Center Horse Landscape Restoration Project

Forested Vegetation Specialist’s Report

Prepared by:

Elizabeth Wood Certified Silviculturist

June 2016

For: Seeley Lake Ranger District

Lolo National Forest

Revised: March 10, 2017

Revised by: /s/ Sheryl Gunn, Certified Silviculturist

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) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or

(202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

i

Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iii Forest Plan Direction and Regulatory Framework .......................................................................... 1 

Forest Plan Direction .................................................................................................................. 1 Management Areas ..................................................................................................................... 1 Laws, Regulations, FSM/FSH, Other Agency Plans .................................................................. 1 

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Overview of Issues Addressed .................................................................................................... 6 Project Area Boundary ................................................................................................................ 6 

Effects Analysis Methods ................................................................................................................ 7 Existing Condition ........................................................................................................................... 9 

Background ................................................................................................................................. 9 Fire History ............................................................................................................................... 11 Management History ................................................................................................................. 12 Old-growth ................................................................................................................................ 14 Ecosite Types and Existing Vegetation ..................................................................................... 14 Canopy Cover, Structural Stages, and Species Diversity .......................................................... 15 Forest Pathogens ....................................................................................................................... 20 

Diseases ................................................................................................................................. 20 Forest Pathogens ....................................................................................................................... 21 

Insects .................................................................................................................................... 21 Desired Future Condition (DFC) ................................................................................................... 27 

Hot-Dry (non-lethal) ................................................................................................................. 28 Warm-Dry (non-lethal) ............................................................................................................. 28 Cool-Dry (mixed severity B). ................................................................................................... 28 Cool-Moist (lethal) .................................................................................................................... 29 Cold-Dry (lethal). ...................................................................................................................... 29 

Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................................... 29 Description of Treatments ......................................................................................................... 29 

Small Tree Thinning (STT) in Non-Lethal Fire Regime ....................................................... 30 Biomass/Small Tree Thinning Treatments in Non-Lethal Fire Regime ................................ 30 Commercial Treatments in Non-Lethal Fire Regimes .......................................................... 31 Prescribed burning preceded by understory slashing or small tree thinning in Non-Lethal Fire Regimes .......................................................................................................................... 32 Variable Retention Harvesting (Franklin, et al., 2007) and Prescribed Fire in Mixed- Lethal Fire Regimes .......................................................................................................................... 33 Regeneration Harvest in Mixed Lethal Fire Regimes ........................................................... 33 Prescribed Burning in Stand-Replacing Fire Regimes .......................................................... 34 

Comparison of Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 34 Alternative A – No Action ........................................................................................................ 35 

Direct and Indirect Effects ..................................................................................................... 36 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................................ 42 Summary: .............................................................................................................................. 42 

Alternative B ............................................................................................................................. 43 Direct and Indirect Effects ..................................................................................................... 43 Small Tree Thinning and Biomass/STT ................................................................................ 46 

ii

Improvement Cut ................................................................................................................... 48 Improvement Cut and Variable Retention Harvest ............................................................... 53 Regeneration and Variable Retention Harvest (Regeneration) ............................................. 53 Prescribed Burning ................................................................................................................ 55 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................................ 57 Summary of Effects ............................................................................................................... 58 

Alternative C ............................................................................................................................. 59 Direct and Indirect Effects ..................................................................................................... 59 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................................ 59 Summary of Effects ............................................................................................................... 60 

Forest Plan Consistency ................................................................................................................ 61 Goals:..................................................................................................................................... 61 Standards: .............................................................................................................................. 61 

Suitable Lands ............................................................................................................................... 61 Regeneration Assurance ................................................................................................................ 62 Monitoring Plan ............................................................................................................................. 62 

Implementation and Effectiveness ........................................................................................ 62 Appendix A: Glossary of Terms, Abbreviations, and Acronyms ................................................ A-1 Appendix B: Crosswalk for Habitat Types, Fire Regimes/ Groups, and Ecosites ...................... B-1 Appendix C: Basal Area Table and Examples ............................................................................ C-1 Appendix D: Literature and References Cited ............................................................................ D-1 

List of Tables Table 1: Fire Return Interval. Displays how many acres of each ecosite/fire regime are within the

HRV for the landscape. *Acres and percentages are based on Fire History data available in Forest GIS layers. Acceptable HRV is based on (Mehl and Haufler 2010) .......................... 12 

Table 2: This table is an abbreviated version of the harvest activities list in Appendix D of the Center Horse Landscape Restoration Project EIS. ................................................................ 13 

Table 3 Past prescribed burning acres on NFS land in the analysis area. .................................... 14 Table 4: Display of Ecosite Types. Abbreviations used: Douglas-fir (DF), Engelmann spruce

(ES), lodgepole pine (LP), ponderosa pine (PP), subalpine fir (SAF), western larch (WL), western white pine (WWP), and whitebark pine (WBP). ...................................................... 14 

Table 5 Dominant Canopy Cover Type. Describes which vegetation type dominates 40% or more of the basal area in each polygon. In the mixed conifer types, no one species dominates 40% or more of the basal area. A combination of shade-tolerant (TMIX) or shade-intolerant (IMIX) species comprise the cover type. .............................................................. 17 

Table 6: DFB activity as estimated by aerial detection surveys (ADS). ADS flights did not cover the Center Horse area where data gaps are shown. (Low activity: mortality of <5 TPA, moderate activity: mortality of 5-10 TPA, high activity: mortality of ≥15 TPA.) ................. 22 

Table 7: WSB Activity. Observed levels where <50% or ≥50% of the trees were defoliated. In 1990, the analysis area was not fully surveyed, hence the skewed unrepresentative data point. ...................................................................................................................................... 25 

Table 8: Trees per Acre of Mountain Pine Beetle Mortality. Acres may be overlapping, so the total number of acres affected in the landscape is not additive. (Low activity: mortality of <5 TPA, moderate activity: mortality of 5-10 TPA, high activity (or significant): mortality of ≥15 TPA.) .............................................................................................................................. 26 

Table 9: Mountain Pine Beetle Activity in the Analysis Area. Where data gaps exist, ADS flights did not cover the Center Horse area. Notice that 2009 had less than 5 TPA of mortality but,

iii

covered more than twice the area of 2010 activity. (Low activity: mortality of <5 TPA, moderate activity: mortality of 5-10 TPA, high activity: mortality of ≥15 TPA.) Tree per acre mortality is an ocular estimate made by aerial detection survey flight crew. ................ 26 

Table 10. Vegetation Treatments in Alternatives B and C ........................................................... 29 Table 11: Effects indicators comparison. ..................................................................................... 35 Table 12: This table outlines the existing and desired conditions for each ecosite and the effects of

Alternative A. ........................................................................................................................ 36 Table 13: Trees per acre estimates over 30 years (Project File Item J5-25). ................................. 41 Table 14: Existing and desired conditions for each ecosite type and the effects of Alternative B on

measures used to evaluate change within the ecosite. ........................................................... 43 

List of Figures Figure 1 Center Horse Project Area Map displays the Center Horse Project Area as well as the

general vicinity. ....................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2: Stand Development Stages (Oliver and Larson 1996) ................................................... 11 Figure 3: Table 6 from the Southwestern Crown of the Continent Landscape Assessment (2012)

which compares the mean HRV of each ecosite to today’s percent of the landscape............ 12 Figure 4: A map of the previous timber activity within the Center Horse Analysis Area. ............ 13 Figure 5 Ecosite Map. Display of Ecosites within the analysis area and the number of acres per

ecosite type and the percent of the analysis area that entails. ................................................ 16 Figure 6 Canopy cover percentages across the analysis area. ...................................................... 17 Figure 7: Representation of the vegetation structures across the Center Horse analysis area. Note

that more than 50% of the area is represented in mature trees while stands of seedling and sapling regeneration are less than 5% indicating lack of age class heterogeneity in the landscape. .............................................................................................................................. 18 

Figure 8 Map of Center Horse analysis area outlining proposed treatment areas (Alternative B). ............................................................................................................................................... 19 

Figure 9: Table 8 from the 1993 Losensky paper. ......................................................................... 19 Figure 10: This graph displays the average percent of tree species per acre over time without

treatment in a Variable Retention Harvest unit. These numbers were calculated using FVS modeling, based on data collected from representative stands (Project File Item J5-25). .... 20 

Figure 11: Across the analysis area Douglas-fir beetle pressure peaked in 2004. A steady decline of activity occurred through 2010; then, starting in 2011 activity began increasing. DFB hazard is increasing. .............................................................................................................. 23 

Figure 12: Mid-story DF along a roadway. The top halves of trees have been completely defoliated. Approximately 25% of the tree on the right side has been top killed. ................ 23 

Figure 13: The foreground of this photo is just north of Unit 1. DF and SAF are showing signs of severe WSB defoliation. In some cases top kill is evident in the mid and understory trees. The background of this photo shows portion of the Center Horse analysis area not proposed for treatment, but with the same rusty red appearance indicative of WSB defoliation. ........ 24 

Figure 14: A graph of WSB activity over the last 35 years across the entire analysis area. Missing years had detection flights; however, they covered different areas of the Forest. The previous cycle peaked in 1991 affecting over 21,000 acres. 2011 shows a marked increase in activity over 2010 .............................................................................................................. 25 

Figure 15: Unit 122 (Alternative B) is a Variable Retention Harvest. Patches of beetle mortality, like shown here, would be removed and in some cases replanted. ........................................ 26 

Figure 16: Mountain Pine Beetle Mortality. A graphic representation of Table 12. Across the analysis area mountain pine beetle pressure peaked in 2009 and 2010. ................................ 27 

iv

Figure 17: Visual representation of small tree thinning. This treatment removes the smaller trees reducing competition for sunlight, water, and nutrients by reducing stand density............... 30 

Figure 18: Bundles of small trees prepared for removal as biomass. When treated as a STT material would be lopped and scattered throughout stand to decompose naturally. ............. 31 

Figure 19 Visual representation of canopy cover. For example: if a stand starts with 65% canopy cover and the prescribed treatment estimates the removal of approximately 30% of that cover the resulting canopy cover would resemble 35%. ................................................ 32 

Figure 20: Mixed lethal fires burn with varying intensity across a landscape .............................. 33 Figure 21: A modeled representation of the existing conditions of units proposed for STT.

Number of trees per acre is greater than 500. ........................................................................ 36 Figure 22 In general outcomes are the same through modeled year 2045. Calculated using FVS

modeling based on representative stands on recently acquired lands. ................................... 39 Figure 23: These numbers were calculated using FVS modeling, based on data collected from

representative stands (J5-25). Hazard ratings are 0 = No Host, 1= Low, 2 = Moderate, and 3 = High. ................................................................................................................................... 40 

Figure 24: Species Composition. ................................................................................................... 41 Figure 25: The average percent tree species per acre over time with no treatment, where

commercial treatments are proposed. Species composition remains relatively constant over time. These numbers were calculated using FVS modeling, based on data collected from representative stands (Project File Item J5-25). .................................................................... 42 

Figure 26: This displays that even though the number of trees on site is reduced by treatment the Quadratic Mean Diameter (QMD), or average diameter, of the treated area increases. At the same time, BA also decreases improving the stands resilience to bark beetle infestation. ... 47 

Figure 27 Average species composition with treatment based on FVS modeling of representative stands (J5-25). ....................................................................................................................... 47 

Figure 28 Comparison of the existing condition of a stand to when an improvement cut is applied to the same stand. .................................................................................................................. 53 

Figure 29: This graph provides a representative view of what would occur in a unit that was treated with a VRH. Even though the number of trees on site is reduced the BA continues to grow, fewer trees with an increasing stand BA indicates growth. The stand QMD appears to drop before increasing again; however, this is a result of ingrowth occurring post treatment. ............................................................................................................................................... 54 

Figure 30: MPB and DFB hazard ratings, at existing condition in 2015 and post treatment from 2025 to 2045 (Randall and others 2011). The lower the hazard rating the more resistance and resilience the stand has. ......................................................................................................... 54 

Figure 31: Comparison of the existing condition (EC) to the stand when a VRH is applied. Because treatments vary in the amount of residual trees left a treatment unit this is an average representation of what would be present post treatment. An example of a similar treatment is depicted in Figure 20, showing the potential patchy nature of the resultant stand. ............................................................................................................................................... 55 

1

Forest Plan Direction and Regulatory Framework

Forest Plan Direction The Lolo National Forest Plan (Lolo 1986), also referred to as “Plan” or “the Plan”, includes Forest-wide management direction goals to:

Provide a sustained yield of timber and other outputs at a level that will help support the economic structure of local communities and provide for regional and national needs.

Provide habitat for viable populations of all indigenous wildlife species and for increasing populations of big-game animals.

Provide for a broad spectrum of dispersed recreation involving sufficient acreage to maintain a low user density compatible with public expectations.

Provide a pleasing and healthy environment, including clear air, clean water, and diverse ecosystems.

Emphasize conservation of energy resources. Encourage a “good host” concept when dealing with the public. Contribute to the recovery of threatened and endangered species occurring on the Forest. Meet or exceed State water quality standards.

Forest-wide standards related to this resource were followed in the project design. These include:

Following Regional standards for timber harvest. Designing or modifying all management practices as necessary to maintain land

productivity. Use 2006 Down Woody Debris Material Guide

Management Areas The Forest Plan defines a Management Area (MA) as, “An aggregation of capability areas which have common management direction and may be noncontiguous in the Forest…” A MA concern is, “An issue, problem, or a condition which constrains the range of management practices…” The Center Horse Landscape Restoration Project (hereafter Center Horse) treatment units fall within MAs 1, 2, 9, 11-18, 22, and 24-27. There are 18 MAs in the analysis area. Approximately 80% of the treatment area has a primary or secondary timber objective. Approximately 59% of the analysis area and about 80% of the treatment area is in the suitable timber base. MAs 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 24 and 25 are suitable for timber production.

Laws, Regulations, FSM/FSH, Other Agency Plans The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA 1976) is the basic law which governs vegetation management treatments on National Forest System (NFS) lands. Several sections in the Act, and its accompanying regulations, specifically address terms and conditions relevant to the vegetation resource. These include sections on timber suitability and management requirements for vegetative manipulation, including tree regeneration timeframes and Regional opening size limits. Guidelines established by Title 16 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 1604(g)(3)(B) provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives, and within the multiple-use objectives

2

of a land management plan adopted pursuant to this section, provide, where appropriate, to the degree practicable, for steps to be taken to preserve the diversity of tree species similar to that existing in the region controlled by the plan. The minimum specific management requirements to be met in carrying out site-specific projects and activities for the NFS are set forth in Title 16 U.S.C. Section 1604:

Under 16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)(3)(E), a Responsible Official may authorize site-specific projects and activities on NFS lands to harvest timber only where: (i) soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged; (ii) there is assurance that such lands can be adequately restocked within five years after harvest (Project File Item J5-21); (iii) 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; and (iv) 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; and 16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)(3)(F), insure that clearcutting, seed tree cutting, shelterwood cutting, and other cuts designed to regenerate an even-aged stand of timber will be used as a cutting method on NFS lands only where - (i) for clearcutting, it is determined to be the optimum method, and for other such cuts it is determined to be appropriate, to meet the objectives and requirements of the relevant land management plan; (ii) the interdisciplinary review as determined by the Secretary 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; (iii) cut blocks, patches, or strips are shaped and blended to the extent practicable with the natural terrain; (iv) 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 as a result of natural catastrophic conditions such as fire, insect and disease attack, or windstorm; and (v) 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.

Organic Administration Act of 1897 (30 Stat. 34, as supplemented and amended; 16 U.S.C. 473-478) that states the purpose of the national forests, and directs its control and administration to be in accord with such purpose, that is, “No national forest shall be established, except to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States.”

Knutson-Vandenberg Act of 1930 (46 Stat. 527, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 576 - 576b) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to "...establish forest tree nurseries and do all other things needful in preparation for planting on national forests..." and requires the "purchaser of national forest timber to make deposits of money ...to cover the cost ...of planting, sowing with tree seeds, cutting, destroying, or otherwise removing undesirable trees or other growth and protecting and improving the future productivity of renewable resources..."

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937 (50 Stat. 525, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 1010-1012) authorizes and directs the Secretary to "...develop a program of land conservation and land

3

utilization, in order thereby to correct maladjustments in land use, and thus assist in controlling soil erosion, reforestation, preserving natural resources..."

Anderson-Mansfield Reforestation and Revegetation Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 762; 16 U.S.C. 581j-581k) states "...it is the declared policy of the Congress to accelerate and provide a continuing basis for the needed reforestation and revegetation of national forest lands and other lands under administration and control of the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture in order to obtain the benefits hereinbefore enumerated..."

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (Pub. L. 86-517, 74 Stat. 215; 16 U.S.C. 528-531) authorizes and directs the Secretary of Agriculture "...to develop and administer the renewable surface resources of the national forests for multiple use and sustained yield of the several products and services obtained therefrom..."

Supplemental National Forest Reforestation Fund Act of 1972 (87 Stat. 242, 245, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 576c-576e) directs the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a "Supplemental National Forest Reforestation Fund."

Reforestation Trust Fund, Title III - Reforestation, Recreation Boating Safety and Facilities Improvement Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 1606a, as amended) establishes "...in the Treasury of the United States a trust fund, to be known as the Reforestation Trust Fund..., consisting of such amounts as are transferred to the Trust Fund under Subsection (b) (1)..."

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2020 provides foundational policy for using ecological restoration1 to manage NFS lands in a sustainable2 manner. The aim is to reestablish and retain ecological resilience3 of NFS lands and associated resources to achieve sustainable management and provide a broad range of ecosystem services4. Healthy, resilient landscapes would have greater capacity to survive natural disturbances and large-scale threats to sustainability, especially under changing and uncertain future environmental conditions, such as those driven by climate change and increasing human uses (FSM 2020.20). The FSM 2470 provides broad policy guidance for silvicultural practices on the national and regional levels. Sections pertinent to the Center Horse proposal include harvesting, reforestation, stand improvement, sale area improvement deposits, examinations, prescriptions, and evaluations. Regional supplements include reforestation and stand improvement policies. The Silvicultural Practices Handbook (FSH 2409.17) provides more detail than the manuals for its specific area of concern. This handbook also contains reference information related to reforestation, seed, and Knutson-Vandenburg Fund management. Regional supplements provide additional, specific guidance. The Northern Region Overview sets priorities for ecosystem restoration and focuses the Forest Service (FS) Natural Resource Agenda to the National Forest lands of the Northern Region. For forest vegetation, the overview establishes indicators of risk to the proper functioning conditions of the ecosystem. Risk indicators include: 1) the loss of species composition at the cover type 1 The process of assisting the recovery of resilience and adaptive capacity of ecosystems that have been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. Restoration focuses on establishing the composition, structure, pattern, and ecological processes necessary to make terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems sustainable, resilient, and healthy under current and future conditions (FSM 2020.5). 2 Meeting needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generation to meet their needs (FSM 2020.5) Sustainability is composed of desirable social, economic, and ecological condition or trends interacting at varying spatial and temporal scales, embodying the principles of multiple-use and sustained-yield (FSM 1905). 3 The capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks (FSM 2020.5). 4 Benefits people obtain from ecosystems (FSM 2020.5).

4

level, 2) the change in landscape level fragmentation, and 3) stand level structure as measured by density and seral stage/size class distribution. The Overview also describes the importance of restoring ponderosa pine, western larch, and whitebark pine (Forest Service 1998). The Missoula County and Powell County Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP) Both CWPPs were developed in collaborative processes by each county and multiple cooperators, including the Forest Service. The Center Horse project is consistent with each counties’ CWPP in that fuels are being reduced and expected wildfire behavior altered because of the mechanical and prescribed burning projects.

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) Congress established the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) with Title IV of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. The purpose of the CFLRP is to encourage the collaborative, science-based ecosystem restoration of priority forest landscape (Forest Service 2014) as follows:

Encourage ecological, economic, and social sustainability; Leverage local resources with national and private resources; Facilitate the reduction of wildfire management costs, including through reestablishing

natural fire regimes and reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire; and Demonstrate the degree to which—

Various ecological restoration techniques— i. Achieve ecological and watershed health objectives; and

ii. Affect wildfire activity and management costs; and The use of forest restoration by products can offset treatment costs while

benefitting local rural economies and improving forest health. Based on a landscape restoration strategy Is accessible by existing or proposed wood-processing infrastructure at an appropriate

scale to use woody biomass and small-diameter wood removed in ecological restoration treatments

Maintains or contributes towards the restoration of, the structure and composition of old-growth stands according to the pre-fire suppression old-growth characteristic of the forest type

Would carry out any forest restoration treatments that reduce hazardous fuels.

Southwestern Crown of the Continent (SWCC) Collaborative Strategy and Goals The project is also in response to goals set by the SWCC Collaborative’s landscape strategy and prioritization of restoration work (see below) (Collaborative 2010b)5. The Southwestern Crown is one of the most biologically diverse and intact landscapes in the western U.S. In August of 2010, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell announced that the SWCC Collaborative’s proposal to restore forested lands in Montana and create rural jobs won significant Federal funding for the next decade from a new Federal program, the CFLRP, of which this project is now a part.

5 The following organizations and agencies are members of the collaborative: American Wildlands; National Wildlife Federation; Blackfoot Challenge; The Nature Conservancy; Clearwater Resource Council; Northwest Connections; Ecosystem Management Research Institute; Pyramid Mountain Lumber, Inc.; Flathead National Forest; Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation; Helena National Forest; Swan Ecosystem Center; Lolo National Forest; Trust for Public Land; Montana Community Development Corporation; USDA Forest Service, Northern Region; Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation; University of Montana; Wild West Institute; Montana Forest Restoration Committee; and The Wilderness Society.

5

Goals of the Collaborative’s recommended restoration actions: Restore functioning ecosystems be enhancing ecological processes; Improve terrestrial and aquatic habitat and connectivity; Protect and improve overall watershed health, including stream health, soil quality and

function, and riparian function; Re-establish fire as a natural process on the landscape, thereby reducing wildfire

management cost and the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire; Engage communities and other interested parties in the restoration process; Encourage utilization of forest restoration by-productions to offset treatments cost, to

benefit local rural economies, and to improve forest health; Maximize retention of large trees and fully maintain or contribute to the restoration of

pre-suppression old-growth conditions; Encourage ecological, economic, and social sustainability; Establish and maintain a safe road and trial system that is ecologically sustainable; Use the appropriate scale of integrated analysis to prioritize and design restoration

activities; and Incorporate adaptive management.

SWCC Restoration Priorities (Collaborative 2010b)6

Projects within the WUI on lands considered to be at high risk for uncharacteristic wildfire and those areas of moderate risk that are adjacent to the high risk areas will receive the highest priority.

Projects within low-elevation forest outside the WUI will receive the second highest priority.

Where consensus about appropriate restoration treatments exists, projects within mid-elevation forest outside the WUI will receive the third highest priority.

Introduction The Center Horse project area is embedded within the larger landscape of the Southwestern Crown of the Continent7 (SWCC). The SWCC covers about 1.5 million acres, including 885,000 of NFS lands across the Lolo, Flathead, and Helena NFs (Collaborative 2010a).

The Center Horse project area encompasses approximately 61,300 acres, across eight watersheds, within Missoula and Powell Counties, Montana (Figure 1) and is administered by the Lolo NF. The project’s purpose and need, in regard to vegetation, is to:

1) improve/restore forest composition, spatial arrangement, and structure, 2) restore fire adapted ecosystems, and 3) improve water quality, restore or enhance fish and wildlife habitat, and conserve and

improve soil resources

Land management activities proposed within the project area include commercial and non-commercial vegetation management (including prescribed fire). Improvement and restoration of forest composition, spatial arrangement, and structure within treatment stands and across the

6 For additional information on prioritization of work and strategy of the SWCC Collaborative, see the reference document. 7 For the purposes of this analysis the landscape referred to as the Southwestern Crown of the Continent (SWCC) is defined and outlined in reference (Collaborative 2010).

6

landscape as a whole, serves to increase stand and landscape resiliency to insect infestations and disease. The desired future condition is a resilient landscape that can recover from disturbance such human manipulation, fire, insects, disease, or climate change.

Overview of Issues Addressed During the scoping process, two issues related to vegetation treatments were brought forward driving the development of alternatives. The first issue involved concern over commercial harvest. Alternative C was developed in response to this concern and does not include any commercial harvest, nor the removal of biomass. The second issue involved concerns about the effects of treatments on existing and recruitment8 old-growth forest. Alternative C would not treat any old growth stands, as defined by the Forest Plan (1986) or Green and others (1992, errata 2011).

Project Area Boundary As stated earlier, the Center Horse project area boundary includes eight 6th code Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs), an area approximately 61,300 acres. The HUCs were the chosen level of analysis to coincide with other disciplines. The project area is large enough that the effects of the

8 The Lolo Forest Plan (1986) does not discuss address ‘recruitment’ old-growth and no standards or guidelines exist for ‘recruitment’ old growth. The Forest Supervisor, in 1994, drafted a letter that discussed ‘recruitment’ old-growth (Daniels 1994). The Forest Plan was not amended and the letter is not Agency policy.

Figure 1 Center Horse Project Area Map displays the Center Horse Project Area as well as the general vicinity.

7

proposed actions can be evaluated both at the stand level and in a landscape context. Stand level treatments are proposed, but combined restoration treatments alter the landscape condition of the analysis area. This analysis will address both the landscape scale and the proportion of the area that is proposed for active restoration treatments on a stand-based scale. With respect to forested vegetation, the entire Center Horse project area was used as the analysis area.

Effects Analysis Methods Each alternative will be analyzed for its ability to meet the purpose and needs of the project as it relates to forest vegetation. The purpose and need is to:

1) Improve/restore forest composition, spatial arrangement, and structure, and 2) Restore fire-adapted ecosystems

To achieve the purpose and need, stand treatments were designed to: 1) reduce crown fire potential and restore fire as an ecological process focusing on low intensity, high frequency and mixed severity fire regimes; and increased resilience to surface fire and bark beetles; 2) maintain or increase the species composition of fire-resistant shade-intolerant species (i.e., ponderosa pine (PP), western larch (WL)); 3) design treatments to retain large diameter trees, old-growth, and create stand conditions that could provide large trees in the future; and, 4) provide for age class and species structural diversity to reduce vulnerability to stressors (e.g., fire, insects, and disease).

The effects indicators for forested vegetation are as follows:

Resilience- evaluation of vulnerability to stressors and ability of stands to persist through and reorganize after disturbance and maintain basic structure and function over time. Measurement indicators include resilience to fire and bark beetles (bark beetle hazard) under current and future conditions. Attributes that are consistently linked as primary factors associated with bark beetle infestations are stand density, basal area, stand density index, tree diameter and host density (Fettig et al, 2007). The temporal resilience of stands to bark beetles and fire will also be addressed.

Resistance- the ability of a forest community to avoid alteration of its present state by a disturbance. Resistance practices seek to improve forest defenses against the effects of rapid environmental changes. Resistance measures are aimed at protecting high value resources (i.e., old growth) that are vulnerable to stressors.

Function- measured by functions and processes characteristic of healthy ecosystems, whether or not those systems are within the historical range of variation. Properly functioning systems can accommodate processes including fire, insects, disease, and climate change and provide a sustainable flow of ecosystem services.

Species composition– measured by percent composition of at-risk shade-intolerant species (i.e., PP, WL, aspen). Measures of species composition include establishment of shade-intolerant, root disease-resistant species and species diversity at the stand and landscape scale. Managing for a variety of species and genotypes provides resilience to environmental stressors (Joyce et al., 2008).

Structure- measured by the horizontal and vertical distribution of components of stands. Age class and structural diversity at the landscape scale is also a measure of forest structure. Measures used include: age class diversity; basal area (BA) and trees per acre as measures of

8

density; and quadratic mean diameter. Measures used include basal area and trees per acre as measures of density; quadratic mean diameter (QMD) (think of this as average tree diameter); arrangement and levels of ladder fuels; canopy cover; and down woody debris.

Summary of Measures: Bark Beetle Hazard

Low bark beetle hazard maintained or hazard reduced to low from moderate High bark beetle (i.e. DFB) hazard stands reduced to low or moderate hazard

Fire Crown fire potential reduced from high to low or moderate Fire restored as an ecosystem regulating process

Large Tree Retention Increased resistance and resilience of large PP and WL trees and old-growth to fire and

pathogens Restore fire-adapted species (PP, WL)

Regeneration of root disease resistant species WL, PP, LP Culture young forests favoring fire adapted PP, WL and establish new age class in stands

with mortality due to insects and disease (increase age class variability)

To establish and portray the existing condition and environmental consequences a variety of data sources were used. Ecosite categories were developed for the SWCC and used extensively in this analysis (Mehl and Haufler 2010, Mehl and others 2012). Additionally, information on habitat type, cover type, structural stage, origin, and stand activity history are based on historical records and corporate data housed in Forest Service Oracle relational databases including the Forest Service Activities Tracking System (FACTS) and FSVeg (Field Sampled Vegetation), and GIS (Geographical Information System) coverages and associated tabular data housed in the Lolo NF GIS library. The FACTS database includes a compilation of past management and harvest activities. It was compiled using field records and aerial photographs, and is generally considered 85-95% accurate from the 1960s to present. FACTS data is updated at an ongoing basis and is the reflection of the existing condition. Lands recently acquired within the analysis area are not wholly represented in FACTS; however, stand data and field reconnaissance assisted in establishing the existing vegetation conditions (Project File Items J5-7, J5-9, J5-13).

Additionally, other information sources include R1-VMP (Northern Region Vegetation Mapping Project), aerial photographs, and aerial detection survey (ADS) mapping conducted by the Forest Health and Protection Group in Missoula, Montana. R1-VMP is a consistent and continuous geospatial database for existing vegetation and associated attributes covering the northern Idaho and western Montana portions of the Northern Region. ADS data and site visits were used to establish and document pest damage trends in the analysis area (Project File Item J5-13, Lockman and Steed).

Between 2007 and 2016, field site visits were made to areas proposed for treatment (Project File Items J5-4, J5-13). Furthermore, between 20014 and 2016, approximately 2,050 acres of plot-based statistical stand exams were conducted to quantify forest conditions (Project File Items J5-4, J5-6, J5-7, J5-9, J5-12, J5-19 and J5-24). All stand exam data collected resides in the FSVeg database. To assist in on-site field analyses and stand diagnoses, stand stocking and yield tables were generated (Project File Items J5-6, J5-7). Where recent stand exam data was not available, older data sets were referenced (Project File Item J5-21). These datasets provide useful information about site potential, stocking, species composition, growth rates, and other useful statistical information to enable stand diagnosis. Field site visits coupled with all the

9

aforementioned data allowed for reasoned professional extrapolation of the existing condition (Project File Item J5-13).

The Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS), an individual-tree, distance-independent growth and yield model, was used in this analysis to summarize current stand conditions, model future conditions and stand dynamics, and model proposed treatments and their effects (Project File Item J5-25). In addition, FVS was used in conjunction with the Fire and Fuels Extension (FFE) to analyze the effects of no action and the proposed treatments on fire behavior and fuel loading. The temporal scale used in this effects analysis was from present day to 2045. All FVS keyword and detailed output files are located in the Project File (J5-25). FVS can simulate growth and yield for most major forest tree species, forest types, and stand conditions. FVS can simulate a wide range of silvicultural treatments. The Northern Idaho (Inland Empire) variant was used in this analysis. Detailed documentation and assumptions and limitations of the model are available at http://www.fs.fed.us/fmsc/fvs/. The reader is referenced to the following documents: Essential FVS: A User's Guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator, RMRS-GTR-116: The Fire and Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator, RMRS-GTR-116: The Fire and Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator Addendum, Keyword Reference Guide for the Forest Vegetation Simulator.

References to historic conditions (HRV) describe typical ecological conditions that existed prior to the period of Euro-American settlement approximately 1,000 years ago (Mehl and others 2012). While the time period and location limits the development of HRV, the SWCC Landscape Assessment (Mehl and others 2012) is the best available assessment of HRV of the area. The use of historic conditions provides insight on altered fire regimes that serve as stressors to fire-dependent forests such as ponderosa pine (Joyce et al., 2008). Still, while knowledge of historical conditions is useful in guiding restoration efforts, attempts to recreate past conditions are neither desirable nor feasible (Allen and others 2002; Brown and others 2004; C. I. Millar and Woolfenden 1999).

Existing Condition The existing condition of forested vegetation within the Center Horse landscape will be presented using the following information: Background; Fire History9; Management History; Old-growth; Ecological Types and Existing Vegetation; Canopy Cover, Structural Stages, and Species Diversity; and Forest Pathogens - Diseases and Insects. This information forms the basis on which the Purpose and Need related to vegetation was developed.

Background The forested vegetation patterns within the Center Horse analysis area have been shaped by human-directed vegetation treatments, by the presence or absence of fire events, and insects and disease, and weather events. Human-directed vegetation treatments and fire suppression can alter the species composition, stand structure, fuel loads, and fire potential fire of individual stands and across the landscape.

Roughly 7,300 acres of the 61,300-acre analysis area were acquired by the NFS between 2006 and 2011 from the Blackfoot Clearwater Project and a DNRC land exchange. These recently acquired lands were previously owned by Plum Creek Timber Company (PCTC) and had been

9 The ecosite and fire regime classification system used for the Center Horse Project was developed by Ecosystem Management Research Institute (EMRI), authors Carolyn Mehl et al, 2012, see references.

10

heavily-managed for timber production. The Center Horse project is proposing to treat approximately 4,200 acres of these acquired lands.

The existing conditions are different on the previously treated acquired lands and previously treated NFS lands. Conditions for these acquired lands are close to the detrimental soil disturbance limits (see Soils Specialist’s Report), have small diameter trees, and are primarily in the wildland-urban interface (WUI). The NFS lands have had a variety of treatments such as precommercial thinning, piling and burning, rearrangement of fuels10, and various harvest treatments dating from the early half of the last century to present.

Primary conifer species in the analysis area are ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, western larch, Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir. The pines and larch are shade-intolerant species that require a high amount of sunlight for seedling establishment. Douglas-fir, true fir, and Engelmann spruce are shade-tolerant species and can become established in conditions of lower light availability. In the Inland Northwest, shade-tolerant species tend to be more prone to a variety of insects and diseases including western spruce budworm (WSB), Douglas-fir beetle (DFB), root and butt rot diseases, and dwarf mistletoe (Hessburg and others 1994), while shade-intolerant species are prone to a variety of bark beetles (Hagle and others 2003), but are more tolerant to fire and root diseases (Kolb and others 2007).

A variety of ecosites exist throughout the analysis area (Table 4). Ecosites are groupings of habitat types as defined by (Mehl and others 2012). These groupings are important because they combine similar plant communities with similar traits (e.g., climax plant communities, disturbance regimes, etc.). Just as with habitat types, ecosite types provide information as to how sites look (i.e., species composition and structure) and function (i.e., fire regimes and return intervals) on the landscape. These ecological classifications are the basis for comparing existing conditions with desired future conditions, which are based on ecological processes and functions combined with management objectives.

One commonality amongst all the ecosites is the presence of dead trees (i.e., snags). In the analysis area, these snags are primarily the result of natural stress complexes resulting from overly dense stands. Stress complexes include individual factors and interactions between factors such as drought, competition for growing space, insects, diseases, and changing climate. Stands that were predominantly lodgepole (LP) have been attacked by mountain pine beetle (MPB) causing mortality. Spruce budworm (WSB), a defoliating insect, is a stress agent that has been causing top kill in both under and overstory trees and can attract Douglas-fir beetle (DFB) to a stand (Lockman and Steed 2011). Dense Douglas-fir (DF) dominated stands have experienced mortality in larger trees (≥ 14” DBH) infested by DFB. Root disease is also prevalent and causing varying levels of mortality in the analysis area (Lockman and Steed 2011). Additionally, defoliation caused by Western Spruce Budworm (WSB) can cause mortality in smaller understory trees by repeated defoliation during outbreak periods (Fellin and Dewey 1986).

Historically, natural fires were a part of the landscape. However, due to fire suppression, these events have been reduced since non-indigenous settlement of the area. Without fires as the primary disturbance agent, many forested lands are now in the stem exclusion stage of (see Figure 2) or the understory re-initiation stage of stand development (Oliver and Larsen 1996). Stands are generally overstocked and dominated by shade-tolerant species (i.e., DF) with limited shade-

10 Rearrangement of fuels can be any activity that changes potential fire behavior, an example is slashing. Slashing activity cuts live or dead fuel that is standing (ladder fuel) and lays it on the ground, creating surface fuel.

11

intolerant (PP, WL) regeneration. These conditions predispose stands to stand-replacing fire events, insect, and disease epidemics (Graham and others 2004).

Figure 2: Stand Development Stages (Oliver and Larson 1996)

#1 Stand Initiation (upper left). #2 Stem Exclusion (upper right). #3 Understory Reinitiation (lower left). #4 Old, multi-aged community (lower right)

Fire History Historically, fires started by natural ignitions played their role in changing landscape patterns. Fire regimes within the landscape varied from non-lethal (i.e., low severity ground and surface fires) to lethal (i.e., high severity stand-replacing) (Figure 3)(Barrett

and others 1991). Low severity fires generally occur more frequently, on 0 to 25-year return intervals, in low elevation warm-dry to warm-moist ecosites, and remain low severity due to lack of fuel buildup over time. Lethal fires with high severity fire effects have a fire return interval (FRI) of greater than 100 years; the severity of the effects is due in large part to fuel load accumulations between fires (Fischer and Bradley 1987).

Between 1906 and 1989 there have been two recorded fires within the analysis area at least 200 acres in size. Since 1990, there have been three fires that burned greater than 200 acres in size and about 8 fires less than 100 acres in size. For further information about fire history and how current conditions to compare to historical conditions in the analysis area refer to the Fire and Fuels Specialist’s Report.

The image below (Figure 3) is Table 6 from the Southwest Crown of the Continent Landscape Assessment by (Mehl and others 2012) . This table displays the current departure of historical fire regimes that are nearly entirely outside the HRV. This table covers the entire SWCC landscape that encompasses the Center Horse landscape.

12

Table 1 (below) displays the current condition of the Center Horse landscape. Applying the percentages of the landscape that would historically be within HRV from Figure 3 (above) to the Center Horse landscape, Hot-Dry/Warm-Dry would be around 88%, Cool-Dry about 53%, and Cool-Moist/Cold-Dry approximately 75%. The acres and the percent of the landscape within the analysis area that are within acceptable range of HRV are low indicating the need for treatment.

Ecosite Type Fire Regime Fire Return Interval

(FRI)

Acres and % of analysis area burned within acceptable HRV*

Hot-Dry and Warm-Dry

Non-lethal FRI <25 years 2,522 (15%)

Cool-Dry Mixed Severity B FRI = 51-99 years 3,850 (20%) Cool-Moist Cold-Dry

Lethal FRI > 100 years 64 (3.6%)

Table 1: Fire Return Interval. Displays how many acres of each ecosite/fire regime are within the HRV for the landscape. *Acres and percentages are based on Fire History data available in Forest GIS layers. Acceptable HRV is based on (Mehl and Haufler 2010)

Management History Throughout the Center Horse analysis area the Forest Service has completed previous harvest treatments such as liberation, seed-tree, and clearcuts dating back through the 1940s (Figure 4). Of the 102 units initially proposed for treatment, 26 have been previously treated by the Forest Service (Forest Service). Documented treatments occurred as early as 1940, but primarily between 1958 and 2000. Treatments ranged from salvage to precommercial thinning and several types of prescribed burns (Figure 4, Table 2, and Table 3). Approximately one-third of these treatments were intermediate treatments, a treatment without regeneration objectives often designed to enhance growth, quality, vigor, and composition of the stand. The other treatments were various types of regeneration harvesting both with and without leave trees. For an expanded and complete list of all past and present activities, see Appendix D of the Center Horse Landscape Restoration Project EIS.

Figure 3: Table 6 from the Southwestern Crown of the Continent Landscape Assessment (2012) which compares the mean HRV of each ecosite to today’s percent of the landscape.

13

Figure 4: A map of the previous timber activity within the Center Horse Analysis Area.

Table 2: This table is an abbreviated version of the harvest activities list in Appendix D of the Center Horse Landscape Restoration Project EIS.

Harvest Type By Decade Total (acres) 1940 552 Intermediate Thin 441 Regeneration Harvest (i.e. Seed Tree, Shelterwood) 111 1950 192 Intermediate Thin 31 Regeneration Harvest (i.e. Seed Tree, Shelterwood) 161 1960 3255 Intermediate Thin 745 Regeneration Harvest (i.e. Seed Tree, Shelterwood) 2510 1970 3252 Intermediate Thin 509 Regeneration Harvest (i.e. Seed Tree, Shelterwood) 2743 1980 1824 Intermediate Thin 247 Regeneration Harvest (i.e. Seed Tree, Shelterwood) 1577 1990 2185 Intermediate Thin 1108 Regeneration Harvest (i.e. Seed Tree, Shelterwood) 1077 2000 324 Intermediate Thin 324 2010 24 Intermediate Thin 24 Grand Total 11608

14

Table 3 Past prescribed burning acres on NFS land in the analysis area.

Forty of the 102 initially proposed treatment areas are on lands that were recently acquired by the NFS. As stated earlier, these lands had been owned by PCTC. While the Lolo NF has no physical records of harvest or other treatments and activities that were performed on those lands, by observing the current condition, an educated supposition can be made as to what the previous treatment had been. Treatments were harvests for the purpose of timber production removing primarily the high value trees resulting in stands that are smaller in diameter with in-growth primarily DF, PP and WL that is overly dense (reference Hot-Dry and Warm-Dry Ecosite descriptions, Table 4).

Old-growth Note: In response to public comment, new information regarding old-growth was obtained following the release of the DEIS. Hence, this section was replaced at printing with: FEIS Errata Report, Effects of Treatments on Old Growth and Large Trees (Project File Item J5-2).

Ecosite Types and Existing Vegetation As mentioned earlier, ecosite types are assemblages of habitat types with similar disturbance response, species composition, fire frequency, stand structure, potential stocking density, productivity, and down wood accumulation. They are also based on temperature and moisture regimes. The ecosite groupings used in this analysis are based on the SWCC Landscape Assessment prepared by the Ecosystem Management Research Institute (EMRI) (Mehl and others 2012) (Table 4). Ecosite type was selected by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) as the method for discussing vegetation because there is current and local information and the terminology is consistent and understandable across all specialists’ reports.

Table 4: Display of Ecosite Types. Abbreviations used: Douglas-fir (DF), Engelmann spruce (ES), lodgepole pine (LP), ponderosa pine (PP), subalpine fir (SAF), western larch (WL), western white pine (WWP), and whitebark pine (WBP).

Forest Ecosite Types

Fire Regime

Description Existing Condition Summary

Hot-Dry Non-Lethal

Primary species are PP and DF. Productivity and stocking levels are low. Canopy is open to moderately open. Trees are at wide spacing (≥20’ apart) when mature with a grass understory. Average FRI is <25 years.

Analysis area is <1% of this type. Existing pockets are considered small inclusions in larger Warm-Dry stands. Treatment would not differ from the Warm-Dry type. See Warm-Dry for existing condition description.

Warm-Dry Non-Lethal

Primary species are PP, DF, WL, and LP. Historically dominated by PP or DF and grass understories. Historically fires were frequent low severity burns covering large areas.

Approximately 24% of analysis area (25% including Hot-Dry type). Current condition varies dependent on prior ownership. Acquired lands are very dense, trees per acre varies from 400 to >600. Previously

Decade Acres 1950s 126 1960s 1024 1970s 938 1980s 191 1990s 742 2000s 745 2010s 2836

Grand Total 6601

15

Forest Ecosite Types

Fire Regime

Description Existing Condition Summary

Most fires were extinguished by rains or lack of fuel. Average FRI is <25 years.

unmanaged lands are predominately small (less than 10” dbh) DF, the LP component dead from MPB infestation, PP and WL are present making up about 25-40% of the species composition. Depending on slope location and aspect productivity is generally low to moderate.

Cool-Dry Mixed

Severity B

Primary species are SAF, DF, WL, LP, ES, PP, and possibly WWP. Stands generally have a mosaic of seral stages and structures, based on previous fire severities. A varied range of fire severities influenced these stands from Mixed Severity A to Lethal. Average FRI is >50 but <100 years.

About 22% of analysis area. Dominant species is LP and DF, WL and ES are present. DF and ES become larger components of the overstory when less damage is incurred from frost. Understory is generally dense low shrubs, such as huckleberry. Depending on slope, location and aspect, sites can be productively variable, low to high. BA is generally greater than 120. DFB hazard is generally high and root diseases prevalent.

Cool-Moist Lethal

Primary species are SAF, DF, WL, LP, ES, and possibly WWP. Stands have a mosaic of seral stages and structures. Fire rarely started in these stands but, entered from adjacent stands and was primarily wind driven. Average FRI is >100 years.

About 23% of analysis area. These types are located primarily on north-facing aspects. SAF, ES, and DF are the primary dominant species. Other commonly present species are LP and WL. Generally, only one species dominates each stand. Common shrub and herbaceous understory with a variety of species which vary by elevation. Site productivity ranges from moderate to very high. BA is generally greater than 120.

Cold-Dry Lethal

Species occurring here are WBP, SAF, LP, and ES. WBP is usually a major component. Mixed Severity fires occur occasionally. Variation in age and seral development vary widely, dependent on past fire severity. Average FRI is >100 years.

About 10,125 acres (or 17%) of analysis area. Dominant species are LP and SAF. Other species commonly present are DF and WBP. Understory generally consists of dense low shrubs, most commonly huckleberry. Site productivity ranges from low to moderately high. BA is generally greater than 120.

A visual representation of ecosites across the landscape is shown in Figure 5. This map is a broad scale representation and was used for landscape scale assessment of the analysis area. Through careful examination and field reconnaissance, the IDT recognized there are some areas of this map that are incorrect (Project File Item J5-13). In total, incorrectly labelled areas account for about 1% of the analysis area. There are no treatments planned in these areas and this error is inconsequential to the effects analysis. Each of these ecosite types include fire return intervals, stand densities and species composition, and were used to guide treatment prescriptions.

Canopy Cover, Structural Stages11, and Species Diversity VMap was utilized to determine landscape canopy cover, structural stages, and cover types for the analysis area. VMap is a database containing remote sensed data derived from the Region 1 Existing Vegetation Classification System. It is of note that VMap categorizes recently disturbed

11 Regarding labels (such as sparsely vegetated) used for maps, tables, and descriptions see reference: Barber, J.; Bush, R.; Berglund, D. 2011. Region One Vegetation Classification, Mapping , Inventory and Analysis Report: The Region 1 Existing Vegetation Classification System and its Relationship to Region 1 Inventory Data and Map Products.

16

areas from herbaceous too sparsely vegetated; however, areas represented in are historically of these cover types. Throughout the analysis area there are a variety of canopy cover densities, structural stages, and vegetation types present, and they are consistent with field observations (Project File Item J5-13). The majority of the analysis area is in a Moderately Closed to Closed condition (Figure 6). Ranges will be referred to as Open (10-24.9%), Moderately Open (25-39.9%), Moderately Closed (40-59.9%), and Closed (≥60%). Water was eliminated from the table because it contains no vegetative canopy. The most dominant vegetation type throughout the area is Douglas-fir, comprising about 43% of the landscape (Table 5) and dominating all size classes.

Figure 5 Ecosite Map. Display of Ecosites within the analysis area and the number of acres per ecosite type and the percent of the analysis area that entails.

17

Table 5 Dominant Canopy Cover Type. Describes which vegetation type dominates 40% or more of the basal area in each polygon. In the mixed conifer types, no one species dominates 40% or more of the basal area. A combination of shade-tolerant (TMIX) or shade-intolerant (IMIX) species comprise the cover type.

Dominant Vegetation Type Approximate

Acres % of Analysis

area (40)

Herbaceous 3,650 6

Shrub 690 1

Sparsely vegetated 3,225 5

Ponderosa pine 890 1.4

Douglas-fir 26,330 43

Western larch 5,080 8

Lodgepole pine 2,180 4

Subalpine fir 11,160 18

Engelmann spruce 3,980 6.5

Shade-intolerant conifer mix 2,585 4

Shade-tolerant conifer mix 1,500 2

The Center Horse vegetation structure is dominated and skewed towards large diameter, mature trees (Figure 7). In Figure 7, the area circled in red is acquired land that is shown on VMap as ≥ 10” dbh; however, based on field reviews, average stand diameters are 5” dbh or less. This area contains approximately 590 acres of the ≥ 10” dbh mapping, comprising less than one percent of the project area, inconsequential at the landscape scale (Figure 7).

Figure 6 Canopy cover percentages across the analysis area.

18

Figure 7: Representation of the vegetation structures across the Center Horse analysis area. Note that more than 50% of the area is represented in mature trees while stands of seedling and sapling regeneration are less than 5% indicating lack of age class heterogeneity in the landscape.

Stands in the 0 to 4.9” dbh size class are not distributed across the analysis area and are primarily located on the western edge of the project (Figure 7). The northern edge of the analysis area, burned in the Birk Fire in 2001, is classified as primarily herbaceous, shrub, and sparsely vegetated lands. In stands where treatments are proposed, canopy observations are similar to mapped, moderately closed to closed (Project File Item J5-13). In terms of treatment per structure class about 53% of treatment 12is occurring in the ≥10” dbh size class, 38%13 in 5-9.9” dbh class, and the final 9% of treatments are in inclusions of herbaceous, shrub, sparsely vegetated, or seedling/sapling forests.

12 This figure is reduced by the 590 acres circled in red of ≥ 10” DBH structures that when field reviewed were not actually in that structure class. 13 This figure includes the 590 acres that were incorrectly mapped as ≥ 10” DBH.

19

Figure 8 Map of Center Horse analysis area outlining proposed treatment areas (Alternative B).

Figure 9: Table 8 from the 1993 Losensky paper.

Comparing information from Figure 7 to Figure 9 (Losensky 1993) the departure from historic conditions is evident. There are no specified diameter ranges associated with Losensky’s categories; however, use of accepted category norms is appropriate. Non-stocked types include herbaceous, shrub, and sparsely vegetated area totaling 12%, 3% higher than historical norms. Seedlings and saplings today represent only 5% of the area while historical norms were approximately 23%. Poles, or small trees, currently represent 27% of the landscape and historically were 8%. Mature trees historically represented 38-60% of the landscape and

= 40-60

20

currently represent about 55%. The greatest vegetation structure stage departure from historical norms to present conditions is within the pole size and seedling/sapling size classes.

A stated purpose for this project is to improve forest composition (i.e., restore shade-intolerant species (PP, WL)), spatial arrangement and structure on the landscape. Figure 10 shows a

representation of a unit proposed for Variable Retention Harvest (Franklin and others 2007; Helms 1998) over time with no treatment. Notice that species diversity is relatively unchanging over the next several decades and the primary species are shade-tolerant Douglas-fir (DF) and sub-alpine fir (AF). Also note that over time the species composition varies little, about 88% of the species are shade-tolerant, and eventually (2045) the shade-intolerant species start to decrease within the stand resulting in further loss of key at-risk shade-intolerant species, notably ponderosa pine and western larch, due to

lack of seedling establishment and competition (i.e. for light).

Forest Pathogens

Diseases Root diseases, root and butt rot, and dwarf mistletoes are all present within the Center Horse analysis area. Root diseases are a notable long-term management concern as evidence of root disease affecting both Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine hosts was confirmed in much of the analysis area (Lockman and Steed 2011, Project File Item J5-13). These root and butt rots affect primarily shade-tolerant tress making them susceptible to windthrow, breakage, and Douglas-fir beetle infestation. Armillaria ostoyae (also recognized as A. solidipes) root disease is present in many locations throughout the project area including areas proposed for treatment (i.e., Units 122, 155, 159) (Lockman and Steed 2011, Project File Item J5-13). Phaelous schweinitizii is also prevalent in the project area. These two agents often co-exist, with P. schweinitzii infecting trees very early in their life, causing an overall decline in the vigor as the tree ages.

Armillaria is a “disease of the site” (Hagle, 2008). That is, established mycelia of this fungus are essentially permanent, so the best course is to minimize losses is to manage for tree species that are resistant (PP, WL). In general, DF and true firs are the most susceptible species in the Center Horse analysis area, while pines, WL, and cedar are the most tolerant. Although ponderosa pine is resistant to Armillaria, it is not immune. Pines are quite susceptible when young and tolerance

Figure 10: This graph displays the average percent of tree species per acre over time without treatment in a Variable Retention Harvest unit. These numbers were calculated using FVS modeling, based on data collected from representative stands (Project File Item J5-25).

71%1%

14%

1%11% 2%

DF

ES

SAF

PP

WL

GF/LP

2035

68%1%

19%

1%11%

DF

ES

AF

PP

WL

2015

70%1%

17%

1%11%

DF

ES

AF

PP

WL

2025

74%

1%13%

1%10% 1%

DF

ES

AF

PP

WL

GF/LP

2045

21

is acquired by 25 to 30 years of age. Still, even resistant species (PP, WL) can succumb to Armillaria when under great stress from drought, over-stocking, or growing under the presence of large amounts of root disease on site. The most successful management option for minimizing tree loss/mortality within infected stands is to manage for tree species that are the most tolerant to the disease (Lockman and Steed 2011).

Schweinitzii root and butt rot is spread by spores. This disease is believed to infect young trees growing with them and slowly decaying roots and heartwood. When roots are infected, particularly the larger structural ones, tree stability, especially during wind events, are compromised and trees are susceptible to windthrow. Schweinitzii also acts as a butt rot, reducing the soundness of the tree bole, providing potential for trees snapping mid-bole. (Lockman and Steed 2011). A. ostoyae readily infects P. schweinitzii-infected trees, hastening the decline and death of the host tree (Lockman and Steed 2011). Root disease infected trees are very attractive to Douglas-fire beetle predisposing them to attack (Hagle 2010).

Dwarf mistletoes are also present in the analysis area. DF, WL, and LP are each affected by their own species of dwarf mistletoe. Dwarf mistletoe is not known to directly kill trees in a short period of time; however, it does predispose trees to bark beetles that can kill them. This is because mistletoe infection weakens trees causing them to lose vigor. Throughout the analysis area, infection is light in all species.

Forest Pathogens

Insects

Douglas-fir Beetle (DFB) The only bark beetle with current outbreak potential in the analysis area is Douglas-fir beetle (DFB) (Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopkins) (Lockman and Steed 2011). The Douglas-fir beetle is the most important bark beetle affecting Douglas-fir throughout its range in western North America (Furniss and Carolin 1977). The DFB beetle favors large (≥14” DBH) DF, older than 120 years, and with stocking densities 150 square feet basal acre or greater. Large DF are particularly attractive when there are multiple stresses in a stand, such as: Armillaria or schweinitzii root and butt rots, drought, and Western Spruce Budworm (WSB) defoliation (Lockman and Steed 2011).

Approximately 1,400 acres were affected by DFB between 2002 and 2012 with beetle activity peaking in 2004 (Table 6 and Figure 11); however, outbreak potential is increasing in the Center Horse area due to WSB activity, root disease, high DF species composition, stand density and old age (Lockman and Steed 2011). Beetles infest larger, older trees in densely stocked stands, normally killing small groups of trees following some type of stand disturbance. During outbreaks, groups exceeding 100 trees or larger are often killed within a 2-3 year period. Where susceptible trees are abundant, beetle populations can build up rapidly. Damage is greatest in dense stands of older, larger-diameter Douglas-fir (Schmitz and Gibson 1996).

DFB hazard is defined as the ability of a stand to support DFB populations. Factors including tree size, age, stand BA, and fire scorch enhance stand susceptibility to attack and provide the most suitable breeding material for DFB populations. Generally, the larger, older, and more stressed a Douglas-fir tree is the more desirable it is to beetles seeking host material. The greater the density of large Douglas-fir trees within a stand, the more likely it is to support significant

22

DFB populations (Negron et al. 2001). Stands susceptibility to Douglas-fire beetle in influenced by (Furniss et al 1981, Steele et al. 1996, Dodds et al. 2004, Lockman and Steed 2011):

Proportion of Douglas-fir. Stands in which Douglas-fir is the dominant species. The higher the percentage of Douglas-fir in the stand--particularly in excess of 50-60 percent--the greater the susceptibility.

Age of Douglas-fir. As Douglas-fir reaches maturity--and becomes overmature--it slows in growth and is more susceptible to the beetle. Greater than 100 years is considered to be highly susceptible. Beyond 120 years, stand hazard becomes extreme.

Size of Douglas-fir. Frequently associated with age, stand susceptibility is influenced by the size of host trees. Generally, the larger the trees, the more susceptible. Trees > 14 inches DBH are attractive to DFB.

Stand density. When stocking exceeds 80 percent of "normal" for the site, susceptibility increases significantly. Dense stand conditions increase inter-tree competition and provides cooler, shaded environments preferred by the beetle, increasing the likelihood of infestation. As a rule of thumb, if stocking exceeds 150 square feet of basal area, susceptibility to the beetle correspondingly increases.

Stress Complexes. Large DF are particularly attractive when there are multiple stresses in a stand, such as: root disease, root and butt rots, drought, blowdown, fire scorch, and Western-spruce budworm (WSB) defoliation.

Risk expresses the likelihood that an epidemic (outbreak) will cause significant economic or environmental damage to a stand. In epidemic conditions stands with moderate to high hazard are at extreme risk for infestation due to proximity to current populations (Gibson 2003).

The Center Horse analysis area is predominantly mature DF (43%) with 16% classified as DF ≥15” dbh. Preventative treatments designed to reduce stand basal area, lower DF species composition, and increase age class variability would reduce stand susceptibility and increase landscape resilience to DFB.

Table 6: DFB activity as estimated by aerial detection surveys (ADS). ADS flights did not cover the Center Horse area where data gaps are shown. (Low activity: mortality of <5 TPA, moderate activity: mortality of 5-10 TPA, high activity: mortality of ≥15 TPA.)

Reported Activity Year Estimated TPA Mortality Insect Activity Level Infested Acres 2001 3.8 Low 497 2002 1.7 Low 92 2004 5.0 Moderate 486 2005 2.9 Low 465 2006 3.0 Low 393 2008 4.1 Low 122 2009 3.1 Low 10 2010 1.0 Low 2 2011 2.5 Low 12 2012 0.8 Low 107

23

Figure 11: Across the analysis area Douglas-fir beetle pressure peaked in 2004. A steady decline of activity occurred through 2010; then, starting in 2011 activity began increasing. DFB hazard is increasing.

Western Spruce Budworm (WSB) The western spruce budworm is a defoliating insect that initially mines needles, new shoots, and cones, then consumes newly emerging needles and finally, older needles. Spruce budworm infest Douglas-fir, true firs, Engelmann spruce, larch and occasionally pine hosts. (Hagle and others 2003). Defoliation causes a reduction in tree growth and vigor. Infestations that persist over multiple years may cause top kill and eventually mortality (Figure 12). Defoliation increase tree stress (Figure 13) thereby increasing susceptibility to other pathogens (i.e., DFB) (Hadley and Veblen 1993). Several factors influence the likelihood of WSB induced mortality (Fellin and Dewey 1986):

Stand age - older, more mature trees generally withstand budworm defoliation but, may become predisposed to DFB attack and sustain top kill (Hadley and Veblen 1993). Small and intermediate sized trees are more susceptible to mortality because they have a more limited crown with a higher percentage of current year’s growth.

Stand structure and composition - larvae move through the canopy on silken threads landing on trees in the understory14. After settling on a suitable host, larvae feed on lower canopy layers perpetuating their populations. When stands understories are more open with fewer suitable hosts, budworm larvae are less successful (Hadley and Veblen 1993). Larvae cannot survive on the forest floor. Small and intermediate sized trees are

14 Larvae may also be wind disseminated up to several kilometers during the L1 and L2 instars.

Figure 12: Mid-story DF along a roadway. The top halves of trees have been completely defoliated. Approximately 25% of the tree on the right side has been top killed.

0

1000

2000

3000

Trees Per Acre

Year

Douglas‐fir Beetle‐Caused Mortality Across Infested Acres

Tree Mortality

24

more mortality prone than larger, mature trees since larvae can fully consume much of a small tree’s foliage.

Outbreak duration - Individual tree crown recovery from persistent defoliation takes several years. Repeated defoliation over 4 to 5 years may cause mortality with most losses in sapling to pole-sized trees.

Although WSB is a native insect that has co-evolved with western forests, extensive damage and mortality from budworm can occur, particularly during drought periods and where fire has been long suppressed. Across the Lolo NF, WSB activity has been elevated for several years (Figure 14). On the Seeley Lake Ranger District, an increase in WSB activity has been noted since 2012. Between 2002 and 2012 approximately 6,200 acres were affected by WSB. Since then activity has persisted, increased, and spread across the District and analysis area. Proposed treatments within the Center Horse project show signs of budworm activity ranging from low (< 50%) to high defoliation (>50%) (Table 7) in all canopy layers with understory and intermediate trees most affected. Silvicultural treatments that reduce stocking density, number of canopy layers, and increase individual tree vigor and species composition are the only long-term solution to budworm management (Sturdevant, personal communication).

Figure 13: The foreground of this photo is just north of Unit 1. DF and SAF are showing signs of severe WSB defoliation. In some cases top kill is evident in the mid and understory trees. The background of this photo shows portion of the Center Horse analysis area not proposed for treatment, but with the same rusty red appearance indicative of WSB defoliation.

25

Figure 14: A graph of WSB activity over the last 35 years across the entire analysis area. Missing years had detection flights; however, they covered different areas of the Forest. The previous cycle peaked in 1991 affecting over 21,000 acres. 2011 shows a marked increase in activity over 2010

Table 7: WSB Activity. Observed levels where <50% or ≥50% of the trees were defoliated. In 1990, the analysis area was not fully surveyed, hence the skewed unrepresentative data point.

Year Acres of <50% Acres of ≥50% Total Acres 1987 73 73 1988 612 612 1989 20640 20640 1990 230 230 1991 21400 21400 1992 9410 9410 1993 940 940 2010 50 70 120 2011 1020 305 1325 2012 3310 1580 4890

Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) and Western Pine Beetle (WPB) Mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) is the most aggressive bark beetle in the West (Jenkins et al., 2008). MPB outbreaks are triggered by host species (i.e., PP, LP, WBP) prevalence, suitable tree size, high stand density, and conditions favorable to rapid population expansion. MPB can increase in numbers and kill homogeneous susceptible stands rapidly when environmental conditions are conducive. MPB hazard is defined as the ability of a stand to support MPB populations. Factors including tree size, age, stand BA, and injury enhance stand susceptibility to attack and provide the most suitable breeding material for bark beetle populations. Generally, the higher the stand basal area, the higher the susceptibly for MPB attack. Evidence suggests that the threshold for high stand susceptibility is 110-120 square feet/acre (Schmid et al., 2007; Schmid and Mata, 1992; Schmid et al. 1994). Heterogeneity in stand density is an important element to consider in overall susceptibility. Stands with one or more areas of high susceptibility (greater than 110 square feet/acre BA15) are highly susceptible even if the average stand basal area is less than 110 square feet (Schmid et al., 2007). MPB typically attack LP and PP greater than seven inches diameter at breast height. MPB do not exclusively attack larger diameter trees, but as populations move toward epidemic conditions, the percent of attacked trees is larger in the largest diameter classes (Schmid et al., 2007).

15 When average diameter is > 10 inches.

0

10000

20000

30000Trees Per Acre

Year

Spruce Budworm‐Infested Acres

Total Acres

26

In the Center Horse area, between 2002 and 2012, approximately 24,800 acres were affected by MPB activity16. Peak MPB activity occurred between 2009 and 2010 (Table 9 and Figure 16). Throughout the analysis area, where mature LP stands were present, MPB has caused moderate too extensive mortality reducing the prevalence of suitable LP host stands (see Figure 15). Still, MPB hazard is increasing in younger PP stands throughout the lower elevations of the Center Horse area.

Additionally, larger PP in mixed stands with stress complexes (i.e., drought, root disease, overstocking, altered fire regimes) remain at risk. Treating young stands and old to improve health and vigor would reduce future susceptibility and long-term MPB hazard. Many areas proposed for Variable Retention Harvest are centered on areas of MPB mortality.

Another insect active within the analysis area with similar target host species, symptoms, and mortality is the western pine beetle (WPB) (Dendroctonus brevicomis). The outbreak potential for the WPB is low with the greatest risk to individual large, old PP where conditions are conducive. MPB and WPB may simultaneously attack these large, old trees.

Table 8: Trees per Acre of Mountain Pine Beetle Mortality. Acres may be overlapping, so the total number of acres affected in the landscape is not additive. (Low activity: mortality of <5 TPA, moderate activity: mortality of 5-10 TPA, high activity (or significant): mortality of ≥15 TPA.)

Trees Per Acre of MPB Mortality Approximate Number of Affected Acres <2 5,100

≥2, <5 15,389 ≥5, <10 10,220 ≥10, <15 2,195 ≥15, <20 47 ≥20, <40 22 ≥50 2

Table 9: Mountain Pine Beetle Activity in the Analysis Area. Where data gaps exist, ADS flights did not cover the Center Horse area. Notice that 2009 had less than 5 TPA of mortality but, covered more than twice the area of 2010 activity. (Low activity: mortality of <5 TPA, moderate activity: mortality of 5-10 TPA, high activity: mortality of ≥15 TPA.) Tree per acre mortality is an ocular estimate made by aerial detection survey flight crew.

Reported Activity Year

Estimated TPA Mortality

Insect Activity Level

Infested Acres

2001 1.7 Low 15 2002 0.7 Low 72 2005 2.7 Low 145 2006 4.0 Low 49

16 Host tree species include: PP, LP, and whitebark pine.

Figure 15: Unit 122 (Alternative B) is a Variable Retention Harvest. Patches of beetle mortality, like shown here, would be removed and in some cases replanted.

27

Reported Activity Year

Estimated TPA Mortality

Insect Activity Level

Infested Acres

2008 3.3 Low 111 2009 4.6 Low 211 2010 7.4 Moderate 85 2012 3.3 Low 199

Figure 16: Mountain Pine Beetle Mortality. A graphic representation of Table 12. Across the analysis area mountain pine beetle pressure peaked in 2009 and 2010.

Desired Future Condition (DFC) The general desired future conditions are listed by ecosite17. They provide a range of conditions to guide active management based on an understanding of how ecosystems respond to changing conditions gained from historical conditions, as well as, recognize that current and future conditions are and will be different. The focus lies on an indeterministic approach of developing structurally and compositionally diverse forests that are mediated by ecological and disturbance processes. The objective is to hedge bets in the face of an uncertain future and still enable comparison of current conditions, and the trends or direction of change of conditions to assist management decisions. Overall, the desired future conditions address landscape size class and structural distributions and tree-stocking levels as a strategy to minimize forest vulnerability to stressors consistent with the long-term disturbances expected under current and future climates (www.frcc.gov). They are consistent with the Lolo Forest Plan as well as incorporate the best available science specific to the project area (Mehl et al. 2012). Managing in the face of uncertainty requires a variety of approaches and strategies that are focused on enhancing ecosystem resistance and resilience. This involves increased emphasis on ecological processes and managing for change, despite uncertainty about the direction or magnitude of a changing climate (Joyce et al., 2008). Furthermore, these desired future conditions should be monitored and adaptively changed as appropriate in both temporal and spatial contexts.

17A crosswalk was developed to translate ecosites to the Forest Plan Habitat Type Groups (see Appendix B: Crosswalk for Habitat Types, Fire Regimes/ Groups, and Ecosites)

0

500

1000

Trees 

Year

Mountain Pine Beetle‐Caused Mortality

Tree Mortality

28

Hot-Dry (non-lethal) A mix of successional stages ranging from seedling/sapling, mature, and old-growth with

mature and old-growth stages comprising 50-70% of the area and less than 40% in the seedling/sapling stages

Stand densities low ranging from 40-80 square feet of BA per acre (feet2 BA/Acre), < 100 trees per acre

Species composition of 70-90% PP and 10-30% DF Vigorous bunchgrass communities with reduced conifer encroachment and noxious weed

occurrence Average fuel loading of 5-15 tons per acre Average snag density generally 4-10 snags per acre18 Fire is restored to the area at 5-25 year fire return interval (FRI)

Warm-Dry (non-lethal) At the lowest elevations, primarily PP in open park-like stands with bunchgrass or shrub

understory. On moister sites, DF and WL with PP a minor component. A mix of successional stages ranging from seedling/sapling, mature, and old-growth with

mature and old-growth stages comprising 50-70% of the area and less than 40% in the seedling/sapling stages

Species composition of at least 70% shade-intolerant species (ponderosa pine, western larch, or aspen) over approximately 30-60% of the area, most representation occurring on south and southwest aspects

50-100 feet2 BA/Acre, < 100 trees per acre. Approximately 35-55% of stands in a mid-aged to mature open condition In regenerated stands, stocking at approximately 75-150 trees per acre of predominately

ponderosa pine, western larch Landscape mosaic with variable patch sizes, age classes and structural stages Vigorous grass/forb/shrub understory communities, reduced noxious weed occurrence Insects and diseases at endemic levels Average fuel loading generally 5-25 tons per acre Average snag density generally 4-10 snags per acre Fire is restored to the area at 5-25 year FRI

Cool-Dry (mixed severity B).

A mix of successional stages ranging from seedling/sapling, mature, and old-growth with mature and old-growth stages comprising 50-70% of the area and less than 40% in the seedling/sapling stages.

Predominant species are WL and DF. 60-100 feet2 BA/Acre, large trees with moderate density, <150 trees per acre In regenerated stands, stocking 75-150 trees per acre of primarily WL and DF High overall stand productivity with reduced competition and adequate growing space Vigorous grass/forb/shrub understory communities, reduced noxious weed occurrence Insects and diseases at endemic levels Average fuel loading generally 10-30 tons per acre Average snag density generally 9-17 snags per acre Fire is restored to the area at 51-99 year FRI

18 Snag density DFC is based on the more restrictive of the following: 1) Lolo Forest Plan Appendix N (1986) or 2) empirical data observations of snags > 10” dbh in Roadless/Wilderness on the Lolo NF (Bollenbacher et al., 2009).

29

Cool-Moist (lethal) A mix of successional stages ranging from seedling/sapling, mature, and old-growth with

mature and old-growth stages comprising 50-70% of the area and less than 40% in the seedling/sapling stages

A mix of patch sizes varying between 10 and several hundred acres and an age/size class mosaic across the landscape

Predominant species are SAF, DF, WL, LP, ES 60-100 feet2 BA/Acre, <150 trees per acre Average fuel loading generally 10-30 tons per acre Average snag density generally 9-17 snags per acre

Cold-Dry (lethal). Predominant species are WBP, LP, ES, SAF with areas of WPB dominance A mix of patch sizes varying between 10 and several hundred acres and an age/size class

mosaic across the landscape Generally, stand density moderate between 60-120 feet2 BA/Acre, less than < 100 trees per

acre Average fuel loading generally 12-20 tons per acre Average snag density generally 10-19 snags per acre

Environmental Consequences Each alternative will be analyzed for its ability to meet the purpose and needs of the project as it relates to forest vegetation. The purpose and need items related to vegetation are:

1) Improve/restore forest composition, spatial arrangement, and structure, and 2) Restore fire-adapted ecosystems

To achieve the purpose and need, stand treatments were designed to: 1) reduce crown fire potential and restore fire as an ecological process focusing primarily on low intensity, high frequency and mixed severity fire regimes; and increased resilience to surface fire and bark beetles; 2) maintain or increase the species composition of fire-resistant shade-intolerant species (i.e., WL and PP); 3) design treatments to retain large diameter trees, old-growth, and create stand conditions that could provide large trees in the future, and; 4) provide for age class and species structural diversity to reduce vulnerability to stressors (fire, insects, and disease).

Description of Treatments Table 10. Vegetation Treatments in Alternatives B and C

Silvicultural Prescription Fuels Treatment Alternative B (acres)

Alternative C (acres)

Improvement Cut Lop and Scatter/yarding tops

35 0

Improvement Cut Prescribed Burning 852 0 Variable Retention Harvest Prescribed Burning 1,225 0

Regeneration Harvesting Site Prep for Planting or Natural Regeneration

54 0

30

Biomass/Small Tree Thinning Pile or Underburn 2,115 0 Small Tree Thinning Pile or Underburn 1,225 3,340

Rx fire – mixed severity or non-lethal fire regimes

Prescribed Burning 2,056 2,056

Rx fire – lethal fire regime Prescribed Burning 448 448 Total Acres Treated by Alternative 8,010 5,844

Small Tree Thinning (STT) in Non-Lethal Fire Regime Treatment would thin small diameter trees to a stocking of approximately 100 - 200 trees per acre favoring the most vigorous, dominant, and best-formed trees of desired species. Species composition consists of young PP, DF, and WL. Currently, there are > 500 trees per acre in areas where this treatment is proposed, and they are not of sufficient size to remove as biomass material. The treatment is designed to reduce stand density, enhance growth and vigor; reduce competition for sunlight, water, and nutrients; and modify stand conditions to lessen the risk of potential MPB-caused mortality and stand-replacing fire in the future (Figure 17). Treatment is also designed to promote irregular spacing, favor shade-intolerant species, and restore fire as a process through prescribed burning. In addition, limbs and tops of the fallen trees may be lopped and scattered to speed decomposition, promote nutrient cycling, and provide for soils improvement. Piling, either by hand or machine, and burning of piles or underburning would be completed in areas where the fuel loading is determined to be an unacceptable risk. Estimated canopy cover reduction is 30-40% (Figure 19). Invasive weeds would be treated along roadsides and in adjoining forest openings.

Biomass/Small Tree Thinning Treatments in Non-Lethal Fire Regime Similar to the STT this treatment is also proposed in young PP, DF, and WL stands. These sites fall predominately on acquired lands and are mostly in the WUI. Sites were intensively managed and treatment is designed to reduce stand density, enhance growth and vigor; reduce competition for sunlight, water, and nutrients; and modify stand conditions to lessen the risk of potential MPB-caused mortality and stand-replacing fire in the future. As with STT, treatment is designed to promote irregular spacing, favor shade-intolerant species, and restore fire as a process to these intensively managed areas.

Figure 17: Visual representation of small tree thinning. This treatment removes the smaller trees reducing competition for sunlight, water, and nutrients by reducing stand density.

31

Treatment would thin small diameter trees that would be felled to a stocking of approximately 100 - 200 trees per acre favoring the most vigorous, dominant and best-formed trees. Similarly to STT units there are currently > 500 trees per acre in these treatment types. Because trees on these sites are slightly older and larger than those on STT treatment sites there may be potential to utilize the biomass if a commercial market develops prior to or during the implementation of these activities (Figure 18). If removal of biomass is not economically feasible, limbs and tops of fallen trees would be lopped and scattered to speed decomposition, promote nutrient cycling, and provide for soils improvement. Piling, either by hand or machine, and burning of piles or underburning could be completed in areas where the fuel loading is determined to be an unacceptable risk. Estimated canopy cover reduction is 30-40% (Figure 19). Invasive weeds would be treated along roadsides and in adjoining forest openings.

Commercial Treatments in Non-Lethal Fire Regimes These sites are predominantly dense, mid to late-aged mixed conifer (western larch, Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine) low to mid-elevation forests on variety of terrain from relatively gentle to very steep. Overstory trees would be thinned to reduce stand density, create structural diversity, favor ponderosa pine and western larch, and increase vigor and resilience to insects and fire. Some trees would be removed from site as biomass or other wood products. The proposed treatments include: thinning and improvement cutting (removing trees to improve species composition and residual tree quality) and removal of individual dead, dying and diseased trees. Some silvicultural terms that can be used to identify these types of treatments include, but are not limited to: crown thinning, thinning from below, free-thinning, improvement cut, or single tree selection. The residual overstory may have some small openings. Understory density and ladder fuels would be reduced through thinning or slashing where necessary to facilitate prescribed burning and protect the overstory from crown fire. Biomass and slash disposal may include a variety of methods such as mechanical removal, mastication, hauling as sawlogs, biomass utilization, disposal on site, piling and burning, burning, or chipping. Individual treatments or a combination of treatments may occur. Sawlog removal would involve ground-based or skyline yarding. All thinning treatment types are meant to redistribute growth potential to fewer trees (Graham and others 1999) thereby increasing stand health, vigor, resistance, and resilience to stressors (i.e. fire, bark beetles). A combination of the following treatments may occur:

Crown thinning involves the removal of trees from the codominant and dominant canopy to create canopy gaps and reduce the risk of crown fire spread and maintain existing vertical structure.

Thinning from below (low thinning) involves removing trees from the lower part of the forest canopy, leaving the largest, healthiest trees to occupy the site. The treatment mimics the mortality caused by surface fire or inter-tree competition and concentrates the site resources to the largest, dominant trees. Thinning from below primarily removes

Figure 18: Bundles of small trees prepared for removal as biomass. When treated as a STT material would be lopped and scattered throughout stand to decompose naturally.

32

overtopped and intermediate trees, shorter trees that receive a limited amount of light (Graham and others 1999).

Free-thinning allows for flexibility to provide for structural diversity throughout a stand canopy. Free-thinning is common when species preference (PP, WL) is a primary objective and the trees are in a lower canopy position than less desired species (DF).

Improvement cutting removes specific tree species or trees with traits that are not desirable for a particular stand. It focuses on “improving” or altering species composition and/or stand structure.

Thinning and improvement cutting would be applied using either an average residual target basal area or average residual trees per acre in order to accomplish resource objectives. The target average residual basal area would range from 40 to 100 square feet per acre while average residual trees per acre would range from 30 to 100 trees per acre. This would equate to removing approximately 30 to 60% of the existing crown cover. Most of the trees that would be removed are from the intermediate and co-dominate crown classes with all or a portion of their crowns overtopped by larger dominant trees. Treatments are designed to favor ponderosa pine and western larch and reduce wildfire hazard over the long term by rendering stands more resilient to natural fire occurrence and disturbances. The residual stand would have a varied appearance with clumps, thinned areas, and small openings. Integrated weed treatments would continue in these areas.

Figure 19 Visual representation of canopy cover. For example: if a stand starts with 65% canopy cover and the prescribed treatment estimates the removal of approximately 30% of that cover the resulting canopy cover would resemble 35%.

Prescribed burning preceded by understory slashing or small tree thinning in Non-Lethal Fire Regimes Treatment is proposed on sites that were historically occupied by open to moderately open PP or PP and DF communities with an average fire frequency of 5 to 50 years (Fischer and Bradley 1987; Mehl and Haufler 2010). Presently, these sites support moderate to heavy understory vegetation with thickets of conifer encroachment below the main canopy. DF is the primary understory conifer species. Treatment may include slashing prior to fire application. Understory density and ladder fuels would be reduced through slashing/thinning to protect the overstory from scorch, torching, or crown fire where deemed necessary. Only small diameter (less than 8" dbh) trees would be cut. All slashing work would be accomplished by hand, using chainsaws. Slash would be treated by lopping and scattering tops and limbs, hand piling and burning, or

33

underburning. Estimated canopy cover reduction is 10-20% (Figure 19). Invasive weeds would be treated along roadsides, trails and within open forested sites or adjacent forest openings.

Variable Retention Harvesting (Franklin, et al., 2007) and Prescribed Fire in Mixed- Lethal19 Fire Regimes This treatment type is a commercial treatment. The Variable Retention Harvest (VRH) system selects the largest, oldest trees for retention to fulfill important ecological functions while creating

a heterogeneous pattern on the landscape less susceptible to large scale stand-replacing fire. These sites are predominantly dense, mid to late-aged mixed conifer (WL, DF, and LP) mid-to high-elevation forests on steep terrain. Mixed severity regimes can have a complex range of residual live trees following fire with some patches unburned, some patches underburned as with a low severity fire, to patches with the overstory canopy most or completely kill as with a high severity fire (Mehl and Haufler 2010). VRH embeds patches of no treatment (greater than 150 trees per acre retained), varying densities of thinned (50 – 150 trees per acre retained) patches, to patches where trees are retained in a dispersed pattern (12 – 30 trees per acre) across the larger treatment area. The most open areas would be located where insects or active root disease centers have caused mortality. The resulting openings (regeneration harvests) would be variable in size ranging from 5 to 40 acres in size. Even-aged Regeneration Harvests [16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)(3)(F)] are appropriate to meet the objectives and requirements of the Forest Plan. Prescribed fire would follow in most areas for the purposes of fuels reduction and site preparation for planting (PP & WL) in the lower density areas (12 – 30 trees per acre). Invasive weeds would be treated along roadsides, trails and within open forested sites or adjacent forest openings. Estimated canopy cover reduction is 30-50% (Figure 19).

Regeneration Harvest in Mixed Lethal Fire Regimes This is a commercial treatment type, proposed to leave 15-30 of the largest, best and most disease-resistant trees per acre to naturally regenerate these sites following harvest and prescribed burning. On this site fire suppression, on-going mortality due to root disease, and mountain pine beetle and Douglas-fir bark beetles have provided the opportunity to restore WL and PP. The insect and disease activity coupled with lack of natural fire has allowed shade-tolerant, disease susceptible DF to establish dense homogeneous patterns resulting in increased risk of large scale stand-replacing wildfires. The historic mixed fire regime had many intermediate intensity fires

19 Mixed-Lethal is synonymous with mixed-severity, but is intended to describe both mixed-severity A and B, as described by Mehl and Haufler 2010.

Figure 20: Mixed lethal fires burn with varying intensity across a landscape resulting in variable surviving tree densities (Black Cat Fire 2007).

34

with the resulting forest a contrast of patchworks dominated by multiple age classes from young seedlings to very old large trees (Mehl and Haufler 2010; Mehl and others 2012). The treatment’s purpose is to alter the trend toward dense shade-tolerant trees to the historically shade-intolerant species such as aspen, WL, and PP by creating conditions most favorable to their successful regeneration, establishment, and long-term perpetuation. The large mature trees retained on the sites would continue to contribute vertical diversity, wildlife habitat, coarse woody debris, and would eventually form a diverse two-storied stand as the newly established age class grows and matures. Estimated canopy cover reduction is 70% (Figure 19). Prescribed fire may be used as site preparation for natural or planted regeneration. Planting would occur where appropriate to establish species diversity and appropriate stocking. Even-aged Regeneration Harvests [16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)(3)(F)] are appropriate to meet the objectives and requirements of the Forest Plan.

Prescribed Burning in Stand-Replacing Fire Regimes Treatment may be preceded by understory slashing. Treatment would be a combination of low to moderate intensity surface fire with up to 100-acre spots that would likely burn at high intensity where surface fuels are heavy. This type of prescribed burning is proposed in mixed LP, SAF, and WBP forest types where there is significant mortality from MPB. Snags are currently in varying stages of deterioration, many of which have already fallen to the ground. Patches within the treatment area perimeters would actually be burned based on fuel conditions and burn objectives. Estimated live canopy cover reduction is 15-30% (Figure 19).

Comparison of Alternatives The purpose and need related to vegetation is to improve/restore forest composition, spatial arrangement, and structure, and to restore fire-adapted ecosystems. Each alternative was analyzed for its ability to address the following measures of success to meet the purpose and need: resilience, resistance, species composition, structure and function, and restoration of fire as a process.

The key issue related to forested vegetation in the Center Horse area is the need for healthy and resilient forests. Indicators of a properly functioning condition include a resilient ecosystem with diverse distribution of seral stages, with composition, structure, and pattern that is resilient to natural fire regimes, and insect and disease occurrence under current and future climates. Project design employs an adaptive approach to make adjustments in the application of historical conditions as a reference point. Flexibility is incorporated to address inherent uncertainty about the local effects of climate change by enhancing the resiliency and resistance of the forests, and specific aspects of structure, composition and function (Joyce et al., 2008; Millar et al., 2007).

Managing for resilient spatial pattern requires combining reference conditions with climate change adaptation (Churchill et al., 2013). Pre-settlement forests developed following centuries of frequent disturbances and climatic variation, and serve as a guide for managers to increase resilience yet must be considered in the context of future climates to provide targets for restoration (Keene et al., 2009; Spies et al., 2010; Stephens et al., 2010). Properly functioning systems can accommodate processes including fire, insects, disease, and climate change and provide a sustainable flow of ecosystem services whether or not those systems are within the historical range of variation. Gillette and others (2014) concluded that, “Managing for biologically diverse and resilient forests is our best and only long-term, sustainable response to a multitude of stressors – insects and disease outbreaks, fires that are unprecedented in severity, and drought – that are likely to increase in frequency as climate changes. In the case of bark beetles

35

and other stressors, this calls for greater, science-based use of silvicultural treatments that, paradoxically, require some tree mortality for the greater resilience of the entire forest.”

In summary, Alternative B would increase resilience to disturbances in the long-term as it favors shade-intolerant species, reduces stand density to increase resilience to fire and pathogens, restores fire, and addresses shifts in species composition, age class and structural diversity that have occurred at the landscape level in all structural stages. The treatment would: reduce density via stand thinning; use prescribed fire to modify fire behavior and restore function; and maximize the retention of large, fire-tolerant trees to restore and promote fire-resilient stands. Alternative C attempts to meet these objectives, but its effectiveness is limited to young stands and it would do very little to restore mature forests and nothing to restore or protect old-growth forests. Alternative C fails to meet most of these strategies across the most at-risk areas, and is ineffective at increasing resilience at the landscape scale. Alternative A meets none of these strategies and does not meet the purpose and need of the project.

Table 11: Effects indicators comparison.

Effects Indicator

Alternative A % of

Landscape

Alternative B % of Landscape

Alternative C % of Landscape

Low bark beetle hazard maintained or reduced to low from moderate 0

9% (5,471 acres)

6% (3,340 acres)

High bark beetle (i.e., DFB) hazard stands reduced to low or moderate hazard

0 2%

(1,465 acres)

0

Crown fire potential reduced from high to low or moderate 0

2% (1,465 acres)

0

Restore fire as a regulating process 0

13% (7,965 acres)

10% (5,844)

Increase percent composition of at-risk shade-intolerant species (PP, WL)

0 9%

(5,471 acres) 6%

(3,340 acres) Increase resistance and resilience of large PP and WL trees and old growth to fire and pathogens

0 2%

(1,465 acres)

0

Regeneration of root disease resistant species WL, PP, LP

0 1%

(up to 667)

0 Promote young PP, WL and increase age class diversity

0 7%

(4,007 acres) 6%

(3,340 acres)

Alternative A – No Action This alternative continues existing management policy within the Center Horse analysis area and serves as the baseline against which to compare the action alternatives. Figure 21 is a representative model of existing condition scenario on lands proposed for STT or Biomass/STT. In Table 12 measures used to evaluate change within each ecosite type are described.

36

Figure 21: A modeled representation of the existing conditions of units proposed for STT. Number of trees per acre is greater than 500.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Table 12: This table outlines the existing and desired conditions for each ecosite and the effects of Alternative A.

Ecosite Existing Conditions Desired Future Conditions

Effects of Alternative A

Hot-Dry/ Warm-Dry

Highly variable based on structural stage (i.e. sapling ≥ 500 TPA or mature ≥ 200 feet2 BA

40 - 100 BA, <100 trees per acre

Density changes due to regeneration or insect, disease, or wildfire mortality. In-growth would continue to contribute to ladder fuel accumulations. Moderate to high DFB hazard increasing. Continued mortality of large, old trees and root disease mortality widespread. MPB hazard increasing.

Approx. 15% the analysis area has burned and is within acceptable HRV

FRI < 25 years Maintain or increase the number of acres that are within FRI.

Areas would continue to accumulate fuel and produce in-growth of shade-tolerant ladder fuels.

Further departure from FRI within WUI increasing fire hazard and risk to adjacent lands and public and firefighter safety.

Moderate to high crown fire hazard and risk during moderate weather conditions

Less than 10% of area being at risk of crown fire during moderate weather conditions.

Crown fire potential would remain moderate to high or increase due to growth, shade-tolerant species dominance, mortality, and fuel accumulations

Species composition variable, generally >60% DF and <40% PP/WL

Species composition of 70-90% PP/WL and 10-30% DF

At risk PP and WL would continue to be lost with large, old relic trees the most vulnerable.

37

Ecosite Existing Conditions Desired Future Conditions

Effects of Alternative A

CWD highly variable CWD ranging from 5-25 tons/acre.

CWD would increase over time and remain above desired levels in the WUI.

Cool-Dry

>120 BA, frequently exceeding 200 BA

60-100 BA, < 150 trees per acre

Density-related mortality (insect, disease, wildfire) would continue or increase. Mortality of individual trees or entire stands may occur. Moderate to high DFB hazard increasing. Continued mortality of large, old trees and root disease mortality widespread.

Approx. 29% the analysis area has burned and is within acceptable HRV

FRI is 51 to 99 years As a mixed severity B fire regime, the burns would range from 51 - 89% severe with 11 - 49% low severity.

Severe fire would be expected on 90% of the landscape. Resilience and resistance to stressors (i.e. fire, insects, disease, climate change would remain low)

Crown fire potential is high and mortality due to high severity fire may be as high as 100%

Crown fire potential moderate (low to high). Mixed severity fire with generally less than 40% high severity.

Crown fire potential would remain high and high severity burns would likely occur across a larger area (e.g., 90%) leaving few residual large trees.

Estimated species composition: 60-80% DF 15-25% SAF/LP 15-20% PP and WL

Species composition is based on the (Mehl and others 2012) low-severity fire condition: 60-80% DF/WL/LP 10-20% PP 5-15% SAF

Continued shade-tolerant species dominance. At risk shade-intolerant species (PP. WL) would continue to decline across the ecosite and landscape.

CWD highly variable CWD ranging from 10-30 tons/acre.

CWD would continue to accumulate.

Cool-Moist

>120 BA, frequently exceeding 200 BA

60-100 BA, <150 TPA

Density-related mortality (insect, disease, wildfire) would continue or increase. Mortality of individual trees or entire stands may occur. Moderate to high DFB hazard increasing. Continued mortality of large, old trees and root disease mortality widespread.

Approx. 4% the analysis area has

FRI >100 years

Severe fire would be expected on 90% of the landscape.

38

Ecosite Existing Conditions Desired Future Conditions

Effects of Alternative A

burned and is within acceptable HRV

Maintain or reduce the high severity condition, so that lethal fire regimes would have mixed or low severity fire on up to 50% of the area. This would fall between the highest and lowest fire severities of HRV.

Resilience and resistance to stressors (i.e. fire, insects, disease, climate change would remain low)

Conditional and sustained crown fire is possible at low wind speeds (4-8 mph). Mortality due to crown fire would be 90% or more of the dominant and codominant trees.

Reduce the likelihood of both conditional and sustained crown fire, with a greater percent of the ecosite burning at low severity.

Crown fire potential would remain high and high severity burns would likely occur across a larger area (e.g., 90%) leaving few residual large trees.

Approx. species composition: 60-80% DF 15-25% SAF/LP 15-20% PP and WL

Species composition is based on the (Mehl and others 2012) low-severity fire condition: 60-80% DF/WL/LP 10-20% PP 5-15% SAF

Continued shade-tolerant species dominance. At risk shade-intolerant species (PP. WL) would continue to decline across the ecosite and landscape.

CWD highly variable

CWD 10-30 tons/acre

CWD would continue to accumulate.

Cold-Dry

>100 BA 60-120 BA, <100 TPA Density-related mortality (insect, disease, wildfire) would continue or increase.

FRI same as Cool-Moist

FRI same as Cool-Moist FRI same as Cool-Moist

Crown fire potential same as Cool-Moist

Crown fire potential same as Cool-Moist

Crown fire potential same as Cool-Moist

Majority WBP has died, few live mature trees remain. WBP regeneration scant or absent. LP MPB mortality high. SAF abundant.

WBP present and regenerating at highest elevation.

WBP presence in the area would continue to decline. SAF would persist and regenerate.

39

Ecosite Existing Conditions Desired Future Conditions

Effects of Alternative A

CWD 10-30 tons/acre CWD 12-20 tons/acre CWD would continue to accumulate due to MPB mortality.

Under No Action (Alternative A): Stands would continue on the current successional path toward shade-tolerant species

domination. In-growth of shade-tolerant species would increase ladder fuels and crown fire potential. The graph in Figure 22 displays that as trees grow in diameter they also generally grow in

height (i.e., the 18” trees are taller than the 12” trees). This graph also provides a “picture” of what the vertical canopy structure looks like throughout the stand – vertically continuous.

The FRI departure would increase, reducing the number of acres and percent of the landscape within the acceptable HRV range. Fires that start would be higher intensity and severity than historic conditions (Project File Item J5-25).

Where STT or Biomass/STT units are proposed in Alternative B and/or C, no action would: Increase MPB and WSB hazard. WSB activity would continue (Figure 23).

HZBTL = bark beetle hazard (MPB, WPB, DFB). BDWTSM = western spruce budworm hazard.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

20

40

60

80

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Live

TPA

by

Dia

met

er C

lass

Avg

Hei

ght b

y D

iam

eter

Cla

ss

Diameter Class 2015

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Live

TPA

by

DBH

Cla

ss

Avg

Hei

ght b

y D

BH C

lass

Diameter Class 2015

Figure 22 In general outcomes are the same through modeled year 2045. Calculated using FVS modeling based on representative stands on recently acquired lands.

40

Figure 23: These numbers were calculated using FVS modeling, based on data collected from representative stands (J5-25). Hazard ratings are 0 = No Host, 1= Low, 2 = Moderate, and 3 = High.

Where past harvest removed healthy well-formed trees (i.e. acquired lands) with desirable

traits and lower quality genetic trees remain, perpetuation of less desirable traits (forking, sweep, disease susceptibility) would continue reducing long-term productivity.

Without frequent low severity fire, stands would become multi-storied with DF in the over and understory. PP and WL would persist, but little to no new regeneration would establish and the presence of PP and WL would be reduced across the landscape over time (Figure 24).

In the graphs it may appear as though PP is increasing; however, if you look at the average numbers, shown in Table 13, all species except DF are relatively consistent in their presence on the landscape. DF varies drastically with swings in regeneration establishment and regeneration survival over time.

Canopy cover ranges from 55-80% in these stands. Canopy cover would continue to fluctuate over time, although it is unlikely to decline below this level without disturbance. As more small trees establish and stands grow, the amount of ladder fuels and crown continuity would increase. Dense canopy cover would inhibit the establishment of shade-intolerant species (PP and WL) and would increase fire and bark beetle hazard.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

2015 2025 2035 2045

Hazard Rating

HZBTL

BDWTSM

41

Figure 24: Species Composition. The average percent of tree species per acre over time with no treatment, where STT and/or Biomass/STT units are proposed. These numbers were calculated using FVS modeling, based on data collected from representative stands (Project File Item J5-25).

Table 13: Trees per acre estimates over 30 years (Project File Item J5-25).

Year

Species/TPA 2015 2025 2035 2045WL 2 2 5 4PP 179 162 165 144LP 0 0 10 6DF 1024 835 1175 608

Total TPA by Year 1205 999 1355 762

Where harvest is proposed (Alternative B) under no action: Douglas-fir and other shade-tolerant species would continue to develop in the understory

creating ladder fuels and perpetuating root disease. This condition combined with fuel loading from mortality would pose a hazard to adjacent lands in the event of a wildfire.

Ongoing mortality from root disease and insect attack would continue. The remaining overstory would remain highly vulnerable to stressors including, insects, fire, and disease.

Mistletoe and root disease would be perpetuated infecting residual trees and regeneration. Healthy western larch or ponderosa pine would not be favored, regenerated and would likely

decline and potentially be lost from sites over time (on susceptible sites). Diseased, suppressed, unfavorable, unhealthy trees would be retained on-site reducing stand

productivity and perpetuating diseased, dysgenic stands over time. Desirable individuals, at-risk species, large trees and old-growth would remain at risk from

competition, insect or disease attack, and wildfire. Bark beetle hazard (DFB) and outbreak potential would remain high. DFB outbreaks

typically last 2-4 years with beetles killing groups of up to several hundred large-diameter Douglas-fir on susceptible sites.

Resilience and resistance would remain low.

<1%

84%

16%WL

DF

PP

2025

<1%

85%

15%WL

DF

PP

2015

<1%

87%

1%12%

WL

DF

LP

PP

2035

<1%

80%

1%19%

WL

DF

LP

PP

2045

42

Figure 25: The average percent tree species per acre over time with no treatment, where commercial treatments are proposed. Species composition remains relatively constant over time. These numbers were calculated using FVS modeling, based on data collected from representative stands (Project File Item J5-25).

Where prescribed burning is proposed (Alternative B or C) under no action: Stands would continue to accumulate down woody debris and have in-growth of ladder fuels. Cold-Dry/Cool-Moist Ecosites: a stand-replacing fire regime would continue or the potential

for stand-replacing events would increase. Without fire, WBP populations would continue to decline.

Cool-Dry Ecosites (mixed severity fire regime): departure from the FRI would increase and potential for stand-replacing events increase.

Hot-Dry/Warm-Dry Ecosite (non-lethal fire regime): 1) continued loss of shade-intolerant species across the landscape, 2) further departed from the HRV for FRI.

Cumulative Effects There is no cumulative effect on no action. The current trend of increasing susceptibility to wildfire, insects, disease; and loss of large trees, old-growth and shade intolerant species would continue. Disease would continue to infect susceptible trees and regeneration. Fire, insect activity, and disease would reduce stands ability to resist certain weather events. Wind events would cause blowdown of residual live trees. Climate change models predict a continued warming trend increasing stress complexes over time (Vose and others 2012).

Summary: Alternative A would NOT: Restore vegetation to reflect historic conditions or increase ecological resilience to

uncharacteristically large and intense disturbances. Restore structure, composition, and function nearer the HRV. Provide direct improvement to maintain, enhance, or establish “species-at-risk” (i.e., WL, PP,

WBP).

68%1%

19%

1%11%

DF

ES

SAF

PP

WL

2015

70%1%

17%

1%11%

DF

ES

SAF

PP

WL

2025

71%1%

14%

1%11% 2%

DF

ES

SAF

PP

WL

GF/LP

2035

74%

1%13%

1%10% 1%

DF

ES

SAF

PP

WL

GF/LP

2045

43

Reduce bark beetle hazard. Protect large trees or old-growth or increase resistance or resilience to stressors. Reduce fuel loading, crown fire potential, or wildland fire risk. Reduce ladder and crown fuel conditions or reduce risk of sustained, and uncharacteristic

crown fires within the low to mid elevation PP, DF, and WL forests. Increase resistance or resilience to subsequent disturbances including as wildfire and bark

beetle infestation. Alternative A WOULD: Maintain or increase the levels of root and butt rots throughout the stands. Perpetuate regeneration of disease susceptible species, particularly within disease centers. Retain large trees within the analysis area; however, trees are apt to be lost over time to bark

beetle mortality, disease, competition, or fire. Increase landscape instability due to continued loss of ecological resilience. Spruce budworm is likely to cause continued damage and mortality in the future.

Alternative B Alternative B would treat up to 13% of the analysis area by: small tree thinning, biomass/STT, regeneration harvest, improvement cutting, variable retention harvesting, and prescribed burning.

Within FRI means that the area has burned at some point during the time period and the years between historic burns reset. As an example, in Cool-Dry, 66 acres last burned in 1919, which is 96 years ago. At 96 years this area is currently within it FRI time period and could generally re-burn relatively soon.

Direct and Indirect Effects Table 14: Existing and desired conditions for each ecosite type and the effects of Alternative B on measures used to evaluate change within the ecosite.

Ecosite Existing Conditions Desired Future

Conditions Effects of Alternative B

Hot-Dry/ Warm-Dry

Highly variable based on structural stage (i.e. sapling ≥ 500 TPA or mature ≥ 200 feet2 BA/acre

<150 TPA Or < 100 BA

Density would be reduced lowering vulnerability to stressors. Bark beetle hazard and WSB hazard would be reduced. At-risk root disease resistant species (WL, PP) would be favored. Large, old trees and old growth resistance would increase.

Approx. 15% of the analysis area has burned and is within acceptable HRV.

FRI < 25 years Maintain or increase the number of acres that are within FRI.

Approximately 50% of this ecosite type across the landscape would be within FRI.

All treated areas would be within the FRI timeframe reducing fire hazard and risk

44

Ecosite Existing Conditions Desired Future Conditions

Effects of Alternative B

to adjacent lands and public and firefighter safety.

Moderate to high crown fire hazard and risk during moderate weather conditions

Less than 10% of area being at risk of crown fire during moderate weather conditions.

The crown fire potential would be reduced by reducing crown density (i.e., crown thinning) for the full temporal period. Crown fire potential would be reduced to low or moderate. Surface fuel loading would be reduced.

Species composition variable, generally >60% DF and <40% PP/WL

Species composition of 70-90% PP/WL and 10-30% DF

The proportion of PP and WL would increase. Open canopies would provide site conditions for recruitment and establishment of PP and WL. At risk PP and WL would be featured and vulnerability of large, old relic trees to stressors lowered.

CWD highly variable CWD ranging from 5-25 tons/acre.

CWD would range from 5-25 tons/acre where available

Cool-Dry

>120 BA, frequently exceeding 200 BA

60-10 BA, < 150 trees per acre

Density-related mortality (insect, disease, wildfire) would be reduced, DFB hazard lowered, and impacts of root disease reduced.

Approx. 20% of the analysis area has burned and is within acceptable HRV.

FRI is 51 to 99 years As a mixed severity B fire regime, the burns would range from 51 - 89% severe with 11 - 49% low severity.

Stands densities would be reduced providing stand and landscape variation likely resulting in both low and high severity fire. Historical amounts of low severity fire were 11-49%, the treatment would increase the amount of low severity conditions on the landscape. Resilience and resistance to stressors (i.e. fire, insects, disease, climate change would increase)

Crown fire potential is high and mortality due to high severity

Crown fire potential moderate (low to high). Mixed severity fire with

Crown fire potential would be reduced in treatment units by increasing spacing between

45

Ecosite Existing Conditions Desired Future Conditions

Effects of Alternative B

fire may be as high as 100%

generally less than 40% high severity.

trees and reducing crown density and closure. After treatment, stands would have a reduced capacity to sustain a crown fire.

Estimated species composition: 60-80% DF 15-25% SAF/LP 15-20% PP and WL

Species composition is based on the (Mehl and others 2012) low-severity fire condition: 60-80% DF/WL/LP 10-20% PP 5-15% SAF

Mortality-caused openings would be available for establishment of shade-intolerant species. Shade-intolerant species would be present and regenerating in both the under and overstory.

CWD highly variable CWD ranging from 10-30 tons/acre.

CWD would range from 10-30 tons/acre where available.

Cool-Moist

>120 BA, frequently exceeding 200 BA

60-100 BA, <150 TPA

Density-related mortality (insect, disease, wildfire) would decrease. DFB hazard would be lowered and root disease impacts reduced.

Approx. 4% of the analysis area has burned and is within acceptable HRV.

FRI >100 years Maintain or reduce the high severity condition, so that lethal fire regimes would have mixed or low severity fire on up to 50% of the area. This would fall between the highest and lowest fire severities of HRV.

Would return fire to the landscape, reduce the area currently susceptible to lethal fires, and reinitiate the FRI timeframe on the landscape.

Conditional and sustained crown fire is possible at low windspeeds (4-8 mph). Mortality due to crown fire would be 90% or more of the dominant and codominant trees.

Reduce the likelihood of both conditional and sustained crown fire, with a greater percent of the ecosite burning at low severity.

Treatment would reduce the amount of ladder and surface fuels and crown density. Reductions would increase the wind speeds and crown fuels necessary to support and/or sustain a crown fire.

Approx. species composition: 60-80% DF 15-25% SAF/LP 15-20% PP and WL

Species composition is based on the (Mehl and others 2012) low-severity fire condition: 60-80% DF/WL/LP 10-20% PP

In stands that are open, shade-intolerant species would be able to seed and establish. Shade-tolerant species would continue to establish in the understory. Species

46

Ecosite Existing Conditions Desired Future Conditions

Effects of Alternative B

5-15% SAF composition would become more diverse.

CWD highly variable

CWD 10-30 tons/acre

CWD would be maintained on site at 10-30 tons/acre where available.

Cold-Dry

>100 BA 60-120 BA, <100 TPA Density-related mortality (insect, disease, wildfire) would decline.

FRI same as Cool-Moist

FRI same as Cool-Moist FRI same as Cool-Moist

Crown fire potential same as Cool-Moist

Crown fire potential same as Cool-Moist

Crown fire potential same as Cool-Moist

Majority WBP has died, few live mature trees remain. WBP regeneration scant or absent. LP MPB mortality high. SAF abundant.

WBP present and regenerating at highest elevation.

WBP regeneration may be stimulated; would be dependent on current cone producing population in units or flight distance to nearest cone producing population and nutcracker dispersal, and amount of area cleared by treatment. Other species in the overstory and understory would experience mortality, but would recover. Species diversity and regeneration would remain. Stand structure would be altered in areas with the most intense burns.

CWD highly variable CWD 12-20 tons/acre CWD 12-20 tons/acre would be retained where available

Small Tree Thinning and Biomass/STT

Measurement Indicators – Resilience and Function, Species Composition, and Structure Alternative B would enhance growth and vigor; reduce competition for sunlight, water, and nutrients; and modify stand conditions to lessen the risk of potential MPB-caused mortality and stand-replacing fire on approximately 3,340 aces, 5.5% of the landscape. Small diameter sub-merchantable trees would be felled to a stocking of approximately 100 - 200 trees per acre favoring the most vigorous, dominant and best-formed trees. Western larch and ponderosa pine would be favored. Long-term fire hazard and tree mortality from insects and diseases would be lowered as a result of this treatment. Low density canopies are less prone to rapidly spreading crown fires than very dense canopies (Graham et al., 2004). Growth rates would accelerate

47

increasing the diameter of residual stems (Figure 26). The genetic quality of the residual stands would be improved by selecting residual trees based on phenotypic qualities

Figure 26: This displays that even though the number of trees on site is reduced by treatment the Quadratic Mean Diameter (QMD), or average diameter, of the treated area increases. At the same time, BA also decreases improving the stands resilience to bark beetle infestation.

Surface fuel loading would increase in the short term due to slash accumulations; however, existing fuel loading levels are low since as some sites were dozer-piled following past harvest. In addition, fuels would be treated by lopping and scattering tops and limbs to speed decomposition. Hand piling and burning piles or underburning would be completed in areas where the fuel loading is determined to be an unacceptable risk. Application of fire would return the stand to a more natural FRI, or historic range, and restore the fire as a regulating process on the landscape. Additionally, treatments are designed to reduce wildfire hazard over the long term by rendering stands more resilient to natural fire and ecosystem processes. The treatment would increase stand resilience to disturbance in the long term and favor shade-intolerant species addressing shifts in species competition that have occurred at the landscape scale and reducing long-term impact from root disease.

Where biomass removal is proposed, the treatment would remove larger trees to a wider spacing to accommodate machinery reducing bark beetle hazard for a longer period of time. Trees greater than 8” and susceptible to attack would be thinned in addition to small trees. Biomass would be removed off-site reducing likelihood for Ips buildup in slash, and reducing the short-term fuels loading hazard associated with STT. Treatment would favor PP and WL and incorporate irregular spacing and structural diversity by retaining trees with the best form health and vigor.

37%

53%

5% 5%

DF

PP

WL

LP

2025

85%

15%

<1%

DF

PP

WL

2015

40%

49%

6% 5%

DF

PP

WL

LP

2035

29%

63%

3% 5%

DF

PP

WL

LP

2045

Figure 27 Average species composition with treatment based on FVS modeling of representative stands (J5-25).

3.86.5 6.5 7.75

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0

20

40

60

80

100

2015 2025 2035 2045

Average

 TPA

QMD & BA / Acre

BA/acre

QMD/acre

Average TPA

48

Improvement Cut

Measurement Indicators – Resilience and Function, Species Composition, and Structure Alternative B would increase the resilience of ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir and mixed conifer (western larch, Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine) forested communities. Density reductions would favor ponderosa pine, western larch and the largest, healthiest and dominant residual trees rendering them less prone to insect or disease attack and reduce risk to stand-destroying wildfire (Graham et al., 1999). Treatments would leave fewer trees, removing mostly DF, reduce ladder fuels, and break up crown continuity. Irregular spacing and structural diversity improve the structure of the stand. FVS modeling results indicate canopy bulk density would be reduced to less than 0.10 kg m-3 (Project File Item J5-25). Thinning below this level has been recommended to reduce the likelihood of crown fire occurrence (Agee, 1996; Graham et al., 1999). Low density canopies are less prone to rapidly spreading crown fires than very dense canopies (Graham et al., 2004). The residual trees would be larger, have thicker bark, and higher crown heights making them more fire-resistant. These treatments would result in reduced potential for crown fire occurrence and less severe effects (Pollet and Omi, 2002). Stand structures would be altered to more closely mimic historic conditions that can reduce beetle depredations in the near term and the likelihood of damaging outbreaks in future years.

Fuel loading reductions would reduce fire hazard. Existing surface fuel loading and activity fuels would be reduced though consumption or removal to acceptable levels through yarding and/or prescribed fire (Project File Item J5-25). Reducing surface fuel amounts through prescribed fire and mechanical means reduces the risk that the overstory would ignite in a wildfire (Graham et al., 2004). Understory density and ladder fuels would be reduced through slashing or small tree non-commercial thinning where necessary to facilitate prescribed burning and protect the overstory from crowning). Mechanical thinning and fuel treatments have been shown to reduce fire severity and crown scorch (Pollet and Omi, 2002). Prescribed fire would be applied through underburning, jackpot burning, or piling and burning. Fire reintroduction would mimic natural processes and move sites towards the desired future condition and increase their resilience to fire in the future. Burning may exacerbate stress complexes including root disease and bark beetles resulting in high levels of unintended mortality post-burning (Lockman and Steed 2011).

A mix of species and age classes would provide a more resilient system to insect and disease outbreaks. Resistance to root disease would be enhanced by favoring resistant shade-intolerant species (ponderosa pine, western larch). Suppressed, unfavorable, unhealthy trees would be removed in favor of healthy dominant and codominant residuals ensuring long-term stand productivity. Dwarf mistletoe infection would be reduced. Increasing vigor through reductions in density and competition would reduce Douglas-fir, MPB, and western pine beetle hazard.

The QMD would be markedly increased, as treatments would favor the healthiest and largest diameter ponderosa pine and western larch trees. Large diameter WL and PP trees would be retained on the landscape longer than under Alternatives A or C as they would have increased growing space, increasing their resilience to insects, disease attack and stand-replacing wildfire. A key element of restoration and resilience involves retaining large, fire-tolerant trees (Agee and Skinner, 2005; Hessburg and Agee, 2003; Taylor and Skinner, 2003). Conversely, diameter limits, without the flexibility for young tree establishment or in-stand age class variation and heterogeneity may actually conflict with restoration of spatial patterns and other objectives (Churchhill et al., 2013; Abella et al.; 2007; North et al., 2007).

49

Additionally, Alternative B would reduce wildfire hazard over the long-term (20-30 years) by increasing resistance and resilience to fire and ecosystem processes. Changes attributable to fire-induced mortality, bark beetle predation, and natural disturbances result in greater pattern variation and the creation of clumps, openings and regeneration over time and Alternative B provide such heterogeneity (Churchill et al., 2013). Stand-based average BA and spacing based silvicultural prescriptions, especially over contiguous stands, do not restore the variation and pattern that existed when frequent fire occurred (Churchill et al., 2013). Under Alternative B the prescriptions would thin stands to a target average of 50-100 square feet BA per acre, but provide a greater density range across the stand (20-120 variance), and retain clumps of regeneration and small openings that are important elements of restoration and resilience (Churchill et al., 2013). Spatial heterogeneity at multiple scales, in addition to forest structure and composition, are essential to ecosystem resilience and varying the BA throughout the stand, coupled with prescribed fire mortality would provide a more resilient forest (Levin 1998, Mortitz et al. 2011, North et al. 2009, Stephens et al. 2008). Fine-scale mosaic pattern is considered a key component of resilience in dry forest ecosystems (Churchill et al., 2013; Binkley et al., 2007; Stephens et al., 2010; Stephens et al., 2008). Irregular patterns created by groups, clumps, openings and variation in fuels and canopy can reduce the potential and spread of crown fire (this pattern is analogous to strategically placed fuel treatments at the landscape scale) (Finney et al., 2007).

Frequent disturbances create openings for tree regeneration leading to local genetic diversity. Openings create variations in moisture, light, and nutrient environments increasing understory plant diversity (Dodson et al., 2008; Moore et al., 2006). Where openings are created, reforesting with species tolerant to low soil moisture and high temperature using a variety of genotypes under an uneven-aged management regime creates conditions that are more resistant and resilient in a changing climate (Joyce et al., 2008). The treatment would increase the distribution of western larch and ponderosa pine (at-risk species) within the landscape though favoring all ages of development across the landscape. Prescribed fire application would emulate natural processes, stimulating forage production, creating microsites for natural regeneration, and increased resilience to fire in the future. Restoring fire as a process would contribute to landscape-scale age class and structural diversity; perpetuate landscape-scale natural diversity of plant communities; and restore sites with disease-resistant species adapted to current and future climates.

Pathogens – Diseases

Root Diseases

Douglas-fir is quite susceptible to Armillaria and partial cutting may intensify root disease infection (Wargo and Harrington, 1991). Armillaria ostoyae causes tree mortality that ranges from diffuse to extensive with Douglas-fir and true firs being the most susceptible with major growth losses (Klopfenstein et al., 2009). Under current and future climates it is likely that the impacts of Armillaria root disease will increase significantly (Klopfenstein et al., 2009). Sturrock and others (2011) concluded that incidence of Armillaria root disease is likely to increase as temperatures increase and precipitation decreases (Shaw & Kile, 1991; US Office of Technology Assessment, 1993; La Porta et al., 2008; Klopfenstein et al., 2009). Klopfenstein et al. (2009) demonstrated that climates that support Douglas-fir persistence in the interior northwest, are likely to decrease by 2060, and suggests stressed Douglas-fir will also be more susceptible to Armillaria root disease. In the interior northwest, spread of Armallaria ostoyae occurs mostly through root-to-root contact and by rhizomorphs, with limited basiodiospore infection (USDA Forest Service, 1991, page 117, Wargo and Shaw, 1985). Therefore, infections will spread only a short distance from the edge of a root-disease center, via root to root contact, or by rhizomorphs traveling a short distance.

50

The presence of schweinitzii coupled with high density levels can weaken trees and result in subsequent DFB attack. Treatments are designed to reduce losses to P. schweinitzii and bark beetles. Increasing the vigor of root rot infected trees allows for more adventitous root development to compensate for some loss of main root system due to root rot (Lockman, personal communication). Commercial treatments in Alternative B are designed to reduce BA enough to reduce susceptibility to bark beetle attack while making efforts to avoid opening stands excessively which could predispose root rot infected trees to windthrow. The treatments would favor shade-intolerant species through thinning. This is one of the most effective ways to reduce losses to root disease on infected sites (Hagle and Goheen, 1988).

Annosus root disease has not been confirmed within the analysis area, but its presence is suspected. To ameliorate the potential for spread of the disease, susceptible ponderosa pine stumps greater than twelve inches in diameter would be treated with Sporax under Alternative B to prevent spread of Annosus.

Dwarf Mistletoe

Targeting the removal of trees infected with dwarf mistletoe would reduce the amount of infection within stands as well as any ensuing regeneration. Commercial treatments in Alternative B would remove western larch, Douglas-fir, and lodgepole pine that are infected with dwarf mistletoe. This would greatly reduce the incidence of this pathogen within stands, while reducing the likelihood of bark beetle attack, resulting in much healthier stands.

Pathogens-Insects

Bark Beetles

Examination of the best science available supports the idea that thinning through silvicultural management as proposed in Alternative B would reduce susceptibility to bark beetle attack. As has become commonplace, the term “thinning” is in reference to partial cuttings (i.e., improvement cutting) to reduce the number of stems or density within a forest stand (Graham et al., 1999). All harvesting treatments under Alternative B would “thin” stands to different levels using a variety of silvicultural approaches.

Attributes that are consistently linked as primary factors associated with bark beetle infestations are high stand density, BA, stand density index, tree diameter and host density (Fettig et al, 2007). Since the late 1970s, entomologists have emphasized the altering of stand conditions, through silvicultural means, to ones less susceptible to bark beetle depredations (Amman, et al 1977; Fettig et al., 2014b; McGregor et al, 1985; McGregor et al, 1987; Shore and Safranyik, 1992; Shore and Safranyik, 2000; Schmid et al, 1994). This technique is in contrast to bark beetle “control,” in which efforts are expended to kill as many beetles as possible in order to “halt” an outbreak. Direct control is not the purpose or goal of any treatments proposed in the Center Horse project. Rather, silvicultural commercial thinning treatments in Alternative B are intended to enhance the vigor of trees and stands to make them less susceptible to insect attack. This approach provides long-term benefits in reducing beetle depredations; it is not a “quick fix.”

Recently, Six et al. (2014) questioned whether relevant science supports MPB “outbreak suppression”. “Outbreak suppression” is not the intent or objective of the Center Horse project, nor the management strategies implemented for MPB on NFS lands in the western United States as suggested by the paper (Egan et al., 2014; Fettig et al., 2014b).

51

Notably, warmer temperatures associated with climate change facilitate bark beetle outbreaks in two primary ways: (1) drought stress makes trees more vulnerable to attack, and; (2) populations of bark beetles can speed up their reproductive cycles potentially leading to more frequent generations (Joyce et al., 2008). Drought-induced stress reduces the number of beetles necessary for a successful mass attack, relaxing the conditions necessary for a bark beetle outbreak to occur (Bentz et al., 2010). Nonetheless, bark beetle response to climate change is highly complex and uncertain as bark beetle populations, community associates, and host trees are influenced by changes in temperature (Bentz et al., 2010).

Numerous studies demonstrate increased susceptibility to various bark beetles with increasing stand densities in a variety of conifer forests. Fettig and others (2014b) established that thinning reduces levels of ponderosa pine mortality attributable to MPB with areas of lowest tree density having less tree mortality often on both a numerical and proportional basis. In ponderosa pine, studies report increased susceptibility to MPB with increased stocking (Olsen et al., 1996; Negron and Popp, 2004). Schmid and others (1992, 1994) observed reduced mortality in partial cut stands after long-term monitoring of thinned plots. Studies in the southwest have documented ponderosa pine forests with increased tree densities resulting in eruptions of insect outbreaks (Covington and Moore, 1994). Restoration efforts in these forests have focused on reducing stand density and prescribed burning. Numerous studies with Dendroctonus bark beetles have shown that thinning can dramatically reduce bark beetle mortality through increases in tree vigor or changes in microclimate or both (Amman et al. 1988, 1988b; Cole et al. 1983; McGregor et al. 1987; Schmid and Mata, 2005; Schmid and Mata 1992; Amman and Logan 1998; Bartos 1988; Bartos and Amman 1989, Schmid et al., 2007; Fettig et al., 2007; Fettig et al., 2014; Whitehead and Russo, 2005; Whitehead et al., 2007).

Through silvicultural manipulations (i.e., thinning to reduce density) treatments can reduce the hazard of a stand and reduce the potential for mortality from DFB. Negron et al. (1999) established that higher stand density results in higher stand mortality due to the DFB. Negron and others (1999) also pointed out that the relationship between Douglas-fir BA and subsequent mortality is consistent with other studies for other bark beetle species. The data confirm that mortality levels associated with DFB, as with other bark beetles, are an indication of stand stress caused by overstocking (Negron et al. 1999). The relationship of BA and bark beetle mortality has also been shown to hold true at fine scales within stands. The clumped nature of DFB-caused mortality may be explained by pockets of high BA within a stand (Negron et al. 2001). Managing stands to reduce susceptibility to DFB may not be compatible with resource objectives that require the preservation of clumps with high BA (Negron et al. 2001).

Scientific evidence and examination of the best science available support the idea that thinning through silvicultural management reduces susceptibility to Dendroctonus bark beetles. Beetle activity is present within many of the units included in the action alternatives. Commercial treatments would remove infested trees, reduce density to at least below 120 square feet of BA and increase resilience to attack by freeing up growing space by reducing competition for sunlight, water, and nutrients. Treatments would reduce stand density leaving the best trees rendering them more resilient to bark beetle attack through increases in tree vigor or changes in microclimate or both (Amman et al., 1988, 1988b; Cole et al., 1983; McGregor et al,. 1987; Schmid and Mata, 1992; Amman and Logan, 1988; Bartos, 1988; Bartos and Amman, 1989). Thinning also increases growth rates and individual tree vigor by reducing competition of sunlight, water, nutrients, and allowing for increased growing space.

52

Douglas-fir Bark Beetle

Given the amount of susceptible Douglas-fir in the area; “prevention” remains the most effective means of reducing beetle-caused mortality. The most effective long-term strategy, for any land manager faced with potential bark beetle outbreaks, is the implementation of hazard-reduction techniques in susceptible host stands. Stands that are managed to more closely mimic historic stocking conditions are much less likely to be infested by bark beetles than densely stocked ones. Silvicultural means attempting to restore that balance can reduce beetle depredations and the likelihood of damaging outbreaks in future years (Gibson 2005). The treatments would reduce the hazard rating for DFB from high (3) to moderate (2) or low (1) depending on the on amount of residual stand composed of susceptible species (Lockman and Steed 2011) (Figure 30)

DFB outbreaks develop in susceptible hosts following disturbances such as windthrow, fire, drought, or severe defoliation. Epidemics, though typically short-lived, may devastate overstocked stands of larger-diameter, older Douglas-fir before subsiding (Schmitz and Gibson, 1996). Actions in Alternative B would consider the root disease, WSB, and DFB hazard situation on each site and prescribed burning and harvest silvicultural prescriptions would addresses the potential to exacerbate these stress complexes and alter treatments accordingly (i.e., removal of DF, no burning, hand pile and burning). Where management objectives and other resource considerations permit, removing larger, older DF from susceptible stands would significantly reduce future mortality in those and adjacent stands.

The greatest benefits in dealing with potential Douglas-fir beetle infestations are derived from efforts aimed at preventing outbreaks rather than suppressing them (Schmitz and Gibson, 1996). To the extent possible, susceptible stands should be identified and conditions altered to make them less so, prior to some type of stand disturbance, which may trigger an outbreak. Likewise, disturbances--such as blowdown (other common ones are defoliation, drought, and fire damage)--should be ameliorated as quickly as possible. In that way, beetle-caused mortality may not exceed acceptable levels. In the event DFB populations increase in response to treatments. The following activities may occur:

Pheromone baited funnel traps have been used to successfully "trap out" small, isolated populations of beetles. Traps, placed in clusters of 3-5, near infested groups of trees, would be sufficient to trap most emerging beetles from small, isolated spots. They need to be installed by about mid-April; and emptied weekly for 6-8 weeks, or until catches subside.

For reducing beetle attacks in high-value areas, use of the Douglas-fir beetle anti-aggregant, methylcyclohexanone (MCH). MCH bubble capsules may be used at a rate of 30 per acre—or 2 to 3 capsules per tree for individual-tree protection. MCH very effectively reduces beetle-caused mortality in Douglas-fir stands threatened by beetles (Ross et al 2001).

Spruce Budworm

Silvicultural treatments that reduce stocking density and the number of canopy layers, and increase individual tree vigor and species composition are the only long-term solution to budworm management (Sturdevant, personal communication). Treatments would reduce small diameter Douglas-fir and effectively reduce canopy layering in young and multi-storied stands to reduce impacts of spruce budworm. Alternative B would be the most effective across the landscape at reducing impacts and provide the only long-term solution to budworm management.

53

Figure 28 Comparison of the existing condition of a stand to when an improvement cut is applied to the same stand.

Improvement Cut and Variable Retention Harvest The effects of combining multiple treatments (e.g., seed tree, shelterwood, improvement cut) per unit would be the same as discussed above for improvement cutting and as below for VRH regeneration for the portion of the unit treated as such.

Regeneration and Variable Retention Harvest (Regeneration)

Measurement Indicators – Resilience and Function, Species Composition, and Structure The distribution of western larch and ponderosa pine, at-risk species, would increase on the landscape through natural regeneration or planting. A mix of species and age classes would provide a system more resilient to insect and disease outbreaks. Suppressed, unfavorable, unhealthy trees would be removed in favor of healthy dominant and codominant residuals to facilitate seedling establishment and ensure long-term stand productivity. Reforestation of fire, drought, and disease-resistant species like ponderosa pine would provide increased resistance and resilience to potential future drought and wildfire that may be associated with a changing climate (Joyce et al., 2008). Existing surface fuel loading and activity fuels would be reduced through consumption or removal to acceptable levels through yarding and/or prescribed fire. Reducing surface fuel amounts through prescribed fire and mechanical means reduces the risk that the overstory would ignite in a wildfire (Graham et al., 2004). This would create conditions conducive to forest regeneration by providing site preparation for planting and natural regeneration. These sites would be reforested within five years of harvest with disease-resistant species. Planting is the only reasonable course of action to restore genetic diversity and ecosystem function in cases where areas of cone-bearing donors for desirable natural regeneration are scant or absent. The planting program in the Northern Region relies on the most sophisticated seed transfer guidelines for conifers, modeling patterns of genetic variation in adaptive traits in three dimensions to capture patterns of variability and adaptation. Reforestation with desired species composition and stocking levels would ensure the productivity of the sites and enhance ecosystem resilience and sustainability.

Root disease severity is dependent on species present. Restoring ponderosa pine and western larch on sites would reduce the impacts of Armillaria (Hagle and Goheen, 1988). Armillaria is not a primary pathogen of mature ponderosa pine or western larch. Regenerating these sites to a

148 141 134126

13 14 19 22

94 88 83

15 19 240

5

10

15

20

25

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2015 2025 2035 2045

QMD In

  Inches

Trees Per Acre

Year

EC TPA > 10"

EC TPA >20"

TPA > 10" with Treatment

TPA > 20" with Treatment

EC QMD > 10"

TRMT QMD >10"

54

root disease-susceptible species, then the severity of root disease will likely increase (i.e., Douglas-fir). Conversely, if the site has been regenerated to a root disease-resistant species, the severity of the disease will likely be lessened over time. Establishing and favoring ponderosa pine and western larch can reduce losses to root diseases (Hagle and Goheen, 1988). Where Armillaria is identified within the proposed treatments, ponderosa pine and western larch of a variety of age classes, where available, would be featured. This is the most frequently used approach to managing root disease problems in western North America (USDA Forest Service, 1991, p155).

Targeting the removal of trees infected with dwarf mistletoe would reduce the amount of infection within stands as well as any ensuing regeneration. Commercial treatments in Alternative B would remove western larch, Douglas-fir, and lodgepole that are infected with dwarf mistletoe. This would greatly reduce the incidence of this pathogen within stands and reduce the spread to tree regeneration.

Shelterwood or seed tree cuts are regeneration harvest systems, which would create openings no larger than 40 acres, would retain 12-30 of the largest healthiest trees on site (approximately 15-40 BA), and would primarily be located in disease centers or areas of high insect mortality.

Figure 29: This graph provides a representative view of what would occur in a unit that was treated with a VRH. Even though the number of trees on site is reduced the BA continues to grow, fewer trees with an increasing stand BA indicates growth. The stand QMD appears to drop before increasing again; however, this is a result of ingrowth occurring post treatment.

Figure 30: MPB and DFB hazard ratings, at existing condition in 2015 and post treatment from 2025 to 2045 (Randall and others 2011). The lower the hazard rating the more resistance and resilience the stand has.

A reduced number of trees would be present across the stand; however, the average diameter (QMD) of trees 10” dbh or greater would increase and continue to do so for the next 20 years compared to the existing condition (Alternative A) (Figure 31).

11.5 9.25 9.05 10.05

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0

50

100

150

200

250

2015 2025 2035 2045

Average

 TPA

QMD & BA / Acre

Year

QMD

BA

TPA

0

1

2

3

4

2015 2025 2035 2045

Hazard Rating

Year

DFB

MPB

55

Figure 31: Comparison of the existing condition (EC) to the stand when a VRH is applied. Because treatments vary in the amount of residual trees left a treatment unit this is an average representation of what would be present post treatment. An example of a similar treatment is depicted in Figure 20, showing the potential patchy nature of the resultant stand.

Prescribed Burning

Measurement Indicators – Resilience and Function, Species Composition, and Structure Implementation of both action alternatives would result in a patchy irregular burns. Vegetation density, forest continuity, and structural stages would be altered creating greater landscape age class and structural stage diversity by restoring fire as a regulating process to this fire-adapted system. Shrub and forb communities would be regenerated. The landscape age class and structural mosaic would be improved by breaking up landscape homogeneity and potentially introducing new seral components in an irregular distribution. The treatment would likely result in pockets of tree mortality from direct fire effects and/or subsequent bark beetle attack. Fire would be restored as an ecological regulating process improving forest structure, composition, and function promoting a diverse age class and species mix and spatially heterogeneous and complex vegetation structure would provide a landscape that is more resilient to climate change in the longer-term (Joyce et al., 2008).

Fire would reduce understory stand densities, recycle nutrients, and reduce fuels to a more historic level. Canopy cover reduction would vary based on each unit’s fire regime. Prescribed burns in non-lethal to mixed severity regimes would expect a reduction of 10-20% and lethal fire regimes would expect approximately 15% (low to moderate intensity surface fire) to 30% (heavy surface fuels, high intensity fire) reductions across a unit. In lethal fire regimes, open patches of up to 100 acres may be created where heavy fuels and high intensity fire is located.

Prescribed burn units closer to and within the WUI and with available access may be slashed prior to burning. Slashing, where necessary, would create a continuous fuel bed and to reduce the likelihood of crowning during burn operation. A canopy reduction of 10-20% is expected in these units.

Unit 309 is near proposed wilderness and have known populations of WBP. Burning in this unit may stimulate Clark’s Nutcracker to begin seeds where at least 27 BA of cone bearing trees to retrieve seed from remain (McKinney and others 2009). Live canopy cover reductions in 309 would be approximately 15-30%.

The potential impacts and unintended consequences of prescribed burning in root disease infected stands, to large, old DF and subsequent DFB attack cannot be overstated. This applies to units listed for prescribed burning, as well as, harvests that are followed by burning. It is well-

0

5

10

15

20

25

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2015 2025 2035 2045

QMD 10+

Trees Per Acre

Year

EC TPA > 10"

TPA > 10" with Treatment

EC QMD > 10"

TRMT QMD >10"

56

established that post-fire mortality due to subsequent DFB attack may exceed 50% mortality, loss of the large, old DF remaining, and trigger outbreaks (Hood et al 2007). As recommended by FHP, the root disease and DFB hazard would be assessed on each site and treatments designed, delayed, or dropped where the risk of unintended consequences is too great (Lockman and Steed 2011).

57

Cumulative Effects

Project/Activity Cumulative Effect For Alternative B P C F

Past FS Timber Sales

17 Documented Since 1980

11,603 Total Acres Treated *more than one treatment may have occurred on any one acre* *7,568 acres of Intermediate Treatments 8,205 acres of Regeneration Treatments*

Previous Sale Year(s) and Names:

1980s 1990s to Present

*1980 – Cave Creek* 1990 – Center Ridge Blowdown*

*1980-81 – Cottonwood Salvage*

1993-98 – Dry Canyon*

1981 – Lower Dunham* *1994-96 and 2000 – McCabe Helicopter*

1982 – Dunham Salvage* 1996 – Monture Cleanup* 1983 – Shanley Blowdown* 1997-98 – Dry Canyon 1987 – Dunham Fire* *1998-2004 – Cave Helio* *1987-89 – Little Shanley* *2006 – Monture Fuels 1987 – Monture Center* 2010 – Monture Fuels

*2011 – Big Nelson and Monture Campground Salvage

Documented timber sales within the last 35 years that have occurred within the analysis area are listed by the amount of acres affected by various silvicultural systems or treatments. Specific sales names, where known, are listed. There are a few more than 7,500 acres of previous intermediate harvest treatments. Intermediate commercial treatments are designed to enhance growth, quality, vigor, and composition of the treated stand. Following these intermediate treatments, forest canopies remained intact. The past treatments in combination with those proposed in Alternative B would continue to increase stand growth, resilience, and resistance across the landscape. Approximately 8,200 acres of regeneration treatments have occurred across the analysis area. Objectives of this treatment type are to establish a second cohort to increase age class and species diversity. Past treatments in combination with the 54 acres proposed in Alternative B would continue to contribute to species and structural diversity across the landscape.

X

Prescribed Fire Slashing paired with prescribed fire activities would cumulatively reintroduce fire on the landscape. Fire would be applied in a controlled situation as a restoration process for fire-dependent forest communities. Under Alternative B this would be a cumulative beneficial on up to 8,010 acres.

X X X

Small Tree Thinning

On all treated acres, in conjunction with previous activities and prescribed burning, small tree thinning would provide a reduction to the amount of fuel and fire risk within the WUI, increased average stand diameters, improved resistance and resilience to insects and disease, species composition adjustment toward more historic norms,

X X X

58

Project/Activity Cumulative Effect For Alternative B P C F

and stand structure changes indicative of the Hot-Dry/Warm-Dry ecosite type (3,854 acres).

Wildfire Since 1984 there have been approximately 50,000 acres burned in and adjacent to the analysis area. Most recently was in 2003 where 540 acres burned. With treatment if/when a wildfire were to occur in the future effects to the landscape would be reduced. Thinned stands would have reduced ladder fuels, fuel build ups, and canopy density. All of those reductions contribute to reduced fire severity, reduced potential fire behavior, and increased effectiveness for fire suppression efforts (if necessary). The cumulative benefit of Alternative B would increase resilience to wildfire activity on approximately 8,010 acres.

X X X

Summary of Effects Alternative B is the only alternative designed to reduce stand density to minimize drought effects, reduce the impact of large wildfire events, manage the potential for increased insect and disease outbreaks, and ensure a wide variety of species and age class diversity, while managing for processes to facilitate adaptation in the face of a changing climate across the analysis area (Joyce et al., 2008; Millar et al., 2007).

Alternative B would: Restore vegetative conditions (species composition and structure) and increase resiliency to

large fires within the landscape. Restore the structure, composition, and function to nearer the HRV of the forests; retaining

large trees and old-growth forests; and maintaining or establishment “species-at-risk” (WL, PP, or WBP).

Reduce or maintain low bark beetle hazard. Reduce impacts of root and butt rots by shifting species composition towards more resistant

shade-intolerant species through species preferences and regeneration of WL and PP where root disease is prevalent.

Increase resilience and resistance of large, old trees and old growth stands within the landscape.

Reduce basal area enough to reduce susceptibility to bark beetle attack while making efforts to avoid opening stands excessively that may predispose root rot infected trees to windthrow. The treatments would favor shade-intolerant species through thinning and creating openings where infection is detected. This is one of the most effective ways to reduce losses to root disease on infected sites (Hagle and Goheen, 1988).

Additionally, Alternative B is the only alternative that effectively achieves the following restoration and resilience strategies for warm, dry forests adapted to a frequent, low-intensity fire regime across all treatment areas (Churchill et al., 2013; Allen et al., 2002; Chmura et al., 2011; Covington et al., 1997; Franklin and Johnson, 2012; Peterson et al., 2011; Spies et al., 2010; Stephens et al., 2010):

Reduces surface and ladder fuels and increases crown base heights. Reduces and maintains lower tree densities and decreases crown bulk density.

59

Increases composition of fire and drought-tolerant species (ponderosa pine and western larch).

Increases mean diameter and individual tree vigor by retaining large trees with healthy crowns.

Restores horizontal spatial heterogeneity of forest structure, including openings where early-seral species can establish.

Reintroduces fire to reduce fuel loads, stimulate understory species, and maintain desired fuel beds.

Reduces/maintains appropriate levels of pathogens, insects, and other disturbances in order to create decadence, mortality and interactions with fire that lead to regeneration of new tree cohorts and diverse understories.

Necessitates monitoring key processes including mortality, regeneration, old-growth status, fuel accumulation, and new species colonization to inform management.

Alternative C

Direct and Indirect Effects The effects of Alternative C would be the same as STT and Biomass/STT under Alternative B, using only the STT option. Effects would be the same except, as disused above, retaining all biomass on site would lower treatment efficacy by only removing 8” diameter trees. The prescribed burning treatments would have the same effects as Alternative B.

Cumulative Effects

Project/Activity Cumulative Effect For Alternative C P C F

Past FS Timber Sales

17 Documented Since 1980

11,603 Total Acres Treated *more than one treatment may have occurred on any one acre* *7,568 acres of Intermediate Treatments 8,205 acres of Regeneration Treatments*

Previous Sale Year(s) and Names:

1980s 1990s to Present

*1980 – Cave Creek* 1990 – Center Ridge Blowdown*

*1980-81 – Cottonwood Salvage*

1993-98 – Dry Canyon*

1981 – Lower Dunham* *1994-96 and 2000 – McCabe Helicopter*

1982 – Dunham Salvage* 1996 – Monture Cleanup* 1983 – Shanley Blowdown* 1997-98 – Dry Canyon 1987 – Dunham Fire* *1998-2004 – Cave Helio* *1987-89 – Little Shanley* *2006 – Monture Fuels 1987 – Monture Center* 2010 – Monture Fuels

*2011 – Big Nelson and Monture Campground Salvage

Documented timber sales within the last 35 years that have occurred within the analysis area are listed by the amount of acres affected by various silvicultural systems or treatments. Specific sales names, where known, are listed.

X

60

Project/Activity Cumulative Effect For Alternative C P C F

There are a few more than 7,500 acres of previous intermediate harvest treatments. Intermediate commercial treatments are designed to enhance growth, quality, vigor, and composition of the treated stand. Following these intermediate treatments, forest canopies remained intact. Approximately 8,200 acres of regeneration treatments have occurred across the analysis area. Objectives of this treatment type are to establish a second cohort to increases age class and species diversity.

Prescribed Fire Fuels reduction treatment paired with prescribed fire activities would cumulatively reintroduce fire on the landscape. Fire would be applied in a controlled situation as a restoration process for fire-dependent forest communities. Under Alternative C this would be a cumulative beneficial on up to 5,844 acres.

X X X

Small Tree Thinning

On all treated acres, in conjunction with previous activities and prescribed burning, small tree thinning would provide a reduction to the amount of fuel and fire risk within the WUI, increased average stand diameters, improved resistance and resilience to insects and disease, species composition adjustment toward more historic norms, and stand structure changes indicative of the Hot-Dry/Warm-Dry ecosite type. (3,854 acres)

X X

Wildfire Since 1984 approximately 50,000 acres have burned in and adjacent to the analysis. Most recently was in 2003 where 540 acres burned. With treatment if/when a wildfire were to occur in the future effects to the landscape would be reduced. Thinned stands would have reduced ladder fuels, fuel build up, and canopy density. All of those reductions contribute to reduced fire severity, reduced potential fire behavior, and increased effectiveness for fire suppression efforts (if necessary). The cumulative benefit of Alternative C would increase resilience to wildfire activity on approximately 5,844 acres.

X X X

Summary of Effects Alternative C WOULD:

Restore the structure, composition, and function to nearer the HRV of the forests; improving the maintenance, enhancement, and/or establishment of shade-intolerant “species-at-risk” (WL, PP, and WBP) in young stands.

Reduce the future risk (Hazard Rating) for MPB in young forests. Maintain or increase the levels of root and butt rots throughout most stands. Perpetuate regeneration of disease susceptible species, particularly within disease centers. Increase landscape instability due to continued loss of ecological resilience. Perpetuate spruce budworm damage and mortality in the future.

While Alternative C would have some benefit, when compared to Alternative B it would and have very limited efficacy across the project area as only small diameter trees would be removed on a very limited scale. The most at-risk stands would remain at-risk to stressors.

61

Forest Plan Consistency Alternatives B and C comply with all relevant laws, regulations, and policies. These alternatives were designed to meet Plan goals and standards:

Goals: Provide a sustained yield of timber and other outputs at a level that will help support the

economic structure of local communities and provide for regional and national needs (Alternative B only).

Provide habitat for viable populations of all indigenous wildlife species and for increasing populations of big-game animals.

Provide for a broad spectrum of dispersed recreation involving sufficient acreage to maintain a low user density compatible with public expectations.

Provide a pleasing and healthy environment, including clear air, clean water, and diverse ecosystems.

Emphasize conservation of energy resources. Encourage a “good host” concept when dealing with the public. Contribute to the recovery of threatened and endangered species occurring on the Forest. Meet or exceed State water quality standards.

Standards: Following regional standards for timber harvest (Alternative B only). Designing or modifying all management practices as necessary to maintain land

productivity. Using vegetation management practices to control insect infestations, disease infections,

and modify potential fire severity. Designing silvicultural practices to consider past, current, and potential impacts from insects and diseases.

Coarse Woody Debris Guide, Lolo NF. Dead and Down Habitat Components Guidelines, Lolo NF. Vegetation Management, Silvicultural Prescription Alternatives, draft 1993 revision of

Lolo Forest Plan appendix C-3.

Suitable Lands Identification of lands generally suitable for timber harvest and timber production is made at the land management plan level; however, these identifications are estimates that are validated at the project level (36 CFR 219.12(a)(2)(D)(ii). Project-level suitability determinations were made during silvicultural diagnoses; final suitability determinations on lands proposed for commercial timber harvest would be documented in a site-specific silvicultural prescription prepared or reviewed by a Certified Silviculturist. Timber harvest on lands not suitable for timber production can occur when harvest is necessary or appropriate for other multiple use purposes and to achieve the desired vegetation conditions (16 USC 1604 (k), 36 CFR 219.12(a)(2)(D)(ii)). This is consistent with 16 USC 1604 (k) and 36 CFR 219.12(a)(2)(D)(ii) the implementing regulations of the National Forest Management Act of 1976.

62

Regeneration Assurance Compliance with NFMA and Forest Plan to Restock Areas of Harvest within 5 Years. Assurance is given that all suited lands as outlined in Alternative B can be adequately restocked within five years of final harvest. This conclusion is based on experience and FACTS regeneration status reports that cover the Seeley Lake Ranger District (J5-21). Even-aged Regeneration Harvests [16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)(3)(F)]: regeneration harvest in (Unit 1, Unit 198 and all VRH units (< 40 acres each)) is appropriate to meet the objectives and requirements of the Forest Plan.

Monitoring Plan

Implementation and Effectiveness What Is Being Monitored? Residual stand conditions and reforestation - Monitoring the effects on vegetation would take place throughout the implementation and execution of this action, and for a number of years following implementation. Initially, the monitoring begins with the intensive investigation of the landscape vegetation mosaic based on series, habitat type, and management area land and resource objectives which are defined and refined as silvicultural management practices.

Following the selection of an action alternative and the signing of the Record of Decision, site-specific silvicultural prescriptions would be finalized for each proposed treatment unit. A silviculturist and other involved specialists would monitor on-the-ground implementation of the designated prescription as unit design, layout, and marking occur. Contract preparation would be monitored and evaluated by key program specialists to ensure proper site-specific mitigation measures are included in the timber sale and/or service contract provisions.

As the timber sale, stewardship, and/or service contract is executed and silvicultural activities progress, the Timber Sale Administrator or Contracting Officer’s Representative, whichever is appropriate, would visit the sites on a regular basis. Depending on the level of activity, the contract administration personnel may visit and monitor activities as frequently as daily. Contract administration is critical to the success of this process. All site visits by contract administration personnel are documented and reviewed by the Forest Service Representative and the Forest Timber Contracting Officer under timber sale contracts or by the Contracting Officer when activities are implemented under a service contract. Contractual units are released from the Purchaser or Contractor’s responsibility when all provisions and requirements of the contract have been satisfied.

Following implementation of initial treatments outlined by the Selected Action and fine-tuned by silvicultural prescriptions, post-treatment exams would assess the condition of the treated stands and identify the progression of additional treatments necessary to meet the target stand conditions outlined in the action alternative. This monitoring may identify modifications necessary for subsequent prescribed treatments along the trajectory to the desired future condition. Reforestation surveys would be conducted on natural regeneration and planting units at the end of the first and third growing seasons to assure adequate stocking levels as described in the silvicultural prescription are met. Any additional reforestation needs determined as a result would promptly be scheduled for treatment to achieve certification status within five years of final harvest.

63

Methodologies

Site-specific prescriptions would be written

Contract inspections according to Regional standards to assure compliance with contract specifications

Regeneration surveys according to FS and Regional protocol and direction

Who Is Responsible For Monitoring?

Certified Culturists and Certified Silviculturists on the Lolo National Forest

Any Critical Threshold Where Further Action Should/Would Be Taken:

These are site-specifically identified in the individual unit prescription written and/or approved by a Certified Silviculturist

Adaptive Actions Taken If Needed

If reforestation is the issue the unit would be evaluated for the need to plant, replant, prescribe additional site preparation, and/or animal damage control measures. If protection of residual trees is the issue prior to ground activities – adjust field conditions or contractual language to assure protection of desirable residual trees. Post activity – evaluate reasons desirable residual trees were not protected and adjust activities in other treatment areas to assure protection of desirable residual trees.

A-1

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms, Abbreviations, and Acronyms Cases Canopy Cover - a proportion of ground or water covered by a vertical projection of the outermost

perimeter of the natural spread of foliage or plants, including small openings within the canopy - NOTE: total canopy coverage may exceed 100 percent because of layering of different vegetative strata (as defined by The Dictionary of Forestry) 15

Community Wildfire Protection Plan(s) - a collaborative document developed by individual counties and partners to collectively decide on wildfire protection priorities within the county. a.k.a. CWPP 4

Conditional Crown Fire – a term that more describes the stand or unit than the fire. Where this type occurs is where crown fire may be difficult to initiate within a stand or unit, for example because of high canopy base heights, but if crown fire burned into the stand or unit, it would be able to sustain that crown fire because of canopy densities. 38, 45

CWPP - see Community Wildfire Protection Plan(s) 4

Ecological Site Type - also referred to as ecosite or ecosite type. A vegetation classification system developed by Ecosystem Management Research Institute (EMRI). 9

FRI – see Fire return interval 47

FS - Forest Service 3

Instar - a developmental stage of an insect between larvae and adult 23

intermediate treatment - a collective term for any treatment or tending designed to enhance growth, quality, vigor, and composition of the stand after establishment or regeneration and prior to final harvest. 12

Lolo National Forest Plan - also referred to as "the Plan" or "Plan" 1

NF - abbreviation for National Forest 14

Project area - an area of demarcation around a proposed treatment area, this area may be larger than the actual treatment area 6

QMD - abbreviation of quadratic mean diameter, or the average diameter of a stand of trees 8

Quadratic Mean Diameter - the average stand diameter, this measurement applies only to trees, also referred to as QMD 8

suitable or suitability - areas of land determined eligible for timber production and harvest made at the land management plan level. 1

Variable Retention Harvest (VRH) - also known as Variable Density Thinning (VRT). An approach to harvesting based on the retention of structural elements or biological legacies (trees, snags, logs, etc.) from the harvested stand for integration in the the new stand to achieve various ecological objectives.... major variables are types, densities, and spatial arrangements of retained structures. 20

B-1

Appendix B: Crosswalk for Habitat Types, Fire Regimes/ Groups, and Ecosites EMRI FIRE REGIMES  EMRI Ecological Sites 

Lolo Forest Plan Habitat Type Groups (TSMRS)  MT Fire Group Code 

Non‐lethal  Hot‐Dry 

(Group 1), others undefined  2 

Group 1 4 

5 

Non‐lethal  Warm‐Dry 

(Group 1), others undefined  2 

(Group 2), others undefined  4 

Group 2 = 260, 261, 310, 312, 313    Group 3 = 281, 282, 292 

6 

Group 2  6/7 

Group 3 = 280, 320, 330, 360, 370    Group 2 = 322, 324                  

(undefined) 

6 = 280, 320, 322, 360, 370             4 = 324               5 = 330               

Others NA 

Mixed Severity A  Warm‐Moist  (Group 4D), others undefined 6 

11 

Mixed Severity A  Moderately Warm‐Dry (Group 4A)  11 

   NA 

Mixed Severity B Moderately           Warm‐Moist 

(Group 4A), others undefined  11 

Mixed Severity B  Cool‐Dry 

(Group 5), others undefined  7 

(Group 5), others undefined  8 

(Group 5), others undefined 8 = 690               6 = 750               

others NA 

Mixed Severity B  Cool‐Moist 

Group 4B  7 

(Group 4B)  9 

(Group 4B) 9 = 670, 680, 740      

others NA 

Lethal  Cold‐Dry 

Group 6 = 730, 732                  Group 5 = 731                      

others undefined 7 

   8 

   9 

(Group 6), others undefined  10 

   NA 

B-2

Lethal  Cold‐Moist  (Group 6), others undefined  10 

REFERENCES: EMRI Ecological Sites and Fire Regimes Southwest Crown of the Continent Landscape Assessment by Carolyn Mehl, John Haufler, Scott Yeats, and Bruce Rieman 2012 Fire Groups Fire Ecology of Western Montana Forest Habitat Types by William C. Fischer and Anne F. Bradley INT-223, 1987 Lolo National Forest Plan, 1986

C- 1

Appendix C: Basal Area Table and Examples

Tree DBH

(inches)

Equivalent BA

# of Trees to Make 15

BA

# of Trees to Make 20

BA

# of Trees to Make 40

BA

# of Trees to Make 60

BA

# of Trees to Make 90

BA

8 0.349056 43 58 115 172 258

10 0.5454 28 37 74 110 165

15 1.22715 13 17 33 49 74

20 2.1516 7 10 18 28 42

This table is shown to provide an understanding about what a certain BA might mean in relation to the associated number of trees on the site.

The number of trees has been rounded up to the next whole number of trees, no matter what the fraction would have been. Example: to get 20 BA of trees 20” dbh you need 9.295408068 trees. Fractions of trees are not possible so the table reflects 10 trees to meet the 20 BA.

E - Image 1: An example of 43 – 8” dbh trees per acre, the equivalent of 15 BA

E - Image 2: An example of 115 – 8” dbh trees per acre, the equivalent of 40 BA

E - Image 3: And example of 258 – 8” dbh Trees per acre, the equivalent of 90 BA

E - Image 3: And example of 258 – 8” dbh Trees per acre, the equivalent of 90 BA

C- 2

E - Image 7: An example of 15 BA with a combination of 8”, 10”, 15”, and 20” dbh trees.

E - Image 8: An example of 40 BA with a combination of 8”, 10”, 15”, and 20” dbh trees.

E - Image 8: An example of 40 BA with a combination of 8”, 10”, 15”, and 20” dbh trees.

E - Image 9: An example of 90 BA with a combination of 8”, 10”, 15”, and 20” dbh trees.

E - Image 9: An example of 90 BA with a combination of 8”, 10”, 15”, and 20” dbh trees.

E - Image 4: An example of 7 – 20” dbh trees per acre, the equivalent of 15 BA

E - Image 5: An example of 18 – 20” dbh trees per acre, the equivalent of 40 BA

E - Image 6: An example of 42 – 20” dbh trees per acre, the equivalent of 90 BA

D - 1

Appendix D: Literature and References Cited Agee, J.K. 1996. The influence of forest structure on fire behavior. In Proceedings, 17th Annual Forest Vegetation Management Conference. Redding, CA Jan. 16-18, 1996: 52-68.

Agee, J.K., Skinner, C.N., 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 211, 83–96.

Allen, C.D., Savage, M., Falk, D.A., Suckling, K.F., Swetnam, T.W., Schulke, T., Stacey, P.B., Morgan, P., Hoffman, M., Klingel, J.T., 2002. Ecological restoration of Southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystems: a broad perspective. Ecological Applications 12, 1418–1433.

Abella, S.R., Fule, P.Z., Covington, W.W., 2006. Diameter caps for thinning southwestern ponderosa pine forests: viewpoints, effects, and tradeoffs. Journal of Forestry 104, 407–414.

Amman, G.D.; McGregor, M.D.; Cahill, D.B.; Klein, W.H. 1977. Guidelines for reducing losses of lodgepole pine to the mountain pine beetle in unmanaged stands in the Rocky Mountains. General Technical Report INT-36. Ogden, UT. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 19 p.

Amman, G.D., M.D. McGregor, R.F.Schmitz, and R.D. Oakes. 1988. Susceptibility of lodgepole pine to infestation by mountain pine beetles following partial cutting of stands. Can. J. For. Res. Vol 18.

Amman, G.D., G.D. Lessard, L.A. Rasmussen, and C.G. O’Neil. 1988b. Lodgepole pine vigor, regeneration, and infestation by mountain pine beetle following partial cutting on the Shoshone NF, Wyoming. Intermountain Research Station. USDA Forest Service, Research Paper INT-396.

Amman, G.D. 1989. Why partial cutting in lodgepole pine stands reduces mountain pine beetle. In: Amman, G.D. compiler. Proceedings-Symposium on the management of lodgepole pine to minimize losses to the mountain pine beetle. GTR INT-262. USDA Forest Service. pp. 48-59.

Amman, G.D.; Logan, J.A. 1998. Silvicultural Control of Mountain Pine Beetle: Prescriptions and the Influence of Microclimate. American Entomologist. Fall (http://www.usu.edu/beetle/documents2/1998Amman%20Logan_Silvicultural%20Control%20of%20MPB.pdf.

Barber, J.; Bush, R.; Berglund, D. 2011. Region One Vegetation Classification, Mapping , Inventory and Analysis Report: The Region 1 Existing Vegetation Classification System and its Relationship to Region 1 Inventory Data and Map Products.

Barrett, S.W.; Arno, S.F.; Key, C.H. 1991. Fire Regimes of Western Larch - Lodgepole Pine Forests in Glacier National Park, Montana. Canadian Journal of Forest Research-Revue Canadienne De Recherche Forestiere. 21(12): 1711-1720. DOI: 10.1139/x91-237.

Bartos, D.L.; Amman, G.D. 1989. Microclimate: an alternative to tree vigor as a basis for mountain pine beetle infestations. Research Paper INT-400. Ogden, UT. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 10p.

Bentz, B.J., Regniere, J., Fettig, C.J., Hansen, E.M., Hayes, J.L., Hicke, J.A., Kelsey, R.G., Negron, J.F., Seybold, S.J., 2010. Climate change and bark beetles of the western United States and Canada: direct and indirect effects. BioScience 60, 602–613.

D - 2

Binkley, D., Sisk, T., Chambers, C., Springer, J., Block, W., 2007. The role of old-growth forests in frequent-fire landscapes. Ecology and Society 12, 18.

Bollenbacher, B, Bush, R. and R. Lundberg. 2009. Estimates of snag densities for western Montana forests in the Northern Region. Region 1 Vegetation, Classification, Inventory, and Analysis Report #09-05, v1.3. 2009.

Brewer, L.; Erickson, B.; Kennedy, B. [and others]. 2008. Effects of Silvicultural Treatments on Old Growth Characteristics and Associated Wildlife Habitat. 131 p.

Brown, R.T.; Agee, J.K.; Franklin, J.F. 2004. Forest restoration and fire: Principles in the context of place. Conservation Biology. 18(4): 903-912. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.521_1.x.

Bush, R. 2012. Applying old growth algorithm to data in FSVEG.

Bush, R.; Berglund, D.; Leach, A. [and others]. 2007. Estimates of Old Growth for the Northern Region and National Forests. 8 p.

Bush, R.; Lundberg, R.; Leach, A.; Bollenbacher, B. 2003. Detailed Estimates of Old Growth and Large-Snags on the Lolo National Forest.

Churchill, D.J.; Larson, A.J.; Dahlgreen, M.C. [and others]. 2013. Restoring forest resilience: From reference spatial patterns to silvicultural prescriptions and monitoring. Forest Ecology and Management. 291: 442-457. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2012.11.007.

Cochran, P.H.; Geist, J.M.; Clemens, D.L. [and others]. 1994. Suggest Stocking Levels for Forest Stands in Northeastern Oregon and Southeastern Washington. Pacific Northwest Research Station: USDA. 26 p.

Cole, W.E., Cahill, D.B., and Lessard, G.D. 1983. Harvesting strategies for management of mountain pine beetle infestations in lodgepole pine: preliminary evaluation, East Long Creek Demonstration area, Shoshone NF, Wyoming. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. INT-318.

Collaborative, S.C.o.t.C. 2010a. Southwestern Crown of the Continent CFLRP Proposal. [Date accessed: 04/15/2014].

Collaborative, S.C.o.t.C. 2010b. Southwestern Crown of the Continent Landscape Restoration Strategy. http://www.swcrown.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/SWCC-Landscape-Strategy-FINAL.pdf.

Covington, W.W. and M.M. Moore. 1994. Southwestern ponderosa forest structure, changes since Euro-American settlement. Journal of Forestry 92: 39-47.

Covington, W.W., P.Z. Fulé, M.M. Moore, S.C. Hart, T.E. Kolb, J.N. Mast, S.S. Sackett, and M.R. Wagner. 1997. Restoring Ecosystem Health in Ponderosa Pine Forests of the Southwest.Journal of Forestry 95: 23-29.

Daniels, O.L. 1994. Old Growth Strategy. Lolo National Forest:

Dodds, K.J., Ross, D.W., Randall, C., Daterman, G.E., 2004. Landscape level validation of a Douglas-fir beetle stand hazard rating system using geographical information systems. West. J. Appl. For. 19, 77–81.

Dodson, E.K.; Ares, A.; Puettmann, K.J. 2012. Early responses to thinning treatments designed to accelerate late successional forest structure in young coniferous stands of western 45Oregon, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research-Revue Canadienne De Recherche Forestiere. 42(2): 345-355. DOI: 10.1139/x11-188.

D - 3

Dodson, E.K., Peterson, D.W., Harrod, R.J., 2008. Understory vegetation response to thinning and burning restoration treatments in dry conifer forests of the eastern Cascades, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 255, 3130–3140.

Egan, J.M.; Jacobi, W.R.; Negron, J.F.; Smith, S.L.; Cluck, D.R. Forest thinning and subsequent bark beetle-caused mortality in Northeastern California. 2010. For. Ecol. Manag., 260, 1832–1842.

Egan, J.M., Kegley, S., Blackford, D., Jorgenson, C.L, tech. eds. Effectiveness of direct and indirect mountain pine beetle control treatments as implemented by the USDA Forest Service. USDA Forest Service, Forest Health and Protection, Report 14-03.

Fellin, D.G.; Dewey, J.E. 1986. Western Spruce Budworm. dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/forestry/docs/assistance/pests/fidls/053.pdf

Fettig, C., Klepzig, K., Billings, R., Munson, A., Nebeker, T., Negrón, J. 2007. 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: 24–53.

Fettig, C., Gibson, K., Munson, S., Negrón, J. 2014a. Cultural practices for prevention and control of mountain pine beetle infestations. Forest Science 60, http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/forsci.13–032.

Finney, M.A., Seli, R.C., McHugh, C.W., Ager, A.A., Bahro, B., Agee, J.K., 2007. Simulation of long-term landscape-level fuel treatment effects on large wildfires. International Journal of Wildland Fire 16, 712–727.

Fettig, C., Gibson, K., Munson, S., Negrón, J. 2014b. A comment on “Management for mountain pine beetle outbreak suppression: does relevant science support current policy?”. Forests 5: 822–826.

Finney, M.A., Seli, R.C., McHugh, C.W., Ager, A.A., Bahro, B., Agee, J.K., 2007. Simulation of long-term landscape-level fuel treatment effects on large wildfires. International Journal of Wildland Fire 16, 712–727.

Fischer, W.C.; Bradley, A.F. 1987. Fire Ecology of Western Montana Forest Habitat Types. USDA Forest Service.

Forest Service. FACTS: Forest Activity Tracking System.

Forest Service. 1998. Northern Region Overview: Detailed Report. http://fsweb.r1.fs.fed.us/em/overviews/pdf_detailed_report_012599.pdf

Forest Service. 2014. Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program Overview. http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLRP/overview.shtml. [Date accessed: March 10, 2015].

Franklin, J.F.; Mitchell, R.J.; Palik, B.J. 2007. Natural Disturbance and Stand Development Principles for Ecological Forestry. USDA Forest Service. http://nnrg.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Franklin_etal_2007_ecoforestry.pdf

Furniss, M.M.; Livingston, R.L.; McGregor, M.D. 1981. Development of a stand susceptibility classification for Douglas-fir beetle. Athens, GA: Forest Service. 115-128 p.

Gillette, N.E.; Wood, D.L.; Hines, S.J. [and others]. 2014. The Once and Future Forest: Consequences of Mountain Pine Beetle Treatment Decisions. Forest Science. 60(3): 527-538. DOI: 10.5849/forsci.13-040.

D - 4

Graham, R.T.; Harvey, A.E.; Jain, T.B.; Tonn, J.R. 1999. The Effects of Thinning and Similar Stand Treatments on Fire Behavior in Western Forests. Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Graham, R.T.; Jain, T.B. 2007. Stand and fuel treatments for restoring old-growth ponderosa pine forests in the Interior West. Rocky Mountain Research Station: USDA Forest Service - Joint Fire Science Program. 19 p.

Graham, R.T.; McCaffrey, S.; Jain, T.B. 2004. Science Basis for Changing Forest Structure to Modify Wildfire Behavior and Severity. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service.

Green, P.; Joy, J.; Hann, W. [and others]. 1992. Old-Growth Forest Types of the Northern Region.

Hadley, K.S.; Veblen, T.T. 1993. STAND RESPONSE TO WESTERN SPRUCE BUDWORM AND DOUGLAS-FIR BARK BEETLE OUTBREAKS, COLORADO FRONT RANGE. Canadian Journal of Forest Research-Revue Canadienne De Recherche Forestiere. 23(3): 479-491. DOI: 10.1139/x93-066.

Hagle, S.K.; Gibson, K.E.; Tunnock, S. 2003. Field Guide to Diseases and Insect Pests of Northern and Central Rocky Mountain Conifers. Intermountain Region:

Hagle, S.K. 2008 Management Guide for Armillaria Root Disease. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region, Forest Health Protection. 23 pp.

Hagle, S.K. and Goheen, D.J. 1988. Root disease response to stand culture. In: Proceedings of the future forests of the Intermountain West: a stand culture symposium. USDA Forest Service, GTR INT-243. pgs. 303-309.

Helms, J.A. 1998. The Dictionary of Forestry.

Hessburg, P.F.; Mitchell, R.G.; Filip, G.M. 1994. Historical and current roles of insects and pathogens in Eastern Oregon and Washington. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/6390

Hood, Sharon; Bentz, Barbara; Gibson, Ken; Ryan, Kevin; DeNitto, Gregg. 2007. Assessing post-fire Douglas-fir mortality and Douglas-fir beetle attacks in the northern Rocky Mountains. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-199. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 31 p. Includes Supplement.

Jenkins, M.J., Hebertson, E., Page, W. and C.A. Jorgensen. 2008. Bark beetles, fuels, fires and implications for forest management in the Intermountain West. Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 254, 2008, 16-34.

Jewett, J.T.; Lawrence, R.L.; Marshall, L.A. [and others]. 2011. Spatiotemporal Relationships between Climate and Whitebark Pine Mortality in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Forest Science. 57(4): 320-335.

Joyce, L.A., G.M. Blate, J.S. Littell, S.G. McNulty, C.I. Millar, S.C. Moser, R.P. Neilson, K. O’Halloran, and D.L. Peterson, 2008: National Forests. In: Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Julius, S.H., J.M. West (eds.), J.S. Baron, B. Griffith, L.A. Joyce, P. Kareiva, B.D. Keller, M.A. Palmer, C.H. Peterson, and J.M. Scott (Authors)]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 3-1 to 3-127. Available online at: http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap4-4/sap4-4-final-report-Ch3-Forests.pdf

Keane, R.E.; Hessburg, P.F.; Landres, P.B.; Swanson, F.J. 2009. The use of historical range and variability (HRV) in landscape management. Forest Ecology and Management. 258(7): 1025-1037. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.05.035.

D - 5

Keane, R.E.; Tomback, D.F.; Aubry, C.A. [and others]. 2012. A Range-Wide Restoration Strategy for Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis). Rocky Mountain Research Station. 108 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr279.pdf

Klopfenstein, N.B,; Kim, Mee-Sook; Hanna, John W.; Richardson, Bryce A.; Lundquist, John E. 2009. Approaches to predicting potential impacts of climate change on forest disease: an example with Armillaria root disease. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-76. Fort Collins, CO: US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station. 10 p.

Kolb, T.E.; Agee, J.K.; Fule, P.Z. [and others]. 2007. Perpetuating old ponderosa pine. Forest Ecology and Management. 249(3): 141-157. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2007.06.002.

La Porta N, Capretti P, Thomsen IM, Kasanen R, Hietala AM, Von Weissenberg K, 2008. Forest pathogens with higher damage potential due to climate change in Europe. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 30, 177–95.

Leirfallom, S.B. 2014. The effects of seed source health on whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) regeneration density after wildfire. University of Montana. http://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/4373/ [Date accessed: June 24, 2015].

Levin, S.A., 1998. Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Ecosystems 1, 431–436.

Lockman, B.; Steed, B. 2011. Pest Evaluation of Center Horse Project Area, Seeley RD, Lolo NF. 11 p.

Lockman, Blakey. Plant Pathologist. Northern Region. USDA Forest Service. Personal Communication.

Lolo, N.F. 1986. The Lolo National Forest Plan.

McGregor, M.D.; Amman, G.D.; Schmitz, R.F.; Oakes, R.D. 1987. Partial cutting lodgepole pine stands to reduce losses to the mountain pine beetle. Canadian Journal Forest Research 17:1234-1239.

McKinney, S.T.; Fiedler, C.E.; Tomback, D.F. 2009. Invasive pathogen threatens bird-pine mutualism: implications for sustaining a high-elevation ecosystem. Ecological Applications. 19(3): 597-607. DOI: 10.1890/08-0151.1.

McLachlan, J.S.; Hellmann, J.J.; Schwartz, M.W. 2007. A framework for debate of assisted migration in an era of climate change. Conservation Biology. 21(2): 297-302. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00676.x.

Mehl, C.; Haufler, J. 2010. Native Terrestrial Ecosystem Diversity of the Blackfoot Watershed. http://www.emri.org/PDF%20Docs/Adobe%20files/MT_CIG%20final%20report.pdf: Ecosystem Management Research Institute. http://www.emri.org/PDF%20Docs/Adobe%20files/MT_CIG%20final%20report.pdf

Mehl, C.; Haufler, J.; Yeats, S.; Rieman, B. 2012. Southwestern Crown of the Continent Landscape Assessment: Ecosystem Management Research Institute, U.S. Forest Service. http://www.emri.org/PDF%20Docs/Adobe%20files/SW%20Crown%20Landscape%20Assessment.pdf.

Millar, C.I.; Stephenson, N.L.; Stephens, S.L. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future: Managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications. 17(8): 2145-2151. DOI: 10.1890/06-1715.1.

D - 6

Millar, C.I.; Woolfenden, W.B. 1999. The role of climate change in interpreting historical variability. Ecological Applications. 9(4): 1207-1216. DOI: 10.1890/1051-0761(1999)009[1207:trocci]2.0.co;2.

Moritz, M.A., Hessburg, P.F., Povak, N.A., 2011. Native fire regimes and landscape resilience. In: McKenzie, D., Miller, C., Falk, D.A. (Eds.), The Landscape Ecology of Fire. Springer, pp. 51–88.

Negron, J.F.; Anhold, J.A.; Munson, A.S. 2001. Within-stand spatial distribution of tree mortality caused by the Douglas-fir beetle (Coleoptera : Scolytidae). Environmental Entomology. 30(2): 215-224. DOI: 10.1603/0046-225x-30.2.215.

Negron, J.F.; Schaupp Jr., W.C.; Gibson, K.E. [and others]. 1999. Estimating Extent of Mortality Associated with the Douglas-fir Beetle in the Central and Northern Rockies. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 121-127.

Negron, J.F. and J.B. Popp. 2004. Probability of ponderosa pine infestation by mountain pine beetle in the Colorado Front Range. Forest Ecology and Management 191: 17-27.

North, M., Innes, J., Zald, H., 2007. Comparison of thinning and prescribed fire restoration treatments to Sierran mixed-conifer historic conditions. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 37, 331–342.

North, M., Stine, P., O’Hara, K.L., Zielinski, W.J., Stephens, S.L., 2009. An Ecosystem Management Strategy for Sierran Mixed-Conifer Forests. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Research Station General Technical, Report PSW-GTR-220.

Norment, C.J. 1991. Bird Use of Forest Patches in the Sub-Alpine Forest-Alpine Tundra Ecotone of the Beartooth Mountains, Wyoming. Northwest Science. 65(1): 1-9.

Oliver, C.D.; Larson, B.C. 1996. Forest Stand Dynamics. Update Edition ed.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 520 p.

Olsen, W.K., J.M. Schmid, and S.A. Mata. 1996. Stand characteristics associated with mountain pine beetle infestations in ponderosa pine. Forest Science 42: 310-327.

Pfister, R.D.; Kovalchick, B.L.; Arno, S.F.; Presby, R.C. 1977. Forest Habitat Types of Montana. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Pollet, Jolie and Omi, P.N. 2002. Effect of thinning and prescribed burning on crown fire severity in ponderosa pine forests. International Journal of Wildland Fire 11: 1-10.

Randall, C.; Steed, B.; Bush, R. 2011. Revised R1 Forest Insect Hazard Rating System User Guide for use with Inventory Data Stored in FSVeg and/or Analyzed with the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Forest Health Protection. 26 p.

Ross, D.W.; Gibson, K.E.; Daterman, G.E. 2001. Using MCH to protect trees and stands from Douglas-fir beetle infestation. Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team Technology Transfer Report FHTET-2001-09. Morgantown, WV. USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team. 11 p.

Sala, A.; Callaway, R. 2004. Physiological responses of old growth ponderosa pine and western larch to restoration cutting and burning treatments.: U.S.D.A Forest Service, RMRS, Fire Sciences Laboratory. 42 p.

Sala, A.; Peters, G.D.; McIntyre, L.R.; Harrington, M.G. 2005. Physiological responses of ponderosa pine in western Montana to thinning, prescribed fire and burning season. Tree Physiology. 25(3): 339-348.

D - 7

Schmid, J.M. 1987. Insects of ponderosa pine: impacts and control. Pp. 93-97. In: Baumgartner, D.M. and J. E. Lotan, J.E.(comp.-eds). Ponderosa pine the species and its management; symposium proceedings; 1987 September 29 October 1; Spokane, Washington. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension. 281 p.

Schmid, J.M. and S.A. Mata. 1992. Stand density and mountain-pine beetle-caused tree mortality in ponderosa pine stands. USDA Forest Service, Research Note RM-515.

Schmid, J.M. and S.A. Mata. 1994. Hazard rating ponderosa pine stands for mountain pine beetles in the Black Hills. USDA Forest Service, Research Note RM-529.

Schmid, J.M, Mata, S.A., Kessler, R.R. and J.B. Popp. 2007. The influence of partial cutting on mountain pine beetle-caused tree mortality in Black Hill ponderosa pine stands. USDA Forest Service, Research Paper RMRS-RP-68.

Schmid, J.M. and S.A. Mata and R.A. Obedzinski. 1994. Hazard rating ponderosa pine stands for mountain pine beetles in the Black Hills. USDA Forest Service, Research Note RM-529.

Schmitz, R.F. and Gibson, K.E. 1996. Douglas-fir beetle. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet #5. USDA Forest Service. 8 p.

Six, D.L.; Biber, E.; Long, E. 2014. Management for Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak Suppression: Does Relevant Science Support Current Policy? Forests. 5(1): 103-133. DOI: 10.3390/f5010103.

Shaw III CG, Kile GA, 1991. Armillaria Root Disease. Washington, DC, USA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: Agricultural Handbook 691.

Shore, T.L. and Safranyik, L. 2000. A susceptibility and risk rating system for the Douglas-fir beetle in British Columbia. Canadian Forest Service, Victoria, B.C. (In preparation)

Shore, T.L. and L. Safranyik. 1992. Susceptibility and risk rating systems for mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine stands. Information report BC-X-336. Forestry Canada, Pacific and Yukon Region. 12p.

Spies, T.A.; Giesen, T.W.; Swanson, F.J. [and others]. 2010. Climate change adaptation strategies for federal forests of the Pacific Northwest, USA: ecological, policy, and socio-economic perspectives. Landscape Ecology. 25(8): 1185-1199. DOI: 10.1007/s10980-010-9483-0.

Steed, B. 2013. RE: Center Horse Trip Report.

Steele, R., Williams, R.E., Weatherby, J.C., Reinhardt, E.D., Hoffman, J.T., Thier, R.W., 1996. Stand Hazard Rating for Central Idaho Forests. GTR-INT-332. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, 29 pp.

Stephens, S.L.; Millar, C.I.; Collins, B.M. 2010. Operational approaches to managing forests of the future in Mediterranean regions within a context of changing climates. Environmental Research Letters. 5(2) DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024003.

Stephens, S.L., Fry, D.L., Franco-Vizcaino, E., 2008. Wildfire and spatial patterns in forests in northwestern Mexico: the United States wishes it had similar fire problems. Ecology and Society 13.

Sturrock, R. N., Frankel, S. J., Brown, A. V., Hennon, P. E., Kliejunas, J. T., Lewis, K. J., Worrall, J. J. and Woods, A. J. (2011), Climate change and forest diseases. Plant Pathology, 60: 133–149.

Taylor, A.H., Skinner, C.N., 2003. Spatial patterns and controls on historical fire regimes and forest structure in the Kalamath mountains. Ecological Applications 13, 704–719.

D - 8

USDA, Forest Service 1991. Armillaria Root Disease. USDA Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook No. 691, March 1991

Vose, J.M.; Peterson, D.L.; Patel-Weynand, T. 2012. Effects of climatic variability and change on forest ecosystems; a comprehensive science synthesis for the U.S. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr870/pnw_gtr870_002.pdf

Wargo, P.M. and Harrington, T.C. 1991. In: Armillaria Root Disease. eds: Shaw, Charles G. III, Glen A. Kile. USDA Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook No. 691, March 1991. P 88-101

Wargo, P. M., Shaw, C. G., III. 1985. Armillaria root rot: the puzzle is being solved. Plant Disease 69: 826-832.

Whitehead, R., Russo, G. 2005. “Beetle–proofed” lodgepole pine stands in Interior British Columbia have less damage from mountain pine beetle. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, BC–X–402.,Victoria, BC. 17 p.

Whitehead, R., Russo, G., Hawkes, B., Armitage, O. 2007. A silvicultural assessment of 10 lodgepole pine stands after partial cutting to reduce susceptibility to mountain pine beetle. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Wood Fibre Centre, FI–X–001, Victoria, B.C.. 48 p.

Whitehead 2010. A Canadian silviculturist’s perspective on the effectiveness of “thinning” to reduce susceptibility to mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopk.). P. 66 in: Conference Proceedings of the 61st Western Forest Insect Work Conference, April 5–8, 2010, Flagstaff, AZ., Hofstetter, R. (comp.), 115 p.