MP.!lAGE~lENT OF ASPEN

PU·.NT COHliUNI'i'IES OH TEE

11.ATIOliAL ELK REFUGE, WYOMING

Bruce L. Smith Roxane L. Rogers

December 12, 1987

REVIEWED AND APPROVED:

--;pd,. I l 9 ,d/;hc~ -X--c> 9...-

MANAGER, NATIONAL ELK REFUGE

FEBRUARY 8, 1988

(DATE)

PURPOSE FOR ASPEN MANAGEMENT ON THE NATIONAL ELK REFUGE

There are 1,860 acres (753 ha) of aspen (Populus tremuloides) plant communities on the National Elk Refuge (NER). The tree species is relatively short lived (100 to 150 year life span). Aspen is an important tree species on the Refuge, providing ecological as well as aes~h!tic diversity. Therefore, aspen co~munities should, if possible, be maintained. Aspen is ~enerally a seral plant comm~nity that is naturally regenerated by a variety of ecological catastrophies, but particularly by wiltfire. The last wildiire to sweep the Refuge's as~en com~unities occurred in 1879. As a result, the lack of fire, browsing by elk, ~ocse &nd deer, and conifer invasion have contributed to some matvre asren scands tecc~ing fecadent, suffering from overbrowsing of rege~eration, er conversicn to coniferous forest. An aspen ma~agement program, initiated in April 1987, seeks ways to perpetuate aspen on the Refuge in approxiraately its present abundance and distribution.

OBJECTIVES

l. Inventory

A. To determine condition of aspen stands and whether stands are regenerating.

B. To record wildlife usage of each stand.

C. To prioritize stands on the basis of need for treatment.

D. To provide baseline data on stands against which future changes in composition can be measured.

2. Treatment

A. To regenerate stands which are not doing so on their own.

B. To enhance growth in existing stands which are in good condition.

C. To reduce conifer competition.

Inventory data, literature review, and professional communications will dictate methods.

3. Monitoring and Evaluation

A. To measure future changes in stand condition and regeneration of treated and untreated stands.

B. To d:itermine if tz·~at3ents are successful.

C. To determine effects of ungulates on stand regeneration by co~paring community regeneration in exclosures with adjacent unirotected areas.

METHODS I1l\'ENTC1Y

A bi-level inventory scheme was developed in consultation with Dr. Norbert DeByle, Dr. Walt Mueggler, and Dale Bartos of the Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station in Logan, Utah; Charles Kaye, Utah State University; and John Hart, Michigan State University. The first level of inventory was a reconnaissance survey of each of the 143 aspen stands on the Refuge. Baseline data were collected in order to assess whether or not each stand was successfully regenerating and perpetuating itself. Results of this inventory were used to evaluate the stands which would benefit from some form of treatment and to develop a prioritized list of stands for treatment. Those stands recommended for treatment were then scheduled for more thorough inventory. The second level was a more quantitative inventory to provide data that could be compared with periodic post treatment reinventory to· measure changes.

I. First-level Inventory The first-level inventory provided qualitative information regarding each stand's condition, composition, structure, seral stage, aspen regeneration, and browsing. All aspen communities were located on a refuge map and numbered according to community type and management unit. Each of the 143 stands were visited beginning with those in Management Unit 10 and moving southward. An aspen stand was defined as being geographically isolated from other aspen communities, or being ecologically different from adjacent stands based on plant community type. Mueggler (1988) was followed to type aspen communities. All aspen stands on the NER had previously been mapped at l:24,000 scale. Information on each aspen stand for the following items was recorded on the Level 1 Survey Form (Figure 1) by a technician:

A. The longest possible linear transect which could be located in each stand was plotted on the refuge map. The compass bearing of the transect was denoted.

2

B. Equidistant locations along the transect served as data recording sites. Distance between sites for data recording was determined as follows:

1) If espen.stand_acree9e i12.5 acres (5.1 ha) = 5 sites 2) II espen stand acreege t12.5 ecrcs (5.1 he) = 1C sites J) For"ul~: Tr~nstct len,th (reet) = di~t~r.ce bets~en s!tes

nutber of sites

C. Acresge was determined from the refuge plant community type maps and tfational Elk Refuqe HOSS Da.t;;.base.

1) Acreages in t'!l.e Bridg"r-Teton Naticna.l Forest (BT!j:J were

calculated using an electronic graphics calculate: for stands which straddled the liER-BTNF common boundary.

D. Plant community type was determined based on Mueggler (1988).

Aspen Coai.nity Types Description

16 ~ tr'9.!loides/CalMlll9f'Ostis nbescem C!!l!i8N"Q$tiS nbesetnS Pl'Olinent ~inoid with at least !Cl' cover,

usually .:re. Tall forbs *, if

pre!ffit, fOl'II less thlrl !Cl' of cover.

17 Populus tmuloides/SYll)horicsyos creoohi!us LOIi smb ·llldervwth type with

18A l'ollulus tre111loides/Slllh SPP,

188 Pooulus tr'ell.llo!des/Allel8"Chier alnifolia

!BC Pooulus trttUloides/f'rtms viroiniana

Symo/'g'icnos oreoohilus Pl'Olinent

alone, or in COllbination with

She!lherdia caiadensis end Rosa SPP,, with at least !Di C800PY cover.

Tall smb llldervwth type with

Slllix SPP, Pl'Cllinent, with at least 1oi cenopy cover, usually .:re.

Tall smb IJlderQrowth type with

Alelanchier alnifolia Pl"OClinent,

oenerall Y exceeding 10\ C8110PY cover.

Tell slrJl lJ1dergro,.th type with

Prurus vi1:9iniana prominent with at least 10\ canopy cover.

19 POPUlus tre,ulo!des/conifer ailed overstory Picea engelaenni, P!rus contorts, Pirus flexilis, Pseudotswa cenziesii

Pl'Cllinent elone or in COlbination, formir19 at leest 1ir...

'COIIOll torb SPeCies include Oelohiniia occidentale, Aster etml!!lall'li, Sencio serre

3

E. Aspen Stand Structure and Condition Observations:

1) Even-aged or uneven-aged. 2) Percent of mature standing aspen (>2m and >Scm dbh)

that is dead. 3) Percent of overstory (trees >2m and >Scm dbh) that is

coniferous. 4) A~ount cf conifer regeneration. 5) Fast or slou seral. 6) Is aspen re;eneration (trees <2m and <5cm dbh;

trees >2c and <5cm dbh) sparse, around stand perimeter only, common, abundant, sufficient or marginal to regenerate stand?

7) Percent of aspen regeneration browsed. 8) Potential for killing adult aspens by burning (Brown & Simmerman 1986)

F. General comments on stand condition and observed wildlife species (Table 1).

G. Measurement of basal area of aspen and coniferous species per plot location using a forestry prism.

B. File photographs were taken at the beginning and end of the linear transect.

II. Second-level Inventory After completing the first-level survey, aspen stands were selected to qualify for a second-level, quantitative sampling procedure (Figure 2). Priority was based on stand condition, size, and location. The following details Level 2 methodology:

A. A transect delineating the greatest straight line distance that the stand polygon would accommodate was plotted on a base map. The transect direction was located by compass bearing.

4

B. This permanent transect was marked by nailing an orange "trail blazer'' sign on a tree at each end of the transect. Sampling of the transect began at the most northerly or westerly end of the transect. The stand sampled was identified on the trail blazer by unit number and stand identification code along with the compass bearing to be traversed.

Sa~~l~ ld:ntific?tion Code 10 · 19 • 3G

10 - NER aar:agement unit (lO = North End)

19 - Plant co11unity type (19 = aspen/conifer 1i1ed overstcry)

30 - Sequential identification number within the 19 Plant co11unitY type. This is the thirtieth aspen stand in co11unity type 19 in 1ene9e1ent unit 10.

C. Five plots were located along the transect if the polygon was <2 acres (0.8 ha) in size; 10 plots if t 2 acres (0.8 ha), but <12.5 acres (5.1 ha); and 20 plots if t 12.5 acres (5.1 ha):

1) Plots were equally spaced along the transect and the first plot located at the edge of the stand at the transect's beginning (northerly- or w~sterly-most end).

For1ule: Transect length (feet) = distance between Plots nu1ber of plots

2) Tree density and diameters were sampled at the following locations on 0.01 acre (0.004 ha) plots (diameter= 7.4 ft. or 2.2 m):

a. All 5 plot locations for stands <2 acres (0.8 ha) in size.

b. At odd numbered plot locations for stands ~2 acres (0.8 ha).

D. Three 0.0005 acre (0.0002 ha) plots (diameter= 5.2 ft or 1.6 m) were sampled at all 5, 10, or 20 locations of the 0.01 acre (0.0004 ha) plots as follows:

1) At each 0.0005 acre plot, the number of trees of each conifer species (<2m and >2m tall and <5cm dbh) were counted.

5

•

2) On each plot, the number of aspen stems <5cm dbh and <2m tall were counted and degree of browsing was recorded. (Figure 2). Browsing is assessed for each aspen sucker in two ways:

a. Number of times that the terminal leader was removed: 1, 2, 3, 4+ times.

b. Fer~ class (Cole, 1963): lightly, moderately, or severely hedged.

3) On each plot, the same was recorded for aspen stems <5cm dth and >2m tail.

E. Line ir.tercept measurements on 0.5 milacre (0.0002 ha) plots.

1) On each plot at 5cm intervals along a tape stretched the diameter of the plot, the following were recorded:

a. Dead and down aspen. b. Conifer canopy coverage by species (plants >25cm tall

and <5cm dbh). c. Herbaceous canopy coverage. d. Shrub canopy coverage by species (Figure 3).

2) List the dominant graminoid(s) and forb(s) species on each plot.

F. Additional comments on stand condition, wildlife observations, and wildlife use.

G. File photographs were taken at each end of the line transect.

6

•

..

1987 RESULTS

From the 1987 Level 1 reconnaissance survey of aspen stands on the NER, we aspen stand condition is determined by the following factors:

1. Conifer encroachment

2. Ungulate browsing and usage

3. Aspen stand location:

a. spatial relationship to elk migration routes b. spatial relationship to elk summer concentration areas

4. Susceptibility to disease

5. Density of aspen regeneration

The inventory indicated that the 143 stands could be classified as poor, fair, good, or excellent condition (Table 2). These classes were defined as:

POOR Mature aspen dying back, disease within aspen stand. "Sparse" aspen regeneration (<5cm dbh) which is marginal to regenerate the stand. May have heavy browsing. Significant invasion of conifers.

FAIR Supports "common" aspen regeneration or regeneration may be "sparse." Aspen regeneration is marginal, sometimes sufficient to regenerate stand. Some disease may be obvious. Heavy browsing which may prevent escapement of regeneration for stand replacement. Conifers apparent. Some of mature aspen canopy dying back.

GOOD

EXCELLENT

Supports May have healthy.

"abundant" or "common" some conifer invasion.

Browsing moderate, or on the stand.

aspen regeneration. Most aspen appear

has limited effect

Supports "abundant'' aspen regeneration. Little or no conifer regeneration. Mature aspen in generally healthy condition (little disease, large leaf size). Browsing is moderate, or has little effect on stand's chances to regenerate.

7

•

•

The reconnaissance survey indicated that stands in the good or excellent classes had prominent regeneration due to limited browsing. All refuge stands were found to support a wide diversity of wildlife (Table 1). Numerous red-tailed hawk observations and nesting sights were recorded. Some aspen stands were charactsrized by deadfall throughout the stand which may indicate a previous die off of asper..

From the Level 1 inventory 68 stands totaling 825 acres (344 ha) were recommended as candidates for Level 2 inventory and possible treatment Table 3). The stands considered for treatment were selected based on the following criteria:

1. Location of aspen stand

a. Access b. Slope c. Overlaps or adjacent to private land.

2. Successional stage of conversion to coniferous forest

3. Ungulate and other wildlife uses

4. Existing aspen regeneration and tall shrub understory

5. Cost effectiveness

6. Potential success of regenerating/maintaining stand (Table 3 and Figure 4)

Additionally, the 68 stands recommended for treatment were divided into two groups based primarily on the urgency of need for treatment (Table 3). First priority stands were characteristically:

1. Even-aged with numbers of aspen suckers (particularly those> 2m tall) marginal or insufficient to regenerate the stand.

2. Heavily browsed. 3. Experiencing mortality of mature aspen trees that was depleting stand

overstory but not resulting in an obvious release of suckers. 4. Located in areas of spring/summer elk concentrations.

We judged these stands to be in greatest jeopardy of rapid deterioration, without adequate sucker regeneration to prevent their loss from the landscape in +the near future.

8

Conifers may or may not have been invading. This was not a primary consideration although 4 stands which appeared to have a reasonable chance of regenerating, but had significant numbers of young conifers (< 20 feet, 6m) in the understory, were included among first priority stands.

-

Criteria for second priority stands were similar to those for first priority. The stands were not judged, however, to be in as immediate need of treatment to enhance regeneration and continuance in the landscape. Thirty-nine stands were evaluated as first priority for treat~ent and 29 stands as second priority.

After review of the 68 candidate stands, nine (9) stands were selected for treatment in 1988 (Table 4 and Figure 5). A Level 2 inventory provided quantitative information on these stands. By counting all adult aspens (>5cm dbh) in small stands, or by sampling adult aspens on 0.01 acre (0.004 ha) plots on large stands, an estimate of stems/acre to be removed during treatment was calculated.

"The easiest way to naturally regenerate an existing aspen stand is to rely on root suckering stimulated by removing the existing overstory in a way that will successfully restock the stand and also meet other resc~rce management objectives" (Schier et al. 1985). Various treatment procedures are being considered for aspen management on the Refuge. Cutting of aspen stands to stimulate aspen suckering and to kill decadent adult trees is one method widely used (Schier and Campbell 1978). Clearcutting greatly stimu:ates aspen suckering and the num~er of suckers that appear is directly proportional to the number of stems removed (Schier et al. 1985). Schier (1975) states that partial cutting is not worthwhile in deteriorating clones where concurrent root system die-back has reduced the clones ability to sucker. Schier et al. (1985) reviewed other mechanical treatments used to regenerate aspen include bark-girdling, which is not particularly effective, and aerial herbicide spraying, which is effective but also kills other woody and broadleafed herbaceous plants. Felling aspen by bulldozing has proven successful for regenerating aspen stands in Colorado. Prescribed burning has also been used in the Rocky Mountain West to regenerate aspen (DeByle 1985). However, inventories showed that many refuge aspen stands have a low potential for burning. Also, burning may destroy existing aspen regeneration and may be more costly than cutting due to continuity of fuels outside aspen stands and the need to burn when fuels are particularly flammable to ensure killing adult aspen.

9

Season of treatment affects number and vigor of aspen suckers. Spring cutting results in maximum sucker production during the year of clearcutting. Summer

-

and fall cutting produces about half as many sprouts at the end of the first growing season although density of sprouts may equal that of spring cut stands after 4 years (Tew.19811. Schier et al. (1985) state that: ''Aspen regeneration in the West generally is adequate wherever aspen is cut during the normal July to November operating season. However, dormant season harvesting could be justified in situations where m~ximum suckering is critical, such as deteriorati~g clones, or those subject to extremely heavy browsing or understory competition."

Those stands considered for treatment with acreage within the Bridger-Teton National Fcrest will require a cooperative treatment plan with Forest personnel. One stand selected for treatment will be considered for use as an interpretative educational site (Code 3-19-38). Exclosures will be constructed in some treated stands. are being considered for the stands:

Two types of exclosures

1. Exclosures around the entire stand to protect vegetation after treatment.

2. Small exclosures to monitor effects of browsers on regeneration after treatment.

Either eight-foot (2.4m} high woven-wire, elk proof fencing, or possibly, electric fencing may be used. To reduce the number of posts needed to support fencing, some mature aspen will be cut 8 feet (2.4 m) above the ground and used for supports.

10

.. -

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1988

A. Table 4 shows the 9 stands totaling 81 acres (33 ha) recommended for treatment in 1988. For these stands, felling of the mature aspen as well as conifers by -chainsaw may be the most ecologically and cost effective method of treatment due to the small sizes of the stands, low fire potential, and relatively low density of mature aspen in all but stands 10-17-1, 10-16-1 and 10-19-3. Bulldozing of mature aspen and conifers, which is more destructive than clear-cutting to the existing aspen regeneration and shrub underztory, could be tried in one of these 3 stands with greater density of trees. In stands which are clear-cut, felled trees will be jack-strawed to discourage ungulates from entering the treated stands.

The 9 stands were geographically clustered in two areas: 4 between North Gap and Wes' Overlook on the northwest slopes of the Gros Ventre Hills (stands 10-18B-5, 10-17-1, 10-16-1, and 10-19-3) and five on the northwest slopes of McBride Ridge (stands 10-lBA-17, 10-17-34, 10-lBA-24, 10-17-35, and 10-19-30) (Figure 5). Clusters of stands were chosen for treatment in order to reduce the chances of ungulate attraction to isolated, treated stands and excessively browsing regeneration during the first few years after treatment (G. Gruell pers. comm. 1987). This practice of clustering treatments will be pursued in future years also, and will result in some second priority stands, that are geographically clustered with first priority ~tands, being treated before treatment of all first priority stands is completed.

B. 1988 Treatment Monitoring Treatment of aspen stands will begin during summer or fall 1988 as available manpower permits. Prior to initiation of 1988 treatments, trees to remain will be marked (cut 8 to 10 feet above the ground for exclosure posts). Following treatments, exclosure fencing will be installed and inventory plots will be established (for Level 2 inventory) inside and outside the exclosures. Inventory of plots will be conducted during September and October. Treated aspen stands should be monitored (measurements taken) the first two years after treatment and every other year afterward.

11

•

C. Treatment costs include the costs of killing the overstory, construction of monitoring exclosures, and costs of periodically reinventoring aspen stands and exclosures to evaluate effects of treatments on vegetative composition, production, aspen regeneration, and ungulate browsing.

Contracted costs of clearcutting aspen stands on the Ashton Ranger Dist=ict of the Targhee National Forest in 1983 ranged from $30 -$70/acre compared to $50 - $100/acre for bulldozing of aspen. Table 5 compares manipulation criteria as well as costs associated with various treat~ent methods. i·he following cost figures are adapted from Table 5 and include on inflationary adjustment of 5% per annum.

Treattent Costs Contract force Account Prescribed

Treshent fellers Cleercuttinq Bulldozing fire

Cost/acre 138-89 4S-51 64-128 51-57

a Acres 81 81 81 81

Total Cost S3,078·7,209 3,645-4,131 5,184-10,368 4, 131-4,617

a

ftey be auch larger in order to establish ~dequate fire breaks.

One exclosure will be constructed in 4 of the 9 stands recommended for treatment in 1988 to permit evaluation of the impacts of herbivores on aspen sprouting. Exclosures will be approximately 40 feet (12 m) square.

Exclosure Costs ftaterials Per Exclosure 19 voven wire fencing 8 feet high 160 ft. 1 I0.7S/ft = 1120.DO fencing nails : $ 3. 00

TOTAL S12S. 00

Labor/Exclosure 2 !Ian days

1::

RECOMMENDATIONS AND ASPEN TREATMENT SCHEDULE FOR 1989 - 1992

Of the 143 aspen stands totaling 1,860 acres (753 ha) on the National Elk Refuge, 68 stands totaling 825 acres (334 ha) are recommended for treatment over a 5-year period. Nin~ ~tands totaling 81 acres (33 ha) (Table 4, Fig. 5) have been selected fer treatment in 1988. Careful monitoring of the response of these stands to treatment will guide our selection of manipulation techniques for the remaining 59 stands. If the remaining 59 stands can be treated from 1989-1992, an average 15 stands and 186 acres (75 ha) will require treatment annually.

All nine stands recommended for treatment in 1988 are first priority stands. If only the remaining 30 first priority stands, totaling 390 acres (158 ha) were treated from 1989-1992, 7 or 8 stands and 98 acres (39 ha) would r2quire treatment annually.

SUMMARY

There are 143 aspen stands totaling 1,860 acres (753 ha} on the National Elk Refuge (NER}. Due to suppression of wildfire and heavy browsing by ungulates during the past century, many of these stands are declining in condition or succeeding to coniferous forest. Because of the ecological and aesthetic importance of aspen on the NER and in the Jackson Hole Valley, all 143 stands were inventoried during summer 1987. Stands were assigned to four condition classes and 68 stands, totaling 825 acres (344 ha), were recommended for treatment either by clear-cutting, bulldozing, or prescribed burning, to enhance their maintenance and productivity.

Nine of these stands, totaling 81 acres (33 ha) were selected for treatment during summer 1988. To treat the remaining 59 stands by 1992, 15 stands and 186 acres (75 ha) will require treatment annually. Fenced exclo~ures will be constructed to evaluate the effects of ungulate browsing on aspen regeneration following stand treatments. Treated stands should be reinventoried at specified intervals to evaluate the success of treatments.

13

LITERATURE CITED

Anon. 1983. Fall River aspen manipulation. Targhee National Forest, Ashton, ID. Unpubl. Rpt. 11 pp.

Brown, J.K., and D.G. Simmernan. western aspen: a prescribed Intermtn. Sta., Ogden, UT.

1986. Appraising fuels and flammability in fire guide. USDA rcr. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-205:47 pp.

Cole, G.F. 1963. Moose, WY.

Range survey guide. 22 pp.

Grand Teton Natural History Association,

DeByle, N.V., and R.P. Winokur, eds. 1985. the western United States. USDA Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Ft. Collins, CO.

Aspen: Ecology and Ser. Gen Tech. Rep.

RM-119:283 pp.

management in Rocky Mtn. Forest

Mueggler, V. 1988. in press. Vegetation key to aspen (Populus tremuloides} types in the Intermountain Region. Intermtn. Sta. Tech. Rep., Ogden, UT.

Schier, G.A. 1975. Deterioration of aspen clones in the middle Rocky Mountains. USDA Forest Service Res. Paper INT-170. Intermtn. Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Odgen, UT. 14 pp.

Schier, G.A., and R.B. Campbell. 1978. Aspen sucker regeneration following burning and clearcutting on two sites in the Rocky Mountains. For. Sci. 24:303-308.

Schier, G.A., W.D. Shepperd, and J.R. Jones. 1985. Regeneration. Pp. 197-208 in N.V. DeByle and R.P. Vinokur (eds.). Aspen: Ecology and management in the western United States. USDA Forest Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. Rocky Mtn. Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Ft. Collins, CO RM-119:283 pp.

Tew, R.K. 1981. management. Ogden, UT.

The ecology and regeneration of aspen in relation to Range Improvement Notes. USDA Forest Service, Region 4.

15 pp.

14

•

Avian Species ·

Robin Raven Flicker House wren Red-tailed hawk

Tree swallow Clark's nutcracker Mountain chickadee Green-tailed towhee Goshawk Vesper sparrow Kestrel White-crowned sparrow Chipping sparrow Dusky flycatcher Bluebird Cliff swallow Mourning dove Yellow warbler Ruffed grouse Blue grouse Swainson's hawk Harrier Dark-eyed junco Downy woodpecker Hairy woodpecker Yellow-breasted Chat Brewer's sparrow

Table 1.

Broad-tailed hummingbird Calliope hummingbird Northern oriole Cassin's finch Western tanager Solitary vireo American goldfinch Evening grosbeak Bohemian waxwing Prairie falcon Golden eagle Sandhill crane

Observed Wildlife Species.

Frequency of sightings in aspen stands

common to all sites common to all sites

54

35 22 Nest 16-28, 18-17,

18-23, 18-24 18 14 13 12 11 Nest 19-31

9 8

7 6

6

4 4

4

3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1

1 1 1 1

Table 1.

Mammalian Species

Mule deer Chipmunk Red squirrel Elk Coyote Black bear Moose Porcupine Snowshoe Hare Weasel

Observed Wildlife Species (Continued)

Frequency of sightings in asnen stands

17 16 12 11

3 1 1

1 1 1

TABLE 2. Condition classes of aspen stands on the National Elk Refuge

CONDITION CLASS NU~BER OF STANDS

POOR 27

FAIR

GOOD

EXCELLENT

53 (9 stands with BTN::' acreage)

40 (4 stands with BTNF acreage)

23 (3 stands with BTNF acreage)

TOTAL ACREAGr (hectares) NER NER and BTMF

360.2 (146 ha)

614.3 (249 ha)

677.3 (274 ha)

218. 2 (88 .3 ha)

133.6 (54 ha)

22.1 ( 8.9 ha)

81.5 (33 ha)

Tl!ble 3. ASPell shnds on the National Elk Refuge in1 those w

ith IICl'eeQ

e oo the Brl<!Qer-Teton lletlor.nl Forest prioritized f«-treataent.

ASPEN ~I&m

!!l Ilf; !Wl!:!W

. Wl REF00E

Ill I RE

ClJftl«D

PRIM

ITY 1 PRICl!ITY 2

FM TREATrt:NT

PRIOOITY 1 PRIORITY 2

FM TREATI£NT

~ of Stands

39 29

75 4

5 5

Range of ecres 2-n

1-25 1-111

3-12 2-55

3-44

ACRE$ ~

STANJS ~~

SIANJS ACRES ~

STANDS ACRES

!filA!@

STOOS

ACRES ~

ST

~ ~ lfCTARES

ST C(Q)IT!OO COOE :

EXCELLENT 16.l

6.5 4

77.7 3

U

3 124.4

50.3 16

55.2 22.3

l 26.3

10.6 2

6000 145.0

58.7 6

129.7 52.5

13 402.6

163.0 21

5.3 2.1

l 16.8

6.8

FAIR 157.0

64.0 19

87.7 35.5

10 359.0

146.0 24

2U

9.9

3 2.7

1.1 1

24.1 9.8

2

152.5 61. 7

10 59.l

24.0 3

148.7 w.o

14 44.3

18.0

TOTAL: 470.6

190.9 39

354.2 143.4

29 1,034.7

419.3 75

29.7 12.l

4 74.7

30.4 5

94.7 38.4

5

•

•

:O-l8Ji-l7

10-17-3~

lC-:Si\-24

10-:7-35

10-:9-30

10-l7-:

l0-15-l

Tabie 4. Asoen stands reco~~ended fer treatme.c1t in FY 88

Exce::e.c1t

F2.ir

Fair

Fair

Pao::-

Poo:

Peer

5. 40

2.86

4.55

12. 01

8.24

20.65

3.43

14.61

9.35

TREATMENT: CU7T~~G OR BULLDOZING

l'.c3r:.:e Rid::re

No c:1:1:e:. Cu!~:.nq ad.ult as;e:: cn::.:d help releas2 :eqe~e!"'z.:icr:.

No coni~ers. Adult as;en low in vi~~r and dyi:g. As:en reger.eraL:on s:i1all but comrr.on. Trea.tr.,en~ needeC..

AbundaJc regeneration although PrJ:ius competing witi it. Adu:t trees filCStly on west end. May want to cut the adult trees here.

Adult aspe:1 dying. Douglas fir begi:ining ta regenerac:e in aversto:y. Good to cu:.

50 percenc Jaug:as ::: in overscory. ~oscly east end. A:so in unde:sccry, Adult aspen dyiJg. Good to cut.

Above (eastl gf Pedersen Fields

45 percent oi averstory is lodge;aie. Aspen regenerat:on is common and could get a boost from trea:ment of stand. Lots of adult aspen dead or dying.

No conifers. BroHsing is sup;ressing regeneracion. Treat.

Limited to as~en regeneration and higJ browsing. Treat with 18B-5.

No coai!er. ~ats of dead aspe~ and ganoderma kiiling aspen fast. Litt:e aspen regenerat:c~. Trea:.

Table 5. Com

parison of methods used to treat aspen stands on the A

shton District, Targhee N

ational Forest.

Criteria

Benefit/cost

Slash Remaining

(positive)

Sbort-ter• Activity

Fire-Use

Firewood

No

Yes

No

Comm

ercial Sales Positive

Yes

No

Contract

Fallers No

Yes

Yes

Tractor

No

Yes

Yes

Force A

ccount No

Yes

Yes

Prescribed Fire

No

No

Yes -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·-------Fuel H

azard No

Soil Compaction

S01e

Scarification (positive) No

Access M

anagement

(negative) need

Yes

Acreage G

uaranteed No

Activity C

ontrollable (ti1e&

space) S01e11hat

Directional Felling

Production Ra.te

Cost of on-site 1anipulation

(per acre)

No

5 ac/year

$1

USFS Operating, directing, control

$10-12/acre

USFS Unit Preparation

$3-5/ acre

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Variable

$30 USFS-PDOC

Yes

No

No

Soae

Yes

Yes

Yes

4 ac/day/ faller

$30-$70

Yes

S011e

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

10-12 ac/day

$50-$100

Yes No

No No

No No

No No

Not Always H

eather Dependent

Yes Yes

Yes No

2 ac/day V

aries

$35-$40 $40-$45

.

,;:;rtN W'l1U,H IT ,t\.t.~•'..l.lS5ANCE S\JR~[t

COmJNITY S[N,O ID ACREAGE TYPE ASPECT SlCFE ---- ELEVATION ----DATE OF PRE· !REA Tr.ENT 1_r SUR'IEY TWiN!C!I.~ • POSHREAiMENT LI TREATMENT TYPE DATE Af PLIED

ASPEN SIANO

1. SlRUCll.iRE E'IEN-AGED [_] rn,EVEN·AGEO (_] 2. , OF r.l.llJ:iE () 2M ANO ) 5CM DBH) STA.'IDWG ASPEN THAT IS DEAD ------

3. 'OF O',EISiORY (TEcE5 ) ,M l..',J) 5CM OilHJ THAi JS CONIFEROUS: (. MCt.m Of CONIF?:il REGE/,E.;,,\Tl!J.l: Ne/IE.[_] SPARSE [_] COMr.CN (_]

4a. REGE(iEF.ATICN CG.'iO:!TICN (~)

LCCGE.'CcE F:I,: -----

L!::::J f!:i~ -----

OGUSLA5 F:P. -----

t. 8.ISAL AREA OF: INDIVIDUAL Flor READl~oS

PLQ[ 1 2 J ' 5 6 7

LIVE ASfE'.,

OE/.D s;t..',Jll,G ASPEii

LOCGEFOLE PH.E

Ur.BER PJ!;E

OOUCL/, S FIR

COTTCN~OOO

5. ASFrn RESErlEP.ATI!Jll (trees ( 2m im { 5cm dbh):

A. SPA:1SE (_] 8. A,~"t:.i STAND f'ERlr.ETER mu [_] C. A ano 6 [_I

o. ccrmi (_J E. A8l7.:ll.~T [_) 5a. MRGWAL TO REGE!.ERATE STANO [_]

6. t Of ASFEll REGWE.0.Af!CN 6f:OUSED (trees ( 2m and { Sc~ dbh): Q-25 [_] 26-50 [_]

7. ASf81 liEGEl;EP.Al!Otl (trees > 6; aid ( 5cm dbh):

A.

o.

[_)

0

B. AfiOL\J :TA~,'D PERIMETER or:LY [_] C. A enc B [_)

MA~GINAL TO REG::,:RATE STANO

q_ CG':'.'.E~HS {G~!lerci c.0!1diticn ::~ :t.:md, disease, a:1ount of unCer,;r-:-1,;:h!: CN S:,CK

10. LIST OF OSScR'iED ~ll:CIFE :m:,; [LIST ON REVERSE SlDcl

0

HIGH [_]

a 9 10

SUFFICim TO REGENERATE SIi.NO [_J

51-75 (_] 76-100 [_]

S\fF!C!ENT TO P.EGEh'ERATE STA\'O 0

A'ltRAGE

WlH

SlANl lNY!NTOR! IUVEL 2) t-1

11

Stond 10 _

__

__

_

lrN1~t

1ocr .... __

__

__

,, .. __

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

_ _

Plot A

so«t S

ioo

t__

__

__

E

ltY1

tl"'-

-----

f~tat1tnt Oat~

Ltnoth __

_ Bearil'IQ _

__

Intenal __

_ Date of S

lrvn

Ttchlici!fl _

__

__

,.,.,.trtatlfflt ,,.. _

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

A.ooll!1 _

__

__

_

Post-tmtoent

A!2!!J ~~

atj0

11

~ b

1in

9

t .. ~1 i\iom

L!vt A,om

! 5 !,! ~ I 2 1 t•ll

Li~ ~~~n I ~ ~!!! 112-1 l i ! ·~1:

1/25~ \ol.a. f'loh

.J...tci1ru 5·9era:rot irn I 5 c

, :lbh I I~t~iClill~ Br®~~d

•~.c1 ... t

, .. -:--1,

11-·· .. ..1 t--

rh

u

!lBH I! I col o! Plot

p,.. Pilffi

Pico Pit!

lotal 12•

)211 lotol

0 I

2 l

,, l

" 5

!eta! D

I

2 3

l• l

" s

Iota! Astitn Trees

1

I---

------

-2 3 ' 5 6 1 I 9

. -

10

II

l2 .

13

14

15 I I

16

11

JI ,_

19

-20

--f-

Toto!

>--

"'""

Fig

ure 2

, L

ev

el 2

aspen

sta

nd

in

ven

tory

form

,.

. cr-rr1 n.1rn

............ , OI TIC .. ,um 1101 44'

I' 111i1"••

NATIONAL ELK REFUGE TETON COUNTY, WYOMING

R 116W Rll5W ,.,, .... . . -

/1 $ I-. I

I

I O"'" . i- , .

t I ( ! : J.-.S0-------_,;"--------.:1-

J I '\i

Fir 6 Asner stands Prioritized for treatment.

.-...-:.

~~ .......... . U.FUGE 60UNOARY

:-----~F' --='-t

Priority 1

Priority 2

SiXTH FRir;c:?AL ME:llO!AN

, -,

./ :( .

$~. ~\ ·• ...

T 43 N

O'"Sr

T 42 N

T 41 N

-·1·1~·

T 43 tJ

·1,

r ·c.

\J

,..

r I J

·l~A I IUNAL t:.LK HtJ· UGc. -~·~"-~:-.·. ~-.. ;.:: _ ; ;

I ,. .. ..... ,u "'"' -~ ... "' , .. "'"""· . TETON COUNTY, WYOMING ...... .... :. UNITEO &T.ATl:11

._! ~~:·.~ ,_. N"10 ~ ll<1'V'CE

" ....... R fJGW R 115W

. . .:

'10 ......

.~~·-:.,,:• . .. -:t~:·; .

.~ : ·~· ' .. ·. - . .... .I~ .

:tt~!~/ .. ·

.==-j = fi I i .1 . ' /;/J~~ .. :::::J I If. I , · I . j }fJ

-• I 1-· - .

I I I :;~<·:I

!

~,:!.__ k!LL.'!' d ~.:r.··· ,· ;:, I . • --,,i ;;..:,.--c:...r,-::._~~·· ~ I / y~~~ =--: ------~· I ~ I

--,--;hr.. ~: ~·~/(_•/..1.l~I/ ~ .~. l , :-r:-::~··· I I r I ~ ;--. .. = y; ! •• c;- ····

111 , , , j . t~ !

I fl I ,;/}.&--': l / t I I. ~ ...... -.-: I ~-a- . A Ac: ··- /1 ~ • • I • • ti I r · ;- -~-~ ... 1 1 r i ' ,t.:~ I ! :;;:-· ,;,--r ,· ·,-.:~---- ~I • }~ l , 0 . 'l 1fl , \... ,· = , ' , I ~ ;.:, -~-.. I ' ·I I ~l I ~~~ ft !t:;J ; ~..fir~-~ - ::.:-·-; ~ •. /: I \ I 'LL= - i r~:=/t

.• ~ I PA= ,;-tt . ! I \ . 1 J ::~ 1 ~-1•..-. . ~ ·-47 '.!9 t u---~ "'.,,.,~ - , --£-- ·1 I.~ ~ ,-/'' ~ · 1 i 1 ... r ;: , ~=: 1 rt.'/ / :, f : lo-,q. : ·., ,~ I: :,:, : r= . ~ . ,!',. • ,I . • .; , • ··=· :/,r, ,, 1 I ,., ··-" ~:·r.·:-:-:-:

l .

I I ! .,· ; : : 10-17-.:3-1"'" ?, q • · - u

I ~ l••··""'i -~k~ oJ11- ~·----:,ar : I/ ,, " ~, .r- ~ I t , ~ - j ! ..,_ • ~ ...... !-'! • • I

~'JK,., ./ ~. - ,,, L] ··1· "I : ~h~ ! I , - • /. · IC•11-I : .i ~ · 1'li,.. ,...n .·.·.·.·.·.. . • . . ,._-7 -~ : . .. , 1--- ' =- -, •· ,, , ,0

i

. . .. _ +-. I iA .~ / . I ~ -?'. :•: • ,. __ _ - . - "'- # • • ·•··c=~---= .:- .c r- ',· , I , - ,.~ , , , . . nJ•• -= - ' ";:,r ... ' #fl,JJ~ .. ~ I j I'' I ; l .-P.~4~ i i ~I ~ 1:11 I i ~lit~ i a , ~· .~~.·.~-.-..... . - :: a l_.,....·1-_ •.

t I u v A 1 --r">-:_:.~,! ~~1 ! I S ~~l J . I i ~-7i ~11 I -""'=:'~

1,1 \ ir- =-i I \ 1

1 -~~~ I -,,-fi i ._.;.._I -

• I .Ti I f ~ ........ ~ ~:j j

- -J A. ;;, ~~ . ' A - -~(..- ..11 r I ··i , J ••qs:11 I • / 1 ~~ I ., I •;,.·.······t···········-· . .:: w.:::~ • :~~J..k,.y-' i .,- - -";t,.;1 ,,,../ I ~:(:•- ·• ·•: • ·•,•••. •. •. ·.•.·.-,

l ~·=·=·=-::, ~ r..-;; r , . ..; .- \ __ ! __ ~ .. =·=·=·== _,_ .,..;:, 6 · ~j r:. -~ J , ., , ,: • o ....

u.a . ,-1•'"°" '1- I _ . J" 1 ! ~~ • ...,~ .... ·.··················· -~u~•r.-~.i~, ; ~ l I , ,: · ~ ...,._., .......... -.·.·.· lEFUG~ BOUNCARY f - -:: . -.0: • .C C't.:rt,., _ ! :-:

~ -;-;•:•:•: • ' " I ~~ J M ll I .,,.~..,., ~~;:;:; ,.,. ~.!1 : ~ " : ~-~c-. ;

I .... , I • I · ~ . • I F,-,, ·1· - . #,L .. , :,,,;,,-. • --- _.:... • • "":'= • .,,? ,--__ r:: _1-___;o_ ~,..- ,._ .. :i--.. as .. rr::----=-:~-~....,~-

J,·:;_ 1 ' I !~~~ a -....:: . .;·:1 Ii.. 1.:-~d"--• • : '\ _ ft ··:t ·····~ .J j7 :Read . ....,::.. • _l: ._ . .b.:,...._ rr: :: I r:, , {_ J' , cj ,

I h ·.- " ' ' I ;;- I I "' • · I l C • rr1 ~ : .. f-=- o' ,! !((: -~~' // ~:::=:=::::;::::::::r ::;:::::::;:::::·;-.-.w.-.-~~··~ :: : - ~ 7"' ; ·:. = .i \-:.""· : ~-~ J:· .r= I .. , ........ · .. ;;.:·~ · ·c·•t:i :

/ -., •• l(

~\

.. t\ .. ~ .

T 43 N

T 42 N

-•J'"'l•

T 41 N

... ' - .:.1..~--·-.. .._•_;.3 . ·-·----"---.-- ... -=--=..--· ,_ • - <.: . ., _- .... '·' I .. _ I I ·- ---·-·-·- . I I I ' • :,,- ,- 'J~ ,-/ I // • •.•.· .~ -' ' \ ;; ·-"= ~:: ; --~ . ,,~ I :::······: : ' : : - L: , v•~' - ~ ~~ '._' ~ ·'.·" ·:···' I I I -, I

_ ... • : ;

"-= l I ~ :,. I I I ;:,"" 1-1 ! - • 1 / I ••. "-' • ,

.J: _. ~ I ~-':::::~ .... -~ ( I \ I _i -f· .. -Z~--·-· - --·- --··---·~°"'-JO-... ___ -, _ ___ ___ ._ . I , ... ' · :l I I I I " I I /' ···.·.····= ... ~·· :'// :~; I : r,,_.. : Po,---== ·-... I, ... • ,oCi • \

/ ::_:_i_ ~~-~"!.~'r";C ... :: ~~' I

jl:.:.,.;.;~~=-=-(, .. ~-~Alt~i . ! I ! I ~~ : 7 r.-..:.:~-.i.t.CXSON i I i I ; 1 ·~ ;

f"' ·--~.-·~· I .....-!!-----~------••-·-·-.:'z._---~--~'-·,_< ,--1 · I! I • I I I 1 1 I ' :

S:XTH F?. it~C:PAL ME:': iOlt.rJ . ··- .... .... ····· ... ... ~- ....... :w ..... .

ua ·•• Rll6W Rl15W 11o· •cr• 110"'1•"

1989 SAMPLING

In summer 1989, permanent plot markers were placed along the sampling transect and within the 3 exclosures. The markers locate the center point of each . 5 rnilacre plot. Each exclosure was divided into quadrants and 5 plots were located. One plot marker was centered in each quadrant and the fifth plot marker was placed at the exclosure's center point. Sampling of the 9 treated stands occurred twice, once in May/June and once in September. In May/June, sucker regeneration was analyzed by obtaining density and a proportion of the 1988 sprouted suckers that were browsed and unbrowsed. Heights of browsed and unbrowsed (cm) suckers were also recorded (Table 1) In the 3 stands, total suckers/acre (1988 and previous years' suckers combined) ranged from 7,200 to 8,000.

Along the transect, heights of unbrowsed suckers from previous years ranged from 15 cm to 84 cm (x = 50 cm) and heights of browsed suckers ranged from 6 cm to 1. 3 m (x = 3 6 cm) . The height of suckers produced in 1988 were measured. Unbrowsed suckers ranged from 9 cm to 74 cm (x = 32 cm) tall and browsed suckers ranged from 9 cm to 41 cm (x= 17 cm) tall . In exclosures, the unbrowsed height for 1988 suckers ranged from 1 cm to 1.2 m (x = 43 cm) . The browsed height of suckers from previous years ranged from 16 cm to 1.3 m (x = 65 cm) tall.

At the close of the growing season in August, 1989, a post treatment inventory was conducted in all 9 treated stands. Identification photos were taken at the beginning and end of the sampling transect. During the inventory, line intercept sampling (.5 rnilacre plots), information on abundance and height measurements of regenerating aspen were again collected to record response to treatment. Along the transect the number of regenerating stems, <5 cm dbh and <2 M tall, ranged from 1 to 40 per plot (x = 7) in comparison to 1 to 37 per plot (,r= 6) found during 1988 sampling. In general, the 1988 treatment continues to enhance aspen regeneration with apparent stabilization of new sucker regeneration post treatment. A possible explanation for the greater density and mean height of suckers in exclosures is that exclosures were constructed where adult aspen density was greatest (for use as fence posts) and the most vigorous root systems may also have been in those areas.

For future sampling, total sucker regeneration and height measurements will be recorded in all 9 treated stands and 3 exclosures during a fall inventory. Additional observations of wildlife usage of the stands will be doctnnented. The remaining 59 stands, previously considered for treatment, may be reevaluated for future management if data, collected from 9 stands, continues to demonstrate a positive response to treatment. For successful regeneration it is desirable for a stand to maintain a density 2. 400 stems per acre (1,000 per ha) with a height 2- 4 m for stand replacement (Debyle and Winokur, 1985).

DeByle, N.V., and R.P Winokur, eds . 1985. Aspen: Ecology and management in the western United States. USDA Forest Ser. Gen Tech Rep. Rocky Mtn. Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Ft. Collins, co. RM-119 : 283 pp.