a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/.../www/nepa/99694_FSPLT3_3993941.pdf · 2017. 6. 23. · In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

May 2017

Silviculture Report

Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Plan

North Fork John Day Ranger District Umatilla National Forest Service Umatilla County, Oregon

For Information Contact: Lea Baxter Certified Silviculturist

In accordance with Federa l civil rights law and U.S . Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regula tions and policies , the USDA, its Agencies , offices , and employees , and ins titutions participa ting in or adminis te ring USDA programs are prohibited from discrimina ting based on race , color, na tiona l origin, re ligion, sex, gender identity (including gender express ion), sexual orienta tion, disability, age , marita l s ta tus , family/parenta l s ta tus , income derived from a public as s is tance program, politica l be lie fs , or reprisa l or re ta lia tion for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not a ll bases apply to a ll programs). Remedies and compla int filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require a lte rna tive means of communica tion for program information (e .g., Bra ille , la rge print, audiotape , American S ign Language , e tc.) should contact the respons ible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center a t (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federa l Re la y Service a t (800) 877-8339. Additiona lly, program information may be made ava ilable in languages othe r than English.

To file a program discrimina tion compla int, comple te the USDA Program Discrimina tion Compla int Form, AD-3027, found online a t http://www.ascr.usda .gov/compla int_filing_cus t.html and a t any USDA office or write a le tte r addressed to USDA and provide in the le tte r a ll of the information reques ted in the form. To reques t a copy of the compla int form, ca ll (866) 632-9992. Submit your comple ted form or le tte r to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture , Office of the Ass is tant Secre ta ry for Civil Rights , 1400 Independence Avenue , SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda .gov.

USDA is an equa l opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Silviculturist Report ............................................................................................................................. 5

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 5

Vegetation Data ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Historical Range of Variability .............................................................................................................. 6

Analysis Indicators ................................................................................................................................ 7

Forest Structure .................................................................................................................................. 7

Forest Density .................................................................................................................................... 9

Species Composition ......................................................................................................................... 9

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area .............................................................................. 11

Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 11 Existing Condition ............................................................................................................................... 12

Stand Structure................................................................................................................................. 12

Density ............................................................................................................................................. 14

Species Composition ....................................................................................................................... 16

Desired Future Condition ............................................................................................................ 18 Proposed Fuels Treatments (Silvicultural) Activities .......................................................................... 18

Noncommercial Thinning (NCT) ........................................................................................................ 20

Commercial Thinning .......................................................................................................................... 20

Thinning from Below ...................................................................................................................... 21

Thinning utilizing “skip and gap” method ....................................................................................... 22

Pruning ............................................................................................................................................. 22

Prescribed Burning .......................................................................................................................... 22

Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................................... 23 Cumulative Effects Analysis Parameters ............................................................................................. 23

All Alternatives ................................................................................................................................ 23

Alternative 1 – No Action .................................................................................................................... 24

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects................................................................................................... 24

ii

Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................................................... 25

Alternative 2, 3, and 4 .......................................................................................................................... 25

Direct and Indirect Effects ............................................................................................................... 25

Alternatives 2 and 3 ............................................................................................................................. 28

Direct and Indirect effects: .............................................................................................................. 28

Alternative 4 ........................................................................................................................................ 30

Direct and Indirect effects: .............................................................................................................. 30

Cumulative effects, All Action Alternatives (2, 3, and 4) ............................................................... 31

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 (Action Alternatives) ...................................................................................... 32

Prescribed Burning .......................................................................................................................... 32

Summary of Effects...................................................................................................................... 36 Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan ........................................................ 37

Other Relevant Mandatory Disclosures ........................................................................................... 39

Literature Cited .................................................................................................................................. 40 References ........................................................................................................................................... 45

Appendix A – EASTSIDE SCREENS CONSISTENCY ....................................................................... 52

Appendix B – Consideration of Best Available Science ......................................................................... 57

Appendix C – Amendment to Silviculture Report ................................................................................. 58

Appendix D – Project Design Criteria, silviculture ............................................................................... 58

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Density level definitions from Martin (2010). .............................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 2: Forest Structural Stages, Project Area .......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3: Potential forest vegetation groups within the project area. ........... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 4: Species composition range of variability (RV) based on cover type by potential vegetation group

(PVG) .................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 5: Alternatives 2 and 3 structure RV analysis. .................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 6: Alternatives 2 and 3 species composition RV analysis ................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 7: Alternative 4 structure RV analysis. ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 8: Alternative 4 species composition RV analysis. ........................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 9: Forest structure classes described in Martin (2010). ...................................................................... 8 Table 10: Density level definitions from Martin (2010). .............................................................................. 9 Table 11: Potential forest vegetation groups within the project area. ......................................................... 10

iii

Table 12: Forest Structural Stages, Project Area ........................................................................................ 13 Table 13: Range of variability (RV) analysis for forest structural classes.................................................. 14 Table 14: Density levels for each PVG. ...................................................................................................... 15 Table 15: Average values for basal area (BA), stand density index (SDI), and quadratic mean diameter

(QMD) for each PVG .......................................................................................................................... 15 Table 16: Density analysis for Cold UF. ..................................................................................................... 15 Table 17: Density analysis for Moist UF. ................................................................................................... 15 Table 18: Density analysis for Dry UF ....................................................................................................... 16 Table 19: Species composition range of variability (RV) based on cover type by potential vegetation

group (PVG) ........................................................................................................................................ 17 Table 20: Tree-removing silvicultural treatments by alternative ................................................................ 25 Table 21: Prescribed fire treatment by alternative ...................................................................................... 26 Table 22: Alternatives 2 and 3 structure RV analysis. ................................................................................ 28 Table 23: Alternatives 2 and 3 species composition RV analysis............................................................... 29 Table 24: Alternative 4 structure RV analysis. ........................................................................................... 30 Table 25: Alternative 4 species composition RV analysis. ......................................................................... 31 Table 26: Prescribed burning summary. ..................................................................................................... 32 Table 27: ..................................................................................................................................................... 36

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: The historical range of variability (HRV) concept illustrated above was used to evaluate

whether species composition, forest structure, and tree density are functioning properly in a temporal context (Morgan et al.1994, Swanson et al. 1994, Aplet and Keeton 1999). Note that conditions occurring above the upper limit of the range are considered to be over-represented; conditions below the lower limit of the range are considered to be under-represented (both representation zones are shown in gray). ...................................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 2: Projected increase in wildfire area burned with a mean annual temperature increase of 1 °C (1.8 °F), shown as a percentage change relative to median annual area burned during 1950-2003 (source: Climate Central 2012, as adapted from fig. 5.8 in National Research Council 2011). ....................... 19

Figure 3: Depiction of thinning from below or “low thinning” (Powell 2013, Powell 2011). Typical stands in the Ten Cent project would have small seedling/sapling-size trees underneath these overstory trees. .................................................................................................................................... 22

LIST OF MAPS Map 1: Existing stand structure within the Ten Cent Project ..................... Er ror ! Bookmark not defined. Map 2: Forested potential vegetation groups in the Ten Cent project area. Er ror ! Bookmark not defined. Map 3: Range of Variation/HRV Analysis area (shaded). ............................................................................ 6 Map 4: Forested potential vegetation groups in the Ten Cent project area. ................................................ 10 Map 5: Existing stand structure within the Ten Cent project ...................................................................... 14

Silviculture Report Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project

4


5

SILVICULTURIST REPORT

INTRODUCTION

This report analyzes the effects of the proposed action and associated alternatives on forest vegetation, using stand structure, density and composition as indicators.

METHODOLOGY

Vegetation Data Information for this silvicultural analysis was gathered from field reconnaissance, the Umatilla National Forest’s Geographic Information System (GIS), historical mapping and by utilizing Field Sampled Vegetation (FSVeg) Data Analyzer to create vegetation datasets and perform modeling through the Nearest Neighbor process. Analysis was accomplished by varying methods, including: trends analysis based on similar past activities/natural disturbances, GIS/mapping, comparison with pertinent research, field observations, professional judgment based upon observation of past activities and experience within the general location.

Walk-thru surveys of stands were completed by the project’s silviculturist; stand diagnoses to identify treatment needs followed the Silvicultural Practices Handbook (FSH 2409.17).

Field analysis for insect and disease conditions on a selection of these stands was performed at different times by Craig Schmitt and Lia Spiegel (Schmitt and Spiegel 2007), C. Schmitt and Don Scott (Schmitt and Scott 2011), and L. Spiegel, Mike Johnson, and Mike Williams (Spiegel, Johnson and Williams 2015).

All mapping was done through the GIS system.

For the purpose of making a comparison between existing and historical conditions, the Forest developed a set of percentages to denote the natural range of variability to use as reference conditions (Martin 2010). The range of variation reference conditions described in Martin (2010) are based on best available science, and are used to compare desired conditions with what exists today in this area. The Eastside screens use the term “Historical Range of Variation” (HRV); the updated information described in Martin (2010) uses the term “Range of Variation” (RV).

Forest recommendations for conducting this analysis include the following: “Use an appropriate size of analysis area (a minimum of 15,000 acres to 35,000 acres), although areas larger than 35,000 are appropriate and preferable for an RV analysis” (Martin 2010). The Ten Cent project vegetation analysis area is 59,475 acres and falls within the recommended size range (see Map 1).


6

Map 1: Range of Variation/HRV Analysis area (shaded).

Historical Range of Variability Historical range of variability (HRV) or range of variation (RV) analysis was used to evaluate forest structure, forest density, and species composition within the landscape containing the Ten Cent project area. The Umatilla N. F. forest supervisor issued a letter describing how this analysis should be conducted (Martin 2010), utilizing the best available science, to conduct the Eastside Screens structure analysis. The Martin 2010 letter of direction is fully consistent with the Eastside Screens and includes analysis of species composition and density as well as structure. As stated in the letter:

“The range of variation is defined as the range of conditions likely to have occurred in the Blue Mountains prior to Euro-American settlement in the mid-1800s. Forest Service handbook and manual direction recommends that an RV approach be used when comparing current and desired conditions during project planning (see FSH 1909.12, section 43.13—Range of Variation; and FSM 1920, section 1921.73a—Ecosystem Diversity). The Eastside Screens require an RV analysis for forest structural stages only. The handbook and manual direction, however, recommends using an RV approach when analyzing structure, species composition and density.”

The range of variability analysis for this project was performed on the landscape scale of 59,475 acres, not including designated wilderness, in which the Ten Cent project is located. Figure 1 depicts conditions within a range of variation.


7

Figure 1: The historical range of variability (HRV) concept illustrated above was used to evaluate whether species composition, forest structure, and tree density are functioning properly in a temporal context (Morgan et al.1994, Swanson et al. 1994, Aplet and Keeton 1999). Note that conditions occurring above the upper limit of the range are considered to be over-represented; conditions below the lower limit of the range are considered to be under-represented (both representation zones are shown in gray).

Analysis Indicators Indicators are measures used to describe the status of forest stands and are used as key components to quantify changes for analyzing the effects of different actions on the Ten Cent project area. Forest structure, forest density and species composition are the three indicators used for analysis in this project and provide meaningful measures to develop an overall picture of the forest historically, presently, and in the future.

FOREST STRUCTURE Structure Classes

Forest structure describes the tree canopy layers and life stage of a forest stand. Table 1 describes the five structure classes used in the revised RV analysis.


8

Table 1: Forest structure classes described in Martin (2010).

Stand Initiation (SI). Following a stand-replacing disturbance, growing space is occupied rapidly by vegetation that either survives the disturbance or colonizes the area. Survivors literally survive the disturbance above ground, or initiate new growth from their underground organs or from seeds on the site. Colonizers disperse seed into disturbed areas, it germinates, and new seedlings establish and grow. One stratum of tree seedlings and saplings is present in this stage.

Stem Exclusion (SE). Trees initially grow fast and quickly occupy their growing space, competing strongly for sunlight and moisture. Because trees are tall and reduce light, understory plants (including small trees) are shaded and grow slowly. Species needing sunlight usually die; shrubs and herbs may go dormant. In this stage, establishment of new trees is precluded by a lack of sunlight (stem exclusion closed canopy) or by a lack of moisture (stem exclusion open canopy).

Understory Re-initiation (UR). A new tree cohort eventually gets established after overstory trees begin to die or because they no longer fully occupy their growing space. This period of overstory crown shyness occurs when tall trees abrade each other in the wind (Putz et al. 1984). Regrowth of understory vegetation occur, trees begin stratifying into vertical layers, and a moderately dense overstory with small trees beneath is eventually produced.

Old Forest (OFSS or OFMS). Many age classes and tree layers mark this stage featuring large, old trees. Snags and fallen trees may also be present, leaving a discontinuous overstory canopy. The drawing shows single-layer ponderosa pine created by frequent surface fire on dry sites (old forest single stratum, OFSS). Cold or moist sites, however, generally have multi-layer stands with large trees in the uppermost stratum (old forest multi strata, OFMS).

Source: Powell (2011)

Range of Variability for Forest Structure A historical range of variability analysis for forest structure was developed for the landscape surrounding and including the project area. For the purpose of comparing reference structure conditions with current conditions, the Umatilla National Forest developed a set of percentages to denote the range of variation to use as reference conditions (Martin 2010). Reference conditions were developed for each potential vegetation group (PVG) found on the forest. For example, historically 40 to 60 percent of the area classified as “dry forest” would have been in the old forest single stratum (OFSS) structural stage (see Table 1 for description of forest structural classes).


9

FOREST DENSITY Forest density is a measure of the amount of tree vegetation on a unit of land area. It can be expressed as the amount of basal area (BA), stand density index (SDI) (Reineke 1933), or a variety of other parameters. Stocking is the proportion that any particular measurement of stand density bears to a standard expressed in the same units. Stand density tells us what actually exists, whereas stocking tells us how it relates to an established standard of what “ought” to be (Smith et al. 1997, Powell 1999).

A density analysis was completed to help identify opportunities to use thinning and other density management treatments to address potential wildfire hazard in the Ten Cent project area. The analysis was based on reference conditions as described in Martin (2010); results were used to identify high density stands.

See Table 2 for a description of density levels for each potential vegetation group. A stand with a measure within the low density level would be considered understocked, while a stand with a measure within the high density level would be overstocked (Table 2). Forests that are overstocked and have high density levels are in a “self-thinning” zone where tree aggressively compete with each other for moisture, sunlight and nutrients. Forests in a self-thinning zone experience mortality as crowded trees die from competition or are killed by insects or diseases that attack trees under stress (Cochran et al. 1994, Powell 1999). By using the stocking guidelines in conjunction with potential vegetation groups, it is possible to determine the number of acres within each density level.

Table 2: Density level definitions from Martin (2010).

PVG Density Level Basal Area (ft2/ac)

Low <70 Cold UF Medium 70-110

High >110 Low <45

Dry UF Medium 45-70 High >70 Low <90

Moist UF Medium 90-135 High >135

SPECIES COMPOSITION Cover Types

Tree species composition was evaluated using forest cover types, which are based on the percentage of stocking a tree species occupies within a specific stand. For instance, the grand fir cover type (ABGR) has a majority (50% or more) of grand fir trees but may contain other tree species such as ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir or western larch

Potential Vegetation Potential vegetation information offers insights into vegetation-site relationships and can be helpful in projecting the type of vegetation expected under a particular suite of environmental conditions (Pfister and Arno 1980). Potential vegetation implies that over the course of time and in the absence of future disturbance, similar plant communities will develop on similar sites. (Powell 2000).

Potential vegetation types are derived using plant associations, plant community types, or plant communities (Powell et al. 2007). A plant association is a unit of classification based on the likely climax


10

community that would develop given time and lack of disturbance, and is named for the climax dominant overstory and understory species (Johnson and Clausnitzer 1992). Plant associations have been grouped into plant association groups (PAG) based on temperature and moisture categories (Powell et al. 2007). Plant association groups are then assigned to potential vegetation groups (PVG) (Powell et al. 2007).

The Ten Cent project area consists primarily of three distinct forested potential vegetation groups: dry upland forest (Dry UF), moist upland forest (Moist UF) and cold upland forest (Cold UF). For detailed descriptions of these groups, as well as which plant associations are included in each, see Powell et al. (2007).

Table 3: Potential forest vegetation groups within the project area.

Group PVG Description Acres Percent

Cold UF Cold Upland Forest 25,493 44 Moist UF Moist Upland Forest 16,211 28 Dry UF Dry Upland Forest 16,109 28

Sources/Notes: Powell (2007) describes how plant associations and plant community types were assigned to potential vegetation groups. Total acres surveyed 57,913. Only National Forest System land included.

Map 2: Forested potential vegetation groups in the Ten Cent project area.

Range of Variability for Species Composition A range of variability analysis for vegetative cover was conducted comparing present cover type (derived from stand exams and INFORMS Most Similar Neighbor modeling interpolation) to ranges described in Martin (2010). It is important to note that cover type is an indicator of overstory or dominate species within a stand and may not accurately characterize understory species in developing stands.


11

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area All silvicultural effects analyses were accomplished at the project area scale, consisting of 59,412 acres (excludes wilderness and private land). Temporal scales used are short term (loosely 0-5 years) and long term (loosely 20 to 100+ years). These time frames were chosen for a very long-lived resource (trees) so that immediate effects of treatments could be discussed, as well as “out-year” effects of alternatives on tree stands.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Disturbances played a large part in the recent history of the forested landscape in the Ten Cent analysis area (Wickman 1992, Johnson 1994, Lehmkuhl et al. 1994, Oliver et al. 1994, Tanaka et al. 1995), and are responsible for the condition that we see today (Powell 2011). From Stine, et. al, 2014: “Over the last century, many of the [moist mixed conifer] forests have become denser and less resilient to disturbance as a result of human activity, altered disturbance regimes, and climate warming. In the last few decades, many of the forests have also become further drought stressed and increasingly vulnerable to high-severity fire and insect outbreaks as a result of climate change.” Recent bioregional assessments concluded that dry-forest areas have vegetation conditions that are out-of-balance when compared with the historical (pre-European settlement) situation (Caraher et al. 1992, Lehmkuhl et al. 1994, Quigley and Arbelbide 1997, Hessburg et al. 1999).

Following, is a general discussion of different factors that have affected the development of the forest in the analysis area, and conditions of the current stands.

Disturbance influences stand structure and species composition by reducing vigor and killing trees, either selectively or non-selectively. Insects have been a prominent disturbance agent in the analysis area. For example, spruce budworm caused widespread damage and mortality in the fir species in the 1980’s and early 1990’s, and resulted in an increase in snags, physical damage to trees, and increases in down woody material (Sheehan 1996, Powell 2000). In the 1970’s, widespread mortality of lodgepole pine due to mountain pine beetle occurred across the larger landscape that includes the project area (Speigel et al 2015). Recent aerial detection surveys of lodgepole pine mortality indicate that mountain pine beetle populations are on the rise in the local area. Both the spruce budworm and mountain pine beetle are examples of selective disturbance, as they target specific tree species as hosts. Two examples of a non-selective disturbance would be wildfire or wind.

The project area has been surveyed multiple times by entomologists and pathologists from the Blue Mountains Pest Management Service Center: In 2007 (Schmitt and Spiegel), in 2011 (Schmitt and Scott), and most recently in 2015 (Spiegel et al).

The following is a summary of Spiegel et al 2015 findings, which closely follows the two previous reports:

Widespread mortality of lodgepole pine due to mountain pine beetle occurred about 40 years ago. In the late 1980’s widespread western spruce budworm activity caused light to moderate mortality in places, killing some overstory Douglas-fir or grand fir directly, or in later beetle attacks on the stressed trees. Understory firs suffered the most defoliation. In the 20 years since the large budworm outbreak, late seral species have regenerated in these stands and some of the remaining overstory has died due primarily to competition, aided by insects and diseases. Density has continued to increase as trees grow and new trees regenerate. Many of these stands are at high risk for defoliator attack again.

In most areas overstory trees are of a size and density to be at risk of bark beetle attack, primarily mountain pine beetle, fir engraver in grand fir, and Douglas-fir beetle. Mountain pine beetle populations are currently very high in the Blue Mountains, and widespread mortality is likely.


12

Dwarf mistletoe occurs in the lodgepole pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir, at high levels in some places.

The fungus that causes Annosus root disease in true fir is common and widespread here as throughout the Blue Mountains on moist sites with a component of grand fir. In some of the analysis area, the root disease is causing mortality.

Balsam wooly adelgid is present in the subalpine fir, the most susceptible tree species to this insect in the Blue Mountains. The adelgid has been on the increase and is currently causing widespread mortality in the subalpine fir across the two forests. Some trees are killed within a year or two of attack, while other trees experience damage over many years before succumbing.

Other diseases present include: Indian paint fungus, a bole rot, which is reducing vigor in the grand fir, and dwarf mistletoe. Dwarf mistletoe, present in most stands, can decrease a tree’s vigor and leave it susceptible to other disturbance agents, and more importantly, infect understory trees which may affect a stand’s future structure and composition.

Timber harvest has been a disturbance agent in the area over the past several decades (Oliver et al. 1994); selective removal of tree species has influenced stand compositions, and past ground-based equipment practices have increased soil compaction in some areas (Spiegel et al 2015). Compaction can exacerbate root rot diseases by causing poor root development or stressing host trees enough to weaken their defense.

Fire, its historical cycles and subsequent suppression by humans, has had an influence on the analysis area as a whole, and is generally responsible for the current forest stands in most of the landscape (Weaver 1943, Mutch et al. 1993, Powell 2011).

Existing Condition

STAND STRUCTURE Structural diversity across the landscape has decreased somewhat, with the shift of stand structures into the understory re-initiation stage, primarily due to past disturbances. The mosaic (arrangement on the landscape) of stands and structures has changed over the years with fire suppression and other management practices; the extent of open pine stands has been reduced and other stands have become more dense (Hessburg and others, 1999). This shift has changed conditions not only for vegetative species, but also for other species that rely on structural diversity.

The Ten Cent project area is a mix of Cold, Moist and Dry Upland Forest potential vegetation groups (PVGs): Cold UF makes up 44% of the area, Moist and Dry UF each comprise 28% of the area. Existing stand structure has evolved from past disturbances affecting which trees and stands survived to reach larger sizes and different stages, as well as fire suppression that has allowed increased density and more closed-in stands.

The dry upland forest differs from cold or moist in its historic fire regime, where fire return intervals are much shorter and intensities are low to moderate. In many areas, fire suppression has allowed stand structures in the warm, dry plant associations to change from typical historical conditions of open, well-spaced large trees with sparse regeneration (essentially two layers of trees), to current conditions of stands with semi- or closed canopies of smaller trees with occasional large trees and abundant regeneration in the understories (multi-layered).

The cold and moist upland forests in the area typically saw fires of moderate to severe intensities but at much less frequent intervals. Fires of the past created larger openings of near complete mortality, as well


13

as areas of underburning that left most of the stands intact. This range of fire effects created mosaic patterns of differing stand structures across the landscape. Fire suppression has altered this disturbance pattern and allowed stands to become more dense and continuous. Recent large fires have been able to burn larger areas at higher intensities, perpetuating the more homogenous appearance of structure on the landscape.

On the dry sites that evolved with frequent, low intensity fire, changes in stand composition are a direct driver in changing stand structure. Fire suppression has allowed stands to follow a different successional path, by allowing tree species to grow in stands they would not commonly be as successful in. As canopies close in and the ground becomes more shaded, shade-tolerant (and some fire-intolerant) species regenerate and prosper with more ease than the shade-intolerant species (western larch, ponderosa pine). This has caused a shift in the composition of some of the stands across the landscape, from pine- and larch-dominated overstories and understories, to dominance by fir and lodgepole either in the overstory or understory. In some cases, past harvest selections have accelerated the effect of this shift by removing more of the ponderosa pine and larch than other species.

On cold or moist sites, stands evolved with much less frequent, stand-replacing fire that usually brought stand structure back to the stand initiation stage. The mosaic-nature of the fire patterns created the diversity in structures as some stands remained to grow into late, old structure and some did not.

Table 3 shows the current area in structural stages across the project area.

Table 4: Forest Structural Stages, Project Area

Structural Stage Description Current Acres

OFMS Old Forest Multi-Strata 9,447 OFSS Old Forest Single Stratum 0

SE Stem Exclusion 255 SI Stand Initiation 1,175 UR Understory Re-initiation 52,569

Stand Structure Range of Variability Analysis As stated in the Eastside Screens (Forest Plan Amendment #11), the Forest Service is required to conduct an analysis of the current stand structure in an analysis area, comparing current conditions to historical ranges; this is commonly referred to as an “HRV analysis”. A range of variability analysis was conducted for the landscape containing the Ten Cent project, which included comparisons of current and reference conditions of stand structure as recommended in Martin (2010). It summarizes the current percentage of each structural class by potential vegetation group; the range for each structural class is also shown.

The implications of Table 5 are:

1. Understory Re-initiation stage is well above its range in all PVGs;

2. OFSS is well below (at zero) its range for all PVGs;

3. OFMS is within its range for the Cold and Dry PVGs.

4. In Moist UF, all stages are below their range except UR.


14

Table 5: Range of variability (RV) analysis for forest structural classes

FOREST STRUCTURAL CLASSES1 PVG SI SE UR OFMS OFSS NFS Acres

Cold2 R%3 20-45 10-30 10-25 10-25 5-20

25,489 C%4 21 0 78 21 0

Moist R% 20-30 20-30 10-20 15-20 10-20

16,211 C% 2 0 89 9 0

Dry R% 15-25 10-20 5-10 5-15 40-60

16,168 C% 4 1 79 17 0

1 Structural class codes are described in Table 1. Gray cells show where the current percentage (C%) is above the range of variation (R%) for a structural class. Black cells show where the current percentage is below the range. Deviations were noted only when the current percentage differs from the historical range by more than two percent. 2 Potential vegetation groups (PVG) are the middle level of a mid-scale hierarchy for potential vegetation (Powell et al. 2007). 3 Reference ranges (R%) are summarized in Martin (2010). 4 Current percentages, derived from the Ten Cent existing vegetation database, include National Forest System lands only.”

Map 3: Existing stand structure within the Ten Cent project

DENSITY Tables 6 and 7 show results of the forest density analysis for the project area. Table 6 indicates a high percentage (50,556 acres, or 87%) of upland forest land in the project area is within the high density category, while only 6% is in the low density category (3,724 acres). See Table 2 for definitions of density levels for each potential vegetation group.


15

The cold upland forest (Table 7) averages a basal area of 108 square feet, a stand density index of 327 and quadratic mean diameter of 3 inches. In the moist upland forest, density values average 119 ft2 of BA, an SDI of 357 and a QMD of 3 inches. These values are reflective of a relatively dense forest composed of small diameter trees, typical of stands in the cold and moist upland forest with a lodgepole pine component, and of young regenerated harvest stands and past fires.

The dry upland forest had the largest average QMD value (5 inches), of any PVG, with an SDI value of 228, and a BA value of 92 ft2. These values indicate the drier and more marginal growing conditions typical of the dry upland forest, where moisture is a limiting factor in tree growth.

Table 6: Density levels for each PVG.

Density (Acres) PVG Low Medium High

Cold UF 1869 1416 22,208 Moist UF 1109 1082 14,022 Dry UF 746 1140 14,326

Total Acres 3,724 3,638 50,556

See Table 2 for density level definitions.

Table 7: Average values for basal area (BA), stand density index (SDI), and quadratic mean diameter (QMD) for each PVG

PVG BA SDI QMD

Cold UF 108 327 3 Moist UF 119 357 3 Dry UF 92 228 5

Forest Density Range of Variability Analysis Table 8, Table 9, and Table 10 show results of the range of variability analysis for each potential vegetation group (see Table 2 for density level definitions). All upland forest groups are well above their range for high density levels, and consequently below their ranges for low and moderate density levels.

Table 8: Density analysis for Cold UF.

Density Rating Acres Percent Reference % Reference Acres Low 1869 7 15-35 3824-8923

Moderate 1416 6 20-40 5899-10,972 High 22,208 87 25-60 6373-15,295

Grey cells indicate current percentages above reference range; black cells indicate current percentages below reference range.

Table 9: Density analysis for Moist UF.


Moderate 1082 7 25-60 4053-9728 High 14,022 86 15-30 2432-4864


16

Table 10: Density analysis for Dry UF


Moderate 1140 7 15-30 4778-9556 High 14326 88 5-15 811-4778

Trees in dense stands tend to be stressed by competition with their neighbors for light and water. Stressed trees are more susceptible to insect attack or disease infestation, and are usually slower growing (Powell 1999). Insects and disease have been more prevalent in these stands due to the stress caused by dense stocking. The spruce budworm epidemic in the 1980’s and early 1990’s and the resulting defoliation, dead tops, sparse crowns and tree mortality was an example of what can occur from disruption of natural patterns by something such as fire suppression which leads to density-related stress (Powell 2011). A variety of insect and disease damage is currently evident as individual, weak trees succumb to infestation or attack (Spiegel et al 2015). Dense stocking appears to be a noteworthy obstacle for trees and stands in the area to overcome, which, if this condition continues, would weaken trees and create opportunities for insects or disease to increase above present levels. Increasing levels of mountain pine beetle and balsam wooly adelgid are current examples of this in and around the Ten Cent project area. On the drier sites, many of the large, old ponderosa pine are currently at risk of attack, primarily from bark beetles; their large root systems require greater growing space than smaller trees to maintain tree health. Increased shade cover (less sunlight on the forest floor) and lack of soil exposure for seed germination resulting from a lack of frequent fire, has reduced the amount of ponderosa pine and western larch regeneration in some areas, and encouraged regeneration of shade-tolerant fir and lodgepole pine.

In general, cold and moist upland forests are expected to have higher stand densities. Historically, they experienced disturbances from fires of differing intensities or insects and disease that created openings in susceptible stands and resulted in a landscape mosaic of a variety of stand densities. With fire suppression, the patterns and mosaic of young/open and older/dense stands have become less varied, growing into larger areas of stands of more homogenous conditions where new disturbances, especially fires, have the opportunity to affect larger blocks on the landscape. Insects and diseases that cause tree mortality above “background” levels increase the fuel loads which in turn factor into wildfire size and intensity.

SPECIES COMPOSITION Temperature, moisture (related to sun exposure, slope and aspect), and soils all influence the potential vegetation that may grow on a site. Since vegetation behaves in a similar way on sites that are similar in temperature, moisture and soil type, it is possible to characterize a site and the vegetation that may be expected to grow there. In other words, potential vegetation is what is expected to be there, if the vegetation is allowed to grow in response to a site’s temperature, moisture and soil without any disturbance. The potential vegetation and the disturbance (or lack of) that occur on a site are the main drivers of plant succession.

Almost half of the potential vegetation in the project area is cold upland forest type (44%), with equal amounts of moist and dry upland forest (28% each) making up the rest. Cold and moist types generally occur on eastern and northern aspects, with dry upland forest occurring more on southern and western aspects.

Stands currently occupying the Ten Cent area vary widely from mixed ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir, to grand fir, lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir. Western white pine is present in limited amounts. Specific stand types and conditions vary across units, but most stands show many of the same


17

characteristics. Most obvious are higher levels of downed wood and litter (needles, leaves, etc.) in many stands in all the vegetation types, and regeneration of shade tolerant species (grand fir, Douglas-fir, and lodgepole pine) in what were historically ponderosa pine-dominated stands. These conditions in the dry forest are generally a result of many years of fire suppression in stands that evolved with and adapted to frequent, low-intensity natural fires (Caraher et al. 1992). The natural pattern of fire has been altered in all vegetation types, causing a domino effect of changes in other landscape components. Less obvious is the alteration of the vegetative mosaic and stand structures in the landscape, the change in diversity for these stands from historical conditions and the alteration of nutrient-cycling processes (USDA Forest Service 1991). Refer to the Range of Variability analysis detailed in the Structure section for more information.

Cover Type Table 11 summarizes the area of existing cover types for the forested area of the Ten Cent project. It shows that the predominant forest cover types are lodgepole pine (38% of the area) followed by grand fir (27%) and ponderosa pine (18%). About 2% of the project area is in non-forest cover, primarily grass and herblands.

Table 11. Existing Forest Cover Types, Project Area.

Cover Type Description Acres

PIPO ponderosa pine is the majority species 10,622 PSME Douglas-fir is the majority species 3,536 ABGR grand fir is the majority species 15,863 LAOC western larch is the majority species 3,086

PIEN/ABLA Engelmann spruce is the majority species with mix of subalpine fir 2,811 PICO lodgepole pine is the majority species 21,877

PIMO3 western white pine is the majority species 118

Notes: Summarized from the MSN vegetation database. Forest cover types where one tree species comprises a majority (e.g., it has 50% or more of the stocking) are named for that species (Eyre 1980).

Species Composition Range of Variability Analysis Table 12 shows the results of the species composition range of variability (RV) analysis. Most notably: A few species are above their natural ranges, including lodgepole pine in the Dry and Moist PVGs, and grand fir in the Cold and Dry PVGs. Below their natural ranges are ponderosa pine in the Dry UF, and western larch and Douglas-fir in the Moist UF.

Table 11: Species composition range of variability (RV) based on cover type by potential vegetation group (PVG)

PVG Existing Cover Type Current % Range % Cold UF Grand fir 38 5-15

Ponderosa pine 10 0-5 Douglas-fir 4 5-15

Lodgepole pine 39 25-45 Western larch 8 5-15

Engelmann spruce 1 15-35 Dry UF Grand fir 21 1-10

Engelmann spruce 1 0 Ponderosa pine 45 50-80


18

PVG Existing Cover Type Current % Range % Western larch 4 1-10

Lodgepole pine 17 0 Douglas-fir 13 5-20

Moist UF Grand fir 17 15-30 Western larch 3 10-30

Engelmann spruce/Subalpine fir 15 1-10 Lodgepole pine 56 25-45 Ponderosa pine 5 5-15

Douglas-fir 2 15-30 Western white pine 1 0-5

Grey cells indicate current percentages above reference range; black cells indicate current percentages below reference range. Reference ranges are derived from Martin (2010).

DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION The desired future condition for vegetation in the Ten Cent project is for designated areas near values at risk to be in a condition that potentially reduces crown fire, providing a safer environment for firefighters while allowing them to be more effective.

The designated areas are strategically placed Defensible Fuel Profile Zones (DFPZ) designed to exhibit flame lengths less than four feet and reduce the probability of a fire getting into the crowns of trees. Defensible Fuel Profile Zones are defined as a linear path through a forested area in which surface and canopy fuels have been altered or reduced but where overstory trees are retained to shade the surface fuels. Fires that exhibit flame lengths of less than 4 feet can generally be attacked at the head or flanks by firefighters using hand tools. Handline should be able to hold the fire within the line, and with ladder fuels removed the chance of fire running into the live tree crowns is greatly reduced as well. Running crown fires lead to unpredictable ember generation (spotting) which can further threaten values at risk.

Proposed Fuels Treatments (Silvicultural) Activities Fuel treatments are not designed to stop wildfires—the primary goal is to use fuels treatment to modify fire behavior in such a way as to increase the likelihood of desirable post-fire outcomes, including structure protection, maintenance of soil quality and clean drinking water supplies, and some level of green-tree survival. One important objective is firefighter safety, since firefighters working on the firelines often experience significant risk to their personal safety, particularly when attempting to suppress wildfire in situations where structures and other human infrastructure are threatened. Thinning that substantially opens canopies and shifts stands toward larger trees, followed by removal of surface fuels either by burning or mechanical means, has been demonstrated to be the most effective treatment to reduce wildfire severity (Martinson and Omi 2013).

In a relatively recent future influenced by climate change, fuels treatment must come sharply focused on certain areas or situations because fires will be more abundant and widespread than the resources available to suppress them. For the Blue Mountains, wildfire in a climate-change future will be up to six times more common than it is now (Figure 2) (National Research Council 2011, Climate Central 2012). And because most recent demographic data continues to show increasing levels of human development in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) (Stein et al. 2013), the net result of these trends is that structures are becoming more plentiful in flammable wildland environments projected to burn much more often than they have in the past. This scenario also means that future fire suppression resources will probably be directed more toward the WUI than for general forest areas (Stephens et al. 2014).


19

Detailed analyses for the Ten Cent project area identified a need to modify forest vegetation conditions to create a less hazardous fire environment and provide more options for suppressing a late-summer wildfire occurring in the proximity of human infrastructure and other values at risk. Why is fuels treatment proposed as a strategy for modifying fire behavior and sustaining a less hazardous fire environment in the proximity of the values at risk? “Empirical studies from wildfires (Finney et al. 2005, Collins et al. 2009, Martinson and Omi 2013) and studies based on modeled fire (Finney et al. 2007, Collins et al. 2011, Chiono et al. 2012, Stephens et al. 2012) suggest that treatments can be expected to reduce fire behavior and effects within individual stands and across landscapes for 10-20 years” (Collins et al. 2013).

Figure 2: Projected increase in wildfire area burned with a mean annual temperature increase of 1 °C (1.8 °F), shown as a percentage change relative to median annual area burned during 1950-2003 (source: Climate Central 2012, as adapted from fig. 5.8 in National Research Council 2011). Results are aggregated to eco-provinces (Bailey 1995) of the western United States; the Blue Mountains occur in a large brown zone with projected burn-area increases of at least six times. Climate-fire models were derived from National Climatic Data Center climate division records; observed burn-area data follows methods described in Littell et al. (2009). This map is alarming because when comparing the 1970-99 and 2070-99 time periods, an increase in average temperature of 3.3 to 9.7 °C is projected, and the increase will be greatest in summer during fire season. This figure, in combination with an analysis of existing crown-fire susceptibility for the Ten Cent planning area, suggests that future wildfire effects could continue to be uncharacteristic unless thinnings and other density-management treatments are implemented in the near future to reduce canopy fuel loading. As noted in many other assessments, “the most extensive and serious problem related to health of national forests in the interior West is the over-accumulation of vegetation, which has caused an increasing number of large, intense, uncontrollable and catastrophically destructive wildfires” (GAO 1999). The Ten Cent project proposes to respond to high levels of existing canopy, ladder, and surface fuels by implementing thinning and pruning treatments, and prescribed fire, to reduce them. In the climate change context shown here, “lower stand densities may be necessary in a warmer climate to achieve the same level of reduced


20

intertree competition as was achieved in the past” (Peterson et al. 2011). We agree that lower stand densities will be needed as an adaptation measure to address future temperature increases, so thinning treatments proposed for the Ten Cent Project anticipate reducing existing stand densities all the way down to the lowest level of canopy bulk density, as specified in Agee (1996) and Powell (2010). After thinning, prescribed fire will be implemented regularly as a maintenance activity to preclude establishment of additional tree regeneration (‘ingrowth’), and thereby sustain stand densities at the lower levels most compatible with a warmer and drier future.

The Ten Cent project proposes to implement a variety of silvicultural and fuels activities to complete these vegetation modifications, create DFPZs and achieve the desired future condition. Basically three types of silvicultural activities, commercial and non-commercial thinning, and pruning, are proposed and described below. Thinning will be accomplished in a variety of ways, including using basal area targets or spacing guidelines to determine which trees to remove, and using a combination of mechanical or hand thinning. Some will be used alone or in combination with each other, including commercial thinning/non-commercial thinning, commercial thinning/non-commercial thinning with skip/gap, and firewood or post and pole cutting with commercial or non-commercial thinning. Non-commercial hand thinning within riparian areas is also proposed. Pruning of trees within the skips in roadside units may be used to remove lower branches and reduce ladder fuels.

Prescribed burning of jackpot (mechanically-placed tree limbs and tops) and pile burning is proposed in areas that are mechanically and hand treated. Landscape prescribed fire is also proposed throughout the project area, outside of mechanically-treated units.

In all treatments that remove trees by cutting them, healthy trees will be retained where possible while still meeting fuels reduction objectives.

Noncommercial Thinning (NCT) Noncommercial thinning (sometimes called precommercial or small diameter thinning) in this project is the removal of trees to reduce density, increase overall stand health and meet fuels profile objectives. Generally, noncommercial thinning occurs in plantations or areas of disturbance that have naturally regenerated and is used to thin trees up to 9 inches in diameter. It may also occur in stands that have substantial regeneration below an existing canopy layer. The thinned trees can be left on the site after being cut and lopped/scattered or masticated to reduce the fire hazard, piled and burned, or removed from the site and utilized as biomass or sold.

Variable density thinning, where some trees are left in more closely-spaced clumps and some more open areas are created is always considered within NCT units, where feasible and where it will allow fuels objectives within the DFPZ to be met. The more uniform appearance of past planted or natural regeneration areas lend themselves to “creating” some variability in spacing.

Within stands in the project area, there will be areas designated as Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA) which are buffers running parallel to any streams occurring in the stand. These areas will be non-commercially thinned by hand.

Commercial Thinning With commercial thinning, trees being removed are large enough to have economic value and, depending on the market, can be sold as a wood product. Trees cut in commercial thinning are removed from the forest and transported to a manufacturing facility where they are used to produce lumber or other wood products.


21

Commercial thinning can be accomplished using several different methods of tree removal, and “thinning from below” is chosen as the best method for this project and is described in more detail below.

Commercial thinning is proposed to reduce tree density to meet fuels profile objectives. In general, trees creating “ladder fuels” and closed-canopy conditions would be preferentially removed to meet density goals. After fuels objectives are considered, in dry upland forest stands, silvicultural prescriptions would favor retention of healthy ponderosa pine, western larch and Douglas-fir because these species are most resistant to fire, drought stress, and insect attack depending on specific stand conditions. In cold and moist upland forest, a diverse array of healthy trees may be retained on each stand to maximize resiliency to fire and insect and disease outbreak, as well as respond to any diseases existing in the stands such as root rots that attack fir species. Commercial thinning treatments would not remove live trees over 21 inches in diameter at breast height. Snags and down wood would be retained at levels specified in the Ten Cent wildlife biologist’s specialist report. Variable density thinning, where some trees are left in more closely-spaced clumps and some more open areas are created is always considered where feasible, however with the natural clumpiness of many stands, the natural variability in spacing, and individual tree health considerations all contribute to how “variable” the stand may appear following treatment.

THINNING FROM BELOW Thinning from below is a type of thinning that preferentially removes smaller diameter trees, while leaving larger trees in the stand (see Figure 3). Generally, dominant and most co-dominant trees are left, while intermediate and suppressed trees are removed. Those trees most likely to die from competition or those that are unhealthy are also removed (Tappeiner et al. 2007). This thinning is based on target basal area, and thus will result in a natural-appearing stand, as existing stand conditions such as tree size, health and proximity (clumpiness) determine which trees are likeliest to be thinned. Some proposed units within the project will be thinned using a spacing guideline rather than basal area, however there will be inherent variability within the spacing guideline and this variability will be created by the “thinning from below” and reduction of ladder fuels objectives, as well as existing stand variability in size and spacing.


22

Figure 3: Depiction of thinning from below or “low thinning” (Powell 2013, Powell 2011). Typical stands in the Ten Cent project would have small seedling/sapling-size trees underneath these overstory trees.

THINNING UTILIZING “SKIP AND GAP” METHOD This method of tree removal utilizes commercial and non-commercial thinning from below as described above, but introduces “skips” and “gaps” within the unit. Skips are small areas inside the thinning designated as “no cut”, and gaps are areas surrounding the “skips” where prescribed thinning removes trees for harvest. This method is utilized to enhance wildlife habitat/forage by creating patches, gaps and clumps where the landscape allows within the unit. As described by Franklin and Johnson (2011), this method is used to help achieve diversity within stands, clumps of trees will be retained in some areas, where thinning will be heavier in other areas to create “skips and gaps”.

PRUNING Pruning of trees may be used within skips in the proposed roadside units to assure that fuels objectives are met. With pruning, the branches are removed from the bottom 10 feet or more of the tree stem. Branches on the lower portion of the tree stem can function as ladder fuel, allowing relatively benign surface fire with flame lengths of four feet or less to transition into individual-tree or tree-clumping torching, which is fire behavior with the potential to produce embers and cast them across long distances.

PRESCRIBED BURNING A combination of jackpot, pile burning and landscape underburning is proposed. Jackpot and pile burning are similar activities, using fire to reduce concentrations of slash left from cutting trees. Generally, this type of burning is designed to occur in weather/fuel conditions that favors low intensity fire and limits fire spread between or beyond fuels concentrations.


23

Landscape prescribed fire in this project would be designed to mimic low intensity wildfires, and would be used to reduce surface fuels, litter depth, increase base canopy heights, and create small openings. The prescriptions, taking into account stand conditions and site conditions, would include a range of weather and fuel moisture conditions to result in the desired fire effects. Fire may be applied using a variety of ways, including hand-lighting and aerial ignition methods as well as taking advantage of natural wildfire starts under carefully considered conditions.

Selection of the silvicultural treatments was guided by standards in the Land and Resource Management Plans for the Umatilla National Forest and the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest respectively (Forest Plans). Briefly:

The treatments are designed to control vegetation to establish desired species composition to minimize risks from insects, disease and wildfire, and use available and acceptable logging methods. Silvicultural prescriptions would be prepared by a certified silviculturist, and would: address the designation of snags, wildlife trees and downed woody debris for cavity dependent species; protect, maintain and enhance hardwood vegetation; analyze silvicultural options and address minimum stocking levels; use integrated pest management practices; and use prescribed fire as a tool in support of returning fire to its natural role in the ecosystem.

Stocking level control has been prescribed in some areas to reduce risk of severe wildfire and improve conditions for re-introducing fire using prescribed fire techniques, and improve stand health, promote desired forest structure and species composition. Where it occurs and is expected to prosper, desirable advanced regeneration meeting project objectives would be retained and protected.

When choosing species to favor in thinning, the following would be considered: reducing risk of wildfire, fire resilience, long-term stand health, vigor and productivity in relation to insects and disease; biological diversity needs for wildlife; maintenance of stands dominated by early successional species including ponderosa pine, western larch, Douglas-fir and western white pine; working with lodgepole pine in those communities where it is climax or successional to maintain diversity; and favoring western larch in those lodgepole communities. Management activities would be tailored to provide a fire-resistant landscape.

Within the individual management areas established by the Forest Plans, management area standards and guidelines would be met and followed. These standards and guidelines are too numerous to repeat in this document—if further information is required, please refer to the Forest Plans for the various affected management areas.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Cumulative Effects Analysis Parameters

ALL ALTERNATIVES Area

All silvicultural effects analyses were accomplished at the landscape scale, consisting of 59,412 acres, 57,813 acres of which are in the Dry, Cold, and Moist upland forest. This area was chosen because it contains the area where treatments to spatially-static forested stands were considered, and because this area has been determined to represent vegetation patterns across the wider landscape that includes this project area. Effects to forest stands and effects to range of variability from stand structure, density and composition standpoints have been considered within the larger landscape which includes the Ten Cent project area.


24

Time Period Temporal scales used are future short term (loosely 0-5 years) and future long term (loosely 20 to 100+ years). These time frames were chosen for a very long-lived resource (trees) so that immediate effects of treatments could be discussed (openings, plantings), as well as “out-year” effects of alternatives on tree stands and “big picture” effects such as ranges of variability across the project area landscape. Because trees are rather unique in their long lives, we expect that effects of treatments to trees and stands of trees will be long-lived as well. Effects were tracked back in time to the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, when the first harvest and thinning activities began.

Alternative 1 – No Action

DIRECT EFFECTS AND INDIRECT EFFECTS Forest Structure

Continuation of existing management direction, including fire suppression, would allow multi-layered structure stands to remain, and likely increase, within the upland forests. Stand structures would continue in the over-abundant understory re-initiation stage, perpetuating the condition of ladder fuels and closed canopies, inviting conditional and active crown fires.

Dry upland forest will increase in density and layers as compared to historically predominant single-layered stands (Powell 2011). Cold and moist upland forests would likely continue on their path of succession, becoming more homogenous, and increasing in density and susceptibility to larger disturbances. No change, or “ecological leverage” (Powell 2013), would be effected to influence the development of old forest single stratum structure (OFSS) within the dry upland plant association group. Development of the old forest single stratum structure, as defined, may only happen if present tree densities are reduced by some means, leaving the larger trees to become part of this defined structure. Unfortunately, the large, old trees are the ones most at risk for insect or disease attack. In moist and cold upland forest, the current levels of understory reinitiation structure would slowly move towards OFMS through time. These stands would continue to be susceptible to disturbance, with forest structure continuing to be outside of the RV.

Forest Density Taking no action would allow currently dense (well beyond their range of variation) forest stands to continue to increase. This will increase the forest’s susceptibility to density-dependent disturbances such and insects and disease, and wildfire effects beyond what would be expected under natural conditions which include wildfire.

Species Composition This alternative would allow the areas identified for treatment at this time to progress through natural successional patterns at their own rate with no outside manipulation except fire suppression. Current biological and ecosystem functions would continue as they are in the present condition. On-going management direction and activities such as grazing, fire suppression, monitoring, and road maintenance would continue. Taking no action in the Ten Cent project area would allow those species compositions that are out of sync with their range of variation to remain so.

In all PVGs, fire disturbances, especially large-scale disturbances, would likely result in abundant regeneration of lodgepole pine.

In the dry upland forest, lodgepole pine and grand fir would continue to exceed their ranges and likely increase due to shade tolerance and ability to regenerate beneath overstory trees. As stands fill in, regeneration of ponderosa pine becomes less likely and would make it difficult for the species to maintain


25

a dominance or presence in stands where it should be the primary species. Currently, ponderosa pine and western larch are below their range of variation in dry and moist forests. Under the no action alternative, these two shade-intolerant and fire resilient (Fitzgerald 2005) (USDA Forest Service 1965) species would not likely increase their presence as other species fill in and shade increases. The further species compositions move out of balance in the dry upland forest, the more the landscape would continue to lose its resiliency in the face of disturbance.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The analysis area falls under the description of Forest Cluster 5 in the Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management in the Interior Columbia Basin (ICBMP) (Quigley et al., 1997). An analysis arising from the ICBMP looked at historical and current forest landscapes, and discussed the trends found in vegetation patterns and compositions (Hessburg, et al. 1999). Hessburg, et al. states: “Dramatic change in vital ecosystem processes such as fire, insect, and pathogen disturbances, succession, and plant and animal migration is linked to recent change in vegetation patterns.” These types of changes have occurred in the Ten Cent analysis area, and No Action will not change the trends in any way. ICBMP found that “forest landscapes have changed significantly in their vulnerability to major insect and pathogen disturbances” (Hessburg, et al. 1999). This change was influenced by timber harvest, fire suppression and grazing, and resulted in a loss of large trees, an expansion of Douglas-fir cover, and grass/shrub understories replaced by conifers (Hessburg, et al. 1999). No Action, coupled with these trends stemming from the past, will have the cumulative effect of perpetuating the trends.

Climate change concerns revolve around predicted warming of the climate, and it is speculated that the area of dry forests may increase as this warming occurs (Powell 2011). Adaptation strategies and active management have been suggested to help current upland forest stands become more resilient in the face of a warming trend and the no action alternative would have the cumulative effect of continuing the trend away from resiliency.

Alternative 2, 3, and 4

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS All action alternatives would utilize silvicultural activities to move forests within the Ten Cent project area toward the desired condition described above. Tables 13 and 14 list the number of treated acres and types of tree-removing silvicultural treatment for each alternative and the prescribed fire treatments.

Table 12: Tree-removing silvicultural treatments by alternative

Alternative Treatment Type

Total Acres Commercial Thin

Non-commercial Thin (including RHCAs)

Firewood Mechanical Fuels Reduction

Alternative 1 0 0 0 0 0 Alternative 2 8034 4741 517 153 13,445 Alternative 3 8034 4741 517 153 13,445 Alternative 4 6727 4738 382 153 12,001


26

Table 13: Prescribed fire treatment by alternative

Alternative Landscape Burning (Non-Wilderness)

Landscape Burning (Wilderness)

Jackpot Burning (Slash and Pile

Burning)

Total Prescribed Fire Acres

Alternative 1 0 0 0 0 Alternative 2 19,663 9557 8582 37,802 Alternative 3 3512 0 13,712 17,224 Alternative 4 19,663 0 8582 28,246

Note: The following discussion of alternatives includes all activities in the proposed action except prescribed burning. The proposed prescribed burning effects to vegetation is discussed in a separate section below.

Forest Structure All action alternatives would influence stand structure within the 57,813 acres of the upland forest PVGs in the Ten Cent project area. The proposed silvicultural treatments (cutting trees), spread across the representative stand structures within each PVG, would have a minimal influence on the overall percentages for the project area as a whole.

Often vegetation projects have a focus of changing or promoting different stand structures across the landscape. In the Ten Cent project, treatment areas have been identified specifically for their fire risk and proximity to private property or values at risk. All silvicultural treatments within the action alternatives would be focused primarily on reducing ladder fuels and fire risk by thinning the stands.

Effects of each treatment alternative to stand structure are shown in Tables 15 and 18.

Thinning from below will focus on removing trees that may be “ladder fuels” that contribute to crown fires. This treatment will also purposefully leave trees that are generally larger, as they tend to be the most fire-resistant trees in the stand, with taller crowns and thicker bark (Agee and Skinner 2005). This type of treatment may encourage development of OFSS structure (currently non-existent in the project area).

A silvicultural model using GIS was created to categorize structural change results of treatment. These structural changes are defined as the structure of a stand immediately following treatment.

In treatment units containing OFMS within Cold and Dry UF, existing structure is moved to OFSS post-treatment, in accordance with Eastside Screen direction. In Moist UF, OFMS is below its range of variation and this structure will not change within treatment units. For all PVGs, SE structure moves into UR due to treatment addressing reduction of ladder fuels; SI remains SI, and UR remains UR.

Although these treatments have a fuels reduction objective, wherever possible treatments will be designed to improve stand health.

The following key was used to model structural changes in each alternative.

for Cold/Moist Upland Forest for Dry Upland Forest

OFMS→OFSS SE→UR

SI=SI UR=UR

OFMS=OFMS SE→UR

SI=SI UR=UR


27

Forest Density All action alternatives would influence stand density within the project area. The relatively small acreage proposed for tree-removal treatment in any Ten Cent action alternative would have a minimal influence on the overall percentages for the project landscape.

All thinning in all action alternatives would reduce density and stocking within the treatment units. This density reduction would be accomplished through noncommercial and commercial thinning or some combination of each. Prescriptions for all action alternatives would be designed to reduce stand densities to minimize crown fire susceptibility by reducing crown density and increasing canopy base height. Overall effects of individual treatments remains the same between action alternatives, however the amounts and execution varies slightly between alternatives. Variations are designed to meet other resource needs while accomplishing the purpose and need.

Aside from reducing fire risk, removing some of the trees in the treatment units would allow the remaining trees more access to sunlight, nutrients, water and growing space, which would improve the overall health of the remaining affected stands (Cochran et al. 1994, Cochran and Dahms 1998, Powell 1999). Maintaining or improving healthy tree stands could reduce damage and mortality from fire, insects and disease, and create a more long-lived and resilient stand (Barret and Roth 1985, Cochran et al. 1994, Agee 1996, Smith et al. 1997).

Silvicultural activities to modify density were modeled in MS Access to analyze how treatments would meet the purpose and need of this project. In all PVGs, proposed treatments would move high and medium density stands to low densities. Low density stands would remain similarly dense. All treatments would meet minimum stocking requirements within the Forest Plan and as defined by Martin (2014).

The following key was used to model density changes.

All Upland Forest

High →Low Medium →Low

Low = Low

Species Composition All action alternatives would influence stand species composition within the project area. The relatively small acreage proposed for tree-removal treatment in any Ten Cent action alternative would have a minimal influence on the actual percentages for the project landscape.

The silvicultural prescriptions in all action alternatives include some form of thinning that would have a direct effect on the species composition of each stand. Though treatment is prescribed to reduce crown fire susceptibility and fire risk, in all cases disease-, insect- and fire-resistant species would be preferred for retention. The diversity of tree species will vary between upland forest types and between stands.

Recommended treatments would generally favor ponderosa pine, western larch and Douglas-fir for their overall more fire resistant qualities (Fitzgerald 2005, USDA 1965). Although reducing fire risk will be a guide for species selection it is by no means the only reason species will be selected for or against. Each stand and micro-site will be considered for species selection based on fire risk reduction, individual tree health, species spatial composition and other resource needs.

Species composition treatments were modeled through GIS using the key below. Cover types not listed are not present within the treatment units.


28

for Cold/Moist Upland Forest for Dry Upland Forest

Grand fir/mix →Western larch or no change Ponderosa pine/mix →no change Douglas-fir/mix →Western larch or no change Lodgepole pine/mix →Western larch or no change Western larch/mix →no change Engelmann spruce/mix/Subalpine fir →no change Western white pine →no change

Grand fir/mix →Ponderosa pine Ponderosa pine/mix →no change Douglas-fir/mix →Ponderosa pine Lodgepole pine/mix →no change Western larch/mix →no change Engelmann spruce/mix/Subalpine fir →no change

Shifts in species composition are likely to be minimal to moderate in Cold and Moist upland forest treatment areas. In the Dry UF the shift may be more visible; ponderosa pine cover types would remain dominated by ponderosa pine, and Douglas-fir and grand fir cover types would likely move toward ponderosa pine depending on the abundance of pine. Lodgepole pine type would remain unchanged or move toward either western larch or ponderosa pine types depending on individual stand conditions in each potential vegetation group.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Alternatives 2 and 3 have identical tree removal treatments, with Alternative 3 being thinned to the lower ranges of basal area or spacing; units identified for treatment are the same in size and location. There would be no relative difference, silviculturally, between these alternatives and therefore they are analyzed together.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS: Forest Structure

Alternative 2 and 3 would influence forest structure within the project area. Fuels-driven silvicultural prescriptions for thinning from below or using a spacing guideline would generally remove understory and some overstory trees. Most structures would remain roughly the same (a mix of overstory/understory trees), albeit with wider spacing.

To understand the implications of selecting alternatives 2 and 3, a range of variability analysis was completed to measure the change in structural classes for the project area. The post-treatment RV analysis summarizes the percentage of each structural class by potential vegetation group, as well as showing ranges for each of the structural classes.

Within Dry and Cold UF, while staying within its range, three to four percent of OFMS would shift to OFSS which is currently at zero. Treatment in UR stands does not change their structure and so UR would remain the same. Within Moist UF, treatment would cause no change in structure.

Table 14: Alternatives 2 and 3 structure RV analysis.

FOREST STRUCTURAL CLASSES1 PVG SI SE UR OFMS OFSS

Cold Range % Current % Alt 2/3 %

20-45 10-30 10-25 10-25 5-20 1 0 78 21 0 1 0 78 17 3

Moist Range % Current % Alt 2/3 %

20-30 20-30 10-20 15-20 10-20 2 0 89 9 0 2 0 89 9 0


29

FOREST STRUCTURAL CLASSES1 PVG SI SE UR OFMS OFSS

Dry Range % 15-25 10-20 5-10 5-15 40-60 Current % 4 1 79 17 0 Alt 2/3 % 4 1 79 14 3

Forest Density Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce high density stands within Cold, Moist and Dry upland forest in the project area. In this case, of the three Eastside Screens measures, density is a more robust indicator of treatment effects as it represents the open space around the remaining trees. The less dense the stand, the more space each individual tree has, and that translates into a reduction in the chance that a stand could carry a crown fire.

Table 16. Alternatives 2 and 3 density RV analysis.

FOREST DENSITY PVG High Medium Low

Cold Range % Current % Alt 2/3 %

25-60 20-40 15-35 87 6 7 68 5 27

Moist Range % Current % Alt 2/3 %

15-30 25-60 20-40 86 7 7 68 6 27

Dry Range % 5-15 15-30 40-85

Current % 86 7 7 Alt 2/3 % 68 6 27

Species Composition All proposed treatments in the project area are designed to reduce crown fire risk and crown density by reducing stocking levels in some way. Treatment will likely alter species composition by favoring fire resistant and healthy insect and disease resistant trees and by deliberately favoring ponderosa pine, western larch and Douglas-fir where feasible. As there are varying amounts of these species available in individual stands, from none to many, thinning with a species preference could have little effect on species composition in any given stand.

Table 15: Alternatives 2 and 3 species composition RV analysis

Cold Upland Forest Moist Upland Forest Dry Upland Forest

Cover Type Current

% Range

% Post-

Treat% Current

% Range

% Post-

Treat% Current

% Range

% Post-

Treat %

GF/mix 38 5-15 32 17 15-30 17 21 1-10 17 PP/mix 10 0-5 10 5 5-15 5 45 50-80 51 DF/mix 4 5-15 3 2 15-30 2 13 5-20 11

LPP/mix 39 25-45 38 56 25-45 51 17 -- 17 WL/mix 8 5-15 17 3 10-30 9 4 1-10 4 ES/mix 1 15-35 1 -- -- -- 1 -- 1


30


Cover Type Current

% Range

% Post-

Treat% Current

% Range

% Post-

Treat% Current

% Range

% Post-

Treat % ES/mix/SAF-

mix -- -- -- 15 1-10 15 -- -- -- WWP -- -- -- 1 0-5 1 -- -- --

GF=grand fir, PP=ponderosa pine, DF=Douglas-fir, LPP=lodgepole pine, WL=western larch, ES=Engelmann spruce, SAF=subalpine fir, WWP=western white pine

Most shifts in species composition are subtle, some over-represented species are reduced if not brought back within range, while some under-represented species are lifted into the low end of their ranges: In Cold UF, over-represented grand fir is reduced by 6%; in Moist UF, western larch is lifted into the low end of its range and over-represented lodgepole pine is reduced by 5%; in Dry UF, ponderosa pine is lifted into the low end of its range and over-represented grand fir is reduced by 4%.

Alternative 4 Alternative 4 has relatively identical tree removal treatments to Alternatives 2 (ranges of basal areas and spacing), with fewer treatment units. The treatment units selected for Alternative 4 are identical to Alternative 2 in their size and spacing, however they may receive a different approach to leaving wildlife islands and “feathering” thinning treatments in select areas to alter effects to wildlife. There would be no relative difference between effects of the two alternatives, silviculturally, other than area treated.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS: Forest Structure

Table 16: Alternative 4 structure RV analysis.

FOREST STRUCTURAL CLASSES1

PVG SI SE UR OFMS OFSS

Cold Range % Current %

Alt 4 %

20-45 10-30 10-25 10-25 5-20 1 0 78 21 0 1 0 78 18 3

Moist Range % Current %

Alt 4 %

20-30 20-30 10-20 15-20 10-20 2 0 89 9 0 2 0 89 9 0

Dry Range % 15-25 10-20 5-10 5-15 40-60 Current % 4 1 79 17 0

Alt 4 % 4 0 79 14 3

Table 18 summarizes forest structure by potential vegetation group for the upland forests for Alternative 4. Cold and Dry upland forests show a slight shift in OFMS to OFSS, with OFMS staying within its range and OFSS increasing from zero but still well below its range.

Forest Density As with Alternatives 2 and 3, Alternative 4 would reduce high density stands within the project area after tree removal activities (Table 19), but to a lesser extent due to its reduced acreage.


31

Table 19. Alternative 4 density RV analysis.

FOREST DENSITY PVG High Medium Low

Cold Range % Current %

Alt 4 %

25-60 20-40 15-35 87 6 7 68 5 25

Moist

Range % Current %

Alt 4 %

15-30 25-60 20-40 86 7 7 72 6 22

Dry Range % 5-15 15-30 40-85

Current % 86 7 7 Alt 4 % 65 5 30

Low density forest in Cold and Moist UF is lifted from under-represented into lower to mid-range. High density forest remains over-represented and medium density forest remains under-represented in the project area.

Species Composition As with Alternatives 2 and 3, Alternative 4 proposed treatments in the project area are designed to reduce crown fire risk and crown density by reducing stocking levels. Treatment will likely alter species composition by favoring fire resistant and healthy insect and disease resistant trees and by deliberately favoring ponderosa pine, western larch and Douglas-fir where feasible. As there are varying amounts of these species available in individual stands, from none to many, thinning with a species preference could have little effect on species composition in any given stand.

Table 17: Alternative 4 species composition RV analysis.


Cover Type Current

% Range

% Post-

Treat% Current

% Range

% Post-

Treat% Current

% Range

% Post-

Treat %

GF/mix 38 5-15 32 17 15-30 17 21 1-10 18 PP/mix 10 0-5 10 5 5-15 5 45 50-80 50 DF/mix 4 5-15 3 2 15-30 2 13 5-20 11

LPP/mix 39 25-45 35 56 25-45 52 17 -- 14 WL/mix 8 5-15 20 3 10-30 8 4 1-10 7 ES/mix 1 15-35 1 -- -- -- 1 -- 1

ES/mix/SAF-mix -- -- -- 15 1-10 15 -- -- --

WWP -- -- -- 1 0-5 1 -- -- --

GF=grand fir, PP=ponderosa pine, DF=Douglas-fir, LPP=lodgepole pine, WL=western larch, ES=Engelmann spruce, SAF=subalpine fir, WWP=western white pine

With this alternative, western larch will likely move above its range in Cold UF and move into its range in Moist UF; ponderosa pine will move up into its range in Dry UF.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS, ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES (2, 3, AND 4)


32

Past activities such as timber harvest, fire suppression and insect/disease impacts have helped create the conditions observed in current stands (see Current Conditions above) (Powell 2011). Stand structures, stand densities, and species compositions have been altered by selective harvest and clearcutting, bark beetles in the 1970’s and the spruce budworm epidemic of the 1980’s, the absence of fire, accumulations of fuels and the resulting presence of large wildfires, among the most noteworthy.

The activities proposed to treat the identified stands in the project area would begin to reverse the trends as discussed in Hessburg’s 1999 publication (see cumulative effects discussion under No Action for details). Objectives for reducing crown fire potential, crown density and fuel loadings in the proposed stands near values at risk and roadsides will be met. The intent of the prescriptions for all action alternatives would be to address fire risk, but other secondary effects of those treatments will likely include: bringing stand structures, densities and species compositions and their pattern on the landscape back toward or within ranges of variation, which when considered with past trends, would begin to restore a more resilient landscape. Thinned stands will likely, even though their emphasis is on reducing fire risk, result in healthier stands of trees with increased growing space and an increased ability to fend off insects and disease.

By moving components of the landscape toward or within their range of variation, proposed treatments would begin creating a forest more resilient in conditions when fire, insects and disease disturbances occur in the future (Powell 2011).

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 (Action Alternatives)

PRESCRIBED BURNING Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

All action alternatives propose some amount of prescribed fire treatments for fuel reduction. This burning could be burning of piles or “jackpot” burning of slash created from thinning operations or introducing fire on large blocks of the project area to reduce natural fuels. The following is a summary table of proposed burning treatment by alternative:

Table 18: Prescribed burning summary.

Treatment Type Alt. 2 (Acres) Alt.3 (Acres) Alt. 4 (Acres)

Landscape Burning (Non-wilderness) 19,663 3,512 19,663 Landscape Burning (Wilderness) 9,557 0 0

Jackpot/Pile Burning 8,582 13,712 8,582

Jackpot/Pile Burning Effects The effects of pile burning and jackpot burning on treated stands will likely be minimal across the project area. Thinned stands will be open, and these types of fire treatments are generally planned to create low intensity fire that will consume only the pile or pocket of fuel that fire is applied to. One of the objectives of thinning treatments is to leave the most fire-resistant species and this will help the treated stands to survive fire in their immediate vicinity. However, fire-resistant species are not present in every stand and fuel levels and proximity to standing trees will not be consistent, allowing fire to cause some mortality due to direct scorching or smoldering duff transferring heat to root systems. Fire effects in a stand can vary, depending on species composition, configuration and individual tree characteristics. Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir are generally the species most intolerant to fire in the project area, with lodgepole pine a close third (Lotan et al 1985), however small (young) trees of all species can be more susceptible than more mature trees with thicker bark.


33

Careful application of burn prescriptions, i.e. strategic placement of fire and burning when weather and fuel conditions are favorable to minimize effects on stand health, will lessen the potential for post-burn tree mortality. Configurations of fuels and standing trees may create an environment where pockets of trees do not survive jackpot burning, but that is likely to be an exception rather than common. Different firing techniques may be used to minimize effects near wildlife islands and other areas where tree loss is less desirable.

Some tree loss will likely occur with these prescribed fire treatments. Due to the post-thinning open nature of the stands where fire will be applied, and the planned low intensity of the fire, little effect overall to stand structure, density or species composition is expected.

Alternative 3 proposes jackpot/pile burning on 5,130 more acres compared to Alternatives 2 and 4, therefore there is potential for the proposed treatment to have the described fire effects across the greater acreage of Alternative 3.

Lodgepole pine is present in the project area, and it is a species that can regenerate prolifically following a fire due to its seed morphology and abundance of seed (Lotan et al 1985). Future post-prescribed-fire maintenance treatments (such as thinning or burning) will potentially be necessary to retain the open nature of the treated stands and allow them to continue to meet the objectives of this project.

Landscape Burning Effects Landscape burning will be applied to the project area outside mechanically-treated (thinned) stands to reduce natural fuels. The objective of this type of burning, in untreated stands, is to reduce fuels in a controlled manner and where effects will likely be more controlled. This is opposed to a wildfire scenario where the effects of fire burning in extreme conditions and fire suppression efforts are likely not as desirable.

Burning prescriptions will be designed to create low intensity fire within the untreated stands. Stand conditions for structure, density and species composition run the full range of all possibilities within project area: all types of structures including young plantations, pure lodgepole pine stands, and grand fir OFMS; a full range of stand densities from open to closed; and a broad spectrum of species configurations from pure ponderosa pine on dry sites to pure Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir in the upper elevations. The effects of low intensity fire could potentially be as varied as the stand conditions.

It is impossible to predict the exact effect of any prescribed fire across a landscape like the Ten Cent project, as the variables and their ranges are infinite. However, we have our experience of previous fires, both wildfires and prescribed burns, to draw from. Twenty-eight percent of the project area is in Dry UF, and the two ranger districts have extensive experience burning in dry forest, observing the outcomes and refining techniques. Many of the plantations in the project area and beyond, located in all three PVGs, have been burned post-harvest to prepare them for planting. There have been numerous wildfires in and near the project area, two of which occurred in fairly representative stand types.

The two recent wildfires in/near the project area that can help identify potential effects of proposed burning are the most recent 2013 Vinegar fire and the 2009 North Fork Complex.

The Vinegar fire burned within the Ten Cent project area in an upper elevation primarily Engelmann spruce/subalpine fir stand type. The fire burned with varying intensities, with several days of high intensity stand-replacing effects, which moderated to lower intensity underburning as the weather moderated. Comparing a pre-fire aerial view with a 2015 post-fire view, the photo shows a large amount of dead forest in the areas of high intensity where fire directly burned the trees and also areas where trees died later from indirect causes (either indirect heat that did not burn crowns, or subsequent mortality from


34

insects). This fire shows that this stand type, with Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir as the major components, does not withstand even low-intensity fire without increased levels of mortality.

The larger North Fork Complex was a mixed-severity fire that burned outside the project area, however it contains some very similar stand types: grand fir mix with western larch component, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir mix as well as some drier ponderosa pine on ridge tops. The stands ranged from mature with large trees and heavy understory to young plantations; stands occurred on all aspects. This fire was allowed to burn with minimal direct suppression efforts, and consequently it has areas where it burned hot and killed most of the forest stands in its path, and other areas where it became a backing fire and an underburn. The fire burned in more of a mosaic pattern, and post-fire views show an estimated 25% of the fire area with continuous dead canopy.

The landscape burning treatments proposed for the Ten Cent project area are planned to be executed under much stricter burning conditions than a wildfire, with prescriptions that will include specific weather and fuels parameters as well as taking stand conditions, slope and topography into consideration. It is expected that effects of the prescribed burning will be much less than the effects of the recent wildfires described above. The prescribed burning will likely result in mosaics of mixed-severity, with some stands showing little effect as fire is “shaded” out by closed canopies and/or higher humidities, and some pockets and stands experience direct mortality as individuals or clumps catch fire and torch. Some trees will not show mortality immediately following the fire but may die later the next year, and some may succumb to insect attack.

Landscape burning could potentially introduce some variability in the more “homogenous” large stands in the project area, by creating a mosaic of areas of higher-severity burn where new trees get established and structures are modified.

Direct Effects Given that it is impossible to predict the exact effect of any fire, the following is a rough estimate of the direct effects of proposed burning on forest stands in the individual PVGs:

Cold UF—Overall, potentially 10-15% of the forested stands would experience 50-100% mortality. This PVG contains most of the grand fir mix of species, with a fair amount of lodgepole pine and western larch. OFMS would experience the least mortality due to closed-canopy conditions and larger, thicker-barked trees. UR stands would experience the most mortality due to existing ladder fuels and younger, thinner-barked trees. SE stands would be in the middle range and SI stands would likely only experience mortality around the edges if they are next to a fuel concentration that is burning. Lodgepole pine stands would likely experience less mortality under the burning conditions of a prescribed fire (likely the burning conditions in a lodgepole pine stand would not carry a fire).

Moist UF—Overall, potentially 15-20% of the forested stands would experience 50-100% mortality. The increased range is due to a species mix that has a larger component of Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir. However, the burning prescription will likely moderate that effect, and the PVG has a large component of lodgepole pine that may also moderate the effects of the burn. OFMS could potentially see more mortality than in the Cold UF due to the spruce/subalpine fir component. The other structures would be similar to Cold UF.

Dry UF—Overall, potentially 5-10% of the forested stands would experience 50-100% mortality, with the full expectation that it is unlikely to reach 10%. Almost half the cover type in the Dry UF is ponderosa pine, a fire-resistant species. It is likely that much of the burning will function as a typical underburn in ponderosa pine stands, where the pine and western larch survives and grand fir and Douglas-fir succumbs to fire mortality or subsequent insect attacks. Seventeen percent of the area is lodgepole


35

pine and that may experience some mortality depending on the burn prescription. OFMS is expected to experience less mortality due to closed canopies and thicker-barked trees.

All Upland Forest—The western white pine in the project area occurs in all three forested PVGs, and is located primarily within plantations of young trees, whose thinner bark and fuller crowns near to the ground would make them more susceptible to damage or mortality from prescribed fire regardless of intensity (Griffith 1992). Intentional protection during execution of the landscape burn or pile burning would minimize the risk of damage. Larger, mature western white pine located outside of these plantations may be less susceptible to low-intensity prescribed burning due to thicker bark and higher crowns.

Compared to Alternatives 2 and 4, Alternative 3 would have 107 fewer acres of landscape prescribed burning in western white pine stands, and 744 fewer acres of burning in sub-alpine fir stands. However, sub-alpine fir is a minor component of many stands throughout the project area, and those trees have the potential to be damaged or killed if prescribed fire comes within close proximity.

Subalpine fir occurs not only in stands where it is the majority of the species but also as a lesser component of many more stands. Historically, wildfire return intervals were long for this species, but recent changes in vegetation patterns and disturbance processes have increased its vulnerability to wildfire. While Alternative 3 directly effects fewer acres of subalpine fir stands with less prescribed burning, the increased acres of burning in Alternatives 2 and 4 will likely increase the mosaic of vegetation patterns and variability on the landscape as a whole. Reducing potential wildfire severity in the project area could ultimately lessen future wildfire threat to the subalpine fir that occurs across the landscape, both inside and outside the proposed burn areas.

Cold, moist and dry upland forests all have a natural wildfire history and future, and treatments prescribed in all action alternatives to meet the purpose and need would add diversity in vegetation patterns, as well as create stand structures and densities that would ameliorate severe wildfire behavior.

Indirect Effects Any fire introduced into a stand has the potential to damage and weaken individual trees but not kill them outright. A tree may survive fire damage, but its weakened condition makes it vulnerable to attack by insects or disease. For example, bark beetles are common secondary agents of mortality in these trees and stands. It is fully expected that this type of mortality will occur following any prescribed burning in the project area, and it is likely that newly-dead trees will appear one to two years afterward.

In areas where fire has burned enough of the surface of the forest floor to make a seed bed, regeneration of conifers will likely occur. Lodgepole pine is the most likely, due to its ability to proliferate following fire; ponderosa pine and western larch are least likely due to their shade intolerance, need for a mineral-soil seed bed and infrequent seed crops. Grand fir and Douglas-fir are shade tolerant and have more frequent seed crops.

Cumulative Effects Past activities such as timber harvest, fire suppression and insect/disease impacts have helped create the conditions observed in current stands (see Current Conditions above) (Powell 2011). Stand structures, stand densities, and species compositions have been altered by selective harvest and clearcutting, bark beetles in the 1970’s and the spruce budworm epidemic of the 1980’s, the absence of fire, accumulations of fuels and the resulting presence of large wildfires, among the most noteworthy.


36

The activities proposed to treat the identified stands in the project area would begin to reverse the trends as discussed in Hessburg’s 1999 publication (see cumulative effects discussion under No Action for details). Objectives for reducing crown fire potential, crown density and fuel loadings in the proposed stands near values at risk and roadsides will be met. The intent of the prescriptions for all action alternatives would be to address fire risk, but other secondary effects of those treatments will likely include: bringing stand structures, densities and species compositions and their pattern on the landscape back toward or within ranges of variation, which when considered with past trends, would begin to restore a more resilient landscape. Re-introducing fire in a more controlled manner to reduce fuel loading will begin to return stands to conditions where they can potentially experience a more natural fire pattern across the landscape.

By moving components of the landscape toward or within their range of variation, proposed treatments would begin creating a forest more resilient in conditions when fire, insects and disease disturbances occur in the future (Powell 2011).

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS

Table 19: Table summarizing the effects of each alternative on measurement indicators.

Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Stand Structure Management would not alter stand structures, and the over-abundant understory re-initiation stage would continue to increase, perpetuating ladder fuel and closed canopy conditions.

Reducing ladder fuels and thinning will alter stand structures within treatment units. The relatively small area of treatment within the large project area would not have a great effect on stand structure for the project area. There will be a small increase in OFSS in the Dry UF, but it will remain below its range of variation. Landscape prescribed burning has the potential to alter structure on a larger scale, an estimated 5% to 20% of the upland forest vegetation stands could experience more than 50% mortality.

Stand treatments of thinning and their effects in this alternative would be the same as Alternative 2. The amount of landscape burning would be much less (82% less), and while the effects within the burned area may be the same, the “footprint” of the burned area would be much less, and the effect on stand structure across the project would be greatly reduced.

Stand treatments of thinning, utilizing some feathering and untreated islands, are proposed on fewer acres (11% fewer), but overall effects on structure would be the same as Alternative 2. Proposed landscape burning effects would also be the same as Alternative 2.


37

Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Forest Density Currently dense forest stands would not be altered by management (fire suppression would remain), increasing susceptibility to disturbances such as insects, disease and wildfire.

Thinning would reduce stand density within the treatment units, although the relatively small acreage of thinning compared to the large project acreage means there would not be a large-scale effect within the project. All upland forests will continue to have high densities above their range of variation, though there would be a shift of some high density stands to low density, lifting low density into range of variation for Cold and Moist forests. Prescribed landscape fire would reduce stand densities by killing some trees outright and leaving others vulnerable to insects or disease. Natural regeneration response could result in a dense stand in the future.

Stand treatments of thinning and their effects in this alternative would be the same as Alternative 2. The amount of landscape burning would be much less (82% less), and while the effects within the burned area may be the same, the “footprint” of the burned area would be much less, and the effect on stand densities across the project would be greatly reduced.

Stand treatments of thinning, utilizing some feathering and untreated islands, are proposed on fewer acres (11% fewer), but overall effects on forest density would be the same as Alternative 2. Proposed landscape burning effects would also be the same as Alternative 2.

Species Composition

Species compositions that are out of sync with their range of variation would likely remain so; stands would progress thru natural successional patterns with no manipulation except fire suppression.

Reducing ladder fuels and thinning will favor ponderosa pine, western larch and Douglas-fir where present, or the most-fire resistant species that is present on the site. Overall, the effect on composition will be low when the small acreage of stand treatment is weighed against the large project area. Prescribed fire could alter composition by directly causing mortality (loss of individual trees), or by creating conditions favorable for natural regeneration. Lodgepole pine is most likely to be the first species to naturally regenerate within most of the burn areas.

Stand treatments of thinning and their effects in this alternative would be the same as Alternative 2. The amount of landscape burning would be much less (82% less), and while the effects within the burned area may be the same, the “footprint” of the burned area would be much less, and the effect on species compositions across the project would be greatly reduced. Fewer acres of western white pine and subalpine fir would be treated with landscape prescribed fire.

Stand treatments of thinning, utilizing some feathering and untreated islands, are proposed on fewer acres (11% fewer), but overall effects on species composition would be the same as Alternative 2. Proposed landscape burning effects would also be the same as Alternative 2.

COMPLIANCE WITH LAW, REGULATION, POLICY, AND THE FOREST PLAN Federal Laws National Environmental Policy Act


38

The Ten Cent Project Silviculture Report discloses the existing condition of forest stands, and analyzes the potential effects from the proposed activities to this resource. This report therefore provides all necessary scientific information to comply with the National Environmental policy act.

National Forest Management Act Silvicultural activities proposed for implementation in this project are fully compliant with NFMA, being consistent with Forest Plan direction, and occurring on lands meeting the definition of forest land and designated suitable for timber production.

Forest Service Policy The Ten Cent Project Silviculture Report discloses the existing condition of forest stands, and analyzes the potential effects from the proposed activities to this resource. This report therefore provides all necessary scientific information to comply with Forest Service Manual direction and policies regarding silvicultural activities within the project area.

Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan/Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

Selection of the silvicultural treatments was guided by standards in the Land and Resource Management Plans for the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests (Forest Plans). Briefly:

The treatments are designed to control vegetation to establish desired species composition to minimize risks from insects, disease and wildfire, and use available and acceptable logging methods. Silvicultural prescriptions would be prepared by a certified silviculturist, and would: address the designation of snags, wildlife trees and downed woody debris for cavity dependant species; protect, maintain and enhance hardwood vegetation; analyze silvicultural options and address minimum stocking levels where regeneration harvests are applied; use integrated pest management practices; and use prescribed fire as a tool in support of returning fire to its natural role in the ecosystem.

Stocking level control has been prescribed in some areas to reduce risk of severe wildfire and to improve conditions for re-introducing fire using prescribed fire techniques.

When choosing species to favor in thinning and planting, the following would be considered: historical range of variability, long-term stand health, vigor and productivity in relation to insects and disease; biological diversity needs for wildlife, and visual quality; maintenance of stands dominated by early successional species including ponderosa pine, western larch, Douglas-fir and western white pine; working with lodgepole pine in those communities where it is climax or successional to maintain diversity; and favoring western larch in those lodgepole communities. Management activities would be tailored to provide vegetative species diversity, by maintaining a mix of species within treatment units and giving special attention to special and unique ecological communities.

Within the individual management areas established by the Forest Plans, all proposed project activities are consistent with the applicable Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests’ plan goals, desired future conditions, objectives, standards and guidelines as they relate to forest stand management. These standards and guidelines are too numerous to repeat in this document—if further information is required, please refer to the individual Forest Plans for the various affected management areas.

Eastside Screens Forest Plan Amendment #11 A “historical range of variation” analysis for stand structure, stand density and stand composition is included in the Ten Cent Silviculture Report, in compliance with Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2 (Umatilla National Forest Plan Amendment #11), ecosystem standard. The proposed activities within the project are in compliance with the Eastside Screens.


39

OTHER RELEVANT MANDATORY DISCLOSURES Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments Environmental Consequences Unique to No Action

There would be irretrievable loss of tree growth within the untreated forests. Additionally, untreated forests will likely become increasingly susceptible to stand structure, density and species composition attributes that, under certain disturbance conditions such as wildfire, insects or disease, will result in irreversible and irretrievable changes in forest resiliency and permanent loss of historical forest conditions.

Environmental Consequences Common to all Action Alternatives There would be an irretrievable loss of tree growth within the untreated forests. Additionally, landscape attributes that remain outside of RV (stand structure, density, and species composition) inside and outside treatment units after alternative implementation could, under certain disturbance conditions such as wildfire, insects or disease, result in irreversible and irretrievable changes in forest resiliency and permanent loss of historical forest conditions.


40

LITERATURE CITED

Agee, J.K. 1996. Achieving conservation biology objectives with fire in the Pacific Northwest. Weed Technology. 10(2): 417-421.

Agee, J.K.; Skinner, C.N. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecolo-gy and Management. 211(1-2): 83-96. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2005.01.034

Aplet, G.H. and W.S. Keeton. 1999. Application of historical range of variability concepts to biodiversity conservation. Pages 71-86 in: R. Baydack, H. Campa, and J. Haufler (eds.). Practical Approaches to the Conservation of Biological Diversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 313 pp.

Bailey, R.G. 1995. Description of the Ecoregions of the United States. 2nd ed. rev. and expanded (1st ed. 1980). Misc. Pub. No. 1391 (rev.). Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. 108 pp., with separate map at 1:7,500,000.

Barrett, J.W.; Roth, L.F. 1985. Response of dwarf-mistletoe-infected ponderosa pine to thinning: 1. Sapling growth. Res. Paper, PNW-330. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. 15 p.

Caraher, David L.; Henshaw, John; Hall, Fred [and others]. 1992. Restoring ecosystems in the Blue Mountains: a report to the Regional Forester and the Forest Supervisors of the Blue Mountain forests. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 14 p.

Chiono, L.A.; O’Hara, K.L.; De Lasaux, M.J.; Nader, G.A.; Stephens, S.L. 2012. Development of vegetation and surface fuels following fire hazard reduction treatment. Forests. 3(3): 700-722. doi:10.3390/f3030700

Climate Central. 2012. The age of western wildfires: western wildfires 2012. www.climatecentral.org.wgts/wildfires/Wildfires2012.pdf

Cochran, P. H.; Geist, J. M.; Clemens, D. L. [and others]. 1994. Suggested stocking levels for forest stands in northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. Research Note PNW-RN-513. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 21 p.

Cochran, P.H.; Dahms, W.G. 1998. Lodgepole Pine Development After Early Spacing in the Blue Mountains of Oregon. Research Paper PNW-RP-503. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Collins, B.M.; Miller, J.D.; Thode, A.E.; Kelly, M.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Stephens, S.L. 2009. Interactions among wildland fires in a long-established Sierra Nevada natural fire area. Ecosystems. 12(1): 114-128. doi:10.1007/s10021-008-9211-7

Collins, B.M.; Stephens, S.L.; Roller, G.B.; Battles, J.J. 2011. Simulating fire and forest dynamics for a landscape fuel treatment project in the Sierra Nevada. Forest Science. 57(2): 77-88.

Collins, B.M.; Kramer, H.A.; Menning, K.; Dillingham, C.; Saah, D.; Stine, P.A.; Stephens, S.L. 2013. Modeling hazardous fire potential within a completed fuel treatment network in the northern Sierra Nevada. Forest Ecology and Management. 310: 156-166. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2013.08.015


41

Finney, M.A.; McHugh, C.W.; Grenfell, I.C. 2005. Stand- and landscape-level effects of prescribed burning on two Arizona wildfires. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 35(7): 1714-1722. doi:10.1139/X05-090

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(6): 712-727. doi:10.1071/WF06064

Fitzgerald, S.A. 2005. Fire ecology of ponderosa pine and the rebuilding of fire-resilient ponderosa pine ecosystems. In: Ritchie, M.W.; Maguire, D.A.; Youngblood, A., tech. coords. Proceedings of the symposium on ponderosa pine: issues, trends, and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-198. Albany, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 197-225.

Franklin, Jerry F.; Johnson, K. Norman. June, 2011. Dry forest restoration principles and prescriptions. A presentation to Region 6 vegetation managers. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. On file with: Umatilla National Forest, North Fork John Day Ranger District, Ukiah, OR 97880. 11 pages.

GAO. 1999. Western National Forests: A cohesive strategy is needed to address catastrophic wildfire threats. Report to Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives. United States General Accounting Office, GAO/RCED-99-65. 60 p.

Griffith, Randy Scott. 1992. Pinus monticola. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinmot/all.html [2017, April 24].

Hessburg, Paul F.; Smith, Bradley G.; Kreiter, Scott D.; Miller, Craig A.; Salter, Brion R.; McNicoll, Cecilia H.; Hahn, Wendel J. 1999. Historical and current forest and range landscapes in the Interior Columbia River basin and portions of the Klamath and Great basins; Part I: Linking vegetation patterns and landscape vulnerability to potential insect and pathogen disturbances. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-458. 357 p.

Johnson, Charles Grier, Jr.; Clausnitzer, Rodrick R. 1992. Plant associations of the Blue and Ochoco Mountains. Publication R6-ERW-TP-036-92. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 164 p.

Johnson, Charles G., Jr. 1994. Forest health in the Blue Mountains: a plant ecologist’s perspective on ecosystem processes and biological diversity. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-339. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 24 p.

Lehmkuhl, John F.; Hessburg, Paul F.; Everett, Richard L. [and others]. 1994. Historical and current forest landscapes of eastern Oregon and Washington. Part 1: Vegetation pattern and insect and disease hazards. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-328. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 88 p.

Littell, J.S.; McKenzie, D.; Peterson, D.L.; Westerling, A.L. 2009. Climate and wildfire area burned in western U.S. ecoprovinces, 1916-2003. Ecological Applications. 19(4): 1003-1021.

https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinmot/all.html


42

Lotan, J., Brown, J. and Neuenschwander, L. 1985. Role of fire in lodgepole pine forests, pp. 133-152 in D. Baumgartner et al. (eds) Lodgepole pine the species and its management Symposium Proceedings. Washington State University, Pullman, WA.

Martin, Kevin. 2010. Range of variation direction for forest vegetation project planning; file designation 1920-2-1, memorandum to S.O. Staff and District Rangers. Pendleton, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Umatilla National Forest, Supervisor’s Office. 6 p. On file with: Umatilla National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Pendleton, OR 97801.

Martinson, E.J.; Omi, P.N. 2013. Fuel treatments and fire severity: A meta-analysis. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-103WWW. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 38 p.

Morgan, P.; Aplet, G.H.; Haufler, J.B.; Humphries, H.C.; Moore, M.M.; Wilson, W.D. 1994. Historical range of variability: a useful tool for evaluating ecosystem change. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 2: 87-111.

Mutch, Robert W.; Arno, Stephen F.; Brown, James K. [and others]. 1993. Forest health in the Blue Mountains: a management strategy for fire-adapted ecosystems. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-310. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 14 p.

National Research Council. 2011. Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, concentrations, and impacts over decades to millennia (2011). Washington D.C.: National Academies Press. h t tp: //www.nap.edu. 298 p

Oliver, Chadwick D.; Irwin, Larry L.; Knapp, Walter H. 1994. Eastside forest management practices: historical overview, extent of their applications, and their effects on sustainability of ecosystems. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-324. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 73 p.

Peterson, D.L.; Halofsky, J.E.; Johnson, M.C. 2011. Managing and adapting to changing fire regimes in a warmer climate. In: McKenzie, D.; Miller, C.; Falk, D.A., eds. The landscape ecology of fire. New York: Springer: 249-267.

Pfister, R.D.; Arno, S.F. 1980. Classifying forest habitat types based on potential climax vegetation. Forest Science 26(1): 52-70.

Powell, David C. 1999. Suggested stocking levels for forest stands in Northeastern Oregon and Southeastern Washington: An implementation guide for the Umatilla National Forest. Pendleton, Oregon: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Umatilla National Forest, F14-SO-TP-03-99. 300 p.

Powell, David C. 2000. Potential vegetation, disturbance, plant succession, and other aspects of forest ecology. Technical Publication F14-SO-TP-09-00. Pendleton, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Umatilla National Forest. 88 p.

Powell, David C.; Johnson, C. G.; Crowe, E. A.; Wells, A; Swanson, D. K. 2007. Potential vegetation hierarchy for the Blue Mountains section of northeastern Oregon, southeastern Washington, and west-central Idaho. PNW-GTR-709. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 87p.

http://www.nap.edu/


43

Powell, D.C. 2010. Estimating crown fire susceptibility for project planning. Fire Management Today. 70(3): 8-15. http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fmt/fmt_pdfs/FMT70-3.pdf

Powell, David C. 2011. Active management of dry forests in the Blue Mountains: Silvicultural considerations. White Paper F14-SO-WP-Silv-4. Umatilla National Forest. Pendleton, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Umatilla National Forest, Supervisor’s Office. 128 p.

Powell, David C. 2013. Silviculture Terminology. Umatilla National Forest. Pendleton, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Umatilla National Forest, Supervisor’s Office. 24 p. On file with: Umatilla National Forest, 2517 SW Hailey Avenue, Pendleton, OR 97801.

Quigley, Thomas M.; Arbelbide, Sylvia J., technical editors. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the Interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: volume 2. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 4 volumes: 337-1055.

Reineke, L.H. 1933. Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. Journal of Agricultural Research. 46:627-638.

Schmitt, Craig L.; Spiegel, Lia. 2007. Technical assistance: Ten Cent analysis area, North Fork John Day Ranger District. La Grande, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Blue Mountains Pest Management Service Center, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

Schmitt, Craig L.; Scott, Don. 2011. Technical assistance: Ten Cent analysis area, North Fork John Day Ranger District. La Grande, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Blue Mountains Pest Management Service Center, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

Sheehan, K. A. 1996. Defoliation by western spruce budworm in Oregon and Washington from 1980 through 1994. Technical publication R6-NR-TP-04-96. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

Smith, David M.; Larson, Bruce C.; Kelty, Matthew J.; Ashton, P., Mark S. 1997. The practice of silviculture: applied forest ecology. Ninth edition. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 537 p.

Spiegel, Lia; McWilliams, M.; Johnson, M. 2015. Technical assistance: Ten Cent analysis area, North Fork John Day Ranger District. La Grande, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Blue Mountains Pest Management Service Center, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

Stein, S.M.; Menakis, J.P.; Carr, M.A.; Comas, S.J.; Stewart, S.I.; Cleveland, H.; Bramwell, L.; Radeloff, V.C. 2013. Wildfire, wildlands, and people: understanding and preparing for wildfire in the wildland-urban interface. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 36 p.

Stephens, S.L.; Collins, B.M.; Roller, G. 2012. Fuel treatment longevity in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 285: 204-212. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2012.08.030

Stephens, S.L.; Burrows, N.; Buyantuyev, A.; Gray, R.W.; Keane, R.E.; Kubian, R.; Shirong, L.; Seijo, F.; Lifu, S.; Tolhurst, K.G.; van Wagtendonk, J.W. 2014. Temperate and boreal forest mega-fires: characteristics and challenges. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2013, doi:10.1890/120332

http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fmt/fmt_pdfs/FMT70-3.pdf


44

Stine, Peter; Hessburg, Paul; Spies, Thomas; Kramer, Marc; Fettig, Christopher J.:Hansen, Andrew; Lehmkuhl, John; O’Hara, Kevin; Polivka, Karl; Singleton, Peter; Charnley, Susan; Merschel, Andrew; White, Rachel. 2014. The ecology and management of moist mixed-conifer forests in eastern Oregon and Washington: a synthesis of the relevant biophysical science and implications for future land management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-897. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 254 p.

Swanson, F.J.; Jones, J.A.; Wallin, D.O.; Cissel, J.H. 1994. Natural variability – implications for ecosystem management. In: Jensen, M.E.; Bourgeron, P.S., editors. Volume II: Ecosystem management: principles and applications. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-318. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 80-94.

Tanaka, John A.; Starr, G. Lynn; Quigley, Thomas M. 1995. Strategies and recommendations for addressing forest health issues in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-350. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 18 p.

Tappeiner, J.C.; Maguire, D.A.; Harrington, T.B. 2007. Silviculture and ecology of western U.S. forests. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 440 p.

USDA Forest Service. 1965. Silvics of forest trees of the United States. Agriculture Handbook No. 271. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C. 762 p.

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Blue Mountains Forest Health Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Irregular pagination.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Revised interim direction establishing riparian, ecosystem and wildlife standards for timber sales; Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.14 p.

Weaver, Harold. 1943. Fire As An Ecological and Silvicultural Factor in the Ponderosa Pine Region of the Pacific Slope. Journal of Forestry. 11 p.

Wickman, Boyd E. 1992. Forest health in the Blue Mountains: the influence of insects and disease. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-295. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.15 p.


45

REFERENCES This section is entitled References (rather than Literature Cited) because it contains other literature than the cited sources. All of the references included in this section were consulted during project planning activities for Ten Cent, although they are not specifically cited in this specialist report.

Agee, J.K. 2002. The fallacy of passive management: managing for firesafe forest reserves. Conservation In Practice. 3(1): 18-25. doi:10.1111/j.1526-4629.2002.tb00023.x

Agee, J.K.; Bahro, B.; Finney, M.A.; Omi, P.N.; Sapsis, D.B.; Skinner, C.N.; van Wagtendonk, J.W.; Weatherspoon, C.P. 2000. The use of shaded fuelbreaks in landscape fire management. Forest Ecology and Management. 127(1-3): 55-66. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00116-4

Alavalapati, J.R.R.; Carter, D.R.; Newman, D.H. 2005. Wildland-urban interface: Challenges and opportunities. Forest Policy and Economics. 7(5): 705-708. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2005.03.001

Aplet, G.H.; Wilmer, B. 2010. The potential for restoring fire-adapted ecosystems: Exploring opportunities to expand the use of wildfire as a natural change agent. Fire Management Today. 70(1): 35-39.

[Archuleta, J.] 2013. Integrated vegetation prioritization; criterion #3 – unique habitats. Unnumbered white paper. Pendleton, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Umatilla National Forest. 90 p.

Aronson, G.; Kulakowski, D. 2013. Bark beetle outbreaks, wildfires and defensible space: how much area do we need to treat to protect homes and communities? International Journal of Wildland Fire. 22(2): 256-265. doi:10.1071/WF11070

Arvai, J.; Gregory, R.; Ohlson, D.; Blackwell, B.; Gray, R. 2006. Letdowns, wake-up calls, and constructed preferences: People's responses to fuel and wildfire risks. Journal of Forestry. 104(4): 173-181.

Azuma, D.; Thompson, J.; Weyermann, D. 2013. Changes in development near public forest lands in Oregon and Washington, 1974-2005: implications for management. Res. Paper PNW-RP-596. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 21 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/45205

Bright, A.D.; Burtz, R.T. 2006. Firewise activities of full-time versus seasonal residents in the wildland-urban interface. Journal of Forestry. 104(6): 307-315.

Cochrane, M.A.; Moran, C.J.; Wimberly, M.C.; Baer, A.D.; Finney, M.A.; Beckendorf, K.L.; Eidenshink, J.; Zhu, Z. 2012. Estimation of wildfire size and risk changes due to fuels treatments. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 21(4): 357-367. doi:10.1071/WF11079

Cohen, J.D. 1999. Reducing the wildland fire threat to homes: where and how much? In: González-Cabán, A.; Omi, P.N. Proceedings of the symposium on fire economics, planning, and policy: bottom lines. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-173. Albany, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 189-195.

Cohen, J.D. 2000. Preventing disaster: Home ignitability in the wildland-urban interface. Journal of Forestry. 98(3): 15-21.

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/45205


46

Cohen, J.D. 2004. Relating flame radiation to home ignition using modeling and experimental crown fires. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 34(8): 1616-1626. doi:10.1139/x04-049

Cohen, J. 2008. The wildland-urban interface fire problem: A consequence of the fire exclusion paradigm. Forest History Today. Fall: 20-26.

Dillard, D.S. 2007 (June 20). Clarification of May 2nd, 2007, advice on documenting “best available science”, 1920/1950 memorandum to Regional Planning Directors. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office. 2 p.

Donovan, G.H.; Brown, T.C. 2008. Estimating the avoided fuel-treatment costs of wildfire. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 23(4): 197-201.

Elia, M.; Lafortezza, R.; Colangelo, G.; Sanesi, G. 2014. A streamlined approach for the spatial allocation of fuel removals in wildland–urban interfaces. Landscape Ecology. 29(10): 1771-1784. doi:10.1007/s10980-014-0070-7

Eyre, F.H., editor. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p.

Finney, M.A.; Cohen, J.D. 2003. Expectation and evaluation of fuel management objectives. In: Omi, P.N.; Joyce, L.A., tech. coords. Fire, fuel treatments, and ecological restoration: conference proceedings. Proceedings RMRS-P-29. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 353-366.

Fischer, A.P.; Kline, J.D.; Ager, A.A.; Charnley, S.; Olsen, K.A. 2014. Objective and perceived wildfire risk and its influence on private forest landowners’ fuel reduction activities in Oregon’s (USA) ponderosa pine ecoregion. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 23(1): 143-153. doi:10.1071/WF12164

Fitzgerald, S.; Bennett, M. 2013. A land manager's guide for creating fire-resistant forests. EM 9087. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Extension Service. 14 p.

Folegatti, B.S.; Smidt, M.F.; Loewenstein, E.F.; Carter, E.; McDonald, T.P. 2007. Analysis of mechanical thinning productivity and cost for use at the wildland urban interface. Forest Products Journal. 57(11): 33-38.

Fulé, P.Z.; McHugh, C.W.; Heinlein, T.A.; Covington, W.W. 2001. Potential fire behavior is reduced following forest restoration treatments. In: Vance, R.K.; Edminster, C.B.; Covington, W.W.; Blake, J.A., comps. Ponderosa pine ecosystems restoration and conservation: steps toward stewardship. Proceedings RMRS-P-22. Ogden, UT. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 28-35.

Gill, A.M.; Stephens, S.L. 2009. Scientific and social challenges for the management of fire-prone wildland-urban interfaces. Environmental Research Letters. 4(3): 034014 (10 p). doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/3/034014

Graham, R.T.; McCaffrey, S.; Jain, T.B. 2004. Science basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-120. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 43 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/6279



47

Gude, P.H.; Jones, K.; Rasker, R.; Greenwood, M.C. 2013. Evidence for the effect of homes on wildfire suppression costs. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 22(4): 537-548. doi:10.1071/WF11095

Gunderson, K.; Carver, S.; Davis, B.H. 2011. Human relationships to fire prone ecosystems: Mapping values at risk on contested landscapes. In: Watson, A.; Murrieta-Saldivar, J.; McBride, B., comps. Proceedings RMRS-P-64. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Ninth World Wilderness Congress symposium. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 134-139.

Hall, S.A.; Burke, I.C. 2006. Considerations for characterizing fuels as inputs for fire behavior models. Forest Ecology and Management. 227(1-2): 102-114. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.02.022

Hammer, R.B.; Radeloff, V.C.; Fried, J.S.; Stewart, S.I. 2007. Wildland-urban interface housing growth during the 1990s in California, Oregon, and Washington. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 16(3): 255-265. doi:10.1071/WF05077

Harvey, Alan E.; Geist, J. Michael; McDonald, Gerald I.; Jurgensen, Martin F.; Cochran, Patrick H.; Zabowski, Darlene; Meurisse, Robert T. 1994. Biotic and abiotic processes in eastside ecosystems: The effects of management on soil properties, processes, and productivity. Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment: from Volume III, Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-323

Hirsch, K.; Kafka, V.; Tymstra, C.; McAlpine, R.; Hawkes, B.; Stegehuis, H.; Quintilio, S.; Gauthier, S.; Peck, K. 2001. Fire-smart forest management: a pragmatic approach to sustainable forest management in fire-dominated ecosystems. Forestry Chronicle. 77(2): 357-363. doi:10.5558/tfc77357-2

Huggett, R.J., Jr.; Abt, K.L.; Shepperd, W. 2008. Efficacy of mechanical fuel treatments for reducing wildfire hazard. Forest Policy and Economics. 10(6): 408-414. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2008.03.003

Jakes, P.J.; Sturtevant, V. 2013. Trial by fire: Community Wildfire Protection Plans put to the test. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 22(8): 1134-1143. doi:10.1071/WF12156

Jain, T.B.; Battaglia, M.A.; Han, H.-S.; Graham, R.T.; Keyes, C.R.; Fried, J.; Sandquist, J.E. 2012. A comprehensive guide to fuel management practices for dry mixed conifer forests in the northwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-292. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 331 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/42150

Johnson, Charles Grier, Jr.; Clausnitzer, Rodrick R. 1992. Plant associations of the Blue and Ochoco Mountains. Publication R6-ERW-TP-036-92. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 164 p.

Johnson, C. 2013. Developing the 2014-2017 integrated vegetation management program of work: criteria #1 – Protecting values at risk from wildfire. White Pap. F14-SO-WP-Fuels-1 (draft). Pendleton, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Umatilla National Forest. 11 p.

Johnson, K. Norman; Agee, James; Beschta, Robert [and others]. 1995. Forest health and timber harvest on national forests in the Blue Mountains of Oregon: a report to Governor Kitzhaber. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 51 p.



48

Johnson, M.C.; Peterson, D.L. 2005. Forest fuel treatments in western North America: merging silviculture and fire management. Forestry Chronicle. 81(3): 365-368. doi:10.5558/tfc81365-3

Johnson, M.C.; Peterson, D.L.; Raymond, C.L. 2007. Guide to fuel treatments in dry forests of the western United States: assessing forest structure and fire hazard. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-686. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 322 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/27293

Johnson, M.C.; Kennedy, M.C.; Peterson, D.L. 2011. Simulating fuel treatment effects in dry forests of the western United States: testing the principles of a fire-safe forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 41(5): 1018-1030. doi:10.1139/x11-032

Kalabokidis, K.D.; Omi, P.N. 1998. Reduction of fire hazard through thinning/residue disposal in the urban interface. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 8(1): 29-35. doi:10.1071/WF9980029

Kennedy, M.C.; Johnson, M.C. 2014. Fuel treatment prescriptions alter spatial patterns of fire severity around the wildland–urban interface during the Wallow Fire, Arizona, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 318: 122-132. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2014.01.014

Martin, Kevin. 2014. Minimum tree stocking standards, memorandum to S.O. Staff and District Rangers. Pendleton, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Umatilla National Forest, Supervisor’s Office. 5 p. On file with: Umatilla National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Pendleton, OR 97801.

Menning, K.M.; Stephens, S.L. 2007. Fire climbing in the forest: A semiqualitative, semiquantitative approach to assessing ladder fuel hazards. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 22(2): 88-93.

Moghaddas, J.J.; Craggs, L. 2007. A fuel treatment reduces fire severity and increases suppression efficiency in a mixed conifer forest. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 16(6): 673-678. doi:10.1071/WF06066

Moghissi, A.A.; Love, B.R.; Straja, S.R.; McBride, D.K.; Swetnam, M.S. 2008. Best available science: its evolution, taxonomy, and application. Arlington, VA: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. 93 p.

Moritz, M.A.; Batllori, E.; Bradstock, R.A.; Gill, A.M.; Handmer, J.; Hessburg, P.F.; Leonard, J.; McCaffrey, S.; Odion, D.C.; Schoennagel, T.; Syphard, A.D. 2014. Learning to coexist with wildfire. Nature. 515(7525): 58-66. doi:10.1038/nature13946

Myers, S.W.; Britton, B.; Labhart, C.; Ponte, G.W.; Smith, R. 2013. Grant County Oregon Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Place of publication unknown: Publisher unknown. Irregular pagination. http://www.grantcountycwpp.com

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(2): 331-342. doi:10.1139/X06-236

North, M.; Collins, B.M.; Stephens, S. 2012. Using fire to increase the scale, benefits, and future maintenance of fuels treatments. Journal of Forestry. 110(7): 392-401. doi:10.5849/jof.12-021



49

Omi, P.N.; Joyce, L.A. 2003. Fire, fuel treatments, and ecological restoration: conference proceedings. Proc. RMRS-P-29. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 475 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/5578

Pollet, J.; 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): 1-10. doi:10.1071/WF01045

Potter, B.E. 2011a. Chapter 5: Column/plume dynamics. In: Werth, P. A.; Potter, B. E.; Clements, C. B.; Finney, M. A.; Goodrick, S. L.; Alexander, M. E.; Cruz, M. G.; Forthofer, J. A.; McAllister, S. S., eds. Synthesis of knowledge of extreme fire behavior: volume I for fire managers. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-854. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 73-80.

Potter, B.E. 2011b. Chapter 6: Spot fires. In: Werth, P. A.; Potter, B. E.; Clements, C. B.; Finney, M. A.; Goodrick, S. L.; Alexander, M. E.; Cruz, M. G.; Forthofer, J. A.; McAllister, S. S., eds. Synthesis of knowledge of extreme fire behavior: volume I for fire managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-854. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 81-87.

Powell, D.C. 2014. Stand density conditions for the Umatilla National Forest: A range of variation analysis. White Pap. F14-SO-WP-Silv-50. Pendleton, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Umatilla National Forest. 50 p. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5413737.pdf

Prichard, S.J.; Peterson, D.L.; Jacobson, K. 2010. Fuel treatments reduce the severity of wildfire effects in dry mixed conifer forest, Washington, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 40(8): 1615-1626. doi:10.1139/X10-109

Putz, F.E.; Parker, G.G.; Archibald, R.M. 1984. Mechanical abrasion and intercrown spacing. American Midland Naturalist. 112(1): 24-28.

Quigley, Thomas M. 1992. Forest health in the Blue Mountains: social and economic perspectives. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-296. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 9 p.

Radeloff, V.C.; Hammer, R.B.; Stewart, S.I.; Fried, J.S.; Holcomb, S.S.; McKeefry, J.F. 2005. The wildland-urban interface in the United States. Ecological Applications. 15(3): 799-805. doi:10.1890/04-1413

Reinhardt, E.D.; Crookston, N.L., tech. eds. 2003. The fire and fuels extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-116. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 209 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/5593

Rissel, S.; Ridenour, K. 2013. Ember production during the Bastrop Complex fire. Fire Management Today. 72(4): 7-13.

Rummer, B.; Prestemon, J.; May, D.; Miles, P.; Vissage, J.; McRoberts, R.; Liknes, G.; Shepperd, W.D.; Ferguson, D.; Elliot, W.; Miller, S.; Reutebuch, S.; Barbour, J.; Fried, J.; Stokes, B.; Bilek, E.; Skog, K. 2005. A strategic assessment of forest biomass and fuel reduction treatments in western states. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-149. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 17 p.


http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5413737.pdf



50

Rytwinski, A.; Crowe, K.A. 2010. A simulation-optimization model for selecting the location of fuel-breaks to minimize expected losses from forest fires. Forest Ecology and Management. 260(1): 1-11. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.03.013

Sampson, R. Neil; Adams, David L.; Hamilton, Stanley S. [and others]. 1994. Assessing forest ecosystem health in the inland west. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 2(1/2):3-10.

Schmidt, W.C.; Wakimoto, R.H. 1988. Cultural practices that can reduce fire hazards to homes in the interior West. In: Fischer, W.C.; Arno, S.F., comps. Protecting people and homes from wildfire in the interior West: Proceedings of the symposium and workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-251. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 131-141.

Schoennagel, T.; Nelson, C.R.; Theobald, D.M.; Carnwath, G.C.; Chapman, T.B. 2009. Implementation of National Fire Plan treatments near the wildland-urban interface in the western United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106(26): 10706-10711. doi:10.1073/pnas.0900991106

Scott, J.H.; Reinhardt, E.D. 2001. Assessing crown fire potential by linking models of surface and crown fire behavior. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-29. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 59 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/4623

Scott, J.H.; Thompson, M.P.; Calkin, D.E. 2013. A wildfire risk assessment framework for land and resource management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-315. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 83 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/44723

Stephens, S.L.; Moghaddas, J.J.; Edminster, C.; Fiedler, C.E.; Haase, S.; Harrington, M.; Keeley, J.E.; Knapp, E.E.; McIver, J.D.; Metlen, K.; Skinner, C.N.; Youngblood, A. 2009. Fire treatment effects on vegetation structure, fuels, and potential fire severity in western U.S. forests. Ecological Applications. 19(2): 305-320. doi:10.1890/07-1755.1

Stevens, J.T.; Safford, H.D.; Latimer, A.M. 2014. Wildfire-contingent effects of fuel treatments can promote ecological resilience in seasonally dry conifer forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 44(8): 843-854. doi:10.1139/cjfr-2013-0460

Stewart, S.I.; Radeloff, V.C.; Hammer, R.B.; Hawbaker, T.J. 2007. Defining the wildland-urban interface. Journal of Forestry. 105(4): 201-207.

Theobald, D.M.; Romme, W.H. 2007. Expansion of the US wildland-urban interface. Landscape and Urban Planning. 83(4): 340-354. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.06.002

Thompson, M.P.; Vaillant, N.M.; Haas, J.R.; Gebert, K.M.; Stockmann, K.D. 2013. Quantifying the potential impacts of fuel treatments on wildfire suppression costs. Fire Management Today. 73(2): 5-10.

USDA Forest Service; USDOI, Bureau of Land Management. 2004. The Healthy Forests Initiative and Healthy Forests Restoration Act: interim field guide. FS-799. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. 58 p.

Wei, Y. 2012. Optimize landscape fuel treatment locations to create control opportunities for future fires. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 42(6): 1002-1014. doi:10.1139/x2012-051




51

Weible, C.; Sabatier, P.; Nechodom, M. 2005. No sparks fly: Policy participants agree on thinning trees in the Lake Tahoe basin. Journal of Forestry. 103(1): 5-9.

Wimberly, M.C.; Liu, Z. 2014. Interactions of climate, fire, and management in future forests of the Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management. 327: 270-279. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2013.09.04


52

APPENDIX A – EASTSIDE SCREENS CONSISTENCY On August 18, 1993, the Regional Forester for the USDA Forest Service, Region 6 issued direction to screen timber sales to ensure that all sales are consistent with the National Forest Management Act viability requirements for old growth-associated species (Lowe 1993). The direction was modified and extended on May 20, 1994 (Lowe 1994) and further modified in 1995 (USDA Forest Service 1995). The 1995 document amended the Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) as Forest Plan Amendment #11. That current direction, often referred to as the “Timber Sale Screens”, includes specific direction to pass each timber sale proposal through a set of interim ecosystem and wildlife standards.

The Ten Cent project is proposing commercial thinning from below, noncommercial thinning, firewood and post and pole sales as well as prescribed burning. These activities are either exempt from or not subject to meeting the interim Ecosystem Standard but must meet the intent of the Wildlife standard by following the direction in Scenarios A or B. This document outlines how the activities proposed in the Ten Cent Community Wildfire Protection Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) complies with the Timber Sale Screens. In the following table, the left column displays specific direction from the Screens. The column on the right describes how the Ten Cent EIS addresses that direction.

Interim Wildlife Standard Ten Cent

The interim wildlife standard has two possible scenarios to follow based on the historical range of variability (HRV) for each biophysical environment within a given watershed. For the purposes of this standard, late and old structural stages (LOS) can be either “multi-strata with large trees” or “single-stratum with large trees”, as described in Table 1 of the ecosystem standard. These LOS stages can occur separately or in some cases, both may occur within a given biophysical environment. LOS stages are calculated separately in the interim ecosystem standard. Use Scenario A whenever any one type of LOS is below HRV. If both types occur within a single biophysical environment and one is above HRV and one below, use Scenario A. Only use Scenario B when both LOS stages within a particular biophysical environment are at or above HRV.

Ten Cent falls within Scenario A. For the purpose of calculating HRV, all effects analysis was calculated on the landscape scale of 59,475 acres (all National Forest lands) which included the project area. In Dry, Moist and Cold forest biophysical environments, old forest single-stratum (OFSS) is below the lower limit of HRV, and old forest multi-strata (OFMS) is within range in Cold and Dry and below range in Moist upland forest. Because OFSS and OFMS are below HRV, the project falls within Scenario A.


53

Interim Wildlife Standard Ten Cent a. The following types of sales will not be subject to the interim standards: personal use firewood sales; post and pole sales; sales to protect health and safety; and sales to modify vegetation within recreation special use areas. b. The following sale types were exempted from consideration of HRV through the interim ecosystem standard, but must still meet the intent of the wildlife standards by following the direction provided in Scenario A, 1) through 4), as applicable to the type of sale being proposed, and regardless of whether the stand is LOS or not: precommercial thinning sales, sales of material sold as fiber, sales of dead material less than sawlog size (7-inch DBH) with incidental green volume, salvage sales with incidental green volume located outside currently mapped old growth, commercial thinning and/or understory removal sales located outside currently mapped old growth.

The Ten Cent project proposes commercial thinning, noncommercial thinning, firewood and post and pole removal, as well as prescribed fire. An HRV analysis has been completed for the Ten Cent project area. The HRV analysis is included in the analysis file for the project and is summarized in the EIS.

Scenario A

If either one or both of the late and old structural (LOS) stages falls BELOW HRV in a particular biophysical environment with a watershed, then there should be NO NET LOSS of LOS from that biophysical environment. DO NOT allow timber sale harvest activities to occur within LOS stages that are below HRV.

During the early planning of this project, units recommended for treatment were compared with maps of structural classes. All units that fell within LOS stages that were deficit for that biophysical environment were dropped from consideration.

1) Some timber sale activities can occur within LOS stages that are within or above HRV in a manner to maintain or enhance LOS within that biophysical environment. It is allowable to manipulate one type of LOS to move stands into LOS stage that is deficit if this meets historical conditions.

Cold and Dry Upland forest OFMS is within HRV in the Ten Cent project area. Dry Upland forest OFSS is deficit across all three PVGs. Many of the units proposed for treatment fall within OFMS in the cold or dry forest, and the proposed treatment of thinning from below will likely move those stands from OFMS to the deficit OFSS structural stage. Subsequent treatments proposed, i.e. noncommercial thinning and prescribed fire, would remove a portion of the understory in some areas, further enhancing the OFSS structure. Depending on stand conditions following harvest and the types of timing that might be selected for proposed future treatments, the stands that are currently OFMS could move into OFSS in the next 5-10 years once treatments are complete.

2) Outside of LOS, many types of timber sale activities are allowed. The intent is still to maintain and/or enhance LOS components in stands subject to timber harvest as much as possible, by adhering to the following standards:

2a) Maintain all remnant late and old seral and/or structural live trees ≥21 inches DBH that currently exist within stands proposed for harvest activities.

As described in the EIS, all live trees ≥21 inches DBH would be left.


54

Interim Wildlife Standard Ten Cent 2b) Manipulate vegetative structure that does not meet LOS conditions, in a manner that moves it towards these conditions as appropriate to meet HRV.

The prescriptions for the units outside of LOS are all intended to reduce risk of fire by maintaining open understories and well-spaced overstories. In most cases, treatment could allow most stands to move along the path of growing larger trees (OFSS structure) by reducing competition for leave trees, but in order to reach OFSS conditions the stands will need time to “grow into” those structural stages. The proposed treatments could be considered interim steps to LOS in some cases, and in others the stands may not reach LOS stages as they undergo periodic treatment to maintain lower fire risk.

2c) Maintain open, park-like stand conditions where this condition occurred historically. Manipulate vegetation in a manner to encourage the development and maintenance of large diameter, open canopy structure. (While understory removal is allowed, some amount of seedlings, saplings, and poles need to be maintained for the development of future stands.)

Dry forests in the Ten Cent project area would have historically had a high percentage of OFSS stands. OFSS stands are often described as “open, park-like”. As described above, the proposed treatments maintain or move stands toward OFSS conditions.

3) Maintain connectivity and reduce fragmentation of LOS stands by adhering to the following standards. INTENT STATEMENT: While data is still being collected, it is the best understanding of wildlife science today, that wildlife species associated with late and old structural conditions, especially those sensitive to “edge”, rely on the connectivity of these habitats to allow free movement and interaction of adults and dispersal of young. Connectivity corridors do not necessarily meet the same description of “suitable” habitat for breeding, but allow free movement between suitable breeding habitats. Until a full conservation assessment is completed that describes in more detail the movement patterns and needs of various species and communities of species in eastside ecosystems, it is important to ensure that blocks of habitat maintain a high degree of connectivity between them, and that blocks of habitat do not become fragmented in the short term.

Habitat connectivity was evaluated by overlaying maps of OFSS and OFMS stands, old growth stands designated by the Forest Plan, management areas, and treatment alternatives from the EIS. During the planning stages of this project, it was discovered that there were stands in the planning area that needed to be deleted or modified to maintain habitat connectivity in the project area. Connectivity corridors between old forest habitat blocks and Forest Plan designated old growth meet Forest Plan standards for connectivity.


55

Interim Wildlife Standard Ten Cent 3a) Maintain or enhance the current level of connectivity between LOS stands and between all Forest Plan designated “old growth/MR” habitats by maintaining stands between them that serve the purpose of connection as described below: (1) Network pattern—LOS stands and MR/Old Growth habitats need to be connected with each other inside the watershed as well as to like stands in adjacent watersheds in a contiguous network pattern by at least 2 different directions. (2) Connectivity Corridor Stand Description: Stands in which medium diameter or larger trees are common, and canopy closures are within the top one-third of site potential. Stand widths should be at least 400 feet wide at their narrowest point. The only exception to stand width is when it is impossible to meet 400 feet with current vegetative structure, AND these “narrower stands” are the only connections available (use them as last resorts). In the case of lodgepole pine, consider medium to large trees as appropriate diameters to this stand type. If stands meeting this description are not available in order to provide at least 2 different connections for a particular LOS stand or MR/Old Growth habitat, leave the next best stands for connections. Again, each LOS and MR/Old Growth habitat must be connected at least 2 different ways. (3) Length of Connection Corridors—The length of corridors between LOS stands and MR habitats depends on the distance between such stands. Length of corridors should be as short as possible. (4) Harvesting within connectivity corridors is permitted if all criteria in (2) above can be met, and if some amount of understory (if any occurs) is left in patches or scattered to assist in supporting stand density and cover. Some understory removal, stocking control, or salvage may be possible activities, depending on the site. (3b) To reduce fragmentation of LOS stands, or at least not increase it from current levels, stands that do not currently meet LOS that are located within, or surrounded by, blocks of LOS stands should not be considered for even-aged regeneration, or group selection at this time. Non-regeneration or single tree selection (UEAM) activities in these areas should only proceed if the prescription moves the stands towards LOS conditions as soon as possible.

Connectivity corridors in the Ten Cent project area were chosen as the best routes given the existing stand conditions available on the landscape. Given past harvest and natural openings, the shortest, widest routes with the largest trees possible were chosen, with at two connections between habitats where possible.


56

Interim Wildlife Standard Ten Cent 4) Adhere to the following specific wildlife prescriptions. These standards are set at minimum levels of consideration. Follow Forest Plan standards and guidelines when they exceed the following prescriptive levels: a) Snags, Green Tree Replacements and Down Logs. (1) All sale activities (including intermediate and regeneration harvest in both even-age and uneven-age systems, and salvage) will maintain snags and green replacement trees of >21 inches DBH, at 100% potential population levels of primary cavity excavators. This should be determined using the best available science on species requirements as applied through current snag models or other documented procedures. NOTE: For Scenario A, the live remnant trees (>21 inches DBH) left can be considered for part of the green tree replacement tree requirement.

Under all action alternatives, snag quantities would be left at numbers specified in the Wildlife Specialist’s report, including all trees ≥21 inches left where encountered.

5) Goshawks No known goshawk nest-sites in the Ten Cent project area.


57

APPENDIX B – CONSIDERATION OF BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE The analysis information provided in this report was based on a variety of methodologies, models, and procedures, all of which are derived from scientific sources included in the Literature Cited section. Many of the analytical processes were based on local protocols, and documentation for them is also included in the Literature Cited section.

Forest Service policy is that proposed projects must be consistent with the Forest Plan and show consideration of “best available science” (Dillard 2007). Science is not absolute or irrefutable—much of what we know in a science context is constantly evolving (Moghissi et al. 2008). This means that what constitutes best available science might vary over time and across scientific disciplines (Dillard 2007). An objective of considering best available science is for scientists “to provide a meaningful context to scientific information so that its validity might be judged and therefore useful to the policymaker” (Moghissi et al. 2008).

Best available science for the Wilkins analysis documents was evaluated and placed into one of three groups defined by Moghissi et al (2008): Personal Opinions were generally judged not to be best available science. Gray literature, including local protocols and similar information issued by government agencies or others, which has not been subjected to an independent peer review, was evaluated for validity, meaningful context, and applicability of findings to the project area. Gray literature evaluated ranged from evolving science to fallacious information. Peer-reviewed science was evaluated in the same way as gray literature, recognizing the value of independent peer review. All Forest Service research literature is peer reviewed following USDA Information Quality Scientific Research Guidelines.

Although many more sources were considered than what is included in the Literature Cited section, the Literature Cited section demonstrates that Best Available Science was considered when completing analyses documented in this vegetation report.

Dillard, D.S. 2007 (June 20). Clarification of May 2nd, 2007, advice on documenting “best available science”, 1920/1950 memorandum to Regional Planning Directors. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office. 2 p.

Moghissi, A.A.; Love, B.R.; Straja, S.R.; McBride, D.K.; Swetnam, M.S. 2008. Best available science: its evolution, taxonomy, and application. Arlington, VA: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. 93 p.

Silvicultural Effects Report Ten Cent CWPP

58

APPENDIX C – AMENDMENT TO SILVICULTURE REPORT Modification or Clarification of Environmental Consequences since the draft EIS

Clarification of landscape prescribed burning effects, page 38, heading Landscape Burning Effects, second paragraph:

Burning prescriptions will be applied within untreated stands, and may create conditions of low, moderate or high intensity fire depending on stand conditions. Stand conditions for structure, density and species composition run the full range of all possibilities within the project area: all types of structures including young plantations, pure lodgepole pine stands, and grand fir OFMS; a full range of stand densities from open to closed; and a broad spectrum of species configurations from pure ponderosa pine on dry sites to pure Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir in the upper elevations. The effects of prescribed fire could potentially be as varied as the stand conditions.

Clarification and quantification of effects of prescribed burning on young western white pine plantations and subalpine fir: See page 50, heading All Upland Forest; and page 52, Table 27 Summary of Effects, Species Composition Alternative 3.

APPENDIX D – PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA, SILVICULTURE Design Feature

Description Applicable Unit/Alternative

SILV-1 In all burning activities within or near western white pine plantations (W-W NF), minimize damage to western white pine trees. Fuels specialist and Silviculturist should develop long-range and timely plans for execution of burns near or within these stands to capture possible opportunities for pre-treatment activities as well as collaborate on the burn plan.

All

SILV-2 Where grand fir will be retained and managed into the future, tree removal contracts should include treatment (at time of cutting) of grand fir stumps >14” in diameter with an approved borax product.

Units recommended for treatment will be identified in a timely manner for inclusion in contract clauses/specs

Documents

a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/.../www/nepa/99694_FSPLT3_3993941.pdf · 2017. 6. 23. · In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)