Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist ...

Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices

Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Diagnosis, Data, Forest Vegetation Simulator Stand Exam and Forest Vegetation Simulator Data Diagnosis – initial stand data and diagnosis spreadsheets Spreadsheets of Output Data NFMA Findings

Appendix B - Descriptions for Treatments for Alternatives 2 and 3 Appendix C - Stand Density, Vegetative Structural Stage, and Dwarf Mistletoe Appendix D - Goshawk Forest Habitat Analysis- Common Appendix E – ERI Historic Data Appendix F – Literature Cited or Reviewed


APPENDIX A


Appendix A-

File locations for modeling in FSVeg Data Analyzer

All FVS runs were completed using the FSVeg Data Analyzer Program and can be found in the

following location

T:\FS\NFS\ApacheSitgreaves\Project\BM\Larson\GIS\Workspace\grichardson

T:\FS\NFS\ApacheSitgreaves\Project\BM\Larson\GIS\Workspace\grichardson\Data -

This folder contains the output files pulled for all specialist reports

T:\FS\NFS\ApacheSitgreaves\Project\BM\Larson\GIS\Workspace\grichardson\FSVegDA

- this folder contains all files used in the analysis including FVS output files MDB files and all

FVSload files

File locations for Larson diagnosis, spreadsheets, dmr calculations, treatmetns, and

diagrams

O:\NFS\ApacheSitgreaves\Project\BM\Larson\Working\Silv\appendix A\


NFMA FINDINGS FOR SILVICULTURAL TREATMENTS

Based upon my review of the interdisciplinary team's environmental analysis of the

LARSON FOREST RESTORATION PROJECT on the BLACK MESA Ranger District

of the APACHE-SITGREAVES National Forests, I certify the following findings pursuant

to requirements of the National Forest management Act (NFMA). There is reasonable

assurance that if prescriptions are implemented as written, the project meets NFMA

requirements.

1. Prescribed treatments for all stands proposed for harvest are designed to conserve soil

and water resources and not allow significant or permanent impairment of the

productivity of the Land (36 CFR 219.27(a)(1)). Protection is provided for streams and

streambanks from detrimental changes in water temperatures, blockages of water

courses, and deposits of sediments (36 CFR 219.27(e)).

2. All stands proposed for harvest with timber production objectives are on lands suitable

for timber production (36 CFR 219.27(c)(1)).

A. I further certify that, based upon the literature, research, and local experience, there is

reasonable assurance that stands on suitable lands receiving final harvest (clear-cut,

seed tree removal, shelterwood final removal, or selection) will adequately restock

within 5 years after final harvest (36 CFR 219.27(c)(3)).

3. Created openings do not exceed the 40 acre maximum for Southwestern forest types

established in 36 CFR 219.27(d) (2) and have been determined to be the optimum

(practical, best, and most reasonable) method of treatment to obtain the objectives for

these sites.

4. Where even-aged management is prescribed, it has been determined to be appropriate

for that forest type as described in Agricultural Handbook #445 dated 12/83 and in

compliance with management direction in the Forest Land Management Plan as

amended (2009).

5. Treatments are consistent with multiple-use objectives established for the project area as

they apply to the portions of 36 CFR 219.27 not specifically addressed above, viz (a)

Resource protection, (b) Vegetative manipulation, (c) Silvicultural practices, (d) Even-

aged management, (e) Riparian areas, (f) Soil and water, and (g) Diversity.

6. Stands selected for treatment have an appropriate suitability classification in the Forest

Land Management Plan as defined in 36 CFR 219.14.

6/12/2014

Certified Silviculturist Date


APPENDIX B

Larson Forest RestorationTreatment Details for Alternatives 2 and 3

Prepared by Gayle Richardson, District Silviculturist

The following prescription parameters and mitigation measures would be used for alternatives

2 and 3 for the Larson Forest Restoration Project.

MECHANICAL TREATMENTS

Mechanical treatments refer to a variety of possible “tools” to meet objectives. These include,

but are not limited to: the use of chainsaws or feller-bunchers to cut trees and lop slash,

skidders to move material to landings, bulldozers to pile slash, and specialized equipment to

cut, chop, break, lop or in some way treat the fuels to meet objectives. The work would be

accomplished in many ways including the use of Forest Service personnel and contractors.

Some of the trees that are cut may be sold in personal-use and commercial wood product sales.

This would help to offset the total cost for treatments by reducing the cost of cutting trees and

treating slash.

All prescriptions are aimed at retaining Keens tree class 3 and 4 older mature trees (figure 1)

and retaining as many 16 inch and greater size trees as possible following the large tree

retention strategy (LTRS).

Alternatives 2 and 3

Meadow and Riparian Enhancement – All post settlement conifers would be removed and

cleared where they have encroached into existing meadows and riparian areas favoring

hardwood species. Trees that provide streambank stability would be maintained regardless of

size. Slash would be removed from the drainage and hand piled or lopped to the ground.

Three existing and potential snags would be left around meadows for wildlife. Riparian

planting of willows and cottonwoods would occur with native species within the stream

channel. Fencing may be placed around the exterior of the treatment area.

Aspen and Oak Exclosures - All post settlement conifers would be removed from areas

previously fenced to exclude elk. Fences would continue to be maintained to exclude elk from

aspen and oak regeneration and new fences installed where they would be most effective.

Steep slopes- precommercial thinning to 9 inches

Species preference in this order: Douglas-fir, southwestern white pine, ponderosa pine,

white fir

Retain all trees >9 inches dbh

Retain all hardwoods

Remove all conifer trees with DM up to 9 inches

Thin remaining trees to 170 tpa – include all trees in spacing


Activity slash piled and burned

MSO Protected Habitat Outside Core Areas –– Intermediate thinning up to 16 inches dbh.

Some slopes may require hand thinning and piling due to steep slopes and only smaller

diameter trees may be removed depending on the amount of material left as residual slash.

Thinning would promote health and vigor of the larger trees and to reduce fire hazard. Smaller

trees would be cut maintaining the largest, healthiest trees. Early seral species (Southwestern

white pine, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, aspen) would be favored for retention and

regeneration.

Species preference in this order ; Douglas-fir, southwestern white pine, ponderosa pine,

white fir.

Intermediate thinning from below up to 16 inches dbh -

120 sqft BA – include all species

Retain all alligator juniper > 12 inches drc

Retain 30% of BA in trees 12 to 18 inches dbh

Retain 30% of BA in trees 18 inches dbh and larger


Leave dominant and co-dominant with least DM

All slash removed

Alternative 2

Mexican Spotted Owl Habitat (MSO) Habitat Proposed Treatments

MSO Recovery Nest/Roost Habitat and Dry Mixed Conifer inclusions - Group selection

would be used to create openings 1/10 acre in size. Intermediate thinning would be used in the

matrix to remove smaller trees and leave large larger, healthier trees, increasing health and

vigor of the remaining larger dominant and co-dominant trees and reducing fire hazard. The

matrix would be managed for patch sizes 2.5 acres and greater providing habitat for prey

species. Early seral species (southwestern white pine, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, aspen)

would be favored for retention and regeneration.


alligator juniper, white fir

Retain all trees 24 inches and larger


Group selection would be used to create openings 1/10 to 2.5 acres in size. Preferably

less than 1 acre. Regenerate 10-20% of the area.

Intermediate thinning would be used in the matrix to remove smaller trees and leave

large larger, healthier trees, and managed for patch sizes 2.5 acres and greater providing

habitat for prey species.


120 sqft BA – include all species ( mixed conifer stands)

110 sqft BA – include all species (pine oak stands)

Leave dominant and co-dominant with least dwarf mistletoe (DM)

Retain 30% of BA in trees 12 to 18 inches dbh


Retain 30% of BA in trees 18 inches dbh and larger

Manage for a minimum of 12 tpa of trees 18 inches and larger per acre

Remove all activity slash

MSO Recovery Foraging/Non-breeding Habitat – Key owl habitat elements would be

retained. Aspen, gambel oak and trees 12 inches and larger would be favored. Group

selection1 would be used to regenerate ponderosa pine, southwestern white pine, and Douglas-

fir in openings up to 20% of the area within excess size classes and/or diseased patches.

Additional seed trees of desirable species and characteristics would be retained when openings

are greater than one acre. The remaining matrix area would be thinned from below cutting

smaller trees and leaving larger, healthier trees, increasing health and vigor of the remaining

larger dominant2 and co-dominant

3 trees. Stands with no large trees would be thinned from

below with an intermediate thinning to promote health and vigor of the larger trees. Early seral

species (Southwestern white pine, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, aspen) would be favored for

retention and regeneration. All trees 24 inches and greater would be retained.

Priority for regeneration openings would be placed where severe dwarf mistletoe infection

centers are located, focusing on removal of infected trees. Where regeneration groups are not

to be established, focus on reduction of severely-infected trees (DMR = 4+) within the leave

tree groups.

Small inclusions of aspen remnants would be regenerated by removing all young immature

conifers in the immediate area, ½ to 1 chain from the clone. Site disturbing activity such as

ripping of aspen roots adjacent to large aspen clones and broadcast burning may be used to

promote aspen sprouting. The preferred method is removal of all trees within and adjacent to

the clone including removal of all aspen. Aspen clones would be evaluated and fenced as

needed. Conifers would also be removed around oaks 10 inches and greater at diameter root

collar (drc).


alligator juniper, white fir



Group selection would be used to create openings 1/10 to 2.5 acres in size. Regenerate

10-20% of the area.






Average 80 BA

1 Group Selection – a cutting procedure which creates a new age class by removing trees in groups or patches to

allow seedlings to become established in the new opening (SAF 1998). 2 Dominant – trees that receive full light from above the canopy and partially from the sides. Crowns extend

above the general level of the canopy (USDA 2008). 3 Codominant – Tree crowns receive full light from above, but comparitively little from the sides (USDA 2008)


Priority for regeneration openings would be placed where severe DM infection centers

are located, focusing on removal of infected trees. Where regeneration groups are not

to be established, focus on reduction of severely-infected trees (DMR = 4+) within the

leave tree groups.


Goshawk Habitat Ponderosa Pine Proposed Treatments

Goshawk Foraging Area– Group selection would be used to regenerate ponderosa pine, white

pine, and Douglas-fir in openings 1/10 to 4 acres in size over 20% of the area within excess

VSS classes and/or diseased patches, figure 2. When openings exceed one acre in size, 5 to10

desirable seed trees per acre would be retained, with 3 to 5 seed trees at least 15 inches dbh and

larger. Where necessary, additional seed trees of desirable species and characteristics (fig. 4)

would be retained. Tree groups would be maintained by VSS class, ranging from 1/4 to 1 acre

in size and generally in groups of 4 to 20 trees. Strive to distribute percentages according to

desired VSS percentages in the forest plan. Residual stand density would vary, but would

average 50-70 square feet of basal area per acre in foraging areas, and would average 70-80

square feet in PFA. Where stands structures are predominantly even-aged, the stand matrix

would be thinned in an irregular-density fashion, striving to create groups and clumps of

residual trees. Desirable dominant and codominant southwestern white pine and ponderosa

pine would be left as single trees or groups throughout the area. See figures 1 and 2.

Priority for regeneration openings would be placed where severe dwarf mistletoe infection

centers are located, focusing on removal of infected trees. Where regeneration groups are not

to be established, focus on reduction of severely-infected trees (DMR = 4+) within the leave

tree groups.

The exception to the above would occur in stands where 80% of the trees are infected with

mistletoe. Shelterwood with reserves, which is an evenaged system, would be used. This

involves leaving larger trees for regeneration and removing all trees from below that are

infected with mistletoe. Once regeneration is established, a second entry would be needed to

remove the remaining infected overstory trees or reserves left for wildlife or other resource

concerns. The second option for these stands is no treatment.

Small inclusions of aspen remnants would be regenerated by removing all young immature

conifers in the immediate area, ½ to 1 chain from the clone and site disturbing activity such as

ripping of aspen roots adjacent to large aspen clones and broadcast burning. The preferred

method is removal of all trees within and adjacent to the clone. Aspen clones would be

evaluated and fenced as needed. Conifers would also be removed from around oaks 10 inches

and greater at diameter root collar (drc).

Species preference in this order: ponderosa pine, southwestern white pine, Douglas-fir,

white fir

Group selection would be used to create openings 1/10 to 4 acres in size. Preferably 1

acre in size. Regenerate 10-20% of the area.







Remove all trees < 9inches dbh with any DM


Average 50-70 BA- all species leaving the least DM

distribute percentages according to desired VSS percentages in the forest plan.

Priority for regeneration openings would be placed in excess VSS classes and where

severe DM infection centers are located, focusing on removal of infected trees.


Goshawk Foraging Area– Intermediate Thinning – Objective is to favor large yellow pine

in previous sheep bed grounds by removing small trees including junipers


white fir





Thin from below to an average 80 BA- all species

Distribute percentages according to desired VSS percentages in the forest plan.




Goshawk PFA Habitat - Group selection would be used to create openings 1/10 to 4 acres in

size. Preferably 1 acre in size. See figures 1 and 3.


white fir

Regenerate 10-20% of the area.







Average 90 BA- all species leaving the least DM

distribute percentages according to desired VSS percentages in the forest plan.





Figure 1: Illustration of desired spatial arrangement of leave groups.

(average of 40-60% canopy closure at the group level)


Figure 2. Goshawk Habitat Areas Outside of PFAs (Foraging Areas)

Typical Number

of Trees Per Group for

Different Group Sizes1

Typical Intra-Group

(within-group) Densities1

(All Group Acreage Sizes)

VSS

DBH

Range

1/10

acre

group

1/4

acre

group

½

acre

group

¾

acre

group

1

acre

group

Relative

Spacing Range

(feet)

Basal Area2

(ft2/acre)

1 & 2 0 - 4.9” 39 69 198 297 396 8 – 14 N/A

3 5 - 11.9 14 34 68 102 136 N/A 50

4* 12 - 17.9” 5 12 23 35 46 N/A 60

5* 18 - 23.9” 3 8 15 23 30 N/A 70

6* 24”+ 2 5 11 16 21 N/A 85 1these are typical values for the desired condition; variation can occur and is desired.

However, ranges should center on these values 2rounded to nearest 10 square feet/acre

* Densities are equivalent to 40%+ canopy cover

Figure 3. Goshawk PFA Habitat Areas

Typical Number

of Trees Per Group for

Different Group Sizes1

Typical Intra-Group

(within-group) Densities1

(All Group Acreage Sizes)

VSS

DBH

Range

1/10

acre

group

1/4

acre

group

½

acre

group

¾

acre

group

1

acre

group

Relative

Spacing Range

(feet)

Basal Area2

(ft2/acre)

1 & 2 0 - 4.9” 39 69 198 297 396 8 – 14 N/A

3 5 - 11.9 27 68 135 203 270 N/A 50

4* 12 - 17.9” 14 34 69 104 138 N/A 85

5** 18 - 23.9” 8 20 40 60 80 N/A 90

6*** 24”+ 6 14 30 43 55 N/A 110 1these are typical values for the desired condition; variation can occur and is desired.

However, ranges should center on these values 2rounded to nearest 10 square feet/acre

* Densities are equivalent to 55%+ canopy cover

** Densities are equivalent to 50%+ canopy cover

*** Densities are equivalent to 50%+ canopy cover


Goshawk Shelterwood Seed Cut with reserves


white fir

1st entry -Leave 60 BA of best formed seed trees 15 inches and greater. Preferably 24

to 28 inches in diameter, dominant trees, insect and disease free-top preference

Remove all DM infected trees except for seed trees.



Establish seedlings over 15 year period- 400 tpa

2nd

entry -Remove all DM infected trees 10 years after first entry. Leave trees that are

uninfected



Old Growth Forest Stands (ponderosa pine, aspen, and mixed species stands,

high sites) To manage towards these old growth conditions, free-thinning and selection cutting would be

used in groups and patches of larger and/or older trees to remove many of the smaller trees and

favor the older and larger dominant and co-dominant trees.


white fir

Retain all trees 18 inches dbh and larger



Group selection would be used to create openings 1/10 to 1 acre in size on 10% of the

area.

Intermediate thin to meet or exceed the following leaving the largest trees

o Ponderosa pine high site – manage for 20 trees/acre greater than or equal

to 18” dbh, and approximately 180 years of age or greater over time.

o Mixed species group, high site - manage for 16 trees/acre greater than or

equal to 20” dbh, and approximately 150 years of age or greater over time.

o Aspen – manage for 20 trees/acre greater than or equal to 14” dbh and

approximately 100 years of age over time.

These areas would be thinned to a target BA of 90 BA per acre for ponderosa pine

stands, and 100 BA per acre for mixed species stands.



Alternative 3 Large tree retention strategy

MSO Recovery Nest/Roost Habitat and Dry Mixed Conifer - same as alternative 2 but with

the following:


MSO Recovery Foraging/Non-breeding Habitat – same as alternative 2 but with the

following:



Goshawk Habitat Ponderosa Pine Proposed Treatments

Goshawk Foraging Area– Group Selection/Intermediate Thin


white fir



Group selection would be used to create openings 1/20 acre in size. Regenerate 10-

20% of the area.







Average 50-70 BA- all species





Goshawk Foraging Area– Intermediate Thinning - Objective is to favor large yellow pine

in previous sheep bed grounds by removing small trees including junipers


white fir



Intermediate thinning from below leaving the healthiest best formed and least DM

infected trees up to 16 inches DBH




Average 80 BA- all species





Goshawk PFA Habitat


white fir



Group selection would be used to create openings 1/20 acre in size. Regenerate 10-

20% of the area.








Average 90 BA- all species leaving the least DM





Old Growth Forest Stands (ponderosa pine, aspen, and mixed species stands,

high sites) To manage towards these old growth conditions, free-thinning and selection cutting would be

used in groups and patches of larger and/or older trees to remove many of the smaller trees and

favor the older and larger dominant and co-dominant trees. Same as alternative 2 except the

following:



Table 1. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS TO CONSIDER

WHEN CHOOSING LEAVE TREES (Example for Alternative 2)

(For Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir)

Leave trees must meet and possess all of either the desirable or acceptable physical characteristics. Trees with desirable characteristics should rarely be

cut. Trees possessing acceptable characteristics may or may not be left. Trees with non-desirable characteristics should rarely be designated as leave

trees. Trees possessing acceptable characteristics would be the ‘pool’ from which to choose to meet density management objectives.

EVALUATION

CRITERIA

DESIRABLE

(usually leave)

(Keene’s A)

ACCEPTABLE

(maybe leave, maybe cut)

(Keene’s B & C)

NON- DESIRABLE

(usually cut)

(Keene’s D)

LIVE CROWN RATIO >40% for ponderosa pine 25% - 40% for ponderosa pine

35% - 50% for other species

Less than 25% for ponderosa pine

Less than 35% for other spp.

CROWN CLASS dominants co-dominates and better intermediates suppressed/over-topped, poor form**

INSECTS, ANIMAL,

FIRE, MISC. DISEASE

(see next row for

mistletoe)

NONE

Minor insect or animal defoliation (< 25 % live crown

ratio).

Barking of ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir < 50 % of bole

circumference.

Fire kill of cambium < 50 % of bole circumference or the

scorch is on the lower 2/3 of the crown.

Any bark beetle attacks.

Defoliation >25% of live crown.

Barking of ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir > 50 % of bole

circumference. Any significant barking of other species.

Any significant top killing. Fire kill of cambium >50 % of

bole circumference, or the scorch reaches into the upper 1/3

of the crown. Any conks on stem which indicate rot.

HAWKSWORTH

DWARF MISTLETOE

RATING—DMR*

0

VSS 5 groups with trees 3 or lower (where VSS 5/6 is

deficit), where not overtopping desired VSS 1, 2 & 3 groups

VSS 6 groups with any DMR where VSS 6 is deficit.

All VSS 2-3 with any visible dwarf mistletoe

All VSS 4-6 groups with trees averaging 4 or greater DMR

where overtopping desired VSS 1, 2,& 3 DM free groups

FORM DEFECTS

NONE

MINOR (no significant weakening of the tree anticipated.

Minor crooks, sweeps, and tight forks which are < 30% of

total tree height are acceptable if the tree is dominant or co-

dominant and otherwise has good vigor).

MAJOR

(weakening of tree or multiple tops)

SOUNDNESS DEFECTS NONE NONE ANY

Reserve tree requirements are not subject to Physical Characteristics criteria for tree selection.

*This is example text and actual treatments for dwarf mistletoe would vary on a stand level basis.


FIGURE 4: KEEN’S CLASSIFICATION OF TREES BASED ON AGE AND VIGOR

Keen’s tree classification taken from Ponderosa Pine Tree Classes Redefined (Keen 1943).


APPENDIX C

Stand Density, Vegetative Structural Stage, and Dwarf Mistletoe

Stand Density and Relationship to the Forest Plan

The Apache-Sitgreaves Forest Plan describes guidelines for desired tree group densities (by VSS)

within the following forest stratums:

Goshawk Forest Habitat lands;

a. Gohawk Foraging areas –manage for 40% canopy cover in VSS 4-5-6 groups.

b. Goshawk Post Fledging Family areas –manage for (VSS 4 -60% canopy cover within 7%

of groups, 50% canopy cover within 13% of the groups, VSS 5-6 -50% canopy cover within

groups).

The Apache-Sitgreaves Forest Plan does not direct or recommend desired stand densities for the

following forest stratum:

1) Mexican Spotted Owl Protected Habitat lands

2) Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Habitat (other) lands

3) Goshawk Forest Habitat lands (stand-level)

Although stand-level density direction is not provided in the Forest Plan for these stratums, other

directed or recommended forest condition attributes can be used to imply appropriate stand density

ranges consistent with meeting project purpose and need and plan direction. These attributes were

used to develop project alternatives and analysis of effects:

1) Maintain forest health (MSO Recovery Habitat (other) lands and Goshawk Forest Habitat

lands) – based upon best available science (discussed following), stand densities should be

maintained below 45% of maximum stand density index.

2) Maintain clumped/grouped spatial arrangement of tree groups (MSO Recovery Habitat

(other) lands4 and Goshawk Forest Habitat lands

5) -based upon best available science

(discussed following), stand densities should be maintained below 35% of maximum stand

density index.

4 forest plan guidelines recommend managing MSO Habitat (other) lands for uneven-aged forest structural conditions.

5 Desired conditions described in the Forest Plan Guidelines, linked to USDA Forest Service, RM GTR-217.

Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States (Reynolds et. al.1992).


3) Regenerate shade-intolerant species (MSO Restricted Habitat (other) lands and Goshawk

Forest Habitat lands) -based upon best available science (discussed following), stand

densities adjacent to regeneration areas should be maintained below 25% of maximum stand

density index.

4) Regenerate shade-intolerant species in large-grouped patterns (MSO Recovery Habitat

(other) lands and Goshawk Forest Habitat lands) – create regeneration openings greater than

0.33 acre in size

5) Develop mature structural stages with high canopy density (MSO Protected Habitat and

Recovery Habitat (nest/roost stands), and Goshawk nest stands) - stand densities should be

maintained.

The relationships between stand density index, basal area and the desired clumped/ grouped spatial

arrangement of tree groups is described in Youtz et al. 2007 and USDA 2014.

Stand Density Density management is the manipulation and control of growing stock (trees) in order to achieve

management objectives. The most generally effective indices of growing stock are those that

combine some expression of mean diameter and density (Long and Smith 1984). Stand density is

a quantitative measure of stocking expressed as trees per acre (TPA) or square feet of basal area

per acre (BA). Despite widespread use, density measures like TPA or BA have limited utility, as

they have no inherent biological or physiological frame of reference (Smith 1986). Respectively,

TPA and BA convey only the average distance between trees of unknown size and species, and

the cross-sectional area of the tree at 4.5 feet above the ground. Reineke's (1933) stand density

index (SDI) was used for this analysis because it accounts for tree size, can be related to a species'

maximum physiological density, and is independent of age and of site quality (Daniel, Helms, and

Baker 1979).

Percent of maximum stand density is determined based on Reineke’s stand-density index (Reineke

1933). Reineke discovered a predictable relationship between quadratic mean diameter6 and trees

per unit area in dense even-aged stands. Stand density index is a value based on the number of trees

per acre at an average stand diameter of 10 inches.

The relationship between average size and density of trees in populations experiencing density-

related or suppression mortality has been shown to be predictable for a number of tree species. This

“self-thinning rule” (Yoda et al. 1963) is a fundamental relationship has been found to be

independent of both stand age and site quality. Because of this relationship, a stand density that is

desired in the context of a specific set of management objectives can be projected forward or

backward to a different stage of stand development.

Those who use SDI, or any index of stand density, as an estimate of growing stock, must assume that

the index is proportional to site utilization (Long and Smith 1984). Since the contribution of

individual stand components to both total SDI and total site utilization is additive (Stage 1968), SDI

6 Quadratic Mean Diameter (QMD) of a stand is the diameter of the tree of average basal area. Quadratic mean

diameter is conventionally used in forestry, rather than arithmetic mean diameter (SAF 1998).


can also be used to assess control of growing stock in uneven-aged stands as well as even-aged

stands (Long and Smith 1984). Although SDI and the maximum size-density relationship were

originally described for pure, even-aged stands, Long and Daniel (1990) have proposed extension of

its utility to uneven-aged and multi-aged situations.

Basal area is a widely used measure of density; however SDI is a more descriptive means of

expressing stand or group density because SDI is related to average diameter (quadratic mean

diameter) and trees per acre. To demonstrate the usefulness of SDI over simple basal area, take two

groups or stands both of equal basal area, 60 sqft. Basal area alone reveals little difference. If one

stand had an average diameter of 6 inches and the second and average of 18 inches, the following

attributes can be calculated:

Stand A Stand B Basal area in sqft/acre 60 sqft/acre 60 sqft/acre

Quadratic mean diameter 6” 18”

Trees/acre ~306 ~34

Stand density index 135 87

From the above example, Stand A is actually the denser of the two stands. This more dense

condition provides more canopy cover, hiding cover, and tree-to-tree competition than that found in

Stand B. These stand structural differences cannot be detected by basal area stocking alone.


SDI in the Southwestern Region of the USDA Forest Service is calculated based on all live trees

larger than 1” diameter using one of the following formulas:

(1a) Total Stand SDI= Total Trees (1”+) x (Quadratic Mean Diameter/10)1.6

or

(1b) Total Stand SDI = sum of [(tree diameters 1”+/10)1.6

]

Formula 1a and 1b yield similar results in even-aged stand conditions. Formula 1b is used to

determine stand SDI in uneven-aged or multi-aged stands.

In pure, even-aged stands of a given Quadratic Mean Diameter (QMD), Reineke (1933) observed

that there was an upper limit to the number of TPA present in the densest stands. As QMD

increases, the upper TPA limit decreases exponentially. Drew and Flewelling (1979) reached

similar conclusions with regard to mean tree volume and TPA. The exponential slope of the

upper limit curve is the same for all tree species. The intercept of that curve, however, is both

regional and species specific - higher for tolerant species and lower for intolerant species. The

upper limit curve is referenced to the theoretical maximum number of 10 inch diameter breast

height (dbh)7 trees per acre. The published maximum SDI for Ponderosa pine is 450, indicating

that the upper limit, or reference, curve passes through 450 TPA when QMD equals 10.0 inches.

Stand density index is more often expressed as a percent of maximum. An SDI of 180, for

example, would be 40% of the maximum for local ponderosa pine. One would expect the densest

possible stands to be clustered between 80% and 100% of maximum. Figure 1 illustrates these

SDI concepts.

Figure 1. SDI for ponderosa pine in northern Arizona is described by this family of curves. The top

curve is the theoretical “upper density limit”. Lower curves indicate percentage of the maximum.

Any point on a given curve represents an equal level of physiological density.

(Reineke 1933)

Implications of the maximum size-density relationship are as follows.

7 Diameter Breast Height (dbh) – the diameter of a tree measured 4.5 feet from the ground (SAF 1998).


1) As mean tree size increases:

· the upper physiological limit of TPA decreases.

2) As a stand's size-density trajectory approaches the maximum:

· competition increases

· growth slows

· trees lose vigor

· mortality occurs

Knowledge of these relationships permits informed decision-making with regard to desired stand

structure and development.

Photosynthesis - Foliage produces organic sugars that are allocated, in this general priority, to:

maintenance respiration; production of fine roots and foliage; flower and seed production; height

growth; crown expansion and root extension; and lastly diameter growth and defense mechanisms

(Oliver and Larson 1996).

Growing Space - The biochemical and physiological processes of trees require sunlight, water,

mineral nutrients, suitable temperature, oxygen, and carbon dioxide. These growth factors, in

aggregate, form an abstract, non-dimensional "growing space" on any given site (Oliver and

Larson 1996). A site's productivity, also known as carrying capacity, is limited by the scarcest of

the six growth factors.

The prospects of individual trees improve as their share of growing space increases, either

through superior competitive advantage, or the decline and death of their neighbors. As a tree

grows, so does its volume of respiring tissue and the weight of its crown. In order to fuel this new

tissue and support more weight, a tree must capture additional growing space. If it fails, the

priorities of photosynthate allocation are engaged, reducing tree function in reverse order of

priority. When a tree controls insufficient growing space to sustain even maintenance respiration,

the tree dies (Oliver and Larson 1996).

Site Occupancy and Growth - Site occupancy refers to the degree to which growing space is

utilized by trees. The relationship of site occupancy to stand and individual tree growth is

familiar to silviculturists as that depicted by the three zones of Langsaeter's growth curves (Long

1985). Long (1985) has proposed values of percent of maximum SDI that correlate with the zone

thresholds of Langsaeter's growth curves. Figures 2 and 3, and table 3 illustrate the relationship

of Langsaeter's growth curves and Long's percent of maximum SDI values to site occupancy,

competition among trees, diameter and volume growth in trees, volume growth in stands, species

composition, and stem quality.


.

Project Analysis The vegetative structural stages were evaluated at three levels: stand level composite was used for

the lower level; compartments were used for the mid-scale making up the diversity units; and the

analysis area boundary was used for the upper scale. All these may be found in the files on the

attached USB flash drive.

Figure 2. – Langsaeter’s curve.

Annual whole-stand growth as a %

of potential.

Figure 3. –Langsaeter’s curve.

Annual individual-tree growth as a %

of potential.


USFS Region 3

Vegetative Structural Stages Classes by Forest Cover Types

Diameter and Cover Type Groupings as Modified 2/2000 and Finalized 4/6/2000

(Vandendriesche 2013)

Cover Types

VSS

1

VSS

2

VSS

3

VSS

4

VSS

5***

VSS

6

1. Ponderosa Pine,

Southwestern White Pine, Misc

Softwoods, Douglas Fir, White

Fir, Limber Pine, Engelmann

Spruce-Subalpine Fir,

Engelmann Spruce, Blue

Spruce, Bristlecone Pine,

Corkbark Fir, Aspen = DBH

0-0.9” 1.0-4.9” 5.0-11.9” 12.0-

17.9”

18.0-

23.9”

24”+

2. COTTONWOOD, Arizona

Cypress, Gambel Oak (tree

form*) = DRC

0-0.9” 1.0-4.9” 5.0-9.9” 10.0-

14.9”

15”+” N/A

3. Willow, Misc Hardwoods,

Gambel Oak (shrub form **)

= DRC

0-0.9” 1.0-2.9” 3.0-4.9” 5.0-6.9” 7”+” N/A

4. Pinyon-Juniper, Juniper,

Rocky Mtn Juniper = DRC

0-0.9” 1.0-2.9” 3.0-4.9” 5.0-10.9” 11”+” N/A

*Gambel Oak tree form exists

on the following Forests in

R3:

Apache-Sitgreaves

Cibola (Magdalena & Mr.

Taylor districts only)

Coconino

Coronado

Gila

Kaibab (south districts)

Lincoln

Prescott

Tonto

** Gambel Oak shrub form exists

on the following Forests in R3:

Carson

Cibola (except the

Magdalena and Mt. Taylor

districts)

Kaibab (North Kaibab

district)

Santa Fe

*** For Forest Cover

Type groups 2, 3,and 4

VSS, there are only 5 VSS

classes

VSS Canopy Cover (CC) Density Classes:

Cover Types 1, 2, & 3: 0-39%CC = A, 40-59%CC = B, 60+%CC = C

Cover Type 4 (P-J): 0-19%CC = A, 20-39%CC = B, 40+%CC = C

Canopy Stories: MS = Multiple Storied, SS = Single Storied


Dwarf Mistletoe Except as noted, all background information on dwarf mistletoe is from Hawksworth and Weins

(1996).

Interaction with Trees Dwarf mistletoes are the single-most destructive pathogen of commercially valuable conifers in the

western U.S., accounting for growth and mortality losses estimated at 3 billion board feet annually.

In northern Arizona Arceuthobium vaginatum subsp. cryptopodum is the variety of dwarf mistletoe

infecting ponderosa pine and Arceuthobium douglasii is the species infecting Douglas-fir. These

two species are the most impacted by mistletoe in the Larson Restoration Project.

These parasitic plants grow in the crowns of live trees where they actively appropriate water,

nutrients, and photosynthate for themselves and their infected branch at the expense of their host's

uninfected parts. Resources in healthy trees are allocated as described earlier in the photosynthesis

section and by diverting resources destined for those purposes; mistletoe reduces the host's growth,

vigor, and longevity.

Rating System (Hawksworth and Weins 1996)

In the 6-class dwarf mistletoe rating (DMR) system for trees, the live crown is visually divided into

thirds, and each third is scored with a:

“0” if no mistletoe is visible;

“1” if less than half the branches are infected;

“2” if more than half the branches are infected;

Infections on the main stem are not considered unless they are the tree’s sole infection in which case

a score of “1” is given.

Scores for each third are then summed to obtain a total DMR for the tree. Tree DMRs can range

from “0”, for no infection, to a maximum of “6”, where each third of the crown is heavily infected.

Stands and sample plots may also be rated by computing the average of all live infected and

uninfected tree DMRs by species. Stand or plot DMRs can range from “0” , where no trees are

infected, to “6” where every tree in the stand or plot has a tree DMR =6. Typically, stand DMRs

range from 0 to 2.5 because heavily infected portions of a stand may be offset by uninfected

portions. Plot DMRs on the other hand exhibit a wider range, often 0 to 5.0, because no averaging

occurs.

Each different scale, tree, plot, and stand DMRs provide complimentary information on the nature

and extent of mistletoe across the landscape. Individual tree and plot DMRs best portray the

magnitude of mistletoe infection levels, but convey little of mistletoe’s spatial distribution or

juxtaposition. On the other hand, stand DMRs capture some of elements of spatial juxtaposition but,

because they are composites, are unable to convey much about the variation of infection magnitude

within stands. As shown in Table 1, stand DMRs can be subjectively interpreted as an index of

infection severity and, by extension, of limitations of management.


The relationship of tree DMR to growth, mortality, and cone production is summarized in Table 2

for ponderosa pine. Dwarf mistletoe infection in Douglas-fir has slightly higher reductions than

Table 1. Stand DMR and percent infection to dwarf mistletoe infection severity class.

ponderosa pine. In general, measurable effects are observed with tree DMRs of 3 or greater.

Infections in the lower portion of crowns tend to have less significant effects than equal infections

in upper portions.

Table 2. Relationship of tree DMR to growth, mortality, and cone production for ponderosa pine.

Tree DMR

ITEM 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

% DBH Growth Reduction 0 0 0 2 14 27 50

% Height Growth Reduction 0 0 0 4 8 11 15

Cone Production Rating 2.9 2.3 2.3 2.2 1.6 0.8 0.04

% Increase in 10-year Mortality

rate

0 1 4 8 15 23 34

Spread - Infections intensify and spread within and among trees when mistletoe seeds are

explosively discharged (under hydrostatic pressure) during late summer. Seeds may travel up to

50 feet, if unobstructed, but more typically, disperse to distances of 30 feet or less. Actual

dispersal distance is highly variable and depends upon: stand structure and composition; launch

position; mistletoe height and orientation; wind speed and direction; and the hosts needle

characteristics. Seeds are covered with a viscous substance that helps them adhere to potential

infection sites. Germination is successful only on susceptible species, and then, only on twig

segments less than 5 years old. This pattern of seed dispersal tends to hasten the intensification

and crown "rain" down on younger trees. Dispersal by birds and mammals does occur, but is of

Range of Stand DMR

Infection

Severity

Class

None Light Medium Heavy Severe

0.0 0.1-0.25 0.25-0.9 1.0-1.9 2.0-6.0

Percent DM Infection (by species)

Infection

Severity

Class

None Light/Medium Heavy Severe

0% 1-20% 20-50% 50%+


little practical significance. Rates of mistletoe intensification and spread are slow when compared

with insect and other wind-borne pathogens.

Interaction with Site Quality - The incidence of dwarf mistletoe in a stand does not appear to be

related to site quality. However, its effects on host tree growth and mortality tend to be more

severe on poorer sites, where a tree's vigor potential is already reduced.

Values - Despite its negative effect on tree status, mistletoes provide foraging, nesting, cavity,

and cover opportunities for birds and mammals. Although no local species depend on it, the

abundance of mistletoe in a stand has been correlated with species diversity, bird density, and the

number of snags used by cavity nesters (Conklin 2000). Mistletoes may also have some cultural

and medical applications.

Interaction with Fire - Ground surface fires may reduce the incidence of dwarf mistletoe in

several ways. Mistletoe brooms tend to accumulate needle cast and infected branches and brooms

are more resinous than uninfected ones. This increased flammability, in combination with the

accumulation of mistletoe-related ground fuels, may increase localized fire intensity to the point

where infected branches, brooms, trees, or groups of trees are killed. Since mistletoe is an

obligate parasite, it dies when the host is killed. Furthermore, germination of mistletoe seed may

be inhibited after 60 minutes of exposure to the smoke and heat of burning needles and branch

wood on the forest floor.

Silvicultural Remediation - Silvicultural remediation of mistletoe includes:

· pruning of infected branches;

· cutting or killing all trees;

· cutting or killing the most heavily infected trees;

· or clearing a buffer between infected and uninfected trees.

Stands with light infection levels (by species) are generally regarded as being sustainable in an

uneven-aged forest structure with any form of selection cutting method. Stands with medium

dwarf mistletoe (by species) may be sustainable in an uneven-aged forest structure with group

selection cutting, providing that the distribution of infection centers are small enough to be

removed by the creation of regeneration groups. Stands with heavy infection may only be

sustained as even-aged forests with light intermediate thinning, taking care not to promote

regeneration. Once the stand reaches severe infection (by species), corrective actions may be

futile, and the stand may need to be replaced. At this point, alternatives include accepting the

heavily infected stand or regenerating it. Artificial or natural means may be employed, but when

natural regeneration is selected, seed source trees should be free of mistletoe. If infected trees

must be used, they should be removed or killed before the regeneration is 3 feet tall or 10 years

old.


Table 3. Dwarf Mistletoe Infection Severity and Management Implications*

Infection

Severity

Measure Management Implication Silviculture Prescription

Options

Low-

moderate

< 20% of the host

trees (excluding

seedlings and

saplings) are

infected or < 25%

of the acreage is

affected (that is,

at least 75% of

the area is

essentially free of

mistletoe).

Existing stand can be

sustained long-term.

All uneven-aged selection,

and even-aged

intermediate and

regeneration cutting

methods are viable. Use

low/moderate severity

prescribed fire to reduce

infection in the lower

crowns and sub-dominant

trees.

Moderate-

high

>20% of the host

trees or >25% of

the area is

infected.

Existing stand can be

maintained mid-term

(decades) as even-aged

structure by intermediate

(stand-tending) treatments,

but may not be sustainable

long-term.

Even-aged intermediate

and regeneration cutting

methods are viable. Use

low/moderate severity

prescribed fire to reduce

infection in the lower

crowns and sub-dominant

trees.

High-severe >80% of the host

trees or >90% of

the area is

infected.

Existing stand is not

sustainable, and will not

benefit from intermediate

(stand-tending) treatments.

Stand should be replaced or

not managed.

Even-aged regeneration

cutting or high severity

prescribed fire are the only

viable management

treatments.


APPENDIX D

Northern Goshawk Forest Habitat Analysis

Scales of Analysis Discussion -Three scales were used to examine existing VSS distribution in

goshawk forest habitats, as directed by the forest plan. The three scales chosen for this analysis are:

stand (fine-scale), compartment (mid-scale), project (landscape).

Vegetation Structural Stage (VSS) – The northern goshawk habitats were stratified by existing

forest structure (even and uneven-aged) to facilitate development of potential treatment alternatives,

and analysis of alternatives. A Forest Plan Standard for goshawk habitat directs that management is

focused to develop and create uneven-aged stand conditions. Therefore, even-aged stands should be

converted to uneven-aged structure, and uneven-aged stands should be managed for a balance of

structural stages, over time. This implies that the desired VSS distribution is distributed within each

and every stand, with a high degree of interspersion between structural groups (Reynolds 1992).

Therefore, the stratum (landscape) scale is useful to determine the extent of even-aged and uneven-

aged forest stands within the project landscape (broad-scale proportional representation of existing to

desired forest structure conditions). The compartment (mid) scale analysis is useful to determine

structure of certain areas of the project and relates more to previous projects which were based on

compartment treatments. The stand (fine) scale analysis is useful to determine VSS representation

within uneven-aged stands, and provides an overall average VSS calculation for even-aged stands.

Therefore, all scales are informative for different evaluation purposes.

In this context, VSS distribution within the even and uneven-aged forest stratum should be

comprehended in the context of the measure and its utility when aggregated. Aggregation of forest

structure proportions between stratums may not be useful for comparison of existing/desired

conditions, and evaluation of management treatments. The intent is to manage forest structure to

move existing VSS distribution in the uneven-aged strata towards the desired distribution, and to

convert all existing even-aged stands to uneven-aged stands with balanced VSS distribution over

time by management treatments. A given VSS for a stand within the even-aged strata should not

substitute for deficit of like VSS within the uneven-aged strata; otherwise the desired high degree of

forest structure interspersion would not be achieved. For this reason, the two stratums are displayed

separately to assess the scope and type of silvicultural treatments necessary to move towards desired

outcomes. VSS classification is also aggregated to display overall landscape forest structural

distribution; however this display should not be used for comparison to desired conditions, or to

determine progress towards attainment of objectives, due to differing stand structures in each

stratum. Analysis should comprehend differing structural proportions based upon data representing

differing forest stratums.


Forest Density/Canopy Cover –The ASNFs Forest Plan (USDA 1987 as amended 2009) provides

forest density guidelines for goshawk habitats as follows:

Goshawk Foraging Areas (FA) – “Canopy cover for mid-aged forest (VSS 4) should average

40+%, mature forest (VSS 5) should average 40+%, and old forest (VSS 6) should average

40+%. Opening size is up to 4 acres with a maximum width of up to 200 feet. One group of

reserve trees, 3-5 trees per group, will be left if the opening is greater than an acre in size.”

Goshawk Post Fledging Family Areas (PFA) – “Canopy cover for mid-aged forest (VSS 4)

should average 1/3 60+% and 2/3 50+%. Mature (VSS 5) and old forest (VSS 6) should

average 50+%.”

Canopy cover is not directly measured by common stand exam field sampling, but it can be related

to basal area (assuming a normal distribution of trees across the area with typical tree groups and

canopy gaps). For the purposes of this analysis, the following assumptions were used:

40 % canopy cover ≈ 54 ft.2 basal area, 50% canopy cover ≈70 ft.

2 basal area, 60% canopy cover ≈

93 ft.2 basal area.

CC = -55.44 + 25.5047*LN(BA) where: BA = Basal Area (ft²/ac)

Wayne D. Shepperd, Lance A. Asherin, and Carlton B. Edminster. Using Individual Tree Selection

Silviculture to Restore Northern Goshawk Habitat: Lessons from a Southwestern Study. PNW-

GTR-546, 2001.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

Can

op

y C

ov

er

Basal Area

Canopy Cover vs. Basal Area


The ASNFs Forest Plan Guidelines (USDA 1987, as amended 2009) also state:

“Canopy cover guidelines apply only to mid-aged to old forest structural stages (VSS 4, VSS 5, and

VSS 6) and not to grass/forb/shrub to young forest structural stages (VSS 1, VSS 2, and VSS 3).”

(An area scale for VSS development and maintenance is not mentioned in the forest plan, however

the desired proportions for each stand are provided. Since the canopy cover guidelines refer to

specific VSS classes; the density measurements apply at whatever scale the VSS 4-5-6 will be

retained.)

Specific scale(s) for canopy cover analysis are not spelled out in the Forest Plan; however, the Forest

Plan is specific as to which VSS classes have canopy cover guidelines. Guidelines are displayed

above. Within uneven-aged stands there will be at least three different VSS classes with the

objective of management to ultimately achieve six classes. In these stands, canopy cover will meet

guideline requirements at the group level. For VSS 4-6 groups, canopy cover after treatment will

meet or exceed minimum requirements. For VSS 1-3 groups, canopy cover will be managed by

regulation of basal area to insure canopy cover guidelines will be met when the groups reach VSS 4

size. Averaging canopy cover between all six VSS class groups, in uneven-aged stands will always

result in lower than required canopy cover because the smaller VSS size groups must be left open

enough, trees spaced far enough apart, to allow growth into the next VSS size group. Canopy cover

within these smaller sized groups (VSS 1-3) will be lower than required for VSS 4 because the trees

in the group must grow to reach the next size class. Management of basal area by group, depending

on VSS class, will insure trees move quickly from smaller VSS sizes to larger VSS sizes but the size

(scale) of groups will be variable.

For even-aged stands canopy cover can be measured at the stand matrix scale and at the leave group

scale. But, because the objective for even-aged stands is to convert them into uneven-aged stands

regeneration openings (VSS 1) must be created (cut out). Once this happens the scale for canopy

cover begins to mimic that of the uneven-aged stands. Averaging canopy cover over the entire stand

will not provide meaningful numbers for the same reasons as described above, averaging widely

spaced smaller trees (VSS 1-3 groups) with appropriately spaced larger tree groups that meet canopy

cover guidelines while still providing for growth into larger sizes.

For the above stated reasons canopy cover must be measured at the group level for uneven-aged

stands and at the matrix and group level for the larger VSS sizes (VSS 4-6).

Since the Forest Plan Standards direct that goshawk habitats be managed for uneven-aged conditions

at the stand-level, this implies that VSS 1-6 should be distributed throughout each stand in various

single-tree, clumped, grouped and patch arrangements. Minimum canopy cover guidelines apply

only to VSS 4-6; therefore a stand-level measurement of canopy cover is not applicable, and a point-

level measurement may or may not be applicable (depending upon point location within tree

group/patch). For these reasons, canopy cover point/stand sampling calculations and projections at

the stand and stratum scales cannot be related to Forest Plan guidelines for canopy cover within

groups/patches of VSS 4-5-6. There is no valid relationship, because sampling statistics at this scale

also average VSS 1-2-3 forest groups/patches and non-forested openings into sampling calculations.


Likewise the relationship between canopy cover and individual sample points is not definitive, since

sample points are distributed systematically and do not necessarily sample only within an individual

VSS group/patch. It is not practical or operationally feasible to collect data to accurately display the

VSS group/patch-scale existing and projected density conditions for uneven-aged stands. The

following analysis of data reflects single-plot and stand-level VSS dominance, but may not

completely measure attributes of a VSS group/patch; due to the systematic nature of inventory plot

location (plot or stand data may reflect an average of multiple forest structure conditions weighted

by dominant VSS).

The project proposed treatment strategies are consistent with the Forest Plan Standards and

Guidelines, and design criteria have been developed to insure these canopy cover guidelines will be

met during implementation. Specific design criteria for implementation are found in Appendix B,

Figures 2 & 3, to assure consistency with plan guidelines.

Analysis Results - Northern goshawk habitat was analyzed at three scales: stand (fine-scale),

compartment (mid-scale), and stratum (project landscape-scale). Goshawk habitat stratums analyzed

include: foraging area (even-aged), foraging area (uneven-aged), and PFA (all stands combined).

These 3 scales are analyzed in the Wildlife Specialist Report.


APPENDIX F

Literature Cited

Abella, Scott R., Peter Z. Fule, and W. Wallace Covington. 2006. Diameter caps for thinning

southwestern ponderosa pine forests: viewpoints, effects, and tradeoffs. Journal of Forestry

104(8):407-414.

Allen, S.R., M. Savage, D.A. Falk, K.F. Suckling, T.W. Swetnam, T. Shulke, P.B. Stacey, P.

Morgan, M. Hoffman, and J.T. Klingel. 2002. Ecological restoration of southwestern

ponderosa pine ecosystems: a broad perspective. Ecological Applications. 12(5):1418-1433.

Clary, Warren P. 1975. Range management and its ecological basis in the ponderosa pine type of

Arizona: the status of our knowledge. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain forest and Range Experiment Station Research Paper RM-158. 35 pp.

Conklin, David A. 2000. Dwarf mistletoe management and forest health in the southwest. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 30 pp.

Conklin, David A. and Mary Lou Fairweather. 2010. Dwarf mistletoe and their management in the

Southwest. USDA Forest Service. Southwestern Region. R3-FH-10-01. 23 pp. Available at:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5238459.pdf (24 March 2011)

Cooper, Charles F. 1960. Changes in vegetation, structure, and growth of southwestern pine forests

since white settlement.” Ecological Monographs 30(2):129-164.

Covington, W. Wallace. 1993. Implications for ponderosa pine/bunchgrass ecological systems.

Sustainable Ecological Systems: Implementing an Ecological Approach to Land Management.

U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-247. pp. 92-97.

Crookston, Nickolus L., Melinda Moeur, and David Renner. 2002. Users guide to the most similar

neighbor imputation program version 2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-96.

Dahms, Cathy W. and Brian W. Geils. 1997. An assessment of forest ecosystem health in the

southwest. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report RM-GTR-295. 97 pp. Available

at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gtr295.pdf (19 December 2008 ).

Dixon, Gary E. 2008. Essential FVS: a user’s guide to the forest vegetation simulator. United States

Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Washington office, Forest Management Service

Center Fort Collins, CO. 240 pp.

Drew, T.J. and J.W. Flewelling. 1979. Stand density management: an alternative approach and its

application to Douglas-fir plantations. Forest Science. 25:518-532.

Fairweather, Marylou. 2008. Dwarf mistletoe and other insect and disease activity in the Rim Lakes

Forest Health project area. Letter addressed to the Black Mesa Ranger District.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5238459.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gtr295.pdf


Fiedler, C.E., Arno, S. F. Harrington, M.G. 1996. Flexible silvicultural and prescribed burning

approaches for improving health of ponderosa pine forests. Conference on Adaptive

Ecosystem Restoration and Management. USDA, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station, RM-GTR-278. pp.69-74.

Hawksworth, F.G. and D. Wiens. 1996. Dwarf mistletoes: biology, pathology, and systematics.

Agricultural Handbook 709. USDA, Forest Service. 410 pp. Available at:

http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/publications/ah_709/ (19 December 2008).

Huffman, David W. 2013. Fire history of a mixed-conifer forest on the Mogollon Rim, Northern

Arizona, USA, preliminary summary research results. 7 pp.

Hurteau, S. 2010. Preliminary Forest Spatial Structure Representation at Eagar South and Mineral.

Draft data prepared by The Nature Conservancy. Flagstaff, AZ.

Keen, F.P. 1943. Ponderosa pine tree classes redefined. Journal of Forestry 41(4): pp. 249-253(5).

Long, J.N. 1985. A practical approach to density management. Forestry Chronicle.

61:23-27.

Long, J.N. and F.W. Smith. 1984. Relation between size and density in developing stands: a

description and possible mechanism. For. Ecol. And Management 7:191-206.

Long, J.N. and T.W. Daniel. 1990. Assessment of growing stock in uneven-aged stands. Western

Journal of Applied Forestry. 5:93-96.

Long, James N. and John D. Shaw. 2011. A density management diagram for even-aged Sierra

mixed-conifer stands (Draft). 23pp.

Malmsheimer, Robert W., Patrick Heffernan, Steve Brink, Douglas Crandell, Fred Deneke,

Christopher Galik, Edmund Gee, John A. Helms, Nathan McClure, Michael Mortimer, Steve

Ruddell, Matthew Smith, and John Stewart. 2008. Forest management solutions for mitigating

climate change in the United States. Journal of Forestry 106(3):115-173. Available at:

http://saf.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/content/saf/jof/2008/00000106/

00000003 (17 September 2008).

McMillin, Joel. 2004. Stand hazard rating for bark beetles attacking southwestern ponderosa pine.

Region 3 Entomologist Report for the Nagel Forest Health Project.

Moir, William H., Brian Geils, Mary Ann Benoit, and Dan Scurlock. 1997. Ecology of southwestern

ponderosa pine forests. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-GTR-292. 27pp.

Moore, Margaret M., W.W. Covington, and P.Z. Fule. 1999. Reference conditions and ecological

restoration: a southwestern ponderosa pine perspective.” Ecological Applications Vol. 9, No.

4 pp. 1266-1277.

http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/publications/ah_709/


Moore, Margaret M., David W. Huffman, Peter Z. Fule, W. Wallace Covington, and Joseph E.

Crouse. 2004. Comparison of historical and contemporary forest structure and composition on

permanent plots in southwestern ponderosa pine forests. For. Sci 50 (2) 2004. pp 62 – 176.

Oliver, C.D. and B.C. Larson. 1996. Forest stand dynamics. McGraw-Hill, New York.

467 pp.

Reineke, L.H. 1933. Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. Journal of Agricultural

Research. 46:627-638.

Reynolds, Richard T., Russell T. Graham, M. Hildegard Reiser. 1992. Management

recommendations for the northern goshawk in the Southwestern United States. USDA, Forest

Service, General Technical Report RM-217.

Reynolds, Richard T., Andrew J. Sanchez Meador, James A. Youtz, Tessa Nicolet, Megan S.

Matonis, Patrick L. Jackson, Donald G. DeLorenzo, Andrew D. Graves. Restoring

composition and structure in southwestern frequent-fire forests: a science-based framework for

improving ecosystem resiliency. USDA, Forest Service, General Technical Report RMRS-

GTR-310.

Ronco, Frank Jr., Carleton B. Edminster, and David P. Trujillo. 1985. Growth of ponderosa pine

thinned to different stocking levels in northern Arizona. USDA, Forest Service, Research Paper

RM-262.

Sensibaugh, Mark, Bruce Greco, Walker Chancellor, and Mike Stoddard. 2013. Larson forest

restoration project historic range of variation (HRV reference conditions) assessment report. 20

pp.

Shaw, John D. 2006. Reineke’s stand density index: where are we and where do we go from here?

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 14pp.

Shepperd, Wayne, Lance A. Asherin, and Carlton B. Edminster. Using individual tree selection

silviculture to restore northern goshawk habitat: lessons from a southwestern study. PNW-

GTR-546, 2001.

Sitko, Sue and Sarah Hurteau. 2010. The first five years of the white mountain stewardship project.

The Nature Conservancy. 125 pp. Available at:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/stewardship/reports/WMSP%20Five%20Year%20Report%20Tag

ged%20Compressed.pdf (January 5, 2011)

Society of American Foresters (SAF). 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada.

Society of American Foresters. 148pp.

Society of American Foresters (SAF). 2005. Use of silviculture to achieve and maintain forest

health on public lands. Position Statement Available at:

http://www.safnet.org/policyandpress/psst/silviculture.pdf (11 August 2008)

Society of American Foresters. 1998. The dictionary of forestry. Bethesda, MD: 210 pp.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/stewardship/reports/WMSP%20Five%20Year%20Report%20Tagged%20Compressed.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/stewardship/reports/WMSP%20Five%20Year%20Report%20Tagged%20Compressed.pdf

http://www.safnet.org/policyandpress/psst/silviculture.pdf


Smith, D.M. 1986. The practice of silviculture, 8th edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 527

pp.

Smith, E. 2006. Historical range of variation and state and transition modeling of historical and

current landscape conditions for mixed conifer of the Southwestern U.S. Prepared for the

U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southwestern Region by The Nature Conservancy, Tucson, AZ. 31

pp. Available

at:http://nmconservation.org/dl/TNCAZ_SWFAP_HRV_Mixed_Conifer_Forest.pdf (14 June

2010).

Stage, A.R. 1968. A tree-by-tree measure of site utilization for grand fir related to stand density

index. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note INT-77, 7pp.

Tuten, Matthew. 2006. Forest structure demonstration plots, Kaibab National Forest. Ecological

restoration Institute. 4 pp.

University of Montana (UOM). 1995. Uneven-aged management: opportunities, constraints, and

methodologies. School of Forestry, The University of Montana, Missoula, MT. MFCES

Miscellaneous Publication No.56.

USDA. 1987. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Plan, as updated June 2009. USDA Forest

Service, Southwestern Region. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/projects/docs/ASNF-

1987-Forest-Plan-through-Amend13-AC1.pdf (5 April 2010).

USDA, 1996. Record of decision for amendment of forest plans, Arizona and New Mexico. United

States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Available at:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/projects/index.shtml (11 August 2008).

USDA. 2008a. Forest and insect disease conditions in the southwestern region, 2007. Forest

Service. Southwestern Region. PR-R3-16-3.

USDA. 2008b. Common stand exam users guide, version 1.8. USDA Forest Service, Chapter 4.

Available at: http://fsweb.nris.fs.fed.us/products/FSVeg/documentation.shtml (19 December

2010)

USDA. 2010. National forest resource management, chapter 2020-ecological restoration and

resilence. Interim Directive No: 2020-2010-1. 12 pp.

Woolsey, Theodore S. Jr. 1911. Western Yellow Pine in Arizona and New Mexico. USDA Forest

Service Bulletin 101. Available at:

http://library.eri.nau.edu/gsdl/collect/erilibra/index/assoc/HASH92da.dir/doc.pdf (5 April

2010).

White, Alan S. 1985. Presettlement Regeneration Patterns in a Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Stand.

Ecology Vol. 66 No. 2. 589-594.

http://nmconservation.org/dl/TNCAZ_SWFAP_HRV_Mixed_Conifer_Forest.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/projects/index.shtml


Yoda, K., T. Kira, H. Ogana and K. Hozumi. 1963. Self-thinning in overcrowded pure stands under

cultivated and natural conditions. J. Biol. Osaka City Univ. 14: 107-129.

Youtz, James A., Russell T. Graham, Richard T. Reynolds, and Jerry Simon. 2007. Implementing

the northern goshawk habitat management in southwestern forests: a template for restoring

fire-adapted forest ecosystems. USDA Forest Service PNW-Proceedings of the 2007 National

Silviculture Workshop.

Zeide, Boris. 2010. Comparison of self-thinning models:an exercise in reasoning. Trees(2010) 24:1

1117-1126.

Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist ...

Documents

Transcript of Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist ...