment of a forested landscape capable of producing a variety of wildlife habitat, structural and vegetative diversity, visual aesthetics, other ecological services, and wood products. Additionally, some of the tree planting would occur in areas with extensive mortality and would create stands that would eventually mature to produce seed, therefore improving the probability of future seed dispersal that would promote natural regeneration. The direct effects of artificial reforestation would be the re-establishment of fire resistant, shade intolerant conifer species before shrub, grass, and forb competition preclude natural regeneration of these tree species. Reforestation activities are proposed to take advantage of bare ground now before subsequent growth of shrubs, forbs and grasses fully occupy the proposed units (Tappeiner and McDonald 1996, Sessions et al. 2004). Planting trees as soon as possible following a fire ensures a high seedling survival rate. Shrubs, forbs, and grasses would become a component of planted areas over time and maintain vegetation diversity. With reforestation, stands would return to an appropriate forest cover quicker than the no action alternative. Cumulative Effects As noted previously, cumulative effects for the project rely on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect aggregate impacts of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. Since there is no private land ownership within the project area, only the history of treatment activities on NFS land was researched. The past actions that have occurred within the Frog Fire project area within the last 20 years are disclosed in the cumulative effects section of the No Action alternative. Present and On-going Actions Fuel wood cutting, fire suppression and road maintenance are present and on-going actions in the project area. The effects of the actions are the same as noted in the Present and On-going Actions section of the No Action alternative. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions There are no other reasonably foreseeable vegetation and fuels actions that would occur within the project area. 8

10 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans The silvicultural treatments developed for the proposed action address a landscape that includes management of timber harvest for timber production and management of timber harvest for purposes other than timber production and comply with 36 CFR (b) and (c). The proposed vegetation treatments comply with and are consistent with the multiple-use goals and standards and guidelines established in the LRMP, as amended. Treatment areas were not chosen because they would generate the greatest amount of dollars or timber output. The project prescribes specific protection measures as integrated design features. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be followed so there would be no permanent impairment of site productivity as a result of this project. The rate of soil erosion would not increase as a result of these actions. Standard operating procedures along with specific design features are incorporated to protect wildlife habitat and other resource values. Harvest plans are practical in terms of transportation and harvesting requirements, and total costs of preparation, implementation, and administration. 9

11 Literature Cited Angwin, P.A., D.R. Cluck, P.J. Zambino, B.W. Oblinger and W.C. Woodruff Hazard Tree Guidelines For Forest Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region. US Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, Region 5, Vallejo, CA. Report # RO p. Daniel Cluck, Considerations for fire-injured tree harvest and hazard tree abatement within the 2015 Frog Fire, Modoc National Forest (FHP Report NE15-11). USDA - Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, Northeast California Shared Service Area. Sessions, J., P. Bettinger, R. Buckman, M. Newton, and J. Hamann Hastening the Return of Complex Forests Following Fire. The Consequences of Delay. Journal of Forestry, 102, April/May 2004, pp Smith, S.L. and D.R. Cluck Marking guidelines for fire-injured trees in California. US Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, Region 5, Susanville, CA. Report # RO p. Tappeiner, J.C. and P.M. McDonald Regeneration of Sierra Nevada Forests. Vol. 3, Ch. 12 in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project final report to Congress: Status of the Sierra Nevada, Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Science Team. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, Univ. of California, Davis, CA p. USDA Forest Service Modoc National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Pacific Southwest Region, Modoc National Forest, Alturas, CA. USDA Forest Service Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision. Pacific Southwest Region. 10

12 Silviculture Report Frog Fire 11