Forestry Report. Big Flat Vegetation Management. Prepared by: for: Big Flat InterDisciplinary Team. Beaver Ranger District Fishlake National Forest

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service October 2015 Forestry Report Big Flat Vegetation Management Prepared by: Big Flat InterDisciplinary Team for: Beaver Ranger District Fishlake National Forest

2 For More Information Contact: District Ranger Beaver Ranger District 575 South Main Street PO Box E Beaver, Utah The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

3 Forestry Report Table of Contents Introduction...1 Background...1 Location of the Big Flat Project Area...1 Resource Character...2 Document Structure...3 Management Direction...4 National Forest Management Act...4 Planning Rule...5 Fishlake National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan...5 National Environmental Policy Act...6 Council on Environmental Quality Regulations...6 Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act Regulations...6 Affected Environment...6 Existing Condition...6 LRMP Goals...7 Suitability...7 Forest Composition...8 Forest Structure...11 Forest Health...12 Old Growth...14 Role of Fire...15 Regeneration...17 Climate Change...19 Desired Condition...19 Suitability...19 Forest Composition...20 Forest Structure...20 Forest Health...20 Old Growth...20 Role of Fire...20 Regeneration...21 Climate Change...21 Need for Change Gap between Existing and Desired Condition...22 Suitability...22 Forest Composition...22 Forest Structure...22 Forest Health...22 Old Growth...22 Role of Fire...22 Regeneration...23 Climate Change...23 Environmental Consequences...24 Methodology...24 Sources of Information...24 Forest Vegetation Simulator...24 Incomplete and Unavailable Information...25 Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis...26 Temporal Scope of the Analysis...26 i

4 Big Flat Vegetation Management Connected Actions, Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis Proposed Action Commercial Timber Cutting Transportation Actions Non-Commercial Forest Vegetation Treatments Project Design Features Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action Suitability Forest Composition Forest Structure Forest Health Old Growth Role of Fire Regeneration Climate Change Cumulative Effects Forest Composition Forest Structure Forest Health Old Growth Role of Fire Regeneration Climate Change Effects Relative to Significance Factors Context Intensity Summary of Effects Appendix A. Compliance with the National Forest Management Act Appendix B. Maps Appendix C. Relevant Science Appendix D. Forest Plan Consistency Checklist List of Tables Table 1. Project Area Watersheds in Acres Table 2. Big Flat Project Area Vegetation Table 3. LRMP Desired Conditions for Big Flat Analysis Table 4. Big Flat Proposed Treatment Areas Considered Unsuitable Under the LRMP Table 5. Species Composition for Six Stands in Compartment Table 6. Vegetation Structural Stages (VSS) Table 7. Northern Goshawk Territories Associated with the Big Flat Project Area Table 8. Within Stand VSS Distribution for Example Stand (48/03) Table 9. Stand Density and its Effect on the Stand Table 10. Grizzly Ridge for Sample Stands Table 11. Big Flat Stands Currently Qualifying as Old Growth Under Hamilton (1993) Table 12. Fire Condition Data from Compartment 49/Stand Table 13. Current Regeneration in Compartment 3 of Big Flat Table 14. Summary of the Need for Change Table 15. Cumulative Effects Area Cover Types (Approximate Acres) ii

5 Forestry Report Table 16. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Forest Vegetation Management Projects Table 17. Stands Subject to Commercial Timber Cutting under Big Flat Table 18. Transportation Actions for Big Flat Table 19. Stands Subject to Non-Commercial Forest Improvement Treatments under Big Flat Table 20. Project Design Features Table 21. Post-Treatment Species Composition for Six Stands in Compartment Table 22. Proposed Treatments within Northern Goshawk Territories Table 23. Post-Treatment SDI Results from Grizzly Ridge Sample Stands Table 24. Impact of the Big Flat Treatments on Stands Currently Qualifying as Old Growth Table 25. Fire Condition Data from Compartment 49/Stand 08 After Two Group Selection Entries Table 26. Proposed Action Spruce Regeneration in Compartment 3 of Big Flat Table 27. Forest Health Treatments within the Cumulative Effects Area for Big Flat...53 Table 28. Aspen Regeneration Projects in the Big Flat CEA Table 29. Big Flat Proposal Consistent with LRMP Standards and Guidelines...89 iii

6 Big Flat Vegetation Management ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS BA BRD CC CCF CEA CFR CSE DBH EA ESA FNF FMP FONSI FSVEG FVS GIS IDT IRA ITS LRMP MA MPB NEPA NFMA PDF PFC Rx R4 SDI USC VSS Basal Area Beaver Ranger District Clear Cut Hundred Cubic Feet Cumulative Effects Area Code of Federal Regulations Common Stand Exam Diameter at Breast Height Environmental Assessment Endangered Species Act Fishlake National Forest Fire Management Plan Finding of No Significant Impact Field Sampled Vegetation Forest Vegetation Simulator Geographic Information System Interdisciplinary Team Inventoried Roadless Area Individual Tree Selection Land and Resource Management Plan Management Area Mountain Pine Beetle National Environmental Policy Act National Forest Management Act Project Design Feature Properly Functioning Condition Prescribed Forest Service Region Four Stand Density Index United States Code Vegetation Structural Stages iv

7 Forestry Report Introduction Background The Big Flat Vegetation Management project is proposed for timber suitable lands on the Beaver Ranger District (BRD) of the Fishlake National Forest. The purpose of this proposal is to implement the Fishlake National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) by proposing vegetation treatments designed specifically to achieve the following goals: 1. Manage the timber resources on lands suitable for production of saw timber and other Forest products. 2. Restore and maintain ecosystems, consistent with land uses and historic fire regimes, through wildland fire use and prescribed fire. 3. Improve the timber age class distribution and maintain species diversity, while using silvicultural tools to prevent and control insect infestation and disease. The Forest Service is conducting an environmental analysis to determine whether this proposal may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and thereby require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The findings associated with this analysis will be presented in an Environmental Assessment (EA), demonstrating the Fishlake National Forest s compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Forestry Report will discuss management direction, the affected environment, and the potential environmental consequences of the proposal, specifically as these relate to the forest vegetation within the project area. Location of the Big Flat Project Area The Big Flat Project is located approximately 12 miles east of Beaver, Utah, along state highway 153, from Merchant Valley to Big Flat itself. The project area is approximately 18,500 acres in size and includes about 2,900 acres of private land, most of which is associated with the Eagle Point Resort. The elevation ranges from 8,300 to 11,500 feet. The project area is located within the headwaters of four watersheds of the Fishlake National Forest. The 6th HUC watersheds are the Merchant Creek, East Fork Iant Creek-Beaver River, City Creek, and Three Creeks (Table 1). Parts of two inventoried roadless areas (IRA) City Creek and Bullion-Delano are located within the project area, though forest management is not proposed within the IRAs at this time. The project area includes all or parts of T.28S, R.4W, Sections 19, 29, 30, 31, and 32; T.28S, R.5W, Sections 24, 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, and 36; T.29S, R.4W, Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19, 20, 30, and 31; and T.29S, R.5W, Sections 1, 2, 3, 8-17, 20-28, 35, and 36 of the Salt Lake Base Meridian. Table 1. Project Area Watersheds in Acres. Watershed Size of Watershed Portion of Watershed w/in Big Flat Project (Percent) Merchant Creek 11,867 3,216 (27%) East Fork Iant Creek- Beaver River 26,704 1,193 (less than 1%) City Creek 15,956 1,540 (10%) 1

8 Big Flat Vegetation Management Watershed Size of Watershed Portion of Watershed w/in Big Flat Project (Percent) Three Creeks 12,553 12,553 (100%) Totals 67,080 18,502 Resource Character While many of the stands within the project area have a relatively diverse overstory composed of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), limber pine (Pinus flexilis), Douglas fir (Psuedotsuga menziesii), aspen (Populus tremuloides), and blue spruce (Picea pungens), the landscape is dominated by the spruce-fir cover type (Table 2). (Cover types used by the Forest Service have been defined by the Society of American Foresters (Eyre 1980).) Western forest cover type 206 is composed of Engelmann spruce (Picea Engelmannii) and subalpine fir (Abies concolor). The spruce-fir type is widespread throughout southern Utah, growing especially on the higher mountains and plateaus (Alexander 1987). In older stands, Engelmann spruce tend to dominate the canopy due to its ability to regenerate on bare mineral soil, a superior rate of growth, and longevity (Veblen and others 1991). In response to spruce beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis) outbreaks, however, the composition of these stands trends toward subalpine fir because of the reduction in spruce seed sources and the lack of soil disturbance (Schmid and Hinds 1974; Dymerski and others 2001). In fact, subalpine fir can become dominant for up to 200 years after a spruce beetle outbreak because fir accounts for most of the advanced regeneration in undisturbed stands (Jenkins and others 2008). Subalpine fir, given its insect and disease problems has less management potential than spruce (McCaughey and Schmidt 1982), especially in achieving large tree objectives. Table 2. Big Flat Project Area Vegetation. Cover Types Acres Aspen 1,735 Meadow^ 1,587 Private Property^ 2,907 Rock-Barren-Alpine^ 1,466 Spruce-Fir 10,808 Total* 18,503 ^Not SAF cover-types. *All acreages are estimates. Rounding errors may change total values slightly. While the stands in the Big Flat project area have been spared from some of the more widespread spruce beetle outbreaks of the past decade (DeRose and Long 2007; Dymerski and others 2001), forest entomologists have recently discerned an uptick in spruce beetle activity in the project area (Hebertson and Blackford 2014). Noting that, spruce-fir stands in these areas are highly susceptible to further infestation having densities and spruce diameters suitable for spruce beetle brood production and insect spread, Hebertson and Blackford have recommended silvicultural treatments. Moreover, an ongoing outbreak of western spruce budworm (Choristoneura freeman) is currently affecting the health of both spruce and fir trees in these stands. 2

9 Forestry Report The analysis area is in the Tushar Mountain Range. The Tushars are located at the boundary between two physiographic provinces. To the west is the basin and range country, while the Tushars mark the edge of Colorado plateau which lies to the east. The underlying geology for the project area is volcanic, with a primary rock type of ash-flow tuff, and a secondary rock type of basalt. The map label is Tmv and the geologic age of these rocks is late Oligocene to middle Miocene. At this location, snowfall averages 126 inches per year, with most of that coming between December and March. Temperatures are lowest in December (mean 28.1F) and warmest in July (mean 68.3F). Despite the relatively cool moist climate of this area, long-term studies point to the possibility that warmer and dryer conditions over the past decades may be contributing to an uptick in spruce and fir mortality in subalpine forests (Smith and others 2015). The project area provides habitat for numerous common wildlife species, including the black bear (Ursus americanus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), and elk (Cervus Canadensis). Currently, the deer and elk (and, perhaps, domestic livestock) are eating many of the aspen sprouts throughout these stands. Because of this, existing aspen seedlings are generally not more than one foot tall, (the existing aspen is in decline and the sprouts are being browsed (Bartos and Campbell 1998)). Despite this browsing, forage, as a resource, is limited. While meadows provide forbs and grasses, the typical high-elevation sprucefir stand does not feature a productive understory. Dense canopies, which intercept available light, result in stands with a low potential to produce forage (Miller and Krueger 1976). Ignoring the potential benefits of aspen for wildlife habitat, spruce-fir forests can also provide summer foraging habitat for elk and deer, though these stands may be just as important for hiding cover (Alexander 1977). On the Fishlake National Forest, the northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) is an important species (Graham and others 1999). Spruce-fir cover types can provide suitable habitat for the goshawk though perhaps not the best habitat (Beck and others 2011). In some cases, large areas of dense spruce-fir forest can provide the setting for wilderness or nonmotorized recreation such as hiking or ski touring (Alexander 1977). The Big Flat project area has many roads and campgrounds both inside and adjacent to it, though, so it does not have wilderness characteristics. The roads in the area are heavily used for recreation. The Kent s Lake loop is especially popular. Common activities include ATV use, wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, and horseback riding. For stands in an LRMP management area focused on the production of saw timber, some management activities will be visible. In dense stands dominated by conifer species, however, small openings and thinned conditions can provide texture and visual diversity to break up the monotony of miles of unbroken canopy (Alexander 1977). Document Structure This report is organized into four sections: Management Direction: The first part of the document will consider the legislative, regulatory, and legal direction under which the Forest Service operates. In particular, this section will consider the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), its implementing regulations, and its embodiment in the Fishlake National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (FNF LRMP). It will also consider the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations. 3

10 Big Flat Vegetation Management Affected Environment: This section will discuss the current condition of the forest vegetation in the project area, including details regarding composition, productivity, structure, and health. In addition, this part of the document will address the desired condition of the forest resource in the project area. Finally, the section will conclude with a discussion of the gap between the existing and desired conditions. Environmental Consequences: The third part of the document will describe the potential environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives on the forest resource. As an introduction, this section will describe analysis methods as well as the scope and scale of the analysis. As a conclusion, this section will consider potential environmental effects in the context of significance as defined by the NEPA regulations. Appendices: This report is supported by three appendices. Appendix A summarizes required findings under the NFMA; appendix B contains maps of the proposed treatments; appendix C provides a review of the science; appendix D includes an analysis of the project s compliance with forest plan standards and guidelines. Management Direction As a Federal agency, the Forest Service takes its direction from the United States Congress (Congress). Laws enacted by Congress that provide direction to the agency regarding the management of forest vegetation and the evaluation of environmental impacts include the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (16 United States Code (U.S.C,) 1600 et. seq.) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C et. seq.). In addition to legislative direction, Congress also instructs Federal agencies to promulgate regulations that provide specific instructions for implementing the legislation. In this case, the NFMA regulations, also called the Planning Rule are found at 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 219, while the implementing regulations for the NEPA are found at both 40 CFR 1500 (Council on Environmental Quality) and 36 CFR 220 (Forest Service). For the local planning area and for this project in particular, the Fishlake National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, promulgated under the NFMA, provides specific management direction. Each of these sources of management direction is considered in turn. National Forest Management Act The NFMA requires the Secretary of Agriculture to prepare management plans for each National Forest System unit and to update them every 15 years, or as necessary. These integrated plans are to form a single document or collection of documents which describes the uses for the entire unit. In compliance with the NFMA, the Fishlake National Forest is managed under a forest plan that was signed in In addition to the general discussion regarding forest plans, the Congress also instructs the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate NFMA procedures for preparing such land management plans. These regulations are to include, inter alia, steps to preserve the diversity of tree species similar to that existing in the region controlled by the plan. Under this direction, the Forest Service promulgated the first planning rule in That rule has since been superseded by the 2012 rule, which is currently in effect. 4

11 Forestry Report In addition to the rule-making direction, the Congress provided, through the NFMA, specific direction regarding timber harvest. For findings regarding compliance with these provisions (16 U.S.C. 1604, sub-parts g and m) in the present case, please see Appendix A. Planning Rule The Fishlake National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan was developed under the provisions of the 1982 planning rule, which is no longer in effect. The Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment signed the agency s latest planning rule in April of The rule was published in the Federal Register on April 9, 2012, and it became effective 30 days following the publication date on May 9, It is this rule that directs the current analysis. Specifically, under 36 CFR (c) the rule holds that: All other planning regulations have been superseded. No obligations remain from any prior planning regulation, except those that are specifically included in a unit s existing plan. Existing plans will remain in effect until revised. The Big Flat Project implements the Fishlake Forest Plan and is consistent with it. For findings regarding forest plan compliance associated with the forest vegetation resource, please see Appendix D. Moreover, nothing in the new planning rule applies at the project level: None of the requirements of this part apply to projects or activities on units with plans developed or revised under a prior planning rule until the plan is revised under this part,.... Fishlake National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan The Fishlake National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan provides management direction and management constraints associated with the forest vegetation resource. Goals and statements of general direction enumerated in the forest plan are listed below. Goals (Forest Plan 1986, p. IV-4 & IV-5.) for the timber resource on the Fishlake National Forest include: Provide wood fiber while maintaining or improving other resource values. Improve the timber age class distribution and maintain species diversity. Prevent and control insect infestation and disease. General direction (Forest Plan 1986, p. IV-31.) for silvicultural treatments on the Forest include: Timber management activities may be carried out on unsuitable lands only when compatable [sic] with other resource objectives and when they meet one of the attached guidelines: A) Salvage or sanitation harvesting of trees or stands that are substantially damaged by fire, windthrow, or other catastrophe, or which are in imminent danger from insect or disease attack. General direction (Forest Plan 1986, p. IV-114) for silvicultural treatments in Management Area 7A include: Wood-fiber production and utilization of large roundwood of a size and quality suitable for sawtimber. For the purposes of identifying the needs of this project, the interdisciplinary team considered primarily the goals and general direction associated with the timber resource. The application of standards and guidelines comes as management proposals are checked against them and projects 5

12 Big Flat Vegetation Management are designed to be compliant with them. For a review of this project s compliance with forest plan standards and guidelines, please see Appendix D. National Environmental Policy Act It is the policy of the Federal Government to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and to enhance the quality of renewable resources (NEPA 1969, 40 U.S.C. 4332). In compliance with that policy, the Council on Environmental Quality has promulgated regulations to guide agencies in planning and decision making that may affect the environment. In addition, the Forest Service has codified its own NEPA procedures at 36 CFR 220. Each of these is discussed in turn. Council on Environmental Quality Regulations To assist with Forest Service planning and decision making under NEPA, the Forest has chosen to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) (40 CFR (b)). As a result, this analysis will focus on the regulatory language associated with an EA. First, agencies are directed to reduce paperwork and delay by preparing an EA and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) when an action will not have a significant effect on the human environment (40 CFR (q)). Second, the purpose of the EA is to determine whether an environmental impact statement (EIS) is necessary due to potentially significant effects (40 CFR (c)). If it is not, the agency will prepare a FONSI (40 CFR (e)). Third, the EA is to be a concise document that provides evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS or a FONSI (40 CFR (a)(1)). Finally, the regulations provide direction on how to consider significant effects based on context and intensity (40 CFR ). Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act Regulations In 2008, the Forest Service codified its NEPA policies at 36 CFR 220. Specific direction associated with the preparation of an EA is found at 36 CFR Much of this direction is taken directly from the Council on Environmental Quality regulations. See, for example, 36 CFR 220.7(b)(3)(i). The Forest Service regulations also allow the agency to analyze only the proposed action in an EA (36 CFR 220.7(b)(2)(i)), and do not require analysis of a no-action alternative (36 CFR 220.7(b)(2)(ii)). Affected Environment Existing Condition The commercial forestry treatments proposed for Big Flat would occur on forest plan-designated management area (MA) 7A. MA 7A emphasizes Wood-fiber Production and Utilization. The forest plan instructs decision makers that [m]anagement emphasis is on wood-fiber production and utilization of large roundwood of a size and quality suitable for sawtimber. The emphasis is not in the original. It has been added here to make the point that the stands included in the Big Flat project are part of the managed forest resource on the Fishlake National Forest. The stands proposed for treatment in the Big Flat Project are not designated as wilderness, research natural area, inventoried roadless area, semi-primitive, or municipal watersheds. The stands in the Big Flat project area are managed forest stands. 6

13 Forestry Report LRMP Goals The Fishlake LRMP has goals (desired conditions) for Diversity, Recreation, Cultural, Visual, Wildlife and Fish, Range, Timber, Soil and Water, Minerals, Special Uses, Rights-of-Way, Facilities, Human and Community Development, Protection, Lands, and Research. For the Big Flat project, the analysis team reviewed each of them, and selected those appropriate to the project need and applicable to the location of the proposal (MA7A) (Table 3). Table 3. LRMP Desired Conditions for Big Flat Analysis. Category Diversity Desired Condition Restore and maintain ecosystems, consistent with land uses and historic fire regimes, through wildland fire use and prescribed fire. Timber Improve the timber age class distribution and maintain species diversity. IV-4 Timber Manage the timber resources on lands suitable for production of saw timber and other Forest products. Protection Prevent and control insect infestation and disease. IV-5 MA7A Suitability Wood-fiber production and utilization of large roundwood of a size and quality suitable for sawtimber. Forest Plan Location IV-3 IV-4 IV-114 Under the LRMP, just 79, 972 acres of the Fishlake National Forest have been determined to be suitable for timber production. In general, these suitable lands are found in Management Areas 7A-7D. The Big Flat project is located in MAs 2B, 3A, 6B, and 7A. Of the stands proposed for commercial timber harvest, nearly all are within MA7A 97% and are thus suitable for timber production. The remaining portions of the selected stands are in MAs 2B (2%) and 3A (1/2 of 1%). These lands have been determined to be unsuitable for timber production. The Fishlake National Forest Plan directs, however, that [t]imber management activities may be carried out on unsuitable lands only when compatable [sic] with other resource objectives and when they meet one of the attached guidelines: A) Salvage or sanitation harvesting of trees or stands that are substantially damaged by fire, windthrow, or other catastrophe, or which are in imminent danger from insect or disease; Harvesting to provide for access, such as road construction. (Forest Plan 1986, pp. IV- 31 and IV-32.). Thus, for other than suitable lands, commercial timber cutting is limited to salvage, sanitation, or cutting for road construction. This has been added to the project as a design feature. The stands affected are listed below (Table 4). Table 4. Big Flat Proposed Treatment Areas Considered Unsuitable Under the LRMP. MA Compartment Stand Acres 2B B B B

14 Big Flat Vegetation Management MA Compartment Stand Acres Forest Composition 3A 37 01a 2.5 3A Total The Big Flat project area contains vegetation types typical of many high-elevation plateaus in southern Utah (Table 2). The project area is dominated by level areas flats bisected by steeper canyons and drainages. Engelmann spruce (Picea engalmanii) and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) dominate the forest with aspen (Populus tremuloides) clones intermixed throughout. The larger aspen clones usually occur on the ridge tops or steeper slopes. Meadows tend to occupy the flats. In addition to the three dominant species, the project area contains scattered ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Douglas fir (Psuedotsuga menzezeii), blue spruce (Picea pungens), and limber pine (Pinus flexilis). Much of the project area is classified as the ABLA/RIMO-RIMO habitat type (Youngblood and Mauk 1985). This habitat type is generally found on north facing slopes between 9,500 and 11,000 feet. According to Youngblood and Mauk (1985, p. 23), the habitat type is quite common and can be found in vast acreages on most of the high plateaus and mountains of central and southern Utah. Subalpine fir is the major climax species, while Engelmann spruce is considered to be a long-lived seral (Alexander 1980). Management considerations include the need for protection of spruce seedlings which fare poorly in open areas and concerns about the potential for large diameter spruce slash to provide host sites for spruce beetles. Engelmann Spruce Engelmann spruce is a large, long-lived, but shallow-rooted tree, that is typically found in high elevation forests in Utah (Alexander 1987). Over the past two decades, the spruce bark beetle has killed millions of mature spruce trees in the state with up to 90% mortality in some areas (DeRose and Long 2007; Dymerski and others 2001). While not all spruce stands have been affected, there has been a recent decline in overall spruce volume and stand dominance across the state (DeBlander and others 2010). Subalpine Fir Subalpine fir is a relatively shade-tolerant, late successional species that can become dominant in mixed conifer forests in the absence of fire disturbance (Parsons and DeBenedetti 1979). In fact, at higher elevations in Utah subalpine fir can become dominant for up to 200 years after a spruce beetle outbreak because fir accounts for most of the advanced regeneration in undisturbed stands (Jenkins and others 2008). True firs, however, given their thin bark and insect and disease problems have less management potential than other forest species such as spruce or Douglas fir (McCaughey and Schmidt 1982), especially in achieving large tree objectives. Aspen Quaking aspen is a common tree species throughout Utah. It is important for providing wildlife habitat (Griffis-Kyle and Beier 2003) and biological diversity (Kay 1997) in landscapes dominated by conifers. Aspen is also in decline (Bartos 2001). Its health and reproductive 8

15 Forestry Report success has been negatively affected by fire suppression, ungulate browsing, and insect and disease infestations although perhaps not everywhere (Kulakowski and others 2004). As a result, the protection and management of aspen is important to land managers across the western United States (Mueggler 1989). Aspen is very intolerant of shade, requiring full sunlight to thrive. Because of this, aspen is sensitive to competition from shade-tolerant species such as subalpine fir (Smith and Smith 2005). Methods to manage and enhance aspen include burning, fencing to protect suckers from browsing damage, and silvicultural treatments such as conifer removal (Jones and others 2005) and coppice clear-felling (Shepperd 2001). Ponderosa Pine Ponderosa pine is a common conifer species in the western United States, second only to Douglas-fir in the width and breadth of its range (Graham and Jain 2005). Ponderosa pine is relatively fire resistant, and the composition of pine stands was historically maintained by frequent low-severity fires (Fitzgerald 2005). In the absence of fire, however, the composition of pine stands may shift toward less fire-resistant (and more shade-tolerant) species such as the true firs (Fule and others 1997). Ponderosa pine is largely shade-intolerant and grows only half as fast in the shade as it does in the sun (Oliver and Ryker 1990). Douglas Fir In Utah, the Douglas fir forest vegetation type is second only to aspen in its areal extent though both are exceeded by the woodland species like oak, pinyon, and juniper (DeBander and others 2010). Like ponderosa pine, Douglas fir is relatively well adapted to fire, with mature trees featuring thick bark that protect the cambium from damage (Fowler and Sieg 2004). Fire injury can, however, attract phloem-feeding beetles such as the Douglas fir beetle (Dendroctonus pseudotsugae) that can cause mortality in partially burned trees (Hood and Bentz 2007). Douglas fir is more shade tolerant than ponderosa pine, and tends to replace pine in the absence of disturbance (Arno and others 1995). Blue Spruce Blue spruce, sometimes called water spruce in southern Utah, is often found in stringers along riparian areas, but rarely occurs in large, pure stands in upland areas. While widely valued as an ornamental and shelter belt tree, it is not considered a valuable sawtimber species because its wood has a tendency to warp (Afele and Saxena 1995). Blue spruce is moderate in shade tolerance and generally slow growing, but tends to be a good seed producer (Jones 1973). Though thin barked and susceptible to damage from wildfire, blue spruce is a long-lived species that can reach ages of two or three hundred years (Hamilton 1993). Limber Pine Like other five-needle pines in the southern Rocky Mountains, limber pine is often found at the tree line on windy mountain ridges, though individuals are often present across a wide range of elevations (Knowles and Grant 1983). While sometimes present as a medium sized tree in mixed coniferous forests at lower elevations, limber pine is usually small and shrubby, growing on dry, open sites with poor, rocky soils (Hamilton 1993). The seeds of limber pine are an important source of food for wildlife (McCutchen 1996), but the species may be at risk from the spread of white pine blister rust (Coop and Shoettle 2009). Some individual limber pine trees may be cut for rough lumber, but the species is not considered a good source of saw timber (Steele 1990). 9

16 Big Flat Vegetation Management Compartment 03 Example Within the Big Flat project area, there are dozens of stands for which site specific data are available. For the purposes of this analysis, however, a selection of stands should serve to demonstrate the current composition across the project area. Table x, below, provides an example from compartment three. Table 5. Species Composition for Six Stands in Compartment 03. Stand Species Percent Composition in 2014 Percent Composition in 2064 Aspen 10% 7% 1 Blue Spruce 15% 19% Engelmann Spruce 49% 49% Subalpine Fir 25% 25% Aspen 6% 5% 2 Douglas Fir 6% 5% Engelmann Spruce 46% 38% Subalpine Fir 41% 51% Aspen 23% 15% 3 Blue Spruce 5% 6% Engelmann Spruce 44% 41% Subalpine Fir 28% 38% Aspen 47% 30% 5 Engelmann Spruce 37% 48% Subalpine Fir 15% 22% Aspen 34% 24% 7 Engelmann Spruce 25% 21% Subalpine Fir 42% 54% Aspen 36% 24% 8 Limber Pine 5% 6% Engelmann Spruce 42% 44% Subalpine Fir 17% 27% On average, aspen currently makes up 26% of these stands. Because much of this aspen is quite old more than 150 years in some cases it is likely that aspen will decline as a component of these stands. Moreover, the lack of disturbance and high levels of ungulate browse will not allow for the regeneration and recruitment of a new class of aspen. As a result, over the next fifty years, the proportion of aspen in these stands may decline to 17 or 18 percent or less. 1 The species that most benefits from the decline of aspen and the maintenance of current conditions is subalpine fir which is likely to increase from (on average) 30% of these stands to 36%, or more, while spruce tends to hold steady. This type of trend in species composition from early- or mid-seral species to shade tolerant late-seral species is supported by the literature and has been widely observed in high-elevation spruce-fir forests (Veblen and others 1991). 1 These results are modelled using the Forest Vegetation Simulator. They do not provide a perfect picture of future reality, but are useful for the purposes of comparison. 10

17 Forestry Report Forest Structure There are numerous ways to describe or define forest structure. Because the Fishlake National Forest has a lengthy forest plan amendment addressing the northern goshawk, structure on the Fishlake has become synonymous with the vegetation structural stages (VSS) described in the amendment. While there might be reasons to look at it from another angle, I would hate to do anything unexpected, even if it would make sense. For that reason, this section will focus primarily on the VSS concept. Table 6. Vegetation Structural Stages (VSS). Description VSS Class Diameter Range in Inches Grass/forb/shrub Seedling/sapling Young forest Mid-aged forest Mature forest Old forest Under the goshawk guidelines, there are six structural stages (Reynolds and others 1992) (Table 6). In the Big Flat project area, most of the forested stands are likely to be in VSS classes structural stages 3 and 4. This is because the goshawk guidelines direct that stands are to be classified as to VSS class using the dominant material in the stand by basal area. Un-even aged stands in the project area do contain components of the other VSS classes, but they are not dominant and are, thus, hidden in the data (Orlemann 2012). In general, field reconnaissance and CSE data show that the project area is not lacking in the small to middle size classes VSS classes 1 through 4. This is also true for the four northern goshawk territories (Table 7) which overlap with the Big Flat project area. Table 7. Northern Goshawk Territories Associated with the Big Flat Project Area. Name Nest Areas (Acres) Post-Fledgling Areas (Acres) Foraging Areas (Acres) Merchant Baker Duncan * Iant Totals This amount is not included in the total because it falls within the Merchant foraging area. As an example, Table 8 shows the current condition and future trajectory of compartment 48, stand 3. It is currently a VSS 3 stand and, after 100 years, would be a VSS 4 stand. This is assuming no disturbance. As is noted above, there are VSS 5 and 6 components present (within the stand), but the stand is not dominated by them. 11

18 Big Flat Vegetation Management Table 8. Within Stand VSS Distribution for Example Stand (48/03). VSS Class 2014 (%) 2064 (%) 2114 (%) Note: The percentages in this table include each VSS class in this uneven aged stand. Under the Reynolds report, noted above, this stand would be classified as a VSS 3 (2014), VSS 2 (2064), or VSS 4 (2114) stand only. Note that, despite the numbers, these multi-layered stands will almost always have some material in VSS class one. (Stand 4803, for example, has 3000 trees per acre under one inch DBH.) For this exercise, however, VSS has been calculated using basal area. Because basal area is calculated at breast height, much of the VSS 1 material is too small to be counted by the model. In other words, much of the material in VSS one will not have a DBH because it is not tall enough. Forest Health Insects and Disease Since the late 1990s, there have been numerous spruce beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis) epidemics across many of the high-elevation plateaus in southern Utah, resulting in widespread Engelmann spruce mortality. In fact, on the Markagunt Plateau, DeRose and Long (2007) concluded that the spruce beetle epidemic resulted in 98 percent mortality of spruce trees over 5 centimeters diameter-at-breast-height (DBH). Similarly, on the Wasatch Plateau, Dymerski and others (2001) found that 90 percent of the spruce greater than five inches DBH. were killed by the spruce beetle epidemic. On the Aquarius Plateau, Skov (2008) found that more than 100,000 Engelmann spruce trees had been killed since While the stands in the Big Flat project area have been spared from some of the more widespread spruce beetle outbreaks of the past decade, forest entomologists have recently discerned an uptick in spruce beetle activity in the project area (Hebertson and Blackford 2014). Noting that, spruce-fir stands in these areas are highly susceptible to further infestation having densities and spruce diameters suitable for spruce beetle brood production and insect spread, Hebertson and Blackford have recommended silvicultural treatments. Moreover, even in the absence of an epidemic, spruce beetles are numerous (Hansen and others 2006) and can emerge from host trees in large numbers to attack nearby spruce (Alexander 1964). While there is little scientific support for the notion that insect epidemics can be arrested or prevented through silviculture (DeRose and Long 2007), there is ample evidence that forest management can provide for stand conditions that are less conducive to high levels of disease and mortality (Amman and Logan 1998; Fettig and others 2007; Fettig and others 2010; Wallin and others 2008). Treatments that provide for reduced stand density, enhanced individual tree vigor, and reduced competition for light, water, and nutrients have long been used to reduce the risk of insect and disease induced mortality. 12

19 Forestry Report Moreover, treatments that provide for structural diversity may improve resiliency as larger trees are killed by beetles, smaller ones remain to replace them. In addition, an ongoing outbreak of western spruce budworm (Choristoneura freeman, WSB) is currently affecting the health of both spruce and fir trees in these stands. While not usually a direct mortality agent in mature trees, the WSB can cause significant defoliation, leading to reduced growth and/or a predisposition to bark beetle attack (Fellin and Dewey 1982). Dense, multi-storied forests are highly susceptible to western spruce budworm outbreaks (Hadley and Veblen 1983). While numerous silvicultural treatments to reduce the risk of budworm infestation have been mooted from type conversion to reduced stocking and removal of low vigor trees few of them have been proven (Muzika and Liebhold 2000). Along with the depredations of WSB, annosus root disease (Heterobasidion annosum) is a very common cause of stem decay and eventual mortality in subalpine fir (Smith 1989). In Engelmann spruce, likewise, numerous stem and butt decay complexes can result in loss of wood strength, stem breakage, and mortality (Worrall and Nakasone 2009). The most common of these are the fungi Porodaedalea pini and Stereum sanguinolentum. The presence of these diseases can significantly reduce merchantability and result in up to 25% cull deductions for mature spruce. While much of this decay is hidden, timber cutting in the stands surrounding the Big Flat project area has revealed that many of the larger, mature spruce have stem decays. Aspen is a short-lived species that is especially susceptible to damage and decay caused by numerous fungal pests (Anderson and others 1977). The most common of these is called conk rot (Fomes igniarius var. populinus). Finally, numerous insect pests that affect other tree species such as ponderosa pine and Douglas fir have recently been documented in the project area (Hebertson and Blackford 2014). These include Douglas-fir beetles (Dendroctonus pseudotsugae), western pine beetles (Dendroctonus brevicomis) and mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae). The mountain pine beetle is the most destructive bark beetle in the western United States, often causing extensive mortality (Amman and Logan 1998; Furniss and Carolin 1977). Mountain pine beetle attacks and associated large areas of mortality have been at epidemic levels across most of the western United States since 2001 (Egan and others 2010; Negron and Popp 2004). Likewise, mountain pine beetle populations on the BRD have caused extensive mortality in ponderosa pine in the past (Holland 1981). Other Damage Despite the relatively cool moist climate of this project area, long-term studies point to the possibility that warmer and dryer conditions over the past decades may be contributing to an uptick in spruce and fir mortality in subalpine forests (Smith and others 2015). Repeated drought years can prime high-elevation spruce-fir stands for large fire events (Schoennagel and others 2004). It is also well known that stands such as this are susceptible to wind damage, especially in response to partial cutting, and that care must be taken in the selection of cutting method (Huggard and others 1999). Wind thrown spruce trees can provide suitable spruce beetle habitat often leading to post-wind damage outbreaks. Finally, timber harvest treatments can result in tree damage associated with mechanized logging, although these effects can be minimized through certain felling and skidding techniques (Hartsough 2003). 13

20 Big Flat Vegetation Management Stand Density A stand density index (SDI) can be used as an indicator of stand health as it relates to density. By using stand average SDI against the featured tree species maximum SDI, the stand s relative health and vigor can be described (Long 1985; Drew and Flewelling 1979) (Table 9). For example, stands below 25 percent of maximum SDI have tree densities below the point at which trees in the stand are competing. Stands, on the other hand, above 50 percent of maximum SDI would represent extremely high densities tree vigor is low and susceptibility to insect attack is high. (At 60 percent of maximum SDI, stand competition is high enough to induce mortality.) Table 9. Stand Density and its Effect on the Stand Percent of Maximum SDI Stand Condition Less than 25 Stand not fully stocked; no intra-tree competition Trees begin to compete until the site is fully occupied Stand growth is maximized while retaining individual tree vigor Greater than Stand begins self-thinning 100 Theoretical upper boundary of stand density From Long (1985) and Long and Shaw (2005). For spruce/fir stands subject to beetle outbreaks, lower stand densities can improve tree vigor and reduce susceptibility to widespread mortality (Hard 1985; Jenkins and others 2008). At high relative densities, on the other hand, stands can reach an upper management threshold beyond which insect-caused mortality is likely to be significant (Cochran and others 1994). The maximum SDI for Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir in Utah is 625 (Keyser and Dixon 2008). The regional PFC assessment sets as the properly functioning condition a threshold SDI of 335 (USDA 2000). In the project area, most of the spruce/fir stands have SDIs that exceed the thresholds for tree vigor and resistance to insects and disease. For example, the four sampled stands on the Grizzly Ridge area of the project have SDIs that range from 322 to 536, each of these is above 50% of maximum, and at least two of them have entered the zone of density induced mortality (Table 10). Table 10. Grizzly Ridge for Sample Stands. Percent of Maximum SDI Engelmann Spruce SDI Ranges SDIs for Sample Stands Less than PFC THRESHOLD (49/02), 327 (49/05) Greater than (49/06), 536 (49/08) Old Growth In the Intermountain Region of the Forest Service, old growth is rated using the procedures described by Ronald Hamilton (1993) in Characteristics of Old-Growth Forests in the Intermountain Region and clarified by the Regional Clarification letter (USDA 2007). Under Hamilton, old growth characteristics are enumerated by cover type. Moreover, the minimum 14

21 Forestry Report criteria used to define old-growth are: Diameter at Breast Height (DBH), Trees Per Acre (TPA), and Age (AGE) (USDA 2007). For Big Flat, the two major forested cover types are spruce-fir and aspen. For warm spruce-fir sites in Utah, minimum live tree DBH is 20 inches, minimum TPA is 25, and minimum age is 220 (Hamilton 1993). Hamilton excludes seral aspen from old growth calculations, but for stable aspen, minimum live tree DBH is 12 inches, minimum TPA is 10 (for dry sites), and minimum age is 100. Table 11. Big Flat Stands Currently Qualifying as Old Growth Under Hamilton (1993). Compartment Stand Size Cover Type Proposal Spruce-Fir Group Selection Aspen No Treatment Aspen No Treatment Aspen No Treatment Aspen Non-Commercial Aspen No Treatment Aspen No Treatment Aspen Non-Commercial Aspen No Treatment Aspen Non-Commercial Spruce-Fir No Treatment Spruce-Fir No Treatment Aspen No Treatment For the BRD, a unit wide rating of stands for old growth characteristics has shown that many stable aspen sites across the district are currently more than 100 years old (Orlemann 2015). Indeed, for the Big Flat project area, much of what currently qualifies as old growth is in the aspen cover type (Table 11). Of the approximately 15,600 acres of National Forest System land within the project area, approximately 1,571 acres currently qualify as old growth, with nearly 80% of it being aspen. Role of Fire It is well documented that the condition and position of forest fuels is relatively less important than extreme weather events in the occurrence of stand replacing crown fires (Bessie and Johnson 1995; Reinhardt and others 2008; Schoennagel and others 2004). Moreover, it may be that the best way to reduce the consumption of homes at the wildland urban interface (WUI) is to manage fuels in close proximity (Cohen 1999). But, this is not the end of the story. First, the Beaver Ranger District cannot control the weather, but can manage the condition and position of forest fuels. Second, the direct protection of homes at the WUI is not the only reason to manage fuels. The Big Flat project area is in the center of a heavily used recreation corridor; contains an important state highway, several thousand acres of private property, including a ski resort; thousands of acres of sensitive species habitat; historic water systems, including hydroelectric power. In sum, the project area is part of a managed forest in which the taxpayer, as well as many private entities, have invested significantly in infrastructure and managed natural resources. Given these investments and in the need to provide for options in the case of extreme weather 15

22 Big Flat Vegetation Management events, management of fuels in the project area has value as a means of reducing flame lengths and producing defensible space for firefighting activities, including anchor points for backfires and other burnouts (Keeley and others 2009). Moreover, such treatments are desired by Congress, which sets targets for fuels reduction. With that being said, it is also important to note that the typical fire regime for high elevation spruce-fir forests in southern Utah is stand replacing (Schoennagel and others 2004; Sibold and others 2006; Veblen and others 1994). Mean fire return interval estimates are usually from 200 to 400 years (Morris and others 2010; Veblen and others 1994). Fires of moderate severity are less common than either low-severity or stand-replacement fires because of the moisture regime in the project area. Severe fires destroy the stand and the replacement stand consists of resprouting aspen and conifer seedlings where a seed source is available (Veblen and others 1991). Low-severity fires perpetuate the all-aged structure by killing individual and tree groups that create openings for seedlings (Aplet and others 1988). Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir are both thin-barked species with relatively low resistance to fire injury (Ryan and Reinhardt 1988). Aspen stands in the project area are the result of suckering (root sprouts) after disturbance such as fire (Brown 1985). Aspen stems have thin bark, and are heat sensitive and easily killed by fire (Brown and DeByle 1987). Once the overstory stem is killed, suckers originate from an extensive root system. Fire plays a significant role in maintaining and regenerating seral aspen: The infrequent, but severe, fires typical of high-elevation spruce/fir forests provide an opportunity for extensive aspen sprouting (Kulakowski and others 2006). In the absence of fire, aspen may give way to conifers (Bradley and others 1992). The recent spruce beetle outbreaks across southern Utah have added to the volume of standing dead fuels in the National Forests. Whether this contributes to a greater risk of catastrophic wildfire is unclear. Bebi and others (2003) found no increased fire occurrence associated with a 1940s-era spruce beetle outbreak in Colorado, concluding that fire weather conditions and ignition sources are more important indicators of potential risk. Moreover, in 2009, Bond and others determined that removing beetle killed trees from California forests did not reduce the risk of high-severity fire. Increased fire severity may, however, result from the presence of extensive fine, dead fuels following a spruce beetle outbreak in conjunction with extreme drought conditions (Bigler and others 2005; Bigler and Veblen 2011). Locally, DeRose and Long (2009) modeled the effect of near complete spruce mortality on the Markagunt Plateau and found that the lack of crown continuity reduced crown fire potential significantly. At the same time, Jorgensen and Jenkins (2011) collected extensive ground, surface, and aerial fuels data from the Fishlake and Manti-LaSal National Forests and found enhanced flammability during the spruce beetle epidemic stage due to a flush of fine fuels. Current stand data from a dense stand in the Grizzly Ridge area demonstrates the potential for high intensity burning under severe weather conditions (Table 12). Many of the stands in the project area are composed of dense, low, flammable material. Fuels treatments are designed to reduce the quantity of this material. Moreover, given the uncertainty of future changes to the climate, active fuel management will be needed to minimize adverse effects of high severities and ensure post-fire landscapes contain ecologically viable patterns and composition (Reinhardt and others 2008, p. 2003). 16

23 Forestry Report Table 12. Fire Condition Data from Compartment 49/Stand 08. Metric Fire Condition Modelled Output Measure Surface Flame Length Severe 5.5 Feet Moderate 3.1 Feet Total Flame Length Severe 74 Feet Moderate 3 Feet Fire Type Severe Active N/A Moderate Surface N/A Probability of Torching Severe.97 N/A Moderate.57 N/A Torching Index Severe 0 Miles/Hour Crowning Index Severe 16.9 Miles/Hour Canopy Base Height N/A 4 Feet Canopy Bulk Density N/A.145 Kilogram/Cubic Meter Potential Mortality Severe 100 Basal Area Moderate 42 Basal Area Trees Per Acre N/A 1049 N/A Basal Area N/A 246 Square Feet/Acre Stand Density Index N/A 535 N/A Quadratic Mean Diameter N/A 6.6 Inches At this time, parts of the project area can be described by Anderson s (1982) timber group, fire behavior fuel model 8 (FM8), though much of it may be fuel model 10 (FM10). FM8 is described as having little undergrowth and a fuels layer consisting primarily of needles, leaves, and twigs. Fuel loads are around five tons/acre and generally pose a fire hazard only under extreme fire weather conditions. FM10, on the other hand, is characterized by heavier fuel loads (12 tons/acre) composed of wind-thrown and deadfall material. These stands are generally considered over mature, with the potential to produce heavy ground fuels. In contrast to warmer, drier lower elevation sites dominated by ponderosa pine and/or Douglas fir, however, accumulating ground fuels in this stand likely have less influence on fire frequency and severity than does the climate specifically drought (Schoennagel and others 2004). Regeneration Many of the Big Flat stands are currently well stocked with natural regeneration. From recent data collection efforts in Compartment 03, it is clear that these mixed species, multi-aged stands have, on average, 3000 seedlings per acre (Table 13). The seedling layer is, however, dominated by subalpine fir, which is the least desirable species (of three) in terms of the future composition of these stands. For the purposes of timber management, the most valuable species (of those available) is Engelmann spruce, which makes up, on average, just 11% of the seedling layer. Likewise, aspen has value for species diversity, for wildlife habitat, and for reducing forest flammability, yet it makes up, at best, just a quarter of the existing seedling layer. Moreover, the existing aspen is in decline and the sprouts are being repeatedly browsed (Bartos and Campbell 1998). 17

24 Big Flat Vegetation Management Table 13. Current Regeneration in Compartment 3 of Big Flat. Stand Aspen TPA <2 Engelmann Spruce TPA <2 Subalpine Fir TPA <2 Total Spruce % % % % % Ave % Aspen regenerates by root suckering (Schier 1975). Aspen is also disturbance adapted and shade intolerant. All of which means that it generally regenerates following a disturbance such as cutting or fire where the overstory is killed and competition is reduced (Bartos and Mueggler 1982; Durham and Marlow 2010; Mueggler 1989). The recruitment of such aspen regeneration into pole-sized (and larger) trees is controlled by a variety of factors, including the impacts of ungulate herbivory (Kay and Bartos 2000). Nonetheless, the Utah Forest Restoration Working Group has recently estimated that aspen regeneration levels greater than 1000 trees per acre is generally sustainable (Utah Forest Restoration Working Group - Ecology Committee 2010). By that measure, aspen regeneration is currently inadequate in most of the Big Flat stands. Engelmann spruce, on the other hand, grows not from root suckering, but from seed. As a result, natural regeneration of Engelmann spruce depends on distance from seed source and seed crop size (Alexander and Shepperd 1990). Moreover, because spruce seeds tend not to germinate in a dense litter layer, disturbance of the surface is often necessary for natural regeneration of spruce in these stands germination and seedling survival are likely best in disturbed mineral soil. Spruce seedling success is also improved by partial shade regeneration of Engelmann spruce in large(-ish) clear cuts in relatively high elevation sprucefir has not always been completely successful (Alexander 1987). Finally, whether planted or natural, spruce regeneration fairs poorly against a dense mat of understory competition such as grass. For this reason, scalping of grass dominated planting sites is highly recommend. Managers may also retain some canopy cover to inhibit the development of a dense understory. Subalpine fir is the most common conifer associate of Engelmann spruce in these stands. Subalpine fir is a prolific seeder and can also reproduce by layering (Alexander and others 1990). Subalpine fir has a low tolerance for high temperatures and germination and seedling survival is best in partial shade; true firs are also very shade tolerant and can persist for many years in the understory subalpine fir is likely the climax species on most of these sites. In most of the Big Flat stands, new and advanced subalpine fir regeneration was fairly dense, with fir often making up the bulk of the understory vegetation. In contrast to Engelmann spruce, however, subalpine fir is a less desirable timber tree due to its thin bark, often poor form, and susceptibility to numerous pathogens. Indeed, subalpine fir is generally short lived, and can be damaged by many agents, including wind, western spruce budworm, broom rust, and many root, butt, and trunk rots. In the Big Flat stands, the effect of an ongoing western spruce budworm outbreak is especially noticeable. 18

25 Forestry Report Climate Change The vegetation resources of the high-elevation plateaus in southern Utah are being affected by a changing climate. Aspen dieback may, for example, be associated with a warming and drying climate (Hogg and others 2002; Worrall and others 2010). Rehfeldt and others (2009) have, in fact, found a compelling connection between aspen decline and a changing climate. In the spruce/fir type, the severity of recent beetle outbreaks may be exacerbated by a warming climate (Logan and others 2003), perhaps due to a shortened life cycle for the spruce beetle (Hansen and others 2001) a reduction in beetle mortality due to cold weather (Bentz and others 2010), or an increase in the area of suitable spruce beetle habitat (DeRose and others 2013). Moreover, it is possible that warming temperatures in southern Utah may render the climate inhospitable to Engelmann spruce later this century (Rehfeldt 2004). Forests cycle carbon. They are in continual flux, emitting carbon into the atmosphere, removing carbon from the atmosphere, and storing carbon as biomass (sequestration). Over the long term, through one or more cycles of disturbance and regrowth, net carbon storage is often zero because regrowth of trees recovers the carbon lost in the disturbance and decomposition of vegetation killed by the disturbance (Kashian and others 2006; Ryan and others 2010). The majority of the Big Flat project area is currently stocked more heavily than desired, thus competition for water and nutrients is high and the trees in the area are more susceptible to drought, insects, disease, and fire (Negron and others 2008). At this stage of their development, the affected forest stands are estimated to be net carbon sinks. That is, they are likely sequestering carbon faster than they are releasing it to the atmosphere. As they continue to develop, the strength of the carbon sink would increase (typically peaking at an intermediate age and then gradually declining, but remaining positive) (Pregitzer and Euskirchen 2004). On the other hand, the strength of that sink has likely weakened in some stands with recent tree mortality from spruce beetle infestations (Kurz and others 2008a). Tree mortality in these areas may have changed these site-specific conditions from a situation where more carbon was removed from the atmosphere than was being emitted (sink) to forest conditions that are emitting more carbon through decay than is being absorbed through tree growth (source) though even these effects are highly variable depending on beetle species and stand growth rates (Hicke and others 2012). Desired Condition Suitability The NFMA instructs the responsible official to identify the suitability of lands for resource management (16 U.S.C. 1604(G)(2)(A)). The Fishlake National Forest LRMP goal for suitable timber lands is to [m]anage the timber resources on lands suitable for production of saw timber and other Forest products. Moreover, the Forest Plan directs that [t]imber management activities may be carried out on unsuitable lands only when compatable [sic] with other resource objectives and when they meet one of the attached guidelines: A) Salvage or sanitation harvesting of trees or stands that are substantially damaged by fire, windthrow, or other catastrophe, or which are in imminent danger from insect or disease; H) Harvesting to provide for access, such as road construction (Forest Plan 1986, pp. IV-31 and IV-32.) The lands proposed for treatment under the Big Flat Project have been identified as suitable for timber production (97%), or will meet the salvage and sanitation or road construction guideline. 19

26 Big Flat Vegetation Management Forest Composition There are no specific acreage targets for individual tree species under the Fishlake Forest Plan. As is noted above, however, the Forest Plan desired condition for the Fishlake is to provide diversity and variety of forest cover types. This project was, in part, designed to enhance and maintain conditions that support the growth of early- and mid-seral species. Forest Structure The LRMP goshawk amendment, which says that projects should be designed to encourage conditions that are within the historic range of variation as defined by the regional PFC (Forest Plan, Goshawk Amendment, IV-19). The regional PFC assessment identifies, as a properly functioning condition for spruce-fir, age distributions of 10 percent grass/forb, 10 percent seedling/sapling, 20 percent young, 20 percent mid-aged, 20 percent mature, and 20 percent old forest. Moreover, with the exception of goshawk nesting areas, the Reynolds (1992) desired VSS distribution is the same: The desired VSS distribution for goshawk nesting, post-fledgling, and foraging areas are , , and percent, respectively (Reynolds and others 1992). Forest Health The desired future condition for the Fishlake National Forest is found in Chapter IV of the Forest Plan. As regards forest health, the Fishlake Forest Plan says: Prevent and control insect infestation and disease (page IV-5); Prevent or suppress epidemic or threatening insect and disease populations with an integrated pest management 2 approach consistent with resource management objectives (page IV-49). Old Growth The Fishlake Forest Plan states, In forested areas of a unit, 5% or more should be in Oldgrowth (Forest Plan, p. IV-11). On page IV-17 of the Forest Plan the definition of old growth is given: A stand of trees that is past full maturity and showing decadence. It is Fishlake National Forest policy to use the Hamilton (1993) guidelines to determine old growth. Under those guidelines, diameter, number, and age of LIVE trees are the minimum criteria that must be present to define old growth (USDA 2007). Role of Fire The Fishlake Forest Plan desired condition is to restore and maintain ecosystems, consistent with land uses and historic fire regimes, through wildland fire use and prescribed fire. (Forest Plan, IV-5). The Regional Properly Functioning Condition (PFC) report holds that, for spruce/fir forest types, fire regimes should be within historical ranges mixed severity fires are on a 50- to 80- year cycle with lethal fires returning every 100 to 300 years (USDA 2000). 2 Integrated pest management is defined in the Forest Plan as a process for selecting strategies to regulate forest pests in which all aspects of a pest-host system are studied and weighed (pg. VI-12). 20

27 Forestry Report Regeneration The Fishlake Forest Plan holds that managers should use trees of the best genetic quality available which are adapted to the planting site when supplemental planting. In addition, the Forest Plan specifies planting rates for Engelmann spruce based on site productivity. In this case, those planting rates are set at 300 trees per acre based on an average productivity of 20 to 49 cubic feet per acre. Finally, under the Forest Plan, Engelmann spruce is to be regenerated by both planting and natural regeneration. Climate Change The Fishlake Forest Plan does not describe a desired future condition with regard to climate change. Nor is there a legislative or regulatory requirement to do so. The topic is included in neither the NFMA (1976) nor its implementing regulations. As for the NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality has issued draft guidance for addressing climate change in NEPA documents: Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Federal Register Volume 75, Number 35 page 8046). The Council on Environmental Quality, however, has explicitly excluded Federal land and resource management from the draft guidance. Internally, the Forest Service has prepared agency guidance titled Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis. In general, that guidance recognizes that while some actions may warrant qualitative or even quantitative analysis of the effects of an action on climate change, some actions are at such a minor scale that the effects would be meaningless to a reasoned decision. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently agreed with that reasoning, finding that a project of similar scope as that proposed here did not warrant detailed analysis of the project s potential impacts on climate change (Hapner v. Tidwell, No (9th Cir. 2010)). In general, providing for ecological diversity across landscapes is a way to make them more resilient in the face of changing conditions. There are a number of strategies for this, including preventing the spread of invasive species, assisting the regeneration of native species following disturbance, and reducing the potential for future catastrophic disturbances (Bosworth and others 2008). Caution in describing desired management in the face of potential climate changes is, however, warranted. While there is currently credible scientific work being done in an attempt to predict the future impacts of climate change, these are predictions only and, for the purposes of treating forest conditions on a small project area, are likely to produce only the most general (not to mention conjectural) conclusions. [I]dentifying specific adaptation strategies at local scales is extremely challenging given the uncertainty surrounding key factors such as the ultimate effectiveness of internationally-driven climate change mitigation efforts, the accuracy of global and regional climate change models, the genetic adaptation and responses of plants to rapid climate change, and forecasting the effects of unforeseen disturbance agents such as fire, pests and the introduction of alien species (McKenney and others 2009). 21

28 Big Flat Vegetation Management Need for Change Gap between Existing and Desired Condition Suitability Suitability is not affected by project activities. As a result, there is no gap between the existing and desired condition, and no need for change. Forest Composition There are no specific acreage targets for any particular species in the Fishlake Forest Plan. The Forest Plan does, however, call for managers to maintain tree species diversity. As a result, the trend on the Fishlake towards forests of dense shade-tolerant fir trees creates a gap between the existing and desired condition. Forest Structure The Fishlake LRMP goshawk amendment says that projects should be designed to follow the regional PFC. The regional PFC assessment identifies, as a properly functioning condition, age distributions of 10 percent grass/forb (VSS 1), 10 percent seedling/sapling (VSS 2), 20 percent young (VSS 3), 20 percent mid-aged (VSS 4), 20 percent mature (VSS 5), and 20 percent old forest (VSS 6). In the Big Flat project area, structural stage classes 1 and 2 are underdeveloped in some areas; classes 5 and 6, while present, are at risk from spruce beetle, stem decays, and wind damage. Forest Health The desired condition forest health is to prevent and control insect infestation and disease. In addition, the Forest Plan directs managers to use salvage or sanitation harvesting of trees or stands that are substantially damaged by fire, windthrow, or other catastrophe, or which are in imminent danger from insect. Forest entomologists have recently discerned an uptick in spruce beetle activity in the project area, noting that, spruce-fir stands in these areas are highly susceptible to further infestation having densities and spruce diameters suitable for spruce beetle brood production and insect spread, Hebertson and Blackford (2014) have recommended silvicultural treatments. Thus, there is a gap between the desired and current conditions, and this points to a need for change. The Big Flat Project has been designed to sanitize and salvage damaged stands and to, potentially, reduce the insect infestation risk ratings for affected stands. Old Growth Because stands with old growth characteristics make up more than 10% of the NFS lands within the Big Flat project area, there is no gap at the project level. Moreover, because the standard applies to the entire unit, a project area without any old growth may still be compliant with the standard. In this case, the BRD supports old growth on more than 10% of the unit. As a result, there is no gap at the unit (BRD) level. Role of Fire The LRMP directs managers to restore and maintain ecosystems, consistent with land uses and historic fire regimes, through wildland fire use and prescribed fire. In the spruce/fir type, the PFC 22

29 Forestry Report calls for mixed severity fires on a 50- to 80-year cycle, with lethal fires returning every 100 to 300 years. In the project area, the conditions are not likely outside of the range of the PFC historic fire regime. A combination of insect attacks and drought, may, however, lead to conditions that increase the risk of potential fire severity beyond that desired by the LRMP. Regeneration The desired condition for Engelmann spruce regeneration is that it occurs through planting (or natural regeneration) of locally adapted stock at rates of 300 seedlings per acre. Current seedling stocking rates for Engelmann spruce in the Big Flat project area are, on average, adequate to meet the guideline. As a result, there is no gap between the desired and current conditions. Nonetheless, the Big Flat proposed action includes artificial regeneration of all treatment areas, as well as currently understocked sites, to ensure the long-term productivity of Engelmann spruce. Climate Change While there is currently no project area direction for addressing climate change, maintaining the resiliency of ecosystems by assisting in the regeneration of native species and reducing the potential for catastrophic disturbances are general principals. The Big Flat Project is designed to assist in regenerating and perpetuating native species. Table 14 summarizes the need for change for the above-mentioned categories. Table 14. Summary of the Need for Change. Category Current Condition Desired Condition Suitability Composition Structure Health Insects & Disease Old Growth Regeneration Climate Change Stands designated as suitable for timber production Subalpine fir is likely to dominate the project area over the long term Structural stage classes 1 and 2 are underdeveloped in some areas; classes 5 and 6 most susceptible to damaging agents Dense stands are highly susceptible to insect and disease problems Old growth is supported on up to 10% of the forested areas of the unit Natural regeneration is generally sufficient to sustain native species Many stands in decline due to age and insect-damage Management meets resource objectives Maintain species diversity VSS 1 10%, VSS 2 10%, VSS 3 20%, VSS 4 20%, VSS 5 20%, VSS 6 20% Prevent and control through sanitation/salvage 5% old growth in forested areas of unit Native seedlings to achieve stocking objectives Stands are resilient in the face of changing conditions Management Opportunities Not applicable Treat sites with timber and fuels removal and replant with native spruce trees Reduce density and provide for age class diversity Sanitation/salvage of affected stands Not applicable Remove areas of mature and dead, and replant with native seedlings Remove areas of mature and dead, and replant with native seedlings 23

30 Big Flat Vegetation Management Environmental Consequences Methodology Sources of Information Selected vegetation components were sampled over the past several years using Common Stand Exam protocol (USDA 2010a). Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) ready files of these exams were extracted from the Forest Service Vegetation (FSVeg) database for use in FVS modeling. In addition to the stand exams, vegetation in the project area has been reviewed using satellite data and unit reconnaissance. Specific field observations including stocking information, recent bark pine beetle mortality, and species composition for each stand was recorded. In addition, various Fishlake National Forest geographic information system (GIS) layers were used as sources of information and for spatial analysis, including the following: 1) Stand Data: stand delineations and associated data 2) Current Roads and Proposed Temp Roads: roads designated under the Fishlake Travel Management Plan, as well as proposed temporary road locations 3) NAIP: 2006 and 2011 color and color infrared (1 meter) imagery in digital format Other Specialist Reports This report addresses the potential effect of the Big Flat proposal on forest vegetation. In some cases these effects may overlap with those associated with other natural resources such as recreation or wildlife. As a result, effects not covered specifically in the present document may be found in other specialist reports. For example, see the Wildlife Specialist Report for a discussion of the effect of the Big Flat proposal on TES species. Project Record In compliance with direction at 40 CFR , the Fishlake National Forest attempts to reduce paperwork by, among other things, discussing issues briefly, by incorporating information by reference, and by limiting the length of environmental documents. Many reference materials and supporting documents are part of the project record for Big Flat, and can be provided on request. These include: Stand reconnaissance notes and images Spreadsheet calculations Stand exam databases Moreover, the Big Flat Environmental Assessment itself contains additional detail. Forest Vegetation Simulator Current stand attributes and future stand attributes for the alternatives considered were modeled from stand exam data using the FVS. The FVS was developed in the early 1970s as the Prognosis model (Stage 1973). Since then, FVS has undergone continual development efforts to expand its range and capabilities. During the last three decades, the Forest Service has made a 24

31 Forestry Report substantial investment in research and development of FVS. Currently, FVS is used almost exclusively by the Forest Service, and is used heavily by other U.S. Government agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Defense, and Department of Energy (Dixon 2002). Most state departments of natural resources use FVS and it is heavily used in the private forestry sector. Moreover, most major university forestry programs in the United States teach the use of FVS. In sum, over the last several decades, the FVS has become the forest vegetation modeling program of choice for forest researchers as well as practitioners (Finkral and Evans 2008, Reinhardt and Holsinger 2010). The FVS is not a single growth and yield model but consists of a number of integrated models including those for predicting large-tree height-and-diameter increment, small-tree height-anddiameter increment, tree mortality, crown change, tree-regeneration establishment, shrub development, shrub and tree vertical canopy distribution, mountain pine beetle risk, Douglas-fir tussock moth hazard and impacts, economic analysis, western spruce budworm hazard and impacts, western root disease impacts, dwarf mistletoe impacts, white pine blister rust impacts, and fire effects. The FVS has expanded its range of applicability from its roots in the northwest through the creation of geographic variants that use research from various geographic regions of the United States to tailor equations such as those for tree growth, mortality, and volume in those regions. Currently, over 20 variants represent forests within the United States. Since FVS uses stand exam data, geographical variant equations for growth are further calibrated using the stand data. This, coupled with the use of such site variables as slope, aspect, elevation, habitat type, plant association, or ecoclass code, location (nearest national forest, and in some cases ranger district), site index, and stand density index maximums or basal area maximums, and tree measurements such as species, diameter-at-breast-height, total tree height, tree height to a dead or broken top, diameter increment, age, crown ratio, and damages or diseases enables FVS to make reasonable predictions. Limitations of Models The use of models such as FVS depends upon sample data, validity of the model itself, and assumptions made by the modeler. All three factors affect the modeled results. FVS is used in this analysis to generally characterize and display existing conditions and the nature and magnitude of treatment effects to support decisions to be made. Modeling results are not to be taken as reality (Stratton 2006), although effort is made during the modeling exercise to ensure consistent results. Default parameters are developed for the variant of FVS from data collected in the area the variant is tailored for, but can be modified for individual stands if the site (e.g., plant association, slope, aspect, elevation) and tree-specific (e.g., diameter-growth increment, heightgrowth increment) information is available. Incomplete and Unavailable Information Common Stand Exam (CSE) data are routinely collected for forested stands on the Fishlake National Forest. For the Big Flat project area, CSE data were updated in 2014, though not every stand was sampled at that time. As a result, for some individual stands, no current data are available. Overall, approximately 6,100 acres of the 12,000 acres (or 51 percent) of forested 25

32 Big Flat Vegetation Management stands in the project area have no current CSE data. For the stands proposed for timber cutting, however, just 24% do not have current CSE data. In other words, the project area has current stand exam for approximately 75 percent of the affected acres. Estimates of effects take this into account by showing percentages based on existing data. Finally, the existence of complete CSE data for 75 percent of the proposed tree removal units is sufficient for making a reasoned analysis of potential effects. All calculations of areal extent in this document are estimates. For the most part, the estimated number of acres under any given section is preceded by the word approximately. This means approximately. Because GIS data are continually being updated, because stand and watershed boundaries are arbitrary digitizing exercises, and because, most importantly, the natural world, in its complexity, may ignore GIS data and digitized boundaries, all calculations are estimates. To calculate NEPA effects down to the acre, or even tenth acre, as this report does, implies levels of accuracy and precision that are simply not realistic. Moreover, rounding errors creep in, such that a textual total of 519 acres may add up to 520 in the accompanying table. Readers who discover such discrepancies should read and re-read this paragraph before setting pen to paper in an attempt to inform the forest supervisor of the malfeasance of his or her employees. Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis Temporal Scope of the Analysis The baseline year used for this analysis is In this analysis, all past activities and events are included in the existing condition description. Activities that occurred more than about 30 years prior to the baseline will not be specifically mentioned. Likewise, in the discussion below, the potential effects of the Big Flat proposal on the project area vegetation will not generally be forecast beyond the next few decades though some stands may be modelled to 50 years. The project is designed to comply with the LRMP by producing commercial forest products, by maintaining age class diversity, and by managing the fire regime. It is expected that these stands will be regenerated and re-stocked in a timely manner and in compliance with law, regulation, and policy. Speculating about effects far into some future period is unlikely to provide useful information to the decision maker. Connected Actions, Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis The Fishlake National Forest does not consider this proposal to be connected to any other action as defined by 40 CFR (a)(1). Actions are connected if they automatically trigger other actions,... [c]annot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken, [or]... depend on the [other] action for their justification. The proposed Big Flat project involves timber stand regeneration and fuels reduction treatments within the project boundary. Implementing these treatments does not automatically trigger any other action; the need for the project does not require that it be the precursor to any other action. Big Flat treatments are not dependent on any other action; they can and will proceed independently of any other action proposed by the Fishlake National Forest. Treatments are justified by the need to provide economically valuable forest products to the public, to reduce fuels, and to replant native species in understocked areas; the proposal needs no other justification. In short, the Big Flat proposal is founded on an 26

33 Forestry Report independent necessity that neither depends upon nor derives its justification from any other action. As a result, it is not a connected action under the regulation. The Council on Environmental Quality defines cumulative effects as the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future action regardless of what agency (Federal or non- Federal) or person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR ). Before these incremental impacts can be evaluated, the scope of the relevant cumulative effects area and must be defined and the other actions must be identified. In the case of a site-specific vegetation management project such as Big Flat, the likely cumulative effects area (CEA) will be the affected watersheds or the areas of contiguous habitat (Table 15). (See, also, the Council on Environmental Quality s Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act, 1997.) In this case, the project area lies in portions of four watersheds Merchant Creek, Three Creeks, City Creek, and East Fork Iant Creek which covers a total area of approximately 67,080 acres of NFS land. This will be the areal extent of the CEA for the forest vegetation effects associated with Big Flat. Table 15. Cumulative Effects Area Cover Types (Approximate Acres). Forest Type Acres Percent Aspen 8, Blue Spruce Douglas Fir Mountain Mahogany 5,612 8 Non-Forest* 14, Oak Pinyon-Juniper 4,696 7 Ponderosa Pine Spruce-Fir 28, White Fir 2,708 4 *Non-forest includes rock, meadow, water, subalpine, developed, etc. Within the defined CEA, there are both past and present management actions with the potential to have incremental additional impacts when combined with the possible direct and indirect effects of the present proposal. It is worth noting, however, that none of the listed actions have been found to have NEPA significant effects. That is, there has been no showing that management actions have been found to individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment (40 CFR ). As a result, by the legal definition, there can be no cumulative effects. This is because significant effects must be present before they can accumulate; zero plus zero equals zero. In any case, Table 16 lists the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable vegetation management projects in the CEA. Table 16. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Forest Vegetation Management Projects. Name Date Acres Activities Anderson Meadow Mar IT Anderson Meadow #2 May Road 27

34 Big Flat Vegetation Management Name Date Acres Activities Anderson Timber Sale Jul IT Baker Spring Salvage May Salvage Baker Spring 2 Salvage May Salvage Bells Last Apr-77 2 IT 1st Betenson Flat May CC 1st Betenson Flat May OR Betenson Beetle May IT Betenson Flat Cabin Log Apr-73 2 IT Betenson 2 Salvage May Salvage Betenson Blowdown Apr-91 2 CC Betenson Flat Apr IT Big Flat 2 Apr-77 2 IT Big Flat 3 Apr IT Big Flat Aspen Apr CC Big Flat Aspen 2 Apr CC Buck Ridge Jul CC Buck Ridge Salvage Mar Salvage Burnt Flat Aspen Apr CC Cindy's Last Jul-77 7 IT Circleville 1 Jul IT Circleville 1 Salvage Apr Salvage Circleville 2 Salvage Apr Salvage Circleville 3 Salvage Apr Salvage Circleville B Apr IT Circleville's Last Apr IT Cullen Creek Apr IT Griffith Creek Oct IT Gunsight Aspen Jan CC Gunsight Jan IT Gunsight Salvage 2 Jan Salvage Guzzler Apr IT Hi Hunt May IT Kents Lake Aspen Jan CC LaBaron Jan IT LaBaron Jan-77 6 Road LaBaron Blowdown Apr-91 5 IT Lake Peak May IT Lebaron 2 Apr IT Little Reservoir Jan IT Little Reservoir Jan-82 7 Road Long Flat May IT ('96 Burn) Long Flat Jul-77 8 IT Merchant Valley Feb IT 28

35 Forestry Report Name Date Acres Activities Peterson Flat Oct IT & OR Peterson Flat Salvage May Salvage Pole Creek Salvage 1 May Salvage Pole Creek Salvage 2 May Salvage Pole Creek Salvage 3 May Salvage Pole Creek Salvage 4 May Salvage Pole Creek Salvage 5 May Salvage Pole Creek Salvage 6 May Salvage Pole Creek Salvage 7 May Salvage Pole Creek Salvage 8 May Salvage Pole Creek Salvage 9 May Salvage Puffer Lake Jan IT Rigger Park 1 May Salvage Rigger Park 2 May Salvage Rigger Park 3 May Salvage Rigger Park 4 May Salvage Rigger Park 5 May Salvage Round Flat Mar IT Round Flat Mar-78 4 Road Round Flat 2 Oct IT Round Flat Aspen Sep CC Round Flat Aspen Damage Sep CC South Fork of Three Creeks Jan IT SR-153 Salvage Aug-91 7 Salvage Straight Creek Aug CC Timid Spring Feb IT Wood Lake Aug IT The foregoing list of past vegetation management activities, it should be noted, was generated for the South Fork Environmental Assessment (South Fork), and was developed to include the entire Beaver River watershed. As a result, not every management action has occurred within the Big Flat Cumulative Effects Area (CEA). The South Fork decision allowed for an additional 2,000 acres of uneven aged management, as well as sanitation and salvage. Implementation of South Fork is ongoing, and does occur within the Big Flat CEA. Finally, in the time since the South Fork analysis was completed, the BRD has begun implementation of the North Beaver fuels project, which uses prescribed fire to reduce fuels loads within the Beaver River watershed approximately 13,000 acres of that project area overlap the CEA for Big Flat. (The North Beaver fuels Environmental Assessment found no NEPA significant impacts from its implementation.) In addition to vegetation management, other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities in the CEA include: Travel management and road maintenance Grazing by domestic cattle 29

36 Big Flat Vegetation Management Firewood cutting Motorized recreation including snowmobiles and ATVs Dispersed recreation Fire suppression Noxious weed control: monitoring of noxious weeds, prevention and control measures. Existing stand conditions are the result of past management and treatments that include logging, fuelwood harvest, grazing, and fire. Proposed Action The proposed action has three components: commercial timber cutting, transportation actions, and non-commercial forest stand management treatments. Commercial Timber Cutting Purpose Along with meeting the intent of Congress to provide forest products to the public and the goal of the LRMP to manage area 7A for the production of saw-timber, a short-term objective for these commercial treatments is the uneven-aged reproduction of the Engelmann spruce forest type with its natural associates, through group selection. Over the medium and long-term, stands are continually managed to emphasize the production of saw-timber, culturing merchantable trees in an economically efficient manner. Treatments should favor commercially valuable tree species and should be designed to allow a sustained flow of market and nonmarket products to regional and local economies. Current Condition Stands proposed for group selection are generally dominated by mature Engelmann spruce. They are relatively dense, with basal areas of over 170 square feet per acre and Stand Density Indices (SDIs) approaching 600. In many of the stands, Engelmann spruce trees of 18 to 20 inches in diameter make up about half the material, and heights of 90 or 100 feet are common. Many of the large trees are 150 to 180 years old, with a percentage of each stand containing trees up to 250 or 300 years old. Silviculture Stands selected for commercial timber cutting will be managed under an uneven-aged silvicultural system. Managing stands with multiple age classes is a recognized way to provide forest products along with increased resistance to major disturbances (O Hara and Ramage 2013). Group selection will be used to regenerate small openings, creating multiple age classes throughout each stand. Under the Fishlake LRMP, the allowable silvicultural system for the primary cover types in the Big Flat analysis area spruce-fir and aspen is clearcutting, an evenaged system that provides for just one age class per stand. (The LRMP does allow for other systems on 20% of the management area.) In 1992, however, Forest Supervisor Martinez amended the LRMP to allow for group selection in spruce-fir cover types. Experience in high elevation spruce-fir types has demonstrated that large clear-cuts can be difficult to regenerate over the short term seed dispersal distances are short and establishment is best under partial shelter 30

37 Forestry Report (Alexander 1987). As a result, regeneration treatments in spruce-fir have trended towards uneven aged methods such as group selection. The LRMP also instructs that rotation lengths should be from 90 to 180 years in spruce-fir. With consideration for the relatively slow growing nature of this cover type, the current treatments will assume a full 180 year rotation. (This LRMP standard applies specifically to clearcutting an even aged regeneration method. While clearcutting is not proposed for Big Flat, the openings created by group selection will function similarly.) Four regeneration entries are thus possible over the rotation at 45 years between entries. (Indeed the LRMP provides for cutting cycles of up to 50 years for selection silviculture.) The width of groups is commonly approximately twice the height of the mature trees, with openings providing conditions suitable for more shade intolerant regeneration. For the purposes of this project, the groups will be from two to three acres in size and will not generally be wider than approximately 200 feet. The total area subject to group selection would be between 1,286 and 1,697 acres (Table 17). Table 17. Stands Subject to Commercial Timber Cutting under Big Flat. Compartment Stand Size (Acres) Operable (Acres)* Group Select (Acres) to b to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to a to a to to to to to to to a to to 69 31

38 Big Flat Vegetation Management Compartment Stand Size (Acres) Operable (Acres)* Group Select (Acres) to to to to to to to to to to to to b to to 32 Totals to 1746 *Operable acres are those with slopes of less than 40%. Harvest Methods In mature Engelmann spruce stands, trees will be cut in acre groups to establish new age classes. Within each group, all conifer trees at least five inches DBH will be harvested. Group size (and number) will be determined by stand size, age class, and operability. To minimize wind-throw, the long axis of group openings will be oriented toward the prevailing winds and group boundaries will be located in areas with higher than average wind-firmness (e.g., minor ridges and open grown stands), as feasible. The combined area of harvested groups should comprise between 25 and 33 percent of each stand. All units will be treated with ground based logging equipment. Trees selected for removal will be cut by hand or by a feller-buncher. (A feller-buncher is a harvesting machine that cuts a tree with a shear or saw and carries one or more cut trees in its hydraulically operated arms as it moves to cut the next tree.) Cut trees will be moved to designated landings by a grapple skidder or cable yarder. Forest vegetation treatments will be accomplished primarily through commercial timber sale contracts. Harvest operations will yield sawtimber that would contribute to Fishlake National Forest goals for wood products. Standard harvest operations on the BRD include tree felling, removal, and processing with mechanized equipment. Harvested trees are usually transported from the stump to central landing areas adjacent to roads where they are limbed and processed into logs. Limbs and tops are usually piled for burning at the landing. Piled limbs and tops could also be hauled off site if markets develop for biomass (chips). In some cases, limbs and tops could be lopped and scattered across the harvest unit. This is usually done where landing area is limited, or slash needs to be retained on site due to resource concerns. All areas proposed for harvest will be accessed with conventional wheeled or tracked logging equipment. Commercial harvest units are scheduled for sale in fiscal year 2016, and the entire Big Flat project would take up to ten years to complete. As a result, the Big Flat project anticipates commercial timber harvest of on average 175 acres per year or one one-hundredth of one percent of the forest area managed by the Fishlake National Forest. 32

39 Forestry Report Treatments in the Matrix Within the untreated forest matrix portions of each stand not marked for group selection dead, dying, and at risk trees will be removed where feasible. That is, commercial sized trees at direct risk of infestation, or those currently infested or killed by mountain pine beetle, western pine beetle, spruce beetle, dwarf mistletoe, or other insects/diseases will be sanitized or salvaged 3 in the portions of 7A stands that are not designated for regeneration under group selection. The focus for this treatment will be on areas of over-mature and beetle killed spruce that can be removed without damage to the residual stand. Sanitation or salvage harvesting are intermediate treatments and reforestation needs are not anticipated. (Bark beetles are currently infesting stands in the Big Flat treatment area (Hebertson and Blackford 2014). At endemic levels, beetles survive in stressed or weakened trees. When favorable conditions exist, populations can quickly increase to epidemic proportions. At such times, apparently healthy trees are attacked and frequently killed. Food availability, in the form of thick phloem often found in large trees, is most directly associated with the development of beetle epidemics (Fettig and others 2007). Beetle populations can build and spread relatively quickly. During an epidemic, large group killing often occurs over a widespread area of mature overstocked stands. Sanitation treatments are generally designed to be preventative and are most effective before an epidemic starts. The idea is that populations of beetles can be reduced by harvesting or treating infested trees. Processing infested logs at a sawmill prior to adult beetle emergence can kill the beetles. Moreover, infested trees, both sawtimber and less than sawtimber size, can also be treated in-place: felling, limbing, bucking, and debarking the stems, makes them unsuitable habitat for the beetles (Holsten and others 1999). Post-Harvest Treatments Un-merchantable material at publicly accessible landings will be made available for fuel wood or biomass. Otherwise, slash created by the harvest will be lopped and scattered to a depth of 24 inches. Where slash exceeds the 24-inch depth, it will be piled by tractor and burned by hand. Landing slash will be piled by tractor and burned. Smaller slash piles will provide the best distribution availability of nutrients and will reduce the scorching and soil impacts of larger tractor piles. Disturbed areas (temporary roads, skid trails, landings) will be seeded using a native seed mix. Regeneration Areas treated with group selection will be allowed to reforest naturally with spruce, fir, and aspen. While natural regeneration is expected, areas with limited regeneration potential will also be planted with native seedlings grown from seed collected in the project area. Groups will be surveyed during the 3rd and 5th year after harvest to determine if adequate regeneration exists. If there is not adequate regeneration, additional planting will be used to ensure full stocking. Full stocking under the LRMP is achieved at the rate of 150 to 155 seedlings per acre. Reforestation will be completed within five years of harvest treatment. 3 Sanitation cutting is the removal of green trees to improve stand health by stopping or reducing the actual or anticipated spread of insects and disease. Salvage cutting is the removal of dead trees or trees damaged or dying because of injurious agents other than competition, to recover economic value that would otherwise be lost. 33

40 Big Flat Vegetation Management Transportation Actions The proposed commercial timber cutting will use a combination of designated forest roads, motorized trails and temporary roads. Designated roads and motorized trails totaling 29.3 miles will be used for hauling and accessing harvested timber. Haul roads used during harvest activities will be maintained through regularly scheduled blade grading. Portions of existing roads may be improved to meet current Forest Service standards for timber hauling. Harvesting will require constructing 28.5 miles of temporary roads (Table 18). The temporary roads will have a travel surface 14 feet in width. (Thus, the temporary roads will cover approximately 48 acres.) The roads will have cut and fill slopes where necessary. Landings and skid trails will be designed by a qualified timber sale administrator and will be adjacent to haul routes. All of the temporary roads will be closed once harvest is complete. Closure will include culvert removal, ripping, seeding, and barricading. Table 18. Transportation Actions for Big Flat. Forest Road # or Travel Route # Road Type Miles Actions FR Existing Road 1.34 Commercial Cutting and Timber Haul FR 40642A Existing Road.10 Commercial Cutting and Timber Haul FR Existing Road 3.66 Commercial Cutting and Timber Haul FR Existing Road.21 Commercial Cutting and Timber Haul FR Existing Road 1.05 Commercial Cutting and Timber Haul FR 42060A Existing Road.25 Commercial Cutting and Timber Haul FR Existing Road.16 Commercial Cutting and Timber Haul FR Existing Road 3.70 Commercial Cutting and Timber Haul FR Existing Road 2.83 Commercial Cutting and Timber Haul FR Existing Road.66 Commercial Cutting and Timber Haul FR Existing Road.20 Commercial Cutting and Timber Haul FR Existing Road 1.93 Commercial Cutting and Timber Haul FR Existing Road 1.04 Commercial Cutting and Timber Haul FR Existing Road.69 Commercial Cutting and Timber Haul FR Existing Road 1.04 Commercial Cutting and Timber Haul FR Existing Road.29 Commercial Cutting and Timber Haul FR Existing Road 3.09 Commercial Cutting and Timber Haul FR Existing Road.16 Commercial Cutting and Timber Haul FR Existing Road 1.29 Commercial Cutting and Timber Haul FR 41062A Existing Road.36 Commercial Cutting and Timber Haul FR Existing Road 3.43 Commercial Cutting and Timber Haul T0105A Unclassified Road 0.6 Temporary Road T0105B Unclassified Road 0.2 Temporary Road T0105C Unclassified Road 0.6 Temporary Road T0201 Unclassified Road 0.7 Temporary Road T0302 Unclassified Road 1.1 Temporary Road T0305A Unclassified Road 0.6 Temporary Road T0602A Unclassified Road 0.4 Temporary Road 34

41 Forestry Report Forest Road # or Travel Route # Road Type Miles Actions T0602B Unclassified Road 0.7 Temporary Road T0604A Unclassified Road 0.5 Temporary Road T0604B Unclassified Road 1.0 Temporary Road T0604C Unclassified Road 0.4 Temporary Road T0802 Unclassified Road 0.7 Temporary Road T0805A Unclassified Road 0.3 Temporary Road T0805B Unclassified Road 0.9 Temporary Road T0807A Unclassified Road 0.6 Temporary Road T0807B Unclassified Road 2.0 Temporary Road T1008 Unclassified Road 0.4 Temporary Road T10712 Unclassified Road 0.5 Temporary Road T1201A Unclassified Road 2.1 Temporary Road T1201B Unclassified Road 1.0 Temporary Road T3007 Unclassified Road 0.6 Temporary Road T3008 Unclassified Road 0.2 Temporary Road T3606 Unclassified Road 0.7 Temporary Road T3607 Unclassified Road 0.8 Temporary Road T3702A Unclassified Road 0.5 Temporary Road T3702B Unclassified Road 2.2 Temporary Road T3706 Unclassified Road 0.3 Temporary Road T4801A Unclassified Road 0.6 Temporary Road T4801B Unclassified Road 0.9 Temporary Road T4803A Unclassified Road 0.9 Temporary Road T4803B Unclassified Road 1.0 Temporary Road T4807 Unclassified Road 2.5 Temporary Road T4905 Unclassified Road 1.3 Temporary Road T4913 Unclassified Road 0.7 Temporary Road Total Open Routes 29.3 Total Temporary Roads 28.5 Total Roads w/in Project Area 57.8 Non-Commercial Forest Vegetation Treatments Timber Stand Thinning and Improvement In previously harvested stands in the Big Flat project area, there are areas of dense regeneration, over-stocked with small, tightly spaced trees. In order to reduce competition and concentrate growth on the most desirable trees, thinning of young trees is proposed. Thinning is a cultural treatment made to reduce stand density of trees primarily to improve growth or enhance forest health. In this case, thinning of non-commercial material will occur in stands that have been previously treated with regeneration cutting. In general, the method is best described as free thinning, which is the removal of trees to control stand spacing and favor desired trees, using a 35

42 Big Flat Vegetation Management combination of thinning criteria without regard to crown position. The purpose of this treatment does not include immediate financial return, and is similar to a pre-commercial thinning. The term pre-commercial thinning is generally used to describe treatments of young even-aged stands when they have reached 10 or 15 years of age and are about 12 feet tall. In this case, the areas of dense trees are of mixed ages and species and may be up to 40 years old and 20 or 30 feet tall. Thinning will focus on the removal of subalpine fir trees and smaller suppressed or deformed spruce trees. Residual stocking will vary between 300 and 400 trees per acre. From the 1950s to the mid-1970s, the typical regeneration method for Engelmann spruce was clear-cutting. Trees were generally removed in large blocks or strips, and the slash was windrowed and burned. In some cases, however, these treatments resulted in regeneration failures because the large openings covered with burned residues created microclimates that were not conducive to spruce germination and growth (Alexander 1987). Because of these site conditions, full restocking has often taken decades. As a result, most harvesting in high-elevation spruce has shifted to partial cutting or small group openings. In the case of the Big Flat project area, several hundred acres of clear-cutting occurred in the early 1970s in places like Timid Springs, Buck Ridge, and Peterson Flat. While these cutting units currently have healthy young trees both aspen and spruce they are, in some cases, less than fully stocked. Additional cultural treatments may be necessary in these previously treated areas (Table 19). Treatments may include improvement planting (or enrichment planting), which is designed to improve the percentage of desirable species or genotypes in a forest by interplanting of native species and improvement cutting, which is the removal of less desirable trees of any species in a stand of poles or larger trees, primarily to improve composition and quality. Table 19. Stands Subject to Non-Commercial Forest Improvement Treatments under Big Flat. Compartment Stand Size (Acres) a Totals

43 Forestry Report Forest Fuel Reduction Stands selected for forest fuel reduction treatments are generally located on steep slopes in Management Areas 2B and 7A. For the purposes of reducing fire behavior in and around the 2300 acres of private property at the Eagle Point Ski Resort, the 30 selected stands are generally downslope and to the south and west of the private property. The selected stands are currently in a spruce-fir cover-type, but have mixed conifer 4 (ponderosa pine, blue spruce, Douglas fir, and limber pine) and aspen components that are likely desirable for both forest vegetation diversity and for their fire resistant characteristics. The total area of these stands is 4462 acres. Because stand-alone hazardous fuels treatments are both expensive and time consuming, the proposed treatments will not occur over the entire stand. Rather fuels treatments will happen in strategically placed areas within the stand based on factors such as slope, aspect, vegetation type, and access. Three types of fuel reduction treatments are proposed: Mechanical/manual treatments, prescribed fire, and aspen enhancement. Mechanical/Manual Fuel Treatments Mechanical fuel treatment is the cutting of forest fuels using machinery. Mechanical treatments can include a variety and/or combination of tools designed for shredding, chipping, mulching, or masticating small trees and limbs. Manual fuel treatment is the cutting of forest fuels using chain saws. Manual treatments are not cost effective for large areas, but may be used to modify forest fuels in areas that are too steep or too remote for machinery. Mechanical/manual fuel treatments may be used alone, or in combination with prescribed fire, to modify the volume of flammable material in treated stands. Prescribed Fire Prescribed fire treatments may include pile burning and broadcast burning. Pile burning is, just as it sounds, the collection of excess fuel and slash into piles which can then be burned during the winter when the risk of unwanted wildfire is low. Broadcast burning, on the other hand, is the controlled application of fire to in situ forest fuels under specified environmental conditions that allow the fire to be confined to a predetermined area. Because this project area contains forest types that are not adapted to frequent, low-intensity surface fires, any application of broadcast burning is likely to be on a small scale and may include some high-intensity fire effects, such as torching and crown consumption. Nonetheless, these effects may be desirable for reducing ladder and canopy fuels in specific locations and for introducing heterogeneity to the arrangement of forest fuels. Aspen Improvement At this time, aspen is not usually a valuable forest product in southern Utah. Nonetheless, aspen is a desirable species on the Fishlake National Forest, and can be used as a fuels management tool. While the perpetuation of aspen is NOT a goal of this project, the maintenance and improvement of existing aspen can provide for both forest diversity and areas of reduced flammability in the event of an unwanted wildfire. For this reason, the team identified aspen improvement specifically non-commercial cutting as a tool that may be used to modify forest fuels in conjunction with commercial timber harvests. This non-commercial cutting may include removal of interspersed conifer trees, as well as targeted cutting and/or jack-strawing of dominant 4 Mixed conifer is not a cover type under the system used by the USDA Forest Service (Eyre 1980). 37

44 Big Flat Vegetation Management conifer trees and/or aspen trees. 5 The intent of the treatment will be to create canopy gaps and improve areas of aspen that can serve as breaks in the more flammable conifer crowns. Project Design Features Project design criteria are listed in Table 20. These criteria were developed to avoid or eliminate adverse impacts from project activities, and are incorporated as an integrated part of all action alternatives. Project design criteria are based upon standard practices and operating procedures that have been employed and proven effective in similar circumstances and conditions: Forest Service Manual and Handbook direction, Regional Watershed Conservation Practices (FSH for Region 1 and 4), LRMP standards and guidelines, and other management requirements that apply to the proposed activities. Table 20. Project Design Features. Resource Area Air Quality 1 Cultural 1 Fire and Fuels 1 Fire and Fuels 2 Forest Vegetation 1 Forest Vegetation 2 Forest Vegetation 3 Forest Vegetation 4 Forest Vegetation 5 Project Design Features Under the Utah Smoke Management Plan, the Fishlake National Forest complies with the requirements of the Clean Air Act by coordinating all prescribed fire with the Utah Office of Smoke Management. No burning will occur under this proposal before the Beaver Ranger District obtains the proper air quality permits from the State of Utah. In the event that new cultural resources are discovered during implementation of the project, all activity in the immediate area must stop and a member of the Fishlake National Forest Archaeology Staff must be notified to determine an appropriate course of action. Appropriate consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office, Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, and other applicable parties would take place as directed by 36 CFR 800. Reduce or otherwise treat all activity fuels so that the total loading of materials less than 6 inches in diameter is less than 25 tons/acre, or break up continuous activity fuel concentrations exceeding the above standard into manageable units with fuel breaks or fire lanes, or provide additional protection for activity fuel areas exceeding the above standard when such protection will not be required for more than five years. Limit use of prescribed fires on areas adjacent to riparian areas to protect riparian and aquatic values. Utilization standards for live and dead timber: Minimum DBH is 8 ; Minimum Top Diameter is 6 ; Length is 8 ; % Net of Gross is 33 1/3. Tree planting, along with natural regeneration, will be used to ensure a stocking rate of 150 to 155 trees per acre within five years of regeneration harvest. Under exception sub-b (LRMP IV-32), however, units treated specifically for fuel reduction benefits will not be artificially restocked, but will be allowed to reforest naturally. For other than suitable lands, commercial timber cutting is limited to salvage, sanitation, or cutting for road construction. Within conifer treatment units, protect residual trees through the designation of skid trails and landings, directional falling, restriction of skidding equipment to approved skid trails, and winching of all felled material to skidders on the skid trail prior to transfer to the landing. Designated skid trails should be located approximately 100 to 150 feet apart depending on terrain. To prevent bark beetle spread, all Engelmann spruce cut prior to September 1 shall be removed before the end of the same year and all Engelmann spruce cut after September 1 shall be removed before the end of the following year. 5 These treatments have been approved by the Ecology Committee of the Utah Forest Restoration Working Group. 38

45 Forestry Report Resource Area Forest Vegetation 6 Hydrology 1 Hydrology 2 Hydrology 3 Hydrology 4 Hydrology 5 Hydrology 6 Hydrology 7 Hydrology 8 Hydrology 9 Recreation and Visuals 1 Recreation and Visuals 2 Rangeland Resources 1 Project Design Features To prevent bark beetle spread, all Engelmann spruce felled or pushed over which exceed 14 inches in diameter and 18 inches in length shall be skidded to designated landings. To facilitate the control of soil erosion within acceptable tolerance: 1. Allow conventional logging equipment on slopes up to 40% where soil surveys or sitespecific soil data are available to design erosion mitigation needs. 2. Utilize cable and aerial systems on slopes over 40%. Skid trails will be approved by the sale administrator before commencement of logging. Reclaim disturbed areas (skid trails and decks) to protect soil and maintain road closures to minimize disturbances. Landing locations would, where feasible, take advantage of existing openings or areas with no regeneration. Log landings and decking areas within any riparian area is prohibited. No harvesting will occur adjacent to or near perennial streams based on the following LRMP standard: Special protection and management will be given to floodplains, wetlands, and all land and vegetation for a minimum of 100 feet from the edge of all perennial streams, lakes, and other bodies of water or to the outer margin of the riparian ecosystem if wider than 100 feet. A. Prohibit the operation of motorized equipment within the riparian area except at constructed stream crossings. B. Locate skid trails, landing and decking sites, and other harvest facilities outside the riparian area. C. Locate roads outside of riparian area except for stream crossings or where other feasible alternatives do not exist. D. Select stream crossing points to minimize bank and channel disturbance. Reduce to natural rate any erosion due to management activity through necessary mitigation measures such as water-barring and revegetation. Rehabilitation measures will be implemented within one year of the activity. Timber sale haul roads will be inspected annually to determine what work, if any, is needed to keep drainage functional and the road stable. Timber sale haul road ruts will be removed and drainage made functional during periods of high runoff or at least once per year. Maintenance must protect drainage facilities and runoff patterns to insure that damage to adjacent land and resources including meadows is held to a minimum. The State of Utah and the Utah National Forests have agreed, through a 1993 Memorandum of Understanding, to use Forest Plan Standard & Guidelines and the FSH SWCPs to meet the water quality protection elements of the Utah Nonpoint Source Management Plan. The SWCPs most applicable to this project are 11.02, 11.04, 11.05, 11.07, 11.11, 13.04, 13.06, 14.06, 14.17, 14.18, 15.04, 15.06, 15.07, 15.08, 15.09, 15.12, 15.13, 15.15, 15.16, 15.18, 15.21, 15.22, 15.23, 15.24, and These SWCPs will l be carried through to the timber sale contract or other implementation plan. Scenic Integrity Objectives for MA7A Low - The landscape appears moderately altered. Deviations may be dominant, but are shaped to borrow from the natural landform and other visual dominance elements (line, form, texture, color), and are subordinate to the characteristic landscape when viewed as background. Example treatment design feature: Harvest unit boundaries will follow natural contours i.e. drainage bottoms, ridgelines, etc. Scenic Integrity Objectives for MA6B, MA3A, and MA2A Moderate - The landscape appears slightly altered. Noticeable deviations are visually subordinate to the character. Example design feature: Unit boundary edges will be feathered for a more natural appearance. To minimize the spread of noxious weeds, require equipment washing prior to arrival at project area under timber sale contract provision B6.35#. In addition, where proposed activities would occur in areas infested with noxious weeds and considered to be at high risk for spread, equipment associated with the activity will be washed 39

46 Big Flat Vegetation Management Resource Area Rangeland Resources 2 Rangeland Resources 3 Project Design Features before leaving the site to prevent spread of weeds to adjacent National Forest System and private lands. Seed landings, skid trails, and log decks with approved seed mix to reduce erosion and prevent the establishment of noxious weeds. The seed mix will be selected and approved by the FNF s staff botanist. Where necessary, within MA7A treatment areas, protect regeneration from livestock damage. Roads 1 Construction and reconstruction standards for local roads: Roads 2 Wildlife 1 Wildlife 2 Wildlife 3 Wildlife 4 Wildlife 5 Wildlife 6 In compliance with guideline g of the LRMP goshawk amendment, the Big Flat Project should leave 300 snags greater than 18 inches DBH and 30 feet tall for each 100 acres treated. Snag calculations should be done at the stand level. If the minimum snags are unavailable, then the largest trees on site should be substituted. In compliance with guideline h of the LRMP goshawk amendment, the Big Flat Project should leave 50 down logs greater than 12 inches in diameter and longer than 8 feet on each 10 acres treated. In addition, coarse woody debris greater than 3 inches in diameter should equal 100 tons per 10 acres. This CWD can included the large down logs. Down wood and CWD calculations should be done at the stand level. Trees designated as wildlife leave trees will be marked for retention. Removal of designated wildlife trees, or dead trees needed to meet habitat requirements, is prohibited. Record any new observations of threatened, endangered or sensitive wildlife species and implement appropriate management strategies in accordance with wildlife biologist recommendations. Control public motorized access by placing gates on temporary roads to minimize disturbance and decommission and rehab roads immediately when operations allow. Forest vegetative manipulation is prohibited (tprescribed burning, fuelwood, thinnings, weedings, etc.) within active nest areas during the active nesting period. The active nesting period will normally occur between March 1st and September 30th. 40

47 Forestry Report Resource Area Wildlife 7 Wildlife 8 Project Design Features Forest vegetative manipulation within active, alternate, and replacement nest areas should be designed to maintain or improve desired nest area habitat. Use the active nest area habitat characteristics as an indicator of the desired nest area habitat, and as the best available information for nest area habitat for that cover type. Openings created as a result of mechanical vegetative treatments should not exceed one acre in the spruce-fir cover type. Management activities should be restricted during the active nesting period. The active nesting period will normally occur between March 1st and September 30th. Where timber harvest is prescribed to achieve desired forest conditions, plan the transportation system to minimize disturbance to the PFAs. For example, small, permanent skid trails should be used in lieu of roads to minimize disturbance in goshawk PFAs. Variance may occur if it is determined that a combination of new permanent or temporary roads and permanent skid trails would result in less overall disturbance to PFA habitat. Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action Suitability There would be no change in forest land suitability as described in the affected environment, above. Suitability will not be discussed further in this document. Forest Composition With the exception of the fuels reduction treatments, much of the proposed action has been designed to favor Engelmann spruce over subalpine fir. (In some cases, depending on the existing stand composition, treatments may also serve to improve conditions for other less common conifer species, such as ponderosa pine or Douglas fir.) Commercial treatments, such as group selection, will result in the removal of subalpine fir and its replacement with planted spruce. Group selection has been commonly prescribed in high elevation spruce-fir across southern Utah for many decades (Hanley and others 1975). On the Fishlake National Forest it is considered to be effective at meeting the LRMP goals while minimizing ecological and social impacts. Group selection maintains the uneven aged structure of the stand while providing for small areas of regeneration, protected by the remaining overstory. Because large, over-mature spruce are removed from the groups, the preferred host of the spruce beetle is also removed, reducing stand susceptibility to beetle epidemics. Non-commercial treatments, such as stand thinning and fill-in planting, will focus both on the removal of small diameter subalpine fir favoring retention of the healthiest Engelmann spruce and on the planting of spruce where it has failed to regenerate adequately. Across the project area, however, the results will be mixed. In areas were specific treatments occur, Engelmann spruce will clearly be favored. There will, however, be thousands of untreated acres where subalpine fir will continue its march to dominance. Moreover, the modelled results for fuels treatments, such as prescribed fire, failed to arrest the development of subalpine fir. This seems counterintuitive, but a closer look at the results shows that the model expects subalpine fir to quickly reestablish after it is killed; subalpine fir seedlings typically grow more quickly than spruce (Shea 1985). Once again, it may be useful to look at our example stands from compartment three. 41

48 Big Flat Vegetation Management Table 21. Post-Treatment Species Composition for Six Stands in Compartment 03. Stand Treatment Species 1 2 None/No Change Group Selection 3 Rx Fire 5 Group Selection 7 Rx Fire 8 Group Selection Percent Composition in 2014 Percent Composition in 2064 Aspen 10% 7% Blue Spruce 15% 19% Engelmann Spruce 49% 49% Subalpine Fir 25% 25% Aspen 6% 0% Douglas Fir 6% 13% Engelmann Spruce 46% 47% Subalpine Fir 41% 40% Aspen 23% 11% Blue Spruce 5% 2% Engelmann Spruce 44% 15% Subalpine Fir 28% 72% Aspen 47% 0% Engelmann Spruce 37% 100% Subalpine Fir 15% 0% Aspen 34% 25% Engelmann Spruce 25% 25% Subalpine Fir 42% 50% Aspen 36% 7% Limber Pine 5% 0% Engelmann Spruce 42% 63% Subalpine Fir 17% 30% The modelled results imply that aspen will fair especially poorly under the proposed treatments. The model seems to assume that aspen will be removed by the timber harvest, yet the proposal calls for the location of commercial harvest groups within clumps of large (and decadent) spruce, so it is unlikely that a significant amount of aspen will be involved. Moreover, a number of the fuels reduction treatments are designed to shift the composition of these stands away from the invading conifer species (Smith 1986), and maintain these areas of relatively healthy aspen. Over the long term, of course, adjacent conifer seed sources would once again stimulate regeneration of the more shade-tolerant conifers underneath the aspen. Forest Structure While there is no forest plan desired condition associated with forest structure on a project area (or stand-level) basis, the general effect of group selection is to immediately convert treated areas to VSS 1, while retaining the existing size/age classes across the remainder of the stand. In the case of Big Flat, what this means is that much of the area would continue to be classified as VSS 3 and/or 4, while small openings throughout the treated stands would shift to VSS 1. Over the course of the rotation, stands managed with group selection would be fully converted to younger, faster-growing cohorts. The groups harvested at the first entry would quickly qualify as VSS 2 and 3, while new groups of VSS 1 would be created at each subsequent entry. By the end of the 42

49 Forestry Report rotation, this kind of active management should produce conditions that favor rapid growth and the development of larger, older trees. For our example stand, compartment 48, stand 3, the modelled condition after 200 years of management is VSS 5 for groups treated under the first entry. Thus, the proposed treatments can play a role in moving the landscape toward the desired future condition of creating and maintaining size-class diversity to include 40 percent mature and old forest structure (USDA Forest Service 2000). Goshawk Territories Under the proposed action, no commercial timber treatments would occur in any of the goshawk nest areas associated with the Big Flat project. For the Merchant goshawk territory, however, the proposal does include non-commercial fuels treatments hand cutting, piling, and burning within nest area stands. These treatments are designed to reduce the risk of unwanted wildfire and will be implemented outside of the nesting period, as directed by the BRD wildlife biologist. (These treatments have been successfully conducted in other nest areas on the BRD.) Because these manual treatments will be focused on the removal of small diameter material, the effect on forest structure will be to shift these stands towards larger and older classes. For compartment 37, stand 11, (one of two nest area stands within the Merchant territory) which is currently classified as VSS 3, the modelled result of the proposal is to achieve VSS 6 conditions fifty years after treatment. While this meets the intent of the LRMP goshawk amendment, it is also worth noting that the nest area stands proposed for this treatment cover a total areal extent of just 234 acres (approximately 1% of the project area). While intended to be beneficial, this effect, when viewed at the landscape level, is relatively minor. Table 22. Proposed Treatments within Northern Goshawk Territories. Name Nest Area Treatments Post-Fledgling Area Treatments Foraging Areas Treatments Merchant Baker Non-commercial hand cutting None Commercial timber cutting (up to 34 acres)* Non-commercial thinning and planting (up to 52 acres) Duncan None None Iant None Non-commercial aspen improvement (up to 147 acres) Commercial timber cutting (up to 600 acres); non-commercial treatments (up to 90 acres)# Commercial timber cutting (up to 20 acres); non-commercial treatments (up to 650 acres)^ Commercial timber cutting (up to 27 acres) Commercial timber cutting (up to 110 acres); non-commercial treatments (up to 700 acres)+ *This is in addition to the non-commercial hand cutting treatments that are proposed for the nest area. #This is in addition to the nest area and PFA proposed treatments. ^This is in addition to the non-commercial thinning and planting treatments that are proposed for the PFA. +This is in addition to the non-commercial aspen improvement treatments that are proposed for the PFA. For the post-fledgling areas (PFA) associated with the four Big Flat nest areas Merchant, Baker, Duncan and Iant group selection is proposed for one stand (compartment 37, stand 10), which may involve up to 34 acres of timber cutting (Table 22). In compliance with the LRMP goshawk amendment (and the project design features selected for Big Flat, wildlife 8) group openings within this stand will not exceed one acre and will not be created during any time period of active northern goshawk nesting. One short segment of temporary road (up to.4 mile) will be 43

50 Big Flat Vegetation Management constructed within the PFA under the proposal. This is a variance allowed under the goshawk amendment where such construction will minimize disturbance to a goshawk nest. In this case, failure to complete the proposed temporary loop would necessitate two separate road segments, each with a dead-end requiring the construction of a two different turn-around features on the edge of the PFA. Compliance with this portion of the LRMP goshawk amendment ensures that the Fishlake National Forest is working to maintain or improve habitat features required by the northern goshawk across its range. Finally, for the foraging areas associated with Big Flat, up to 10% should be in a regeneration phase at any given time. For spruce-fir cover types, group selection is recommended for creating these areas of regeneration (Graham and Jain 1998). While commercial timber removal using group selection will affect only very small proportions (less than 2%) of the Baker, Duncan, and Iant territories, the Merchant territory could have more than 600 acres (or 12%) of group selection treatments under the Big Flat proposal. Practices which slightly exceed the regeneration target at the local level, while maintaining goshawk territory at the landscape level are well supported by the literature. In fact, Youtz and others (2007) recommend using small regeneration cuts to balance age classes at the landscape level. ( Some local areas could be managed to temporarily provide a disproportionately large percentage of a structural stage that is otherwise limited or lacking in the larger landscape (Youtz and others 2007, p. 187.)) Forest Health Insects and Disease Dense forest stands are generally full of suppressed and stressed trees, with intense competition for light, water, and nutrients reducing individual tree vigor. Silvicultural treatments in dense forest stands can improve individual tree health and growth, as well as resistance to insects and disease (Amman and Logan 1998; Fettig and others 2007; Fettig and others 2010; Wallin and others 2008). Moreover, density reductions that open the forest canopy may also reduce risk of insect attacks by altering the microclimate such that pheromone plumes are disrupted (Powell and others 2000). In the case of the forest stands considered under the Big Flat project, large, overmature spruce will be removed in groups. Because these trees are the preferred host of the spruce beetle, stand susceptibility to beetle epidemics will also be reduced. On the other hand, it has also been well documented that reduced stand densities alone cannot arrest landscape-level pest infestations, especially when huge beetle population numbers overcome the defenses of even the most vigorous trees. A good example of this can be found in the significant Engelmann spruce mortality on the Markagunt Plateau in recent years (DeRose and Long 2007). The group selection treatments included in the proposed action are intended to provide the benefits of reduced host material, and reduced competition on tree growth and vigor. The resulting stands should be more resilient to spruce beetle outbreaks though additional mortality may continue despite thinning if beetle populations expand to those seen on the Markagunt Plateau and elsewhere. The sanitation treatments would remove trees infested with spruce (and mountain pine) beetles, thereby reducing current insect populations. These techniques have been successfully used to suppress localized populations (Bentz and Munson 2000; Samman and Logan 2000). Sanitation, however, works best where infested trees are removed before the maturing beetles can fly in the 44

51 Forestry Report spring and early summer. If the spread of the beetle is not interrupted before this flight, new trees will be attacked before sanitation treatments are effective. (Moreover, some studies have shown that recent regional changes in climate have enhanced the breeding and cold weather survival rates in mountain pine beetle populations, providing additional opportunities for flights to uninfested trees (Chapman and others 2012; Mitton and Ferrenberg 2012)). Nonetheless, Bentz and Munson (2000) have concluded that removal of infested trees can effectively reduce insect mortality. Monitoring of similar treatments at locations on the Dixie National Forest has demonstrated successful removal of infested trees (Keefe 2002). Salvage treatments involve removing dead trees from the stand. Objectives of this treatment are to suppress bark beetle populations in local pockets of activity and utilize the timber resource before it can deteriorate (Hinds and others 1965; Lowell and Cahill 1996). Salvage treatments will not affect mortality rates nor will they reduce the susceptibility of stands to subsequent bark beetle attacks (Amman and others 1985; Hebertson 2005). Likewise, neither the proposed planting nor the precommercial thinning will influence current spruce beetle mortality rates. These treatments are designed to promote future development of structural diversity. Other Damage While the Big Flat proposal will have no direct effect on potential changes in the global climate, reducing forest fuels and regenerating forest stands will provide for resilience in the face of disturbance and for improved age class diversity. Moreover, in contrast to treatments such as individual tree selection, the removal of small groups may reduce the likelihood of wind damage by avoiding increased wind speeds near the ground, and by maintaining the shelter associated with neighboring trees in the uncut portions of the stands (Huggard and others 1999). In addition, the proposed action is specifically designed to reduce wind damage by orienting the long axis of group openings so that they are parallel to the prevailing winds (Alexander 1964). Finally, logging damage is generally minimized in operations on the Fishlake National Forest by the use of best management practices and by careful skidding. For example, the project design features provide that felling and skidding are managed under the timber sale contract and approved by the Forest Service timber sale administrator before logging is allowed. Stand Density Stand density management uses tree size and density relationships to control stand stocking to meet management objectives (Long 1985; Long and Shaw 2005). The most commonly considered relationship is the one described by Reineke between quadric mean diameter and number of trees per unit area although others have been proposed which may offer improvements (Zeide 2010). In any case, Reineke s Stand Density Index (SDI) provides a good guide to stand development signposts such as the onset of competition (25 percent of maximum SDI), the lower limit of full site occupancy (35 percent of maximum SDI), and the lower limit of self-thinning (55 percent to 60 percent of maximum SDI) (Long 1985; Long and Shaw 2005). Stands managed at around 25 percent of maximum SDI display increased tree vigor, maximized tree growth, and reduced mortality (Long 1985). For the Big Flat project, the proposed commercial harvests would reduce SDI levels and standing volume while producing commercial forest products. In addition, both the commercial sanitation/salvage removals and non-commercial fuels treatments would have the effect of 45

52 Big Flat Vegetation Management reducing SDI below 50 percent of maximum. As a result, the effect of the proposed action on stand density would be to reduce it on the areas which are proposed for commercial and noncommercial forest vegetation treatments. In describing the current condition, it was noted that most of the Big Flat spruce/fir stands have SDIs that exceed the thresholds for tree vigor and resistance to insects and disease. As an example, four sample stands were found to have reached or exceeded the PFC threshold for stand density. Table 23, below, continues that example by showing the post-treatment condition of the same four stands. SDI is reduce by the proposed action in all cases, while three of the four are reduced to less than 50% of maximum. Table 23. Post-Treatment SDI Results from Grizzly Ridge Sample Stands. Percent of Maximum SDI Engelmann Spruce SDI Ranges Less than Pre-Treatment SDIs for Sample Stands Post-Treatment SDIs (49/02), 191 (49/06) (49/05) PFC THRESHOLD (49/02), 327 (49/05) Greater than (49/06), 536 (49/08) 427 (49/08) Old Growth Under the proposed action, group selection treatments (which are designed to regenerate the stand) in compartment 2/stand 5 may cause the stand to drop out of the old growth classification. The direct effect would be to reduce the stands qualifying as old growth from 13 to 12 within the project area for a reduction of up to 77 acres. Because there are more than 29,000 acres of forest in old growth condition currently mapped at the unit level (the ranger district), this treatment will have no effect on the Fishlake s ability to meet its old growth standard. Table 24. Impact of the Big Flat Treatments on Stands Currently Qualifying as Old Growth. Compartment Stand Size Cover Type Effect Spruce-Fir Loses old growth qualification Aspen No change Aspen No change Aspen No change Aspen No change Aspen No change Aspen No change Aspen No change Aspen No change Aspen No change Spruce-Fir No change Spruce-Fir No change Aspen No change. 46

53 Forestry Report Role of Fire Forest harvesting operations, such as those proposed for the Big Flat area, could be expected to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire by breaking up continuous fuels and removing flammable material from stands (Jorgensen 2010). In the case of Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir stands of the Rocky Mountains, however, there is ongoing debate about the effect of spruce beetle outbreaks on the potential fire regime. On the one hand, bark beetle epidemics can be expected to increase the levels of dead and dry fuels both in the canopy and on the surface, as needles and small dead branches begin to fall (Jorgensen and Jenkins 2011; McCullough and others 1998; Schmid and Amman 1992). On the other hand, research in Colorado has failed to find a link between bark beetle epidemics and subsequent fire extent or severity (Bebi and others 2003; Kulakowski and Veblen 2007). On balance, it seems likely that the proposed treatments in Big Flat may help meet LRMP objectives for restoring and maintaining ecosystems, consistent with land uses and historic fire regimes without necessarily having a significant effect on reducing the frequency or extent of future fires. Nonetheless, the modelled results of two group selection entries in our example stand compartment 49/stand 08 demonstrate modified fire conditions sufficient to show that modest benefits from such treatments are likely. Table 25. Fire Condition Data from Compartment 49/Stand 08 After Two Group Selection Entries. Metric Fire Condition Modelled Output Measure Surface Flame Length Total Flame Length Fire Type Probability of Torching Current 2050 Severe Feet Moderate Feet Severe 74 5 Feet Moderate 3 2 Feet Severe Active Surface N/A Moderate Surface Surface N/A Severe N/A Moderate N/A Torching Index Severe Miles/Hour Crowning Index Severe Miles/Hour Canopy Base Height N/A 4 25 Feet Canopy Bulk Density N/A Potential Mortality Kilogram/Cubic Meter Severe Basal Area Moderate Basal Area Trees Per Acre N/A N/A Basal Area N/A Square Feet/Acre Stand Density Index N/A N/A Quadratic Mean Diameter N/A Inches The proposed manual and mechanical fuels reduction treatments will include cutting of forest fuels by hand and/or chipping or masticating of small diameter material. Excess fuels can be piled for burning or can be consumed with broadcast burning. Thus, these treatments, whether 47

54 Big Flat Vegetation Management used alone or in combination with prescribed fire, can modify the volume of flammable material in treated stands. In fact, Walker and others (2011), found that cutting and chipping fuels prior to the application of prescribed fire reduced fuel loads by more than twice as much as prescribed fire alone. Moreover, it cannot be seriously disputed that availability and position of accumulated fuels is a key factor in the spread of high intensity wildfires (Agee and others 2000). Finally, as has been noted often in this document, the treated stands are under the direction of the LRMP managed for timber production. To conduct timber harvest operations without managing and treating fuels can exacerbate subsequent fire effects and should not be neglected (Agee and Skinner 2005). In the case of high intensity burning along the fireline, there are no current management strategies that will prevent or arrest the spread of wildfire. Under severe weather and terrain conditions, fuels reduction treatments including prescribed fire may be ineffective at preventing high intensity fire and undesirable fire effects (Keeley and others 2009). Nonetheless, because land managers do not control terrain or weather, the removal of hazardous fuels is likely the only factor within management control. Prescribed fire treatments can include pile burning and broadcast burning. Pile burning involves the collection of excess fuel and slash into piles which can then be burned during the winter when the risk of unwanted wildfire is low. Broadcast burning is the controlled application of fire to in situ forest fuels under specified environmental conditions that allow the fire to be confined to a predetermined area. Prescribed fire can reduce fine fuels, duff, large woody fuels, rotten material, shrubs, and other live surface fuels and can disrupt[] growth of surface fires, limit[] buildup of intensity, and reduce[] spot fire ignition probability (Graham and others 2004, p ). While the use of prescribed fire in the Big Flat project area will not be on a large scale, and cannot be expected to prevent future wildfire, it is well accepted tool for the modification of fuels that can play a role in mitigating the undesirable effects of high severity wildfires (Mutch and Cook 1996). For the Big Flat project, identified aspen stands across the landscape are proposed for noncommercial treatments to reduce invading conifers. The maintenance and improvement of existing aspen can provide for both forest diversity and areas of reduced flammability in the event of an unwanted wildfire. Aspen does not burn as readily as conifer (DeByle and others 1987). Crown fires in aspen stands are rare and aspen will typically burn only under leaf-off conditions when the understory is dry (Brown and Simmerman 1986). In fact, environmental historians have pointed out that, prior to European settlement, frequent burning in aspen would only have been possible in the case of aboriginal ignitions (Kay 1995). For these reasons, it is well known that aspen stands can provide a fuel break in areas of continuous conifer (Fechner and Barrows 1976). Smoke and Air Quality Because treatments proposed under the Big Flat project may include prescribed burning, the project could generate smoke emissions that are regulated under the Clean Air Act. The Fishlake National Forest meets its obligations under the Clean Air Act through compliance with the State of Utah s Division of Air Quality Rule The purpose of R is to establish procedures that mitigate the impact on public health and visibility of prescribed fire and wildland fire. Forest service decision makers may not sign burn plans that are not compliant with R The burn plans are reviewed and each ignition approved through the Utah State Smoke Management Plan, as described in Utah Rule All action alternatives included in the 48

55 Forestry Report NEPA documents produced by the Fishlake National Forest must meet the Utah State Smoke Management Plan requirements and therefore meet the Clean Air Act. For Big Flat, these requirements are specifically included in the first project design feature listed on page 38 of this report and included in the EA/DN/FONSI. The Clean Air Act regulatory framework, and its applicability to project planning on the Fishlake National Forest, has recently been addressed at length by Fire Ecologist Linda Chappell (Chappell 2015). In compliance with the NEPA regulation at (40 CFR (j)), the Chappell report is hereby incorporated by reference. It is available for review by interested parties on the Fishlake National Forest s web page. Because these procedures have been approved by the EPA and result in a finding of no significant impact under the NEPA, smoke and air quality will not be addressed further in this document. Regeneration As is noted above, many of the Big Flat stands are currently well stocked with natural regeneration. The seedling layer is, however, currently dominated by subalpine fir. The purposes of the Big Flat project include regeneration of Engelmann spruce and improvement of aspen stands, both of which are desirable for the maintenance of species diversity. As regards Engelmann spruce, the proposal includes both natural regeneration and planting of seedlings grown from seed collected in the project area. These regeneration efforts are proposed for group selection areas where the existing overstory has been removed and the forest fuels have been treated. While nursery grown spruce seedlings are often planted in timber harvest areas on the Beaver Ranger District, natural regeneration of Engelmann spruce depends on distance from seed source and seed crop size; germination and seedling survival are likely best in disturbed mineral soil and partial shade; while spruce is shade tolerant it can benefit from regular thinning to improve growth (Alexander and Shepperd 1990). Subalpine fir will generally respond to management in a way that is similar to Engelmann spruce. Subalpine fir is a prolific seeder and can also reproduce by layering; subalpine fir has a low tolerance for high temperatures and germination and seedling survival is best in partial shade; true firs are also very shade tolerant and can persist for many years in the understory; while fir growth rates can be improved by thinning, they are generally removed from spruce-fir stands during thinning activities (Alexander and others 1990). For aspen, the proposal does not specifically include regeneration treatments, but non-commercial fuels treatments should be expected to provide areas of small disturbance in existing aspen stands, which should also lead to sprouting. These aspen improvement treatments, which are designed to shift the composition of these stands away from the invading species, would reduce the conifer trees that have become established under the canopy of the relatively healthy aspen. Removing other species provides openings where sunlight can reach the forest floor, improving the growth environment for aspen sprouts (Shepperd and others 2006). These treatments have been successful elsewhere (Jones and others 2005) and will move the treated stands toward the desired condition of retaining aspen in the project area. Aspen responds to disturbances such as cutting and burning by suckering (Bartos and Mueggler 1982), which is the primary method of reproduction (though the importance of seeding has recently been noted (Long and Mock 2012)); aspen is considered to be a pioneer species and is very intolerant of shade; aspen is fast growing and responds well to management such as thinning, though it is not typically a valuable forest product in the western United States (Perala 1990). 49

56 Big Flat Vegetation Management Table 26. Proposed Action Spruce Regeneration in Compartment 3 of Big Flat. Stand Current Spruce Regeneration Treatment Post-Treatment Spruce Regeneration % Group Selection 8% % No Treatment 5% % Group Selection 8% % No Treatment 28% % Group Selection 5% Likewise, the modelled result for Engelmann spruce regeneration also shows that the proposed action maintains and/or enhances the spruce cohort. Using our example compartment (compartment 3), Table 26 shows an increase in the proportion of regenerated spruce after treatment. (It should be noted that the model provides for vigorous aspen re-sprouting in group selection cuts, which may or may not occur based on a number of factors location of treatments, severity of ungulate browsing, etc. Without enhanced aspen sprouting, Engelmann spruce numbers, as a percent of the total regeneration component would increase.) This result has long been supported in the literature, where studies have shown that Engelmann spruce regeneration is favored by group openings in which seed beds and light conditions can be effectively managed (LeBarron and Jemison 1953). Climate Change Under the proposed action there would be direct greenhouse gas emissions associated with commercial timber removals. These would include machinery and vehicle emissions from harvesting, yarding, and hauling (Karjalainen and Asikainen 1996). For fewer than 1,800 acres of treatments, these emissions would be very small. Athanassiadis (2000), for example, estimated that carbon dioxide emissions from forest harvesting operations in Sweden accounted for just one percent of the total amount emitted by all sources nationwide. Moreover, emissions of carbon from forest operations are also tiny (approximately 1.4 percent) relative to the amount of carbon sequestered in the harvested timber (Berg and Karjalainen 2003). Finally, a key component of the proposal is to reforest harvest areas, maintaining their function as carbon sinks. Most importantly, however, U.S. forests are a strong net carbon sink, absorbing more carbon than they emit by removing it from the atmosphere and storing it in biomass (Galik and Jackson 2009; Houghton 2003; U.S. EPA 2010). For the period 2000 to 2008, the net carbon sequestration of U.S. forests was more than 190 million tons carbon per year, with harvest wood products sequestering an additional 20 to 30 million tons per year (U.S. EPA 2010). The amount of carbon sequestered in U.S. forests annually offsets roughly 11 percent of the country s greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion the equivalent of eliminating the emissions from about 135 million passenger vehicles. (Other studies have recently estimated that forests offset up to 60% of carbon emissions. Over the period that we studied (1990 to 2007), the cumulative C sink into the world s established forests was ~43 Pg C and 73 Pg C for the established plus regrowing forests; the latter equivalent to 60% of cumulative fossil emissions in the period (i.e., 126 Pg C) Pan and others 2011). Within the United States, land use conversion from forest to other uses (primarily for development or agriculture) are identified as the primary human activities exerting negative pressure on the carbon sink that currently exists in this country s forests (Conant and others 2007; Ryan and others 2010). In this case, the affected forests will 50

57 Forestry Report remain forests there will be no conversion to other land uses and long-term forest services and benefits will be maintained. Cumulative Effects In order to have a cumulative effect two things are required. First, your project must have a direct/indirect effect. Second, there must be other projects within the CEA that also have relevant direct/indirect effects. In other words, because cumulative effects are additive, you must have at least two non-zero effects, otherwise there is nothing to add: Zero plus zero equals zero. Moreover, the effects must be relevant. That is, they must be related to each other and to the natural resource at issue we need to be adding apples to apples. For example, the effect of planting 300 acres of native trees is not related to another project within the watershed that, say, involves road reconstruction to improve fish habitat. As a result, cumulative effects are only found where your project has a measurable direct/indirect effect and other relevant projects in the CEA have the same. As has been noted, above, none of the projects conducted within the Big Flat CEA has ever been shown to result in NEPA significant effects. So, we are starting with zero. The past and current vegetation management actions within the CEA are routine treatments within a managed forest. They have each been compliant with the LRMP and have been evaluated under previous NEPA documents. Likewise, Big Flat was designed to comply directly with Congressional direction and the goals of the LRMP. It is a project that continues the intended multiple uses of the project area, and does so while incorporating dozens of project design features that have been shown to mitigate potentially undesirable effects associated with forest management. As a result, the project fits within an Environmental Assessment and does not have NEPA significant effects. Because zero equals zero, that should be the end of the discussion. Nonetheless, for the sake of arithmetic, the remainder of this section will consider the magnitude of the proposed treatments against the scale of other vegetation management actions across the CEA. Forest Composition Spruce/fir Group selection treatments have been designed to promote the retention of spruce by providing conditions conducive to the regeneration and recruitment of young spruce. For the 67,080 acre Big Flat CEA, spruce regeneration treatments have occurred on approximately 4,000 acres (Table 16). As a result, the potential cumulative effect of the Big Flat project on spruce composition when added to the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions across the CEA is to increase the regenerated area from approximately 6 percent to approximately 9 percent. This is likely to have a slightly beneficial effect in relation to the forest plan desired future condition for spruce composition as compared with doing nothing. Aspen Likewise, the aspen improvement treatments are likely to shift species composition from a trend towards conifers and back toward aspen. While not specifically designed to regenerate aspen or to increase its presence in the project area, the likely effect of non-commercial hand-cutting of conifers in aspen stands is to provide better conditions for aspen sprouting and to increase aspen density (Jones and others 2005). As a result, these treatments will move the project area toward 51

58 Big Flat Vegetation Management the desired condition of retaining aspen on the Fishlake National Forest. For the 67,080 acre Big Flat CEA, past treatments have focused on aspen regeneration through coppice-clearfelling. At this time, the Big Flat proposal is the only one within the CEA that includes non-commercial hand-cutting of conifers within stable aspen stands. While aspen treatments can be expected to have a slightly beneficial effect across the CEA, it is worth noting, again, that without an accumulation of NEPA significant direct or indirect effects, there can be no cumulative effects. Forest Structure While there is no LRMP desired condition for structure at the stand level, the desired structure, under the PFC, is to have landscapes with a balanced range of structures, including 10 percent each of grass/forb/shrub and seedling/sapling structures, and 20 percent each of young, mid-aged, mature, and old forest (USDA Forest Service 2000). Across the Big Flat CEA, there is ample acreage in the first four structures grass/forb, seedling/sapling, young, and mid-aged. Because, however, forest structures are defined for convenience by size classes, and, because highelevation spruce-fir stands in southern Utah are demonstrably slow growing, it can take hundreds of years for stands to qualify as mature or old. As a result, it is evident that treatments to move stands toward a condition where they provide both immediate improvements in the proportion of mature and old forest as well as long-term growth increases focused on younger, more vigorous stems will move the landscape toward the desired condition. Moreover, because widespread spruce beetle epidemics across the high-elevation plateaus of southern Utah have the effect of removing essentially ALL the mature and old forest structures, and much of the midaged structures (DeBlander and others 2010; DeRose and Long 2007; Dymerski and others 2001), treatments such as Big Flat which are designed to regenerate spruce as well as protecting affected stands by sanitizing them should have the effect of diversifying conditions in the CEA, while producing and maintaining mature and old forest structures over the long term. Goshawk Territories Of the four goshawk territories potentially affected by the Big Flat project, three of them are entirely within the CEA for the project: Baker, Iant, and Merchant. For the Duncan goshawk territory, all of the nest areas and PFAs are within the CEA, along with approximately 3,600 acres (72%) of the foraging area. The current condition of each of these territories is, like the PFC structure discussed above, dominated by the mid-range of VSS classes, especially VSS 3 and VSS 4. This condition can be exacerbated by spruce beetle-induced mortality which reduces the VSS 5 and 6 size classes. As has been noted frequently in this report, spruce beetle outbreaks have occurred on numerous plateaus across southern Utah (DeBlander and others 2010). In addition to these four territories, the CEA for Big Flat also includes a portion of the Wood Lake territory identified in the South Fork Environmental Assessment. In that case, the selected alternative excluded all treatments within the 180 acres of nest area and replacement nest areas. Treatments within the PFA and foraging areas group selection, sanitation, and salvage were, however, found to have been designed to improve goshawk habitat and the project as a whole was determined not to be contributing to a trend towards federal listing or causing a loss of viability to the population or species (USDA Forest Service 2006). Likewise, the Big Flat project has been designed to meet the direction of the goshawk amendment to the LRMP and has not been found to cause a loss in viability to the northern goshawk. 52

59 Forestry Report Moreover, because this is, as noted, an exercise in arithmetic, it is worth noting that the entire South Fork project treated around 1,800 acres. For Big Flat, the commercial timber harvests are proposed for just less than that. In combination, the two projects would potentially affect up to 3,600 acres. The five goshawk territories mapped for this analysis cover nearly25,000 acres. Thus, the potential cumulative effect over 20 years of implementation is that something less than 15% of these existing goshawk territories would be treated to regenerate spruce and sanitize beetle infestations. Forest Health Insects and Disease Most, if not all, of the treatments proposed for Big Flat should have beneficial effects on forest health: Group selection for spruce regeneration provides for age class diversity; sanitation/salvage removes bark beetle infested trees from the stand; treatment of hazardous fuels can reduce the impact of unwanted wildfire; and aspen improvements maintain forest diversity. Likewise, many of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable forest vegetation management projects within the Big Flat CEA have provided these types of benefits (Table 27). As a result, management actions designed to improve forest health have been implemented on approximately 8 percent of the cumulative effects area. This has been shown to have a generally beneficial effect, although it is unlikely that silvicultural treatments can stop a full-blown insect epidemic (DeRose and Long 2007), or prevent the occurrence of wildfires. Table 27. Forest Health Treatments within the Cumulative Effects Area for Big Flat Project Acres Percent of CEA Even-aged Spruce Regeneration 541 1% Uneven-aged Spruce Regeneration % Aspen Regeneration 178 0% Salvage % Total % Stand Density For the Big Flat project, the proposed treatments would reduce SDI levels and standing volume while producing commercial forest products. The proposed treatments would also have the effect of reducing the stand densities within the CEA. Currently, approximately 37 percent of the CEA is likely to have SDIs exceeding mortality thresholds due to more than 100 years without significant disturbance through timber harvesting or fire. Implementation of the proposed action would primarily have the effect of reducing the area of dense stands that exceed mortality thresholds by approximately 5 percent, and moving those acres into the range of 25 to 50 percent maximum SDI (Table 23). The control of stocking through the reduction of SDI can provide demonstrable increases in tree vigor, maximized tree growth, and reduced mortality. Old Growth The LRMP provides that in forested areas of a unit, 5% or more should be in old- growth. The unit is, in this case, the BRD. As is noted above, there are estimated to be more than 29,000 acres of forested areas that currently qualify as old growth on the BRD. Because this is more than 10% 53

60 Big Flat Vegetation Management of the unit, the district is currently meeting the intent of the LRMP as regards old growth. In addition, within the 67,080 Big Flat CEA, there are approximately 56,580 forested acres. Of these, there are approximately 6,000 acres that qualify as old growth (or 11%). The direct effect Big Flat would be to reduce the acreage qualifying as old growth by about 77 acres. Because there are no other projects within the CEA that are designed to remove timber from stands currently qualifying as old growth, there is nothing else to add to our 77 acre total. As a result, both the unit (the BRD) and the CEA will continue to contain up to 10% old growth in compliance with the LRMP. Role of Fire While the direct effect of treatments such as those proposed for Big Flat, as well as others throughout the CEA, can be expected to help to meet forest plan objectives for providing opportunities for appropriate fire suppression response, the treatments are unlikely to have a significant direct effect on the long-term spruce/fir fire regime in the area. Without direct effects there can be no cumulative effects. Regeneration The commercial timber treatments proposed for Big Flat are specifically designed to use group selection an uneven aged management tool to regenerate spruce. If, and when, the proposal is fully implemented, these regeneration treatments will affect up to approximately 1,700 acres of spruce. Past spruce regeneration treatments primarily individual tree selection and clear cutting have occurred on approximately 3,800 acres of spruce-fir forest within the Big Flat CEA (Table 27). The cumulative effect, then, of past treatments, in conjunction with the Big Flat project, is to regenerate spruce on around eight percent of the cumulative effects area. Significantly, however, these acreage totals have accumulated over a forty year period. As a result, many of the stands regenerated in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s are completely restocked and reforested and cannot be considered to be in a regeneration stage of development. Finally, as has been noted frequently in this document, these practices are desired by the LRMP and have been designed to be beneficial. Moreover, the areal extent of spruce regeneration treatments has been small relative to the size of the forest managed by the BRD. As a result, neither the individual direct/indirect effects, nor the cumulative effects of these projects have been found to implicate NEPA significance. The non-commercial aspen treatments (~826 acres) proposed for Big Flat are designed to maintain stable aspen stands in the project area. While not specifically intended to regenerate aspen, the treatments may improve conditions for aspen sprouting. For the 67,080 acre Big Flat CEA, other aspen treatments have occurred on approximately 178 acres (Table 28). As a result, the potential cumulative effect of the Big Flat project on aspen regeneration when added to the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions across the CEA is to, perhaps, push the area of regenerating aspen towards one percent of the CEA. This is likely to have a very slightly beneficial effect in relation to the desired future condition for aspen regeneration as compared with doing nothing. It is, however, unlikely to arrest the decline of aspen and, if anything, is of such negligible effect that it should be considered insignificant either way. The most significant aspen regeneration impact within the Big Flat CEA occurred in 1996, when the Pole Creek wildfire burned several thousand acres of aspen that has since regenerated. 54

61 Forestry Report Table 28. Aspen Regeneration Projects in the Big Flat CEA. Project Treatment Acres Big Flat Aspen Coppice-Clearfell 33 Big Flat Aspen 2 Coppice-Clearfell 21 Burnt Flat Aspen Coppice-Clearfell 52 Gunsight Aspen Coppice-Clearfell 10 Kent s Lake Aspen Coppice-Clearfell 20 Round Flat Aspen Coppice-Clearfell 21 Round Flat Aspen Damage Coppice-Clearfell 21 Total 178 Climate Change Carbon flux rates have not been calculated for the Big Flat project. Nor have they been calculated for past activities or projects within the CEA. It is highly unlikely, however, that the total greenhouse gas emissions associated with fewer than 8,000 acres of forest management across the CEA during the past 20 to 30 years has resulted in a discernible impact on atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases or global warming, considering the limited changes in both rate and timing of carbon flux predicted within these few affected forest acres and the global scale of the atmospheric greenhouse gas pool and the multitude of natural events and human activities globally contributing to that pool. Moreover, the National Forests provide a valuable ecosystem service by removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it in biomass (Galik and Jackson 2009). Significantly, U.S. forests continue to be net carbon sinks. The most recent estimates indicate that U.S. forests and wood products sequestered approximately 792 teragrams of CO 2 equivalents in 2008, and that the net annual sequestration rate has increased since 1990 (U.S. EPA 2010). In addition, as has been noted above, the entire project area will be maintained as a forest there will be no conversion to other land uses and long-term forest services and benefits will continue to be provided. As a result, there will be no significant cumulative effect on the climate from implementation of the proposed action when considered with other past, present, and foreseeable projects across the CEA. Effects Relative to Significance Factors To reach a finding of no significant Impact (FONSI) under the NEPA, a decision-maker must consider the potential significance of environmental effects as they relate to both context and intensity. Context and intensity are defined by the Council on Environmental Quality at 40 CFR Before considering the potential effect of the proposed Big Flat treatments on the project area vegetation regarding both context and intensity, it is worth noting a couple of general propositions. First, the project was designed, in part, to improve and maintain the diversity, safety, and long term health of a managed forest. As a result, it is nearly impossible to find, from a silvicultural perspective, that the proposal will result in significant harmful impacts. If that were likely, there would be no sense in developing the proposal. In other words, if the maintenance and improvement of a managed forest is the purpose of the activity, the activity, by definition, will not 55

62 Big Flat Vegetation Management have significant negative impacts on the forest resource. For it to be otherwise would violate common sense. Second, the Big Flat project is proposed for, as is noted above, a managed, multiple-use forest. As a result, the vegetation will be modified to meet the goals of the Fishlake Forest Plan, and will not appear to be influenced solely by the hand of nature. The Fishlake National Forest provides multiple uses, benefits, and products to the American public, including managed forests. Management is not, on its face, a significant impact. The managed forest remains a forest and provides the benefits associated with forests, despite changes to the vegetation wrought by the hand of man. Context Significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies with setting. In the case of a site-specific action, significance would usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant. This project is limited in scope and duration. The proposed forest vegetation treatments are limited to fewer than 9,600 acres of the Fishlake National Forest this includes non-commercial thinning, tree planting, and fuel reduction. As a result, this is a site-specific action with minor localized effects on the forest resources of the area. To put this in perspective, the Fishlake National Forest is composed of approximately 1.5 million acres of public land, almost half of which is set aside as research natural areas, inventoried roadless areas, protected watersheds, and non-motorized areas. In contrast, the Big Flat proposal includes silvicultural treatments in a managed project area that composes approximately 1/2 of 1 percent of the Forest s areal extent. Moreover, the proposal does not result in deforestation or land use changes, which are the primary large-scale impacts to forest vegetation resources of regional or global concern. Intensity The following factors were considered to evaluate intensity. 1) Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on the balance the effects will be beneficial. The result of the proposed treatments on the forest vegetation in the project area is designed to be beneficial. As a result, there would likely be some beneficial effects from the proposed action, but these would not generally be considered intense or severe. 2) The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. The Big Flat Vegetation Management project will not have a significant effect on public health or safety. Forest management activities will be conducted under the authority of a certified Timber Sale Administrator, and will be designed to avoid conflict with public forest users through project design (Forest Vegetation 1, Recreation and Visuals 3). Moreover, any smoke emissions associated with prescribed fire will be approved by the State of Utah s Smoke Management Program ( Air Quality 1). 56

63 Forestry Report 3) Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. No parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas are associated with the project area. The project area has been surveyed and analyzed for historical and cultural resources. Documentation of these findings is included in resource specialist reports located in the project record. 4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. The effects of the proposed action on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. The project area is a managed forest; the proposal is limited in scope; and the project design features, including standard management requirements, are demonstrably effective in reducing impacts to national forest resources. The proposed management actions are routine forest vegetation treatments similar to those that have been undertaken by the Fishlake National Forest for decades in compliance with the Land and Resource Management Plan. 5) The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The conditions present within the project area and the proposed action are similar to forest vegetation treatment projects that have been implemented on the Fishlake National Forest in the past. Potential effects from such projects are routinely considered, documented, and monitored by the Forest. The effectiveness of project design features in minimizing or eliminating risks from forest management has been demonstrated. There is no evidence of highly uncertain, unique, or unknown risks to the human environment associated with this project. 6) The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. This proposal does not set a precedent for any other vegetation management projects that may be implemented to meet the goals and objectives of the Fishlake Forest Plan. Any decision to treat the forest vegetation in the Big Flat Vegetation Management project area applies to this project only and does not represent decisions about future actions. Thus, this action does not set a precedent for future actions or represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. Future actions will be analyzed on their own merits in compliance with NEPA. 7) Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. This analysis includes a list of potential past, ongoing and foreseeable future actions that may create cumulative effects. In general, those projects were designed, like the Big Flat Vegetation Management proposal, to have beneficial silvicultural effects to managed forests. Those incremental potential benefits are accounted for in the project record, but are unlikely to be significant. Moreover, it is worth noting that, in numerous NEPA compliance reviews undertaken by the BRD in the decades since the NEPA came into effect, there has been no finding of 57

64 Big Flat Vegetation Management significant environmental impact from routine vegetation management actions. Where there is no project specific significant impact, there can be no accumulation of significant impact. 8) The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant cultural or historical resources. This proposal cannot affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places because none exist within any proposed treatment unit. The proposal will cause no loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historic resources. 9) The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act. A biological assessment has been completed to document analysis of potential effects of this project on endangered and threatened species and their critical habitats. No known federally listed endangered or threatened plant or animal species occur or have the potential to occur in the project area, nor has any critical habitat been designated in the project area. The project does not remove suitable habitat or otherwise adversely affect any listed species. Documentation of these findings is included in resource specialist reports in the project record. 10) Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The proposed action would not violate Federal, State, or local laws or requirements. The action is consistent with the 1986 Fishlake National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The EA and the specialist reports included in the project record demonstrate compliance with, inter alia, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, with the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and with the Endangered Species Act of Summary of Effects The Beaver Ranger District of the Fishlake National Forest proposes treating forest vegetation within the 18,503-acre Big Flat project area. The proposed treatments include group selection and sanitation and salvage harvest methods to remove merchantable trees in 41 forest stands; thinning and stand improvement methods to improve the composition and quality of desirable trees in 14 stands; and fuel reduction treatments in an additional 30 stands. As a result of this proposal, the existing project area vegetation may be impacted by commercial tree cutting, as well as non-commercial forest vegetation treatments. The direct and indirect effects of this proposal would include: the regeneration of native Engelmann spruce through group selection and planting treatments; the creation of VSS 1 and 2 areas in stands currently dominated by VSS 3; the reduction of stand densities with the related effect of increasing individual tree growth and vigor; 58

65 Forestry Report the modification of forest fuels through non-commercial cutting, burning, and aspen improvement; and the maintenance of a managed forest that provides a carbon sink and forest products to the public. The areal extent of treatments proposed in the Big Flat project area would affect stands totaling 9600 acres while not every acre will be treated, these stands make up approximately half of the total project area. In addition, the treated stands account for about 14 percent of the cumulative effects area. As a result, the direct and indirect effects noted above will only modestly improve the forest conditions across the project area and the CEA. Because these effects are designed to be silviculturally beneficial to the forest resource and will accrue to a managed forest which makes up a small percentage of the vegetation on the BRD, the overall effect of this proposal on the vegetation resource is not significant. Moreover, the proposal has been shown to be in compliance with law (NEPA, NFMA, ESA, etc.), regulation (CFR), and policy; as well as with the Fishlake Forest Plan. The proposal does not affect human safety, historic resources, or ecologically critical areas. In sum, the Big Flat proposal maintains a managed forest using approved silvicultural practices in compliance with regulatory direction. Finally, the Forest Service routinely finds that management actions in multiple use areas of the Fishlake National Forest do not result in significant impacts to the quality of the human environment as defined by NEPA. In fact, in 2007, the Beaver Ranger District Inter-Disciplinary Team conducted an Environmental Assessment South Fork that concluded with a Finding of No Significant Impact. The treatments subsequently implemented under that project are substantially similar to those proposed for Big Flat including group selection, sanitation, and salvage in spruce-fir stands in the Beaver Watershed. Likewise, after a full analysis of up to 60,000 acres of the Beaver Watershed, during 2011, the IDT concluded the North Beaver Fuels Project Environmental Analysis with a Finding of No Significant Impact. Because the conditions analyzed; the actions proposed, such as fuels reduction treatments; and the project design features included are similar as between North Beaver Fuels and Big Flat Vegetation Management, the prior findings have been used to support the conclusions in this document. Which is to say that the Forest Service has repeatedly found that routine vegetation management actions as desired by the United States Congress and the Fishlake National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan do not result in significant impacts to the quality of the human environment as defined by the NEPA. Those projects and their documentation are hereby incorporated by reference. 59

66 Big Flat Vegetation Management References Cited Agee, J.K., Bahro, B., Finney, M.A., Omi, P.N., Sapsis, D.B., Skinner, C.N., van Wagtendonk, J.W., and Weatherspoon, C.P The use of shaded fuelbreaks in landscape fire management. Forest ecology and management 127(1): Agee, J. and Skinner, C Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 211(1-2): Alexander, R.R Minimizing windfall around clear cuttings in spruce-fir forests. Forest Science 10(2): Alexander, R.R Cutting methods in relation to resource use in central Rocky Mountain spruce-fir forests. Journal of Forestry 75(7): Alexander, R.R In: Eyre, F.H., 1980, Forest Cover Types of the United States and Canada: Society of American Foresters, 148 pp. Alexander, R.R Ecology, silviculture, and management of the Engelmann spruce - subalpine fir type in the central and southern Rocky Mountains. USDA Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook No pp. Alexander, R.R. and Shepperd, W.D Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm. IN: Burns, Russell M., and Barbara H. Honkala, tech. coords Silvics of North America: 1. Conifers; Agriculture Handbook 654. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. vol.1, 675 pp. Alexander, R.R., Shearer, R.C., and Shepperd, W.D Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt. IN: Burns, Russell M., and Barbara H. Honkala, tech. coords Silvics of North America: 1. Conifers; Agriculture Handbook 654. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. vol.1, 675 pp. Amman, G.D., M.D. McGregor, and R.E. Dolph Mountain pine beetle. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. Amman, G.D. and J.A. Logan Silvicultural control of mountain pine beetle: Prescriptions and the influence of microclimate. American Entomologist Anderson, G.W., Hinds, T.E., Knutson, D.M Decay and Discoloration of Aspen. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 149. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. Anderson, H.E Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-122, 22p. Intermountain For. and Range Exp. Station, Ogden, Utah Aplet, G.H., R.D. Laven, and F.W. Smith Patterns of community dynamics in Colorado Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir forests. Ecology 69: Athanassiadis, D Energy consumption and exhaust emissions in mechanized timber harvesting operations in Sweden. The Science of The Total Environment. Volume 255, Issues 1-3,

67 Forestry Report Bartos, D.L. and R.B. Campbell, Jr Decline of quaking aspen in the interior west examples from Utah. Rangelands 20(1): Bartos, D.L., and W.F. Mueggler Early succession following clearcutting of aspen communities in northern Utah. Journal of Range Management 35(6): Bebi P., D. Kulakowski, and T.T. Veblen Interactions between fire and spruce beetles in a subalpine rocky mountain forest landscape. Ecology 84(2): Beck, J.L., Skorkowsky, R.C., and Hayward, G.D Estimating occupancy to monitor Northern Goshawk in the central Rocky Mountains. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75(3): Bentz, B.J. and A.S. Munson Spruce beetle population suppression in northern Utah. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 15(3): Bentz, B.J., Jacques Régnière, Christopher J. Fettig, E. Matthew Hansen, Jane L. Hayes, Jeffrey A. Hicke, Rick G. Kelsey, Jose F. Negrón, and Steven J. Seybold Climate change and bark beetles of the western United States and Canada: Direct and indirect effects. BioScience 60(8): Berg, S., and T. Karjalainen Comparison of greenhouse gas emissions from forest operations in Finland and Sweden. Forestry 76: Bessie, W.C., and Johnson, E.A The relative importance of fuels and weather on fire behavior in subalpine forests. Ecology 76(3): Bigler, C., D. Kulakowski, and T.T. Veblen Multiple disturbance interactions and drought influence fire severity in Rocky Mountain subalpine forests. Ecology 86: Bigler, C., and T.T. Veblen Changes in litter and dead wood loads following tree death beneath subalpine conifer species in northern Colorado. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 41: Bond, M.L., Lee, D.E., Bradley, C.M., and Hanson, C.T Influence of pre-fire tree mortality on fire severity in conifer forests of the San Bernardino Mountains, California. Open Forest Science Journal 2: Bosworth, D., R. Birdsey, L. Joyce, and C. Millar Climate change and the nation s forests: Challenges and opportunities. The Journal of Forestry, 106(4), Bradley, A.F., N.V. Noste, and W.C. Fischer Fire ecology of forests and woodlands in Utah. GTR-INT-287. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.128 pp. Brown, J.K Role and use of fire in aspen. Proceedings of a symposium; 1985 July 28 31, Fort Collins, CO. Society of American Foresters, National Convention: Brown, J.K., and N.V. DeByle Fire damage, mortality, and suckering in aspen. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 17: Brown, J.K., and D.G. Simmerman Appraising fuels and flammability in western aspen: a prescribed fire guide. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT p. 61

68 Big Flat Vegetation Management Chappell, L Monroe Mountain Aspen Ecosystems Restoration Project Air Quality Report. (Accessed at This report has been incorporated by reference. Cochran, P.H., J.M.Geist, D.L. Clemens, R.R. Clausnitzer, and D.C. Powell Suggested stocking levels for forest stands in northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. Res. Note PNW-RN-513. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 26 pp. Cohen, J.D Reducing the wildland fire threat to homes: Where and how much?. IN: Proceedings of the symposium on fire economics, planning, and policy: bottom lines USDA Forest Service Gen.Tech.Rep. PSW-GTR-173, pp Conant, R.T., K. Paustian, F. García-Oliva, H.H. Janzen, V.J. Jaramillo, D.E. Johnson, and S.N. Kulshreshtha Chapter 10 Agricultural and Grazing Lands. In: CCSP, The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): The North American Carbon Budget and Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [King, A.W., L. Dilling, G.P. Zimmerman, D.M. Fairman, R.A. Houghton, G. Marland, A.Z. Rose, and T.J. Wilbanks (eds.)]. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC, USA, 242 pp. DeBlander, L.T., J.D. Shaw, C. Witt, J. Menlove, M.T. Thompson, T.A. Morgan, R.J. DeRose, and M.C. Amacher Utah s forest resources, Resour. Bull. RMRS-RB- 10. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 144 pp. DeByle, N.V., Bevins, C.D., and Fischer, W.C Wildfire occurrence in aspen in the interior western United States. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 2(3): DeRose R.J., and J.N. Long Disturbance, structure, and composition: Spruce beetle and Engelmann spruce forests on the Markagunt Plateau, Utah. Forest Ecology and Management 244(1-3): DeRose, R.J., and J.N. Long Wildfire and spruce beetle outbreak: simulation of interacting disturbances in the central Rocky Mountains. Ecoscience 16: DeRose, R.J., Bentz, B.J., Long, J.N., and Shaw, J.D Effect of increasing temperatures on the distribution of spruce beetle in Engelmann spruce forests of the Interior West, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 308: Dixon, Gary E. comp Essential FVS: A user s guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Internal Rep. Fort Collins, CO: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center. 204 p. (Revised: July 7, 2010.) Drew, T.J., and J.W. Flewelling Stand Density Management: an alternative approach and its application to Douglas-fir plantations. Forest Science 25(3): Durham D.A., and C.B. Marlow Aspen response to prescribed fire under managed cattle grazing and low elk densities in southwest Montana. Northwest Science 84(2):9. 62

69 Forestry Report Dymerski, A.D., J.A. Anhold, and A.S. Munson Spruce beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis) epidemic in Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii) in central Utah, Western North American Naturalist 61: Ecology Committee, Utah Forest Restoration Working Group Guidelines for Aspen Restoration on the National Forests in Utah, Western Aspen Alliance, Utah State University, Logan, UT. 48 pp. Egan, J.M., W.R. Jacobi, J.F. Negron, S.L. Smith, and D.R. Cluck Forest thinning and subsequent bark beetle-caused mortality in northeastern California. Forest Ecology and Management 260: Eyre, F.H., 1980, Forest Cover Types of the United States and Canada: Society of American Foresters, 148p. Fellin, D.G., Dewey, J.E Western Spruce Budworm. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 53. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. Fechner, G.H., and Barrows, J.S Aspen stands as wildfire fuel breaks. US Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, (Eisenhower Consortium Bulletin 4). Fettig, C.J., Klepzig, K.D., Billings, R.F., Munson, A.S., Nebeker, T.E., Negrón, J.F., and Nowak, J.T The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States. Forest Ecology and Management 238(1): Fettig, C.J., R. Borys, and C. Dabney Effects of fire and fire surrogate treatments on bark beetle-caused tree mortality in the Southern Cascades, California. Forest Science 56: Finkral, A.J., and A.M. Evans The effects of a thinning treatment on carbon stocks in a northern Arizona ponderosa pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management 255(7): Furniss, R.L. and V.M. Carolin Western forest insects. USDA Forest Service, Misc. Publ. # pp. Galik, C.S., and R.B. Jackson Risks to forest carbon offset projects in a changing climate. Forest Ecology and Management 257: Graham, R., McCaffrey, S. and Jain, T Science basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-120, 43 pp. Graham, R.T. and T.B. Jain Silviculture's role in managing boreal forests. Conservation Ecology [online] 2(2):8. Graham, R.T., Rodriguez, R.L., Paulin, K.M., Player, R.L., Heap, A.P., and Williams, R The northern goshawk in Utah: habitat assessment and management recommendations. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-22. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 48 pp. 63

70 Big Flat Vegetation Management Hamilton, R.C Characteristics of old-growth forests in the intermountain region. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region. Unpublished manuscript. 86 pp. Hadley, K.S., and Veblen, T.T Stand response to western spruce budworm and Douglas-fir bark beetle outbreaks, Colorado Front Range. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 23(3): Hanley, D.P., W.C. Schmidt and G.M. Blake Stand structure and successional status of two spruce-fir forests in southern Utah. Res.Pap. INT-176. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 16 pp. Hansen E.M., B.J. Bentz, and D.L. Turner Temperature-based model for predicting univoltine brood proportions in spruce beetle (Coleoptera : Scolytidae). Canadian Entomologist 133(6): Hansen, E.M., B.J. Bentz, A.S. Munson, J.C. Vandygriff, and D.L. Turner Evaluation of funnel traps for estimating tree mortality and associated population phase of spruce beetle in Utah. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36(10): Hard, J.S Spruce beetles attack slowly growing spruce. Forest Science 31: Hartsough, B Economics of harvesting to maintain high structural diversity and resulting damage to residual trees. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 18: Hebertson, E.G A biological evaluation of bark beetle activity in the Pockets resource management project area, Dixie National Forest, Escalante Ranger District. Forest Health Protection Report OFO-BE Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry. 25 pp. Hebertson, E.G., and D. Blackford Forest Health Assessment Indian Creek Canyon, North Fork of North Creek Canyon, Big John Flat, Big Flat, and South Fork of the Beaver River Project Areas, Fishlake National Forest, Beaver Ranger District. Forest Health Protection Report OFO-TR Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry. 6 pp. Hicke, J.A., Allen, C.D., Desai, A.R., Dietze, M.C., Hall, R.J., Hogg, E.H.T., Kashian, D.M., Moore, D., Raffa, K.F., Sturrock, R.N., and Vogelmann, J Effects of biotic disturbances on forest carbon cycling in the United States and Canada. Global Change Biology 18(1):7-34. Hinds, T. E., F. G. Hawksworth, and R.W. Davidson Beetle-killed Engelmann spruce: its deterioration in Colorado. Journal of Forestry 63: Hogg E.H., J.P. Brandt, and B. Kochtubajda Growth and dieback of Aspen forests in northwestern Alberta, Canada, in relation to climate and insects. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32(5): Holland, D.G Mountain pine beetle survey-beaver Ranger District. USDA Forest Service, Forest Pest Management. Ogden, Utah. 2 pp. Holsten, E H., Their, R.W., Munson, A.S., and Gibson, K.E The spruce beetle. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 127. USDA Forest Service. 64

71 Forestry Report Houghton, R.A Revised estimates of the annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use and land management Tellus B 55(2): Huggard, D.J., Klenner, W., and Vyse, A Windthrow following four harvest treatments in an Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir forest in southern interior British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 29(10): Jenkins, M.J., E. Hebertson, W. Page, and C.A. Jorgensen Bark beetles, fuels, fires and implications for forest management in the Intermountain West. Forest Ecology and Management, Volume 254, Issue 1, 15 January 2008, pp Jones, J.R IN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Silvicultural systems for the major forest types of the United States. U.S. Dept. Agriculture Handb. 445, 124 pp. Jorgensen, C.A The Effects of Spruce Beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) on Fuels and Fire in Intermountain Spruce-Fir Forests. All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Utah State University Paper pp. Jorgensen, C.A., and Jenkins, M.J Fuel complex alterations associated with spruce beetleinduced tree mortality in Intermountain spruce/fir forests. Forest Science 57(3): Karjalainen, T., and A. Asikainen Greenhouse gas emissions from the use of primary energy in forest operations and long-distance transportation of timber in Finland. Forestry 69: Kashian, D.M., W.H. Romme, D.B. Tinker, M.G. Turner, and M.G. Ryan Carbon storage on landscapes with stand-replacing fires. Bioscience 56(7): Kay, C.E Aboriginal overkill and native burning: implications for modern ecosystem management. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 10(4): Kay, C.E., and D.L. Bartos Ungulate herbivory on Utah aspen: Assessment of long-term exclosures. Journal of Range Management 53(2): Keefe, D Forest vegetation specialist report for the Griffin Springs Resource Management Project. On file at: Escalante Ranger District, Dixie National Forest. Keeley, J.E., Safford, H., Fotheringham, C.J., Franklin, J., and Moritz, M The 2007 southern California wildfires: lessons in complexity. Journal of Forestry 107(6): Keyser, C.E., and G.E. Dixon, comps (revised July 29, 2010). Utah (UT) Variant Overview Forest Vegetation Simulator. Internal Rep. Fort Collins, CO: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center. 47 pp. Knowles, P. and Grant, M.C Age and size structure analyses of Engelmann spruce, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, and limber pine in Colorado. Ecology 64(1):1-9. Kulakowski, D., T.T. Veblen, and B.P. Kurzel Influences of infrequent fire, elevation and pre-fire vegetation on the persistence of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) in the Flat Tops area, Colorado, USA. Journal of Biogeography 33: Kulakowski, D., and T.T. Veblen Effect of prior disturbances on the extent and severity of wildfire in Colorado subalpine forests. Ecology 88:

72 Big Flat Vegetation Management Kurz, W.A., C.C. Dymond, G. Stinson, G.J. Rampley, E.T. Neilson, A.L. Carroll, T. Ebata and L. Safranyik. 2008a. Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change. Nature 452: LeBarron, R.K. and Jemison, G.M Ecology and silviculture of the Engelmann sprucealpine fir type. Journal of Forestry 51(5): Logan J.A., J. Regniere, and J.A. Powell Assessing the impacts of global warming on forest pest dynamics. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1(3): Long, J.N A practical approach to density management. The Forestry Chronicle 61: Long, J.N., and Mock, K Changing perspectives on regeneration ecology and genetic diversity in western quaking aspen: implications for silviculture. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 42(12): Long J.N., and J.D. Shaw A density management diagram for even-aged ponderosa pine stands. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 20: Lowell, E.C. and J.M. Cahill Deterioration of fire-killed timber in southern Oregon and northern California. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 11: McCaughey, W.W. and W.C. Schmidt Understory tree release following harvest cutting in spruce-fir forests of the intermountain west. Res.Pap. INT-285. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 19 pp. McCullough, D.G., R.A. Werner, and D. Neumann Fire and insects in northern and boreal forest ecosystems of North America. Annual Review of Entomology 43: McKenney, D., J. Pedlar, and G. O Neill Climate change and forest seed zones: Past trends, future prospects and challenges to ponder. The Forestry Chronicle 85(2): Miller, R.F., and Krueger, W.C Cattle use on summer foothill rangelands in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Range Management 29(5): Morris, J.L., Brunelle, A.R., and Munson, A.S Pollen evidence of historical forest disturbance on the Wasatch Plateau, Utah. Western North American Naturalist 70(2): Mueggler, W.F Age distribution and reproduction of intermountain aspen stands. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 4(2): Mutch, R.W., and Cook, W.A., Restoring fire to ecosystems: methods vary with land management goals. IN: Hardy, C.C., Arno, S.F. (Eds.), The Use of Fire in Forest Restoration. USDA For. Ser., Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-341, pp Muzika, R.M. and Liebhold, A.M A critique of silvicultural approaches to managing defoliating insects in North America. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 2: Negron, J.F. and J.B. Popp Probability of ponderosa pine infestation by mountain pine beetle in the Colorado Front Range. Forest Ecology and Management 191:

73 Forestry Report Negron, J.F., K. Allen, B. Cook, and J.R. Withrow Susceptibility of ponderosa pine, Pinus ponderosa (Dougl. Ex Laws.), to mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, attack in uneven-aged stands in the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming USA. Forest Ecology and Management 254: O'Hara, K.L., and Ramage, B.S Silviculture in an uncertain world: utilizing multi-aged management systems to integrate disturbance. Forestry 86(4): Orlemann, A Consideration of VSS for the Iron Springs Project. Unpublished document. On file at: Escalante Ranger District, Dixie National Forest. Orlemann, A Old Growth. Unpublished document. On file at: Beaver Ranger District, Fishlake National Forest. Pan, Y., Birdsey, R.A., Fang, J., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P.E., Kurz, W.A., Phillips, O.L, Shvidenko, A., Lewis, S.L., Canadell, J.G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R.B., Pacala, S.W., McGuire, A.D., Piao, S., Rautiainen, A., Sitch, S. and Hayes, D A large and persistent carbon sink in the world s forests. Science 333(6045): Perala, D.A Populus tremuloides Michx. IN: Burns, Russell M., and Barbara H. Honkala, tech. coords Silvics of North America: 2. Hardwoods; Agriculture Handbook 654. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. vol.2, 877 pp. Powell, J., B. Kennedy, P. White, B. Bentz, J. Logan, and D. Roberts Mathematical elements of attack risk analysis for mountain pine beetles. Journal of Theoretical Biology 204: Pregitzer, K.S. and E.S. Euskirchen Carbon cycling and storage in world forests: biome patterns related to forest age. Global Change Biology 10: Rehfeldt, G.E Interspecific and intraspecific variation in Picea engelmannii and its congeneric cohorts: biosystematics, genecology, and climate-change. General Technical Report RMRS-134, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, 18 pp. Rehfeldt G.E., D.E. Ferguson, and N.L. Crookston Aspen, climate, and sudden decline in western USA. Forest Ecology and Management 258(11): Reinhardt, E.D., Keane, R.E., Calkin, D.E., and Cohen, J.D Objectives and considerations for wildland fuel treatment in forested ecosystems of the interior western United States. Forest Ecology and Management 256(12): Reinhardt, E.D., and L. Holsinger Effects of fuel treatments on carbon-disturbance relationships in forests of the northern Rocky Mountains. Forest Ecology and Management 259(8): Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. Gen.Tech.Rep. RM-217. Ft. Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 90 pp. 67

74 Big Flat Vegetation Management Ryan, K.C., and E.D. Reinhardt Predicting postfire mortality of seven western conifers. Canadian Journal of Forest Resources 18: Ryan M.G., M.E. Harmon, R.A. Birdsey, C.P. Giardina, L.S. Heath, R.A. Houghton, R.B. Jackson, D.C. McKinley, J.F. Morrison, B.C. Murray, D.E. Pataki, and K.E. Skog A Synthesis of the Science on Forests and Carbon for U.S. Forests. Issues in Ecology, Report Number pp. Samman S., and J. Logan Assessment and response to bark beetle outbreaks in the Rocky Mountain area. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-62. Schmid, J., and G. Amman Dendroctonus beetles and old-growth forests in the Rockies. In: Kaufmann, M.R., W.H. Moir, and W.H. Bassett (tech.eds) Old-growth Forest in the Southwest and Rock Mountain Regions, Proceedings of a Workshop (pp ). USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RM-GTR Schier, G.A Deterioration of aspen clones in the middle Rocky Mountains. Res.Pap. INT Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 20 pp. Schoennagel, T., Veblen, T.T., and Romme, W.H The interaction of fire, fuels, and climate across Rocky Mountain forests. BioScience 54(7): Shea, K Demographic aspects of coexistence in Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir. American Journal of Botany, 72(11): Shepperd, W.D.; Rogers, P.C.; Burton, D.; and Bartos, DL Ecology, biodiversity, management, and restoration of aspen in the Sierra Nevada. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS- GTR-178. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station 122 pp. Sibold, J. S., T.T. Veblen, and M.E. González Spatial and temporal variation in historic fire regimes in subalpine forests across the Colorado Front Range in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, USA. Journal of Biogeography 33: Skov, K.R A biological evaluation of bark beetle activity in the Iron Springs/Griffin Top resource management project area. Forest Health Protection-Ogden Field Office Report OFO-BE Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry. 19 pp. Smith, Jr., R.S History of Heterobasidion annosum in Western United States. IN: Otrosina, W. J.; Scharpf, R.F., technical coordinators Proceedings of the symposium on research and management of annosus root disease (Heterobasidion annosum) in western North America; April 18-21, 1989; Monterey, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-116. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station; 177 p. Smith, J.M., Paritsis, J., Veblen, T.T., and Chapman, T.B Permanent forest plots show accelerating tree mortality in subalpine forests of the Colorado Front Range from 1982 to Forest Ecology and Management 341:

75 Forestry Report Stage, A.R Prognosis model for stand development. USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. INT p. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. Stratton, R. D Guidance on spatial wildland fire analysis: models, tools, and techniques. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-183. Fort Collins, CO: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 15 pp. Society of American Foresters Dictionary of Forestry. The Society of American Foresters, 5400 Grosvernor Lane, Bethesda, MD USDA Forest Service Proper Functioning Condition Rapid Assessment Process. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region. Unpublished manuscript. 32 pp. USDA Forest Service South Fork Vegetation Treatment Project Environmental Assessment. Beaver UT: USDA Forest Service, Fishlake National Forest. 63 pp. USDA. 2010a. Common stand exam users guide. USDA Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center. Fort Collins, CO. U.S. EPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Veblen, T.T., K.S. Hadley, and M.S. Reid Disturbance and stand development of a Colorado sub-alpine forest. Journal of Biogeography 18, Veblen, T.T., K.S. Hadley, E.M. Nel, T. Kitzberger, M. Reid and R. Villalba Disturbance regime and disturbance interactions in a Rocky Mountain subalpine forest. Journal of Ecology 82(1): Walker, R.F., Fecko, R.M., Frederick, W.B., Johnson, D.W., and Miller, W.W Fuel bed alterations by thinning, chipping, and prescription fire in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer stand. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 30(4): Wallin K.F., T.E. Kolb, K.R. Skov, and M. Wagner Forest management treatments, tree resistance, and bark beetle resource utilization in ponderosa pine forests of northern Arizona. Forest Ecology and Management 255(8-9): Worrall, J.J., Nakasone, K.K Decays of Engelmann Spruce and Subalpine Fir in the Rocky Mountains. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 150. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. Worrall, J.J., S.B. Marchetti, L. Egeland, R.A. Mask, T. Eager, and B. Howell Effects and etiology of sudden aspen decline in southwestern Colorado, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 260(5):10. Youngblood, A.P.; Mauk, R.L Coniferous forest habitat types of central and southern Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-187. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 89 pp. Youtz, J.A., Graham, R.T., Reynolds, R.T., and Simon, J Implementing northern goshawk habitat management in southwestern forests: a template for restoring fire-adapted forest ecosystems. IN: R.I. Deal [ED.], Integrated restoration of forested ecosystems to achieve multiresource benefits: proceedings of the 2007 national silviculture workshop. General 69

76 Big Flat Vegetation Management Technical Report PNW-GTR 733, USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. Zeide, B Comparison of self-thinning models: an exercise in reasoning. Trees 24:

77 Forestry Report Appendix A. Compliance with the National Forest Management Act Because this project involves vegetative management treatments, compliance with the timber harvest provisions of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) is required. 16 U.S.C (g)(3)(e) Under 16 U.S.C (g)(3)(e), a responsible official may authorize site-specific projects and activities on NFS lands to harvest timber only where: 1. Soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged (16 U.S.C (g)(3)(e)(i)). Response: Soil and water conservation practices implemented in project design and contract initiation are effective in minimizing impacts to site productivity and conserving soil and water resources. Contract clauses will be used to implement soil and water conservation practices, such as directional felling, designated skid trails, endlining, etc. Moreover, proposed project activities have been limited to areas with soils that are suitable for timber management and to areas with slopes of less than 40%. There has been no finding of irreversible damage to soils, slopes, or other watershed conditions from proposed treatments. 2. There is assurance that the lands can be adequately restocked within five years after final regeneration (16 U.S.C (g)(3)(e)(ii)). Response: Stands proposed for commercial harvest treatment in the Engelmann sprucesubalpine fir type have been identified as being capable of adequate restocking within five years of final harvest. Treatments are designed to allow for natural regeneration, but also include planting to ensure that LRMP stocking standards are met. Past tree planting within nearby areas has resulted in certified stocked stands. 3. Protection is provided for streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of water from detrimental changes in water temperatures, blockages of water courses, and deposits of sediment where harvests are likely to seriously and adversely affect water conditions or fish habitat (16 U.S.C (g)(3)(e)(iii)). Response: Analysis of the proposed action shows that there would be no change to water quantity in any of the affected watersheds. Effects to water quality and fish habitat would be negligible due to the implementation of the required soil and water conservation practices. Soil and water conservation practices provide protection for streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of water. There has been no finding that project activities are likely to seriously and adversely affect water conditions or fish habitat through changes in water temperatures, blockages of water courses, or deposits of sediment. The forest plan requires a 100-foot treatment buffer on all perennial streams on the Fishlake National Forest. The road system has been revised through time to avoid wet areas and the crossing of perennial or intermittent streams. Moreover, timber sale layout procedures include intensive surveying of ground conditions and identification of additional wetland features. 4. The harvesting system to be used is not selected primarily because it will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output of timber (16 U.S.C (g)(3)(e)(iv)). 71

78 Big Flat Vegetation Management Response: While forest product outputs were considered in the decision process, other factors related to ensuring regeneration, providing for age class diversity, and protecting resources within the project area are the primary factors used to determine the harvesting system. The reasons for the decision are described in the Decision Notice. 16 U.S.C (g)(3)(f) Under 16 U.S.C (g)(3)(f), a responsible official may authorize site-specific projects and activities on National Forest System lands using clearcutting, seed tree cutting, shelterwood cutting, and other cuts designed to regenerate an even-aged stand of timber as a cutting method only where: 1. For clearcutting, it is determined to be the optimum method; for other methods it is determined to be appropriate and meets the objectives and requirements of the applicable land management plan (16 U.S.C (g)(3)(f)(i)). Response: Not applicable. None of the treatments proposed under Big Flat is designed to regenerate an even-aged stand of timber. 2. The interdisciplinary review has been completed and the potential environmental, biological, aesthetic, engineering, and economic impacts on each advertised sale area have been assessed, as well as the consistency of the sale with the multiple use of the general area (16 U.S.C (g)(3)(f)(ii)). Response: The Big Flat EA and DN/FONSI constitute the interdisciplinary review of the potential environmental, biological, aesthetic, engineering, and economic impacts. The project is consistent with the multiple uses of the general area. The interdisciplinary review has considered the potential environmental, biological, aesthetic, engineering, and economic impacts of the Big Flat Project. This is summarized in the EA, and further documented in the project file. The cutting methods are consistent with the Fishlake National Forest LRMP multiple-use management program. 3. Cut blocks, patches, or strips are shaped and blended to the extent practicable with the natural terrain (16 U.S.C (g)(3)(f)(iii)). Response: The proposed treatments areas are located within the natural terrain features of the project area and generally follow natural stand boundaries. 4. There are established according to geographic areas, forest types, or other suitable classifications the maximum size limits for areas to be cut in one harvest operation, including provision to exceed the established limits after appropriate public notice and review by the responsible Forest Service officer one level above the Forest Service officer who normally would approve the harvest proposal: Provided, that such limits shall not apply to the size of areas harvested because of natural catastrophic conditions such as fire, insect and disease attack, or windstorm (16 U.S.C (g)(3)(f)(iv)). Response: Maximum size limits for areas to be treated with regeneration harvests, including clearcuts, are set by the forest plan at 40 acres. The Big Flat proposals do not include regeneration cuts that exceed this size limit 72

79 Forestry Report 5. Such cuts are carried out in a manner consistent with the protection of soil, watershed, fish, wildlife, recreation, and esthetic resources, and the regeneration of the timber resource (16 U.S.C (g)(3)(f)(v)). Response: The effects of implementing the regeneration harvests proposed by the project are consistent with the protection of soil, watershed, fish, wildlife, recreation, and esthetic resources, as well as the regeneration of the timber resource. This is supported by the project record. 16 U.S.C (m) Under 16 U.S.C (m), the Secretary shall establish: Standards to insure that, prior to harvest, stands of trees throughout the National Forest System shall generally have reached the culmination of mean annual increment of growth (calculated on the basis of cubic measurement or other methods of calculation at the discretion of the Secretary): Provided, That these standards shall not preclude the use of sound silvicultural practices, such as thinning or other stand improvement measures: Provided further, That these standards shall not preclude the Secretary from salvage or sanitation harvesting of timber stands which are substantially damaged by fire, windthrow or other catastrophe, or which are in imminent danger from insect or disease attack;... (16 U.S.C (m)(1)). Response: Under the Fishlake National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, this requirement is met by ensuring that all even-aged stands scheduled to be harvested during the planning period hill generally have reached the culmination of mean annual increment of growth. (See, Fishlake LRMP, IV-27.) Because none of the stands proposed for regeneration harvest are even-aged, and because the proposed treatments group selection do not convert the stands to an even-aged condition, this requirement is not applicable. Moreover, the requirement does not apply to any of the non-commercial treatments proposed for Big Flat thinning and fuel reduction are sound silvicultural practices, such as thinning or other stand improvement under 16 U.S.C. 1604(m)(1). Finally, none of the salvage or sanitation activities in commercial timber stands are relevant here: The harvest in that case is of dead and dying trees that are exempt from culmination of mean annual increment calculations. /S/Andrew Orlemann, Forester 73

80 Big Flat Vegetation Management Appendix B. Maps 74

81 Forestry Report 75

82 Big Flat Vegetation Management 76

83 Forestry Report 77