Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Diagnosis, Data, Forest Vegetation Simulator Stand Exam and Forest Vegetation Simulator Data Diagnosis – initial stand data and diagnosis spreadsheets Spreadsheets of Output Data NFMA Findings
Appendix B - Descriptions for Treatments for Alternatives 2 and 3 Appendix C - Stand Density, Vegetative Structural Stage, and Dwarf Mistletoe Appendix D - Goshawk Forest Habitat Analysis- Common Appendix E – ERI Historic Data Appendix F – Literature Cited or Reviewed
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
APPENDIX A
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
Appendix A-
File locations for modeling in FSVeg Data Analyzer
All FVS runs were completed using the FSVeg Data Analyzer Program and can be found in the
following location
T:\FS\NFS\ApacheSitgreaves\Project\BM\Larson\GIS\Workspace\grichardson
T:\FS\NFS\ApacheSitgreaves\Project\BM\Larson\GIS\Workspace\grichardson\Data -
This folder contains the output files pulled for all specialist reports
T:\FS\NFS\ApacheSitgreaves\Project\BM\Larson\GIS\Workspace\grichardson\FSVegDA
- this folder contains all files used in the analysis including FVS output files MDB files and all
FVSload files
File locations for Larson diagnosis, spreadsheets, dmr calculations, treatmetns, and
diagrams
O:\NFS\ApacheSitgreaves\Project\BM\Larson\Working\Silv\appendix A\
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
NFMA FINDINGS FOR SILVICULTURAL TREATMENTS
Based upon my review of the interdisciplinary team's environmental analysis of the
LARSON FOREST RESTORATION PROJECT on the BLACK MESA Ranger District
of the APACHE-SITGREAVES National Forests, I certify the following findings pursuant
to requirements of the National Forest management Act (NFMA). There is reasonable
assurance that if prescriptions are implemented as written, the project meets NFMA
requirements.
1. Prescribed treatments for all stands proposed for harvest are designed to conserve soil
and water resources and not allow significant or permanent impairment of the
productivity of the Land (36 CFR 219.27(a)(1)). Protection is provided for streams and
streambanks from detrimental changes in water temperatures, blockages of water
courses, and deposits of sediments (36 CFR 219.27(e)).
2. All stands proposed for harvest with timber production objectives are on lands suitable
for timber production (36 CFR 219.27(c)(1)).
A. I further certify that, based upon the literature, research, and local experience, there is
reasonable assurance that stands on suitable lands receiving final harvest (clear-cut,
seed tree removal, shelterwood final removal, or selection) will adequately restock
within 5 years after final harvest (36 CFR 219.27(c)(3)).
3. Created openings do not exceed the 40 acre maximum for Southwestern forest types
established in 36 CFR 219.27(d) (2) and have been determined to be the optimum
(practical, best, and most reasonable) method of treatment to obtain the objectives for
these sites.
4. Where even-aged management is prescribed, it has been determined to be appropriate
for that forest type as described in Agricultural Handbook #445 dated 12/83 and in
compliance with management direction in the Forest Land Management Plan as
amended (2009).
5. Treatments are consistent with multiple-use objectives established for the project area as
they apply to the portions of 36 CFR 219.27 not specifically addressed above, viz (a)
Resource protection, (b) Vegetative manipulation, (c) Silvicultural practices, (d) Even-
aged management, (e) Riparian areas, (f) Soil and water, and (g) Diversity.
6. Stands selected for treatment have an appropriate suitability classification in the Forest
Land Management Plan as defined in 36 CFR 219.14.
6/12/2014
Certified Silviculturist Date
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
APPENDIX B
Larson Forest RestorationTreatment Details for Alternatives 2 and 3
Prepared by Gayle Richardson, District Silviculturist
The following prescription parameters and mitigation measures would be used for alternatives
2 and 3 for the Larson Forest Restoration Project.
MECHANICAL TREATMENTS
Mechanical treatments refer to a variety of possible “tools” to meet objectives. These include,
but are not limited to: the use of chainsaws or feller-bunchers to cut trees and lop slash,
skidders to move material to landings, bulldozers to pile slash, and specialized equipment to
cut, chop, break, lop or in some way treat the fuels to meet objectives. The work would be
accomplished in many ways including the use of Forest Service personnel and contractors.
Some of the trees that are cut may be sold in personal-use and commercial wood product sales.
This would help to offset the total cost for treatments by reducing the cost of cutting trees and
treating slash.
All prescriptions are aimed at retaining Keens tree class 3 and 4 older mature trees (figure 1)
and retaining as many 16 inch and greater size trees as possible following the large tree
retention strategy (LTRS).
Alternatives 2 and 3
Meadow and Riparian Enhancement – All post settlement conifers would be removed and
cleared where they have encroached into existing meadows and riparian areas favoring
hardwood species. Trees that provide streambank stability would be maintained regardless of
size. Slash would be removed from the drainage and hand piled or lopped to the ground.
Three existing and potential snags would be left around meadows for wildlife. Riparian
planting of willows and cottonwoods would occur with native species within the stream
channel. Fencing may be placed around the exterior of the treatment area.
Aspen and Oak Exclosures - All post settlement conifers would be removed from areas
previously fenced to exclude elk. Fences would continue to be maintained to exclude elk from
aspen and oak regeneration and new fences installed where they would be most effective.
Steep slopes- precommercial thinning to 9 inches
Species preference in this order: Douglas-fir, southwestern white pine, ponderosa pine,
white fir
Retain all trees >9 inches dbh
Retain all hardwoods
Remove all conifer trees with DM up to 9 inches
Thin remaining trees to 170 tpa – include all trees in spacing
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
Activity slash piled and burned
MSO Protected Habitat Outside Core Areas –– Intermediate thinning up to 16 inches dbh.
Some slopes may require hand thinning and piling due to steep slopes and only smaller
diameter trees may be removed depending on the amount of material left as residual slash.
Thinning would promote health and vigor of the larger trees and to reduce fire hazard. Smaller
trees would be cut maintaining the largest, healthiest trees. Early seral species (Southwestern
white pine, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, aspen) would be favored for retention and
regeneration.
Species preference in this order ; Douglas-fir, southwestern white pine, ponderosa pine,
white fir.
Intermediate thinning from below up to 16 inches dbh -
120 sqft BA – include all species
Retain all alligator juniper > 12 inches drc
Retain 30% of BA in trees 12 to 18 inches dbh
Retain 30% of BA in trees 18 inches dbh and larger
Retain all hardwoods
Leave dominant and co-dominant with least DM
All slash removed
Alternative 2
Mexican Spotted Owl Habitat (MSO) Habitat Proposed Treatments
MSO Recovery Nest/Roost Habitat and Dry Mixed Conifer inclusions - Group selection
would be used to create openings 1/10 acre in size. Intermediate thinning would be used in the
matrix to remove smaller trees and leave large larger, healthier trees, increasing health and
vigor of the remaining larger dominant and co-dominant trees and reducing fire hazard. The
matrix would be managed for patch sizes 2.5 acres and greater providing habitat for prey
species. Early seral species (southwestern white pine, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, aspen)
would be favored for retention and regeneration.
Species preference in this order: Douglas-fir, southwestern white pine, ponderosa pine,
alligator juniper, white fir
Retain all trees 24 inches and larger
Retain all alligator juniper > 12 inches drc
Group selection would be used to create openings 1/10 to 2.5 acres in size. Preferably
less than 1 acre. Regenerate 10-20% of the area.
Intermediate thinning would be used in the matrix to remove smaller trees and leave
large larger, healthier trees, and managed for patch sizes 2.5 acres and greater providing
habitat for prey species.
Retain all hardwoods
120 sqft BA – include all species ( mixed conifer stands)
110 sqft BA – include all species (pine oak stands)
Leave dominant and co-dominant with least dwarf mistletoe (DM)
Retain 30% of BA in trees 12 to 18 inches dbh
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
Retain 30% of BA in trees 18 inches dbh and larger
Manage for a minimum of 12 tpa of trees 18 inches and larger per acre
Remove all activity slash
MSO Recovery Foraging/Non-breeding Habitat – Key owl habitat elements would be
retained. Aspen, gambel oak and trees 12 inches and larger would be favored. Group
selection1 would be used to regenerate ponderosa pine, southwestern white pine, and Douglas-
fir in openings up to 20% of the area within excess size classes and/or diseased patches.
Additional seed trees of desirable species and characteristics would be retained when openings
are greater than one acre. The remaining matrix area would be thinned from below cutting
smaller trees and leaving larger, healthier trees, increasing health and vigor of the remaining
larger dominant2 and co-dominant
3 trees. Stands with no large trees would be thinned from
below with an intermediate thinning to promote health and vigor of the larger trees. Early seral
species (Southwestern white pine, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, aspen) would be favored for
retention and regeneration. All trees 24 inches and greater would be retained.
Priority for regeneration openings would be placed where severe dwarf mistletoe infection
centers are located, focusing on removal of infected trees. Where regeneration groups are not
to be established, focus on reduction of severely-infected trees (DMR = 4+) within the leave
tree groups.
Small inclusions of aspen remnants would be regenerated by removing all young immature
conifers in the immediate area, ½ to 1 chain from the clone. Site disturbing activity such as
ripping of aspen roots adjacent to large aspen clones and broadcast burning may be used to
promote aspen sprouting. The preferred method is removal of all trees within and adjacent to
the clone including removal of all aspen. Aspen clones would be evaluated and fenced as
needed. Conifers would also be removed around oaks 10 inches and greater at diameter root
collar (drc).
Species preference in this order: Douglas-fir, southwestern white pine, ponderosa pine,
alligator juniper, white fir
Retain all trees 24 inches and larger
Retain all alligator juniper > 12 inches drc
Group selection would be used to create openings 1/10 to 2.5 acres in size. Regenerate
10-20% of the area.
Intermediate thinning would be used in the matrix to remove smaller trees and leave
large larger, healthier trees, and managed for patch sizes 2.5 acres and greater providing
habitat for prey species.
Retain all hardwoods
Leave dominant and co-dominant with least DM
Average 80 BA
1 Group Selection – a cutting procedure which creates a new age class by removing trees in groups or patches to
allow seedlings to become established in the new opening (SAF 1998). 2 Dominant – trees that receive full light from above the canopy and partially from the sides. Crowns extend
above the general level of the canopy (USDA 2008). 3 Codominant – Tree crowns receive full light from above, but comparitively little from the sides (USDA 2008)
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
Priority for regeneration openings would be placed where severe DM infection centers
are located, focusing on removal of infected trees. Where regeneration groups are not
to be established, focus on reduction of severely-infected trees (DMR = 4+) within the
leave tree groups.
Remove all activity slash
Goshawk Habitat Ponderosa Pine Proposed Treatments
Goshawk Foraging Area– Group selection would be used to regenerate ponderosa pine, white
pine, and Douglas-fir in openings 1/10 to 4 acres in size over 20% of the area within excess
VSS classes and/or diseased patches, figure 2. When openings exceed one acre in size, 5 to10
desirable seed trees per acre would be retained, with 3 to 5 seed trees at least 15 inches dbh and
larger. Where necessary, additional seed trees of desirable species and characteristics (fig. 4)
would be retained. Tree groups would be maintained by VSS class, ranging from 1/4 to 1 acre
in size and generally in groups of 4 to 20 trees. Strive to distribute percentages according to
desired VSS percentages in the forest plan. Residual stand density would vary, but would
average 50-70 square feet of basal area per acre in foraging areas, and would average 70-80
square feet in PFA. Where stands structures are predominantly even-aged, the stand matrix
would be thinned in an irregular-density fashion, striving to create groups and clumps of
residual trees. Desirable dominant and codominant southwestern white pine and ponderosa
pine would be left as single trees or groups throughout the area. See figures 1 and 2.
Priority for regeneration openings would be placed where severe dwarf mistletoe infection
centers are located, focusing on removal of infected trees. Where regeneration groups are not
to be established, focus on reduction of severely-infected trees (DMR = 4+) within the leave
tree groups.
The exception to the above would occur in stands where 80% of the trees are infected with
mistletoe. Shelterwood with reserves, which is an evenaged system, would be used. This
involves leaving larger trees for regeneration and removing all trees from below that are
infected with mistletoe. Once regeneration is established, a second entry would be needed to
remove the remaining infected overstory trees or reserves left for wildlife or other resource
concerns. The second option for these stands is no treatment.
Small inclusions of aspen remnants would be regenerated by removing all young immature
conifers in the immediate area, ½ to 1 chain from the clone and site disturbing activity such as
ripping of aspen roots adjacent to large aspen clones and broadcast burning. The preferred
method is removal of all trees within and adjacent to the clone. Aspen clones would be
evaluated and fenced as needed. Conifers would also be removed from around oaks 10 inches
and greater at diameter root collar (drc).
Species preference in this order: ponderosa pine, southwestern white pine, Douglas-fir,
white fir
Group selection would be used to create openings 1/10 to 4 acres in size. Preferably 1
acre in size. Regenerate 10-20% of the area.
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
Intermediate thinning would be used in the matrix to remove smaller trees and leave
large larger, healthier trees, and managed for patch sizes 2.5 acres and greater providing
habitat for prey species.
Retain all hardwoods
Retain all alligator juniper > 12 inches drc
Remove all trees < 9inches dbh with any DM
Leave dominant and co-dominant with least DM
Average 50-70 BA- all species leaving the least DM
distribute percentages according to desired VSS percentages in the forest plan.
Priority for regeneration openings would be placed in excess VSS classes and where
severe DM infection centers are located, focusing on removal of infected trees.
Remove all activity slash
Goshawk Foraging Area– Intermediate Thinning – Objective is to favor large yellow pine
in previous sheep bed grounds by removing small trees including junipers
Species preference in this order: ponderosa pine, southwestern white pine, Douglas-fir,
white fir
Retain all alligator juniper > 12 inches drc
Retain all hardwoods
Remove all trees < 9inches dbh with any DM
Leave dominant and co-dominant with least DM
Thin from below to an average 80 BA- all species
Distribute percentages according to desired VSS percentages in the forest plan.
Priority for regeneration openings would be placed in excess VSS classes and where
severe DM infection centers are located, focusing on removal of infected trees.
Remove all activity slash
Goshawk PFA Habitat - Group selection would be used to create openings 1/10 to 4 acres in
size. Preferably 1 acre in size. See figures 1 and 3.
Species preference in this order: ponderosa pine, southwestern white pine, Douglas-fir,
white fir
Regenerate 10-20% of the area.
Intermediate thinning would be used in the matrix to remove smaller trees and leave
large larger, healthier trees, and managed for patch sizes 2.5 acres and greater providing
habitat for prey species.
Retain all hardwoods
Retain all alligator juniper > 12 inches drc
Leave dominant and co-dominant with least DM
Average 90 BA- all species leaving the least DM
distribute percentages according to desired VSS percentages in the forest plan.
Priority for regeneration openings would be placed in excess VSS classes and where
severe DM infection centers are located, focusing on removal of infected trees.
Remove all activity slash
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
Figure 1: Illustration of desired spatial arrangement of leave groups.
(average of 40-60% canopy closure at the group level)
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
Figure 2. Goshawk Habitat Areas Outside of PFAs (Foraging Areas)
Typical Number
of Trees Per Group for
Different Group Sizes1
Typical Intra-Group
(within-group) Densities1
(All Group Acreage Sizes)
VSS
DBH
Range
1/10
acre
group
1/4
acre
group
½
acre
group
¾
acre
group
1
acre
group
Relative
Spacing Range
(feet)
Basal Area2
(ft2/acre)
1 & 2 0 - 4.9” 39 69 198 297 396 8 – 14 N/A
3 5 - 11.9 14 34 68 102 136 N/A 50
4* 12 - 17.9” 5 12 23 35 46 N/A 60
5* 18 - 23.9” 3 8 15 23 30 N/A 70
6* 24”+ 2 5 11 16 21 N/A 85 1these are typical values for the desired condition; variation can occur and is desired.
However, ranges should center on these values 2rounded to nearest 10 square feet/acre
* Densities are equivalent to 40%+ canopy cover
Figure 3. Goshawk PFA Habitat Areas
Typical Number
of Trees Per Group for
Different Group Sizes1
Typical Intra-Group
(within-group) Densities1
(All Group Acreage Sizes)
VSS
DBH
Range
1/10
acre
group
1/4
acre
group
½
acre
group
¾
acre
group
1
acre
group
Relative
Spacing Range
(feet)
Basal Area2
(ft2/acre)
1 & 2 0 - 4.9” 39 69 198 297 396 8 – 14 N/A
3 5 - 11.9 27 68 135 203 270 N/A 50
4* 12 - 17.9” 14 34 69 104 138 N/A 85
5** 18 - 23.9” 8 20 40 60 80 N/A 90
6*** 24”+ 6 14 30 43 55 N/A 110 1these are typical values for the desired condition; variation can occur and is desired.
However, ranges should center on these values 2rounded to nearest 10 square feet/acre
* Densities are equivalent to 55%+ canopy cover
** Densities are equivalent to 50%+ canopy cover
*** Densities are equivalent to 50%+ canopy cover
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
Goshawk Shelterwood Seed Cut with reserves
Species preference in this order: ponderosa pine, southwestern white pine, Douglas-fir,
white fir
1st entry -Leave 60 BA of best formed seed trees 15 inches and greater. Preferably 24
to 28 inches in diameter, dominant trees, insect and disease free-top preference
Remove all DM infected trees except for seed trees.
Retain all hardwoods
Retain all alligator juniper > 12 inches drc
Establish seedlings over 15 year period- 400 tpa
2nd
entry -Remove all DM infected trees 10 years after first entry. Leave trees that are
uninfected
Remove all activity slash
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
Old Growth Forest Stands (ponderosa pine, aspen, and mixed species stands,
high sites) To manage towards these old growth conditions, free-thinning and selection cutting would be
used in groups and patches of larger and/or older trees to remove many of the smaller trees and
favor the older and larger dominant and co-dominant trees.
Species preference in this order: ponderosa pine, southwestern white pine, Douglas-fir,
white fir
Retain all trees 18 inches dbh and larger
Retain all alligator juniper > 12 inches drc
Remove all trees < 9inches dbh with any DM
Group selection would be used to create openings 1/10 to 1 acre in size on 10% of the
area.
Intermediate thin to meet or exceed the following leaving the largest trees
o Ponderosa pine high site – manage for 20 trees/acre greater than or equal
to 18” dbh, and approximately 180 years of age or greater over time.
o Mixed species group, high site - manage for 16 trees/acre greater than or
equal to 20” dbh, and approximately 150 years of age or greater over time.
o Aspen – manage for 20 trees/acre greater than or equal to 14” dbh and
approximately 100 years of age over time.
These areas would be thinned to a target BA of 90 BA per acre for ponderosa pine
stands, and 100 BA per acre for mixed species stands.
Retain all hardwoods
Remove all activity slash
Alternative 3 Large tree retention strategy
MSO Recovery Nest/Roost Habitat and Dry Mixed Conifer - same as alternative 2 but with
the following:
Retain all trees 16 inches and larger
MSO Recovery Foraging/Non-breeding Habitat – same as alternative 2 but with the
following:
Retain all trees 16 inches and larger
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
Goshawk Habitat Ponderosa Pine Proposed Treatments
Goshawk Foraging Area– Group Selection/Intermediate Thin
Species preference in this order: ponderosa pine, southwestern white pine, Douglas-fir,
white fir
Retain all trees 16 inches dbh and larger
Retain all alligator juniper > 12 inches drc
Group selection would be used to create openings 1/20 acre in size. Regenerate 10-
20% of the area.
Intermediate thinning would be used in the matrix to remove smaller trees and leave
large larger, healthier trees, and managed for patch sizes 2.5 acres and greater providing
habitat for prey species.
Retain all hardwoods
Remove all trees < 9inches dbh with any DM
Leave dominant and co-dominant with least DM
Average 50-70 BA- all species
Distribute percentages according to desired VSS percentages in the forest plan.
Priority for regeneration openings would be placed in excess VSS classes and where
severe DM infection centers are located, focusing on removal of infected trees.
Remove all activity slash
Goshawk Foraging Area– Intermediate Thinning - Objective is to favor large yellow pine
in previous sheep bed grounds by removing small trees including junipers
Species preference in this order: ponderosa pine, southwestern white pine, Douglas-fir,
white fir
Retain all trees 16 inches dbh and larger
Retain all alligator juniper > 12 inches drc
Intermediate thinning from below leaving the healthiest best formed and least DM
infected trees up to 16 inches DBH
Retain all hardwoods
Remove all trees < 9inches dbh with any DM
Leave dominant and co-dominant with least DM
Average 80 BA- all species
Distribute percentages according to desired VSS percentages in the forest plan.
Priority for regeneration openings would be placed in excess VSS classes and where
severe DM infection centers are located, focusing on removal of infected trees.
Remove all activity slash
Goshawk PFA Habitat
Species preference in this order: ponderosa pine, southwestern white pine, Douglas-fir,
white fir
Retain all trees 16 inches dbh and larger
Retain all alligator juniper > 12 inches drc
Group selection would be used to create openings 1/20 acre in size. Regenerate 10-
20% of the area.
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
Intermediate thinning would be used in the matrix to remove smaller trees and leave
large larger, healthier trees, and managed for patch sizes 2.5 acres and greater providing
habitat for prey species.
Retain all hardwoods
Remove all trees < 9inches dbh with any DM
Leave dominant and co-dominant with least DM
Average 90 BA- all species leaving the least DM
Distribute percentages according to desired VSS percentages in the forest plan.
Priority for regeneration openings would be placed in excess VSS classes and where
severe DM infection centers are located, focusing on removal of infected trees.
Remove all activity slash
Old Growth Forest Stands (ponderosa pine, aspen, and mixed species stands,
high sites) To manage towards these old growth conditions, free-thinning and selection cutting would be
used in groups and patches of larger and/or older trees to remove many of the smaller trees and
favor the older and larger dominant and co-dominant trees. Same as alternative 2 except the
following:
Retain all trees 16 inches dbh and larger
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
Table 1. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS TO CONSIDER
WHEN CHOOSING LEAVE TREES (Example for Alternative 2)
(For Ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir)
Leave trees must meet and possess all of either the desirable or acceptable physical characteristics. Trees with desirable characteristics should rarely be
cut. Trees possessing acceptable characteristics may or may not be left. Trees with non-desirable characteristics should rarely be designated as leave
trees. Trees possessing acceptable characteristics would be the ‘pool’ from which to choose to meet density management objectives.
EVALUATION
CRITERIA
DESIRABLE
(usually leave)
(Keene’s A)
ACCEPTABLE
(maybe leave, maybe cut)
(Keene’s B & C)
NON- DESIRABLE
(usually cut)
(Keene’s D)
LIVE CROWN RATIO >40% for ponderosa pine 25% - 40% for ponderosa pine
35% - 50% for other species
Less than 25% for ponderosa pine
Less than 35% for other spp.
CROWN CLASS dominants co-dominates and better intermediates suppressed/over-topped, poor form**
INSECTS, ANIMAL,
FIRE, MISC. DISEASE
(see next row for
mistletoe)
NONE
Minor insect or animal defoliation (< 25 % live crown
ratio).
Barking of ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir < 50 % of bole
circumference.
Fire kill of cambium < 50 % of bole circumference or the
scorch is on the lower 2/3 of the crown.
Any bark beetle attacks.
Defoliation >25% of live crown.
Barking of ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir > 50 % of bole
circumference. Any significant barking of other species.
Any significant top killing. Fire kill of cambium >50 % of
bole circumference, or the scorch reaches into the upper 1/3
of the crown. Any conks on stem which indicate rot.
HAWKSWORTH
DWARF MISTLETOE
RATING—DMR*
0
VSS 5 groups with trees 3 or lower (where VSS 5/6 is
deficit), where not overtopping desired VSS 1, 2 & 3 groups
VSS 6 groups with any DMR where VSS 6 is deficit.
All VSS 2-3 with any visible dwarf mistletoe
All VSS 4-6 groups with trees averaging 4 or greater DMR
where overtopping desired VSS 1, 2,& 3 DM free groups
FORM DEFECTS
NONE
MINOR (no significant weakening of the tree anticipated.
Minor crooks, sweeps, and tight forks which are < 30% of
total tree height are acceptable if the tree is dominant or co-
dominant and otherwise has good vigor).
MAJOR
(weakening of tree or multiple tops)
SOUNDNESS DEFECTS NONE NONE ANY
Reserve tree requirements are not subject to Physical Characteristics criteria for tree selection.
*This is example text and actual treatments for dwarf mistletoe would vary on a stand level basis.
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
FIGURE 4: KEEN’S CLASSIFICATION OF TREES BASED ON AGE AND VIGOR
Keen’s tree classification taken from Ponderosa Pine Tree Classes Redefined (Keen 1943).
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
APPENDIX C
Stand Density, Vegetative Structural Stage, and Dwarf Mistletoe
Stand Density and Relationship to the Forest Plan
The Apache-Sitgreaves Forest Plan describes guidelines for desired tree group densities (by VSS)
within the following forest stratums:
Goshawk Forest Habitat lands;
a. Gohawk Foraging areas –manage for 40% canopy cover in VSS 4-5-6 groups.
b. Goshawk Post Fledging Family areas –manage for (VSS 4 -60% canopy cover within 7%
of groups, 50% canopy cover within 13% of the groups, VSS 5-6 -50% canopy cover within
groups).
The Apache-Sitgreaves Forest Plan does not direct or recommend desired stand densities for the
following forest stratum:
1) Mexican Spotted Owl Protected Habitat lands
2) Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Habitat (other) lands
3) Goshawk Forest Habitat lands (stand-level)
Although stand-level density direction is not provided in the Forest Plan for these stratums, other
directed or recommended forest condition attributes can be used to imply appropriate stand density
ranges consistent with meeting project purpose and need and plan direction. These attributes were
used to develop project alternatives and analysis of effects:
1) Maintain forest health (MSO Recovery Habitat (other) lands and Goshawk Forest Habitat
lands) – based upon best available science (discussed following), stand densities should be
maintained below 45% of maximum stand density index.
2) Maintain clumped/grouped spatial arrangement of tree groups (MSO Recovery Habitat
(other) lands4 and Goshawk Forest Habitat lands
5) -based upon best available science
(discussed following), stand densities should be maintained below 35% of maximum stand
density index.
4 forest plan guidelines recommend managing MSO Habitat (other) lands for uneven-aged forest structural conditions.
5 Desired conditions described in the Forest Plan Guidelines, linked to USDA Forest Service, RM GTR-217.
Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States (Reynolds et. al.1992).
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
3) Regenerate shade-intolerant species (MSO Restricted Habitat (other) lands and Goshawk
Forest Habitat lands) -based upon best available science (discussed following), stand
densities adjacent to regeneration areas should be maintained below 25% of maximum stand
density index.
4) Regenerate shade-intolerant species in large-grouped patterns (MSO Recovery Habitat
(other) lands and Goshawk Forest Habitat lands) – create regeneration openings greater than
0.33 acre in size
5) Develop mature structural stages with high canopy density (MSO Protected Habitat and
Recovery Habitat (nest/roost stands), and Goshawk nest stands) - stand densities should be
maintained.
The relationships between stand density index, basal area and the desired clumped/ grouped spatial
arrangement of tree groups is described in Youtz et al. 2007 and USDA 2014.
Stand Density Density management is the manipulation and control of growing stock (trees) in order to achieve
management objectives. The most generally effective indices of growing stock are those that
combine some expression of mean diameter and density (Long and Smith 1984). Stand density is
a quantitative measure of stocking expressed as trees per acre (TPA) or square feet of basal area
per acre (BA). Despite widespread use, density measures like TPA or BA have limited utility, as
they have no inherent biological or physiological frame of reference (Smith 1986). Respectively,
TPA and BA convey only the average distance between trees of unknown size and species, and
the cross-sectional area of the tree at 4.5 feet above the ground. Reineke's (1933) stand density
index (SDI) was used for this analysis because it accounts for tree size, can be related to a species'
maximum physiological density, and is independent of age and of site quality (Daniel, Helms, and
Baker 1979).
Percent of maximum stand density is determined based on Reineke’s stand-density index (Reineke
1933). Reineke discovered a predictable relationship between quadratic mean diameter6 and trees
per unit area in dense even-aged stands. Stand density index is a value based on the number of trees
per acre at an average stand diameter of 10 inches.
The relationship between average size and density of trees in populations experiencing density-
related or suppression mortality has been shown to be predictable for a number of tree species. This
“self-thinning rule” (Yoda et al. 1963) is a fundamental relationship has been found to be
independent of both stand age and site quality. Because of this relationship, a stand density that is
desired in the context of a specific set of management objectives can be projected forward or
backward to a different stage of stand development.
Those who use SDI, or any index of stand density, as an estimate of growing stock, must assume that
the index is proportional to site utilization (Long and Smith 1984). Since the contribution of
individual stand components to both total SDI and total site utilization is additive (Stage 1968), SDI
6 Quadratic Mean Diameter (QMD) of a stand is the diameter of the tree of average basal area. Quadratic mean
diameter is conventionally used in forestry, rather than arithmetic mean diameter (SAF 1998).
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
can also be used to assess control of growing stock in uneven-aged stands as well as even-aged
stands (Long and Smith 1984). Although SDI and the maximum size-density relationship were
originally described for pure, even-aged stands, Long and Daniel (1990) have proposed extension of
its utility to uneven-aged and multi-aged situations.
Basal area is a widely used measure of density; however SDI is a more descriptive means of
expressing stand or group density because SDI is related to average diameter (quadratic mean
diameter) and trees per acre. To demonstrate the usefulness of SDI over simple basal area, take two
groups or stands both of equal basal area, 60 sqft. Basal area alone reveals little difference. If one
stand had an average diameter of 6 inches and the second and average of 18 inches, the following
attributes can be calculated:
Stand A Stand B Basal area in sqft/acre 60 sqft/acre 60 sqft/acre
Quadratic mean diameter 6” 18”
Trees/acre ~306 ~34
Stand density index 135 87
From the above example, Stand A is actually the denser of the two stands. This more dense
condition provides more canopy cover, hiding cover, and tree-to-tree competition than that found in
Stand B. These stand structural differences cannot be detected by basal area stocking alone.
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
SDI in the Southwestern Region of the USDA Forest Service is calculated based on all live trees
larger than 1” diameter using one of the following formulas:
(1a) Total Stand SDI= Total Trees (1”+) x (Quadratic Mean Diameter/10)1.6
or
(1b) Total Stand SDI = sum of [(tree diameters 1”+/10)1.6
]
Formula 1a and 1b yield similar results in even-aged stand conditions. Formula 1b is used to
determine stand SDI in uneven-aged or multi-aged stands.
In pure, even-aged stands of a given Quadratic Mean Diameter (QMD), Reineke (1933) observed
that there was an upper limit to the number of TPA present in the densest stands. As QMD
increases, the upper TPA limit decreases exponentially. Drew and Flewelling (1979) reached
similar conclusions with regard to mean tree volume and TPA. The exponential slope of the
upper limit curve is the same for all tree species. The intercept of that curve, however, is both
regional and species specific - higher for tolerant species and lower for intolerant species. The
upper limit curve is referenced to the theoretical maximum number of 10 inch diameter breast
height (dbh)7 trees per acre. The published maximum SDI for Ponderosa pine is 450, indicating
that the upper limit, or reference, curve passes through 450 TPA when QMD equals 10.0 inches.
Stand density index is more often expressed as a percent of maximum. An SDI of 180, for
example, would be 40% of the maximum for local ponderosa pine. One would expect the densest
possible stands to be clustered between 80% and 100% of maximum. Figure 1 illustrates these
SDI concepts.
Figure 1. SDI for ponderosa pine in northern Arizona is described by this family of curves. The top
curve is the theoretical “upper density limit”. Lower curves indicate percentage of the maximum.
Any point on a given curve represents an equal level of physiological density.
(Reineke 1933)
Implications of the maximum size-density relationship are as follows.
7 Diameter Breast Height (dbh) – the diameter of a tree measured 4.5 feet from the ground (SAF 1998).
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
1) As mean tree size increases:
· the upper physiological limit of TPA decreases.
2) As a stand's size-density trajectory approaches the maximum:
· competition increases
· growth slows
· trees lose vigor
· mortality occurs
Knowledge of these relationships permits informed decision-making with regard to desired stand
structure and development.
Photosynthesis - Foliage produces organic sugars that are allocated, in this general priority, to:
maintenance respiration; production of fine roots and foliage; flower and seed production; height
growth; crown expansion and root extension; and lastly diameter growth and defense mechanisms
(Oliver and Larson 1996).
Growing Space - The biochemical and physiological processes of trees require sunlight, water,
mineral nutrients, suitable temperature, oxygen, and carbon dioxide. These growth factors, in
aggregate, form an abstract, non-dimensional "growing space" on any given site (Oliver and
Larson 1996). A site's productivity, also known as carrying capacity, is limited by the scarcest of
the six growth factors.
The prospects of individual trees improve as their share of growing space increases, either
through superior competitive advantage, or the decline and death of their neighbors. As a tree
grows, so does its volume of respiring tissue and the weight of its crown. In order to fuel this new
tissue and support more weight, a tree must capture additional growing space. If it fails, the
priorities of photosynthate allocation are engaged, reducing tree function in reverse order of
priority. When a tree controls insufficient growing space to sustain even maintenance respiration,
the tree dies (Oliver and Larson 1996).
Site Occupancy and Growth - Site occupancy refers to the degree to which growing space is
utilized by trees. The relationship of site occupancy to stand and individual tree growth is
familiar to silviculturists as that depicted by the three zones of Langsaeter's growth curves (Long
1985). Long (1985) has proposed values of percent of maximum SDI that correlate with the zone
thresholds of Langsaeter's growth curves. Figures 2 and 3, and table 3 illustrate the relationship
of Langsaeter's growth curves and Long's percent of maximum SDI values to site occupancy,
competition among trees, diameter and volume growth in trees, volume growth in stands, species
composition, and stem quality.
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
.
Project Analysis The vegetative structural stages were evaluated at three levels: stand level composite was used for
the lower level; compartments were used for the mid-scale making up the diversity units; and the
analysis area boundary was used for the upper scale. All these may be found in the files on the
attached USB flash drive.
Figure 2. – Langsaeter’s curve.
Annual whole-stand growth as a %
of potential.
Figure 3. –Langsaeter’s curve.
Annual individual-tree growth as a %
of potential.
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
USFS Region 3
Vegetative Structural Stages Classes by Forest Cover Types
Diameter and Cover Type Groupings as Modified 2/2000 and Finalized 4/6/2000
(Vandendriesche 2013)
Cover Types
VSS
1
VSS
2
VSS
3
VSS
4
VSS
5***
VSS
6
1. Ponderosa Pine,
Southwestern White Pine, Misc
Softwoods, Douglas Fir, White
Fir, Limber Pine, Engelmann
Spruce-Subalpine Fir,
Engelmann Spruce, Blue
Spruce, Bristlecone Pine,
Corkbark Fir, Aspen = DBH
0-0.9” 1.0-4.9” 5.0-11.9” 12.0-
17.9”
18.0-
23.9”
24”+
2. COTTONWOOD, Arizona
Cypress, Gambel Oak (tree
form*) = DRC
0-0.9” 1.0-4.9” 5.0-9.9” 10.0-
14.9”
15”+” N/A
3. Willow, Misc Hardwoods,
Gambel Oak (shrub form **)
= DRC
0-0.9” 1.0-2.9” 3.0-4.9” 5.0-6.9” 7”+” N/A
4. Pinyon-Juniper, Juniper,
Rocky Mtn Juniper = DRC
0-0.9” 1.0-2.9” 3.0-4.9” 5.0-10.9” 11”+” N/A
*Gambel Oak tree form exists
on the following Forests in
R3:
Apache-Sitgreaves
Cibola (Magdalena & Mr.
Taylor districts only)
Coconino
Coronado
Gila
Kaibab (south districts)
Lincoln
Prescott
Tonto
** Gambel Oak shrub form exists
on the following Forests in R3:
Carson
Cibola (except the
Magdalena and Mt. Taylor
districts)
Kaibab (North Kaibab
district)
Santa Fe
*** For Forest Cover
Type groups 2, 3,and 4
VSS, there are only 5 VSS
classes
VSS Canopy Cover (CC) Density Classes:
Cover Types 1, 2, & 3: 0-39%CC = A, 40-59%CC = B, 60+%CC = C
Cover Type 4 (P-J): 0-19%CC = A, 20-39%CC = B, 40+%CC = C
Canopy Stories: MS = Multiple Storied, SS = Single Storied
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
Dwarf Mistletoe Except as noted, all background information on dwarf mistletoe is from Hawksworth and Weins
(1996).
Interaction with Trees Dwarf mistletoes are the single-most destructive pathogen of commercially valuable conifers in the
western U.S., accounting for growth and mortality losses estimated at 3 billion board feet annually.
In northern Arizona Arceuthobium vaginatum subsp. cryptopodum is the variety of dwarf mistletoe
infecting ponderosa pine and Arceuthobium douglasii is the species infecting Douglas-fir. These
two species are the most impacted by mistletoe in the Larson Restoration Project.
These parasitic plants grow in the crowns of live trees where they actively appropriate water,
nutrients, and photosynthate for themselves and their infected branch at the expense of their host's
uninfected parts. Resources in healthy trees are allocated as described earlier in the photosynthesis
section and by diverting resources destined for those purposes; mistletoe reduces the host's growth,
vigor, and longevity.
Rating System (Hawksworth and Weins 1996)
In the 6-class dwarf mistletoe rating (DMR) system for trees, the live crown is visually divided into
thirds, and each third is scored with a:
“0” if no mistletoe is visible;
“1” if less than half the branches are infected;
“2” if more than half the branches are infected;
Infections on the main stem are not considered unless they are the tree’s sole infection in which case
a score of “1” is given.
Scores for each third are then summed to obtain a total DMR for the tree. Tree DMRs can range
from “0”, for no infection, to a maximum of “6”, where each third of the crown is heavily infected.
Stands and sample plots may also be rated by computing the average of all live infected and
uninfected tree DMRs by species. Stand or plot DMRs can range from “0” , where no trees are
infected, to “6” where every tree in the stand or plot has a tree DMR =6. Typically, stand DMRs
range from 0 to 2.5 because heavily infected portions of a stand may be offset by uninfected
portions. Plot DMRs on the other hand exhibit a wider range, often 0 to 5.0, because no averaging
occurs.
Each different scale, tree, plot, and stand DMRs provide complimentary information on the nature
and extent of mistletoe across the landscape. Individual tree and plot DMRs best portray the
magnitude of mistletoe infection levels, but convey little of mistletoe’s spatial distribution or
juxtaposition. On the other hand, stand DMRs capture some of elements of spatial juxtaposition but,
because they are composites, are unable to convey much about the variation of infection magnitude
within stands. As shown in Table 1, stand DMRs can be subjectively interpreted as an index of
infection severity and, by extension, of limitations of management.
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
The relationship of tree DMR to growth, mortality, and cone production is summarized in Table 2
for ponderosa pine. Dwarf mistletoe infection in Douglas-fir has slightly higher reductions than
Table 1. Stand DMR and percent infection to dwarf mistletoe infection severity class.
ponderosa pine. In general, measurable effects are observed with tree DMRs of 3 or greater.
Infections in the lower portion of crowns tend to have less significant effects than equal infections
in upper portions.
Table 2. Relationship of tree DMR to growth, mortality, and cone production for ponderosa pine.
Tree DMR
ITEM 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
% DBH Growth Reduction 0 0 0 2 14 27 50
% Height Growth Reduction 0 0 0 4 8 11 15
Cone Production Rating 2.9 2.3 2.3 2.2 1.6 0.8 0.04
% Increase in 10-year Mortality
rate
0 1 4 8 15 23 34
Spread - Infections intensify and spread within and among trees when mistletoe seeds are
explosively discharged (under hydrostatic pressure) during late summer. Seeds may travel up to
50 feet, if unobstructed, but more typically, disperse to distances of 30 feet or less. Actual
dispersal distance is highly variable and depends upon: stand structure and composition; launch
position; mistletoe height and orientation; wind speed and direction; and the hosts needle
characteristics. Seeds are covered with a viscous substance that helps them adhere to potential
infection sites. Germination is successful only on susceptible species, and then, only on twig
segments less than 5 years old. This pattern of seed dispersal tends to hasten the intensification
and crown "rain" down on younger trees. Dispersal by birds and mammals does occur, but is of
Range of Stand DMR
Infection
Severity
Class
None Light Medium Heavy Severe
0.0 0.1-0.25 0.25-0.9 1.0-1.9 2.0-6.0
Percent DM Infection (by species)
Infection
Severity
Class
None Light/Medium Heavy Severe
0% 1-20% 20-50% 50%+
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
little practical significance. Rates of mistletoe intensification and spread are slow when compared
with insect and other wind-borne pathogens.
Interaction with Site Quality - The incidence of dwarf mistletoe in a stand does not appear to be
related to site quality. However, its effects on host tree growth and mortality tend to be more
severe on poorer sites, where a tree's vigor potential is already reduced.
Values - Despite its negative effect on tree status, mistletoes provide foraging, nesting, cavity,
and cover opportunities for birds and mammals. Although no local species depend on it, the
abundance of mistletoe in a stand has been correlated with species diversity, bird density, and the
number of snags used by cavity nesters (Conklin 2000). Mistletoes may also have some cultural
and medical applications.
Interaction with Fire - Ground surface fires may reduce the incidence of dwarf mistletoe in
several ways. Mistletoe brooms tend to accumulate needle cast and infected branches and brooms
are more resinous than uninfected ones. This increased flammability, in combination with the
accumulation of mistletoe-related ground fuels, may increase localized fire intensity to the point
where infected branches, brooms, trees, or groups of trees are killed. Since mistletoe is an
obligate parasite, it dies when the host is killed. Furthermore, germination of mistletoe seed may
be inhibited after 60 minutes of exposure to the smoke and heat of burning needles and branch
wood on the forest floor.
Silvicultural Remediation - Silvicultural remediation of mistletoe includes:
· pruning of infected branches;
· cutting or killing all trees;
· cutting or killing the most heavily infected trees;
· or clearing a buffer between infected and uninfected trees.
Stands with light infection levels (by species) are generally regarded as being sustainable in an
uneven-aged forest structure with any form of selection cutting method. Stands with medium
dwarf mistletoe (by species) may be sustainable in an uneven-aged forest structure with group
selection cutting, providing that the distribution of infection centers are small enough to be
removed by the creation of regeneration groups. Stands with heavy infection may only be
sustained as even-aged forests with light intermediate thinning, taking care not to promote
regeneration. Once the stand reaches severe infection (by species), corrective actions may be
futile, and the stand may need to be replaced. At this point, alternatives include accepting the
heavily infected stand or regenerating it. Artificial or natural means may be employed, but when
natural regeneration is selected, seed source trees should be free of mistletoe. If infected trees
must be used, they should be removed or killed before the regeneration is 3 feet tall or 10 years
old.
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
Table 3. Dwarf Mistletoe Infection Severity and Management Implications*
Infection
Severity
Measure Management Implication Silviculture Prescription
Options
Low-
moderate
< 20% of the host
trees (excluding
seedlings and
saplings) are
infected or < 25%
of the acreage is
affected (that is,
at least 75% of
the area is
essentially free of
mistletoe).
Existing stand can be
sustained long-term.
All uneven-aged selection,
and even-aged
intermediate and
regeneration cutting
methods are viable. Use
low/moderate severity
prescribed fire to reduce
infection in the lower
crowns and sub-dominant
trees.
Moderate-
high
>20% of the host
trees or >25% of
the area is
infected.
Existing stand can be
maintained mid-term
(decades) as even-aged
structure by intermediate
(stand-tending) treatments,
but may not be sustainable
long-term.
Even-aged intermediate
and regeneration cutting
methods are viable. Use
low/moderate severity
prescribed fire to reduce
infection in the lower
crowns and sub-dominant
trees.
High-severe >80% of the host
trees or >90% of
the area is
infected.
Existing stand is not
sustainable, and will not
benefit from intermediate
(stand-tending) treatments.
Stand should be replaced or
not managed.
Even-aged regeneration
cutting or high severity
prescribed fire are the only
viable management
treatments.
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
APPENDIX D
Northern Goshawk Forest Habitat Analysis
Scales of Analysis Discussion -Three scales were used to examine existing VSS distribution in
goshawk forest habitats, as directed by the forest plan. The three scales chosen for this analysis are:
stand (fine-scale), compartment (mid-scale), project (landscape).
Vegetation Structural Stage (VSS) – The northern goshawk habitats were stratified by existing
forest structure (even and uneven-aged) to facilitate development of potential treatment alternatives,
and analysis of alternatives. A Forest Plan Standard for goshawk habitat directs that management is
focused to develop and create uneven-aged stand conditions. Therefore, even-aged stands should be
converted to uneven-aged structure, and uneven-aged stands should be managed for a balance of
structural stages, over time. This implies that the desired VSS distribution is distributed within each
and every stand, with a high degree of interspersion between structural groups (Reynolds 1992).
Therefore, the stratum (landscape) scale is useful to determine the extent of even-aged and uneven-
aged forest stands within the project landscape (broad-scale proportional representation of existing to
desired forest structure conditions). The compartment (mid) scale analysis is useful to determine
structure of certain areas of the project and relates more to previous projects which were based on
compartment treatments. The stand (fine) scale analysis is useful to determine VSS representation
within uneven-aged stands, and provides an overall average VSS calculation for even-aged stands.
Therefore, all scales are informative for different evaluation purposes.
In this context, VSS distribution within the even and uneven-aged forest stratum should be
comprehended in the context of the measure and its utility when aggregated. Aggregation of forest
structure proportions between stratums may not be useful for comparison of existing/desired
conditions, and evaluation of management treatments. The intent is to manage forest structure to
move existing VSS distribution in the uneven-aged strata towards the desired distribution, and to
convert all existing even-aged stands to uneven-aged stands with balanced VSS distribution over
time by management treatments. A given VSS for a stand within the even-aged strata should not
substitute for deficit of like VSS within the uneven-aged strata; otherwise the desired high degree of
forest structure interspersion would not be achieved. For this reason, the two stratums are displayed
separately to assess the scope and type of silvicultural treatments necessary to move towards desired
outcomes. VSS classification is also aggregated to display overall landscape forest structural
distribution; however this display should not be used for comparison to desired conditions, or to
determine progress towards attainment of objectives, due to differing stand structures in each
stratum. Analysis should comprehend differing structural proportions based upon data representing
differing forest stratums.
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
Forest Density/Canopy Cover –The ASNFs Forest Plan (USDA 1987 as amended 2009) provides
forest density guidelines for goshawk habitats as follows:
Goshawk Foraging Areas (FA) – “Canopy cover for mid-aged forest (VSS 4) should average
40+%, mature forest (VSS 5) should average 40+%, and old forest (VSS 6) should average
40+%. Opening size is up to 4 acres with a maximum width of up to 200 feet. One group of
reserve trees, 3-5 trees per group, will be left if the opening is greater than an acre in size.”
Goshawk Post Fledging Family Areas (PFA) – “Canopy cover for mid-aged forest (VSS 4)
should average 1/3 60+% and 2/3 50+%. Mature (VSS 5) and old forest (VSS 6) should
average 50+%.”
Canopy cover is not directly measured by common stand exam field sampling, but it can be related
to basal area (assuming a normal distribution of trees across the area with typical tree groups and
canopy gaps). For the purposes of this analysis, the following assumptions were used:
40 % canopy cover ≈ 54 ft.2 basal area, 50% canopy cover ≈70 ft.
2 basal area, 60% canopy cover ≈
93 ft.2 basal area.
CC = -55.44 + 25.5047*LN(BA) where: BA = Basal Area (ft²/ac)
Wayne D. Shepperd, Lance A. Asherin, and Carlton B. Edminster. Using Individual Tree Selection
Silviculture to Restore Northern Goshawk Habitat: Lessons from a Southwestern Study. PNW-
GTR-546, 2001.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Can
op
y C
ov
er
Basal Area
Canopy Cover vs. Basal Area
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
The ASNFs Forest Plan Guidelines (USDA 1987, as amended 2009) also state:
“Canopy cover guidelines apply only to mid-aged to old forest structural stages (VSS 4, VSS 5, and
VSS 6) and not to grass/forb/shrub to young forest structural stages (VSS 1, VSS 2, and VSS 3).”
(An area scale for VSS development and maintenance is not mentioned in the forest plan, however
the desired proportions for each stand are provided. Since the canopy cover guidelines refer to
specific VSS classes; the density measurements apply at whatever scale the VSS 4-5-6 will be
retained.)
Specific scale(s) for canopy cover analysis are not spelled out in the Forest Plan; however, the Forest
Plan is specific as to which VSS classes have canopy cover guidelines. Guidelines are displayed
above. Within uneven-aged stands there will be at least three different VSS classes with the
objective of management to ultimately achieve six classes. In these stands, canopy cover will meet
guideline requirements at the group level. For VSS 4-6 groups, canopy cover after treatment will
meet or exceed minimum requirements. For VSS 1-3 groups, canopy cover will be managed by
regulation of basal area to insure canopy cover guidelines will be met when the groups reach VSS 4
size. Averaging canopy cover between all six VSS class groups, in uneven-aged stands will always
result in lower than required canopy cover because the smaller VSS size groups must be left open
enough, trees spaced far enough apart, to allow growth into the next VSS size group. Canopy cover
within these smaller sized groups (VSS 1-3) will be lower than required for VSS 4 because the trees
in the group must grow to reach the next size class. Management of basal area by group, depending
on VSS class, will insure trees move quickly from smaller VSS sizes to larger VSS sizes but the size
(scale) of groups will be variable.
For even-aged stands canopy cover can be measured at the stand matrix scale and at the leave group
scale. But, because the objective for even-aged stands is to convert them into uneven-aged stands
regeneration openings (VSS 1) must be created (cut out). Once this happens the scale for canopy
cover begins to mimic that of the uneven-aged stands. Averaging canopy cover over the entire stand
will not provide meaningful numbers for the same reasons as described above, averaging widely
spaced smaller trees (VSS 1-3 groups) with appropriately spaced larger tree groups that meet canopy
cover guidelines while still providing for growth into larger sizes.
For the above stated reasons canopy cover must be measured at the group level for uneven-aged
stands and at the matrix and group level for the larger VSS sizes (VSS 4-6).
Since the Forest Plan Standards direct that goshawk habitats be managed for uneven-aged conditions
at the stand-level, this implies that VSS 1-6 should be distributed throughout each stand in various
single-tree, clumped, grouped and patch arrangements. Minimum canopy cover guidelines apply
only to VSS 4-6; therefore a stand-level measurement of canopy cover is not applicable, and a point-
level measurement may or may not be applicable (depending upon point location within tree
group/patch). For these reasons, canopy cover point/stand sampling calculations and projections at
the stand and stratum scales cannot be related to Forest Plan guidelines for canopy cover within
groups/patches of VSS 4-5-6. There is no valid relationship, because sampling statistics at this scale
also average VSS 1-2-3 forest groups/patches and non-forested openings into sampling calculations.
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
Likewise the relationship between canopy cover and individual sample points is not definitive, since
sample points are distributed systematically and do not necessarily sample only within an individual
VSS group/patch. It is not practical or operationally feasible to collect data to accurately display the
VSS group/patch-scale existing and projected density conditions for uneven-aged stands. The
following analysis of data reflects single-plot and stand-level VSS dominance, but may not
completely measure attributes of a VSS group/patch; due to the systematic nature of inventory plot
location (plot or stand data may reflect an average of multiple forest structure conditions weighted
by dominant VSS).
The project proposed treatment strategies are consistent with the Forest Plan Standards and
Guidelines, and design criteria have been developed to insure these canopy cover guidelines will be
met during implementation. Specific design criteria for implementation are found in Appendix B,
Figures 2 & 3, to assure consistency with plan guidelines.
Analysis Results - Northern goshawk habitat was analyzed at three scales: stand (fine-scale),
compartment (mid-scale), and stratum (project landscape-scale). Goshawk habitat stratums analyzed
include: foraging area (even-aged), foraging area (uneven-aged), and PFA (all stands combined).
These 3 scales are analyzed in the Wildlife Specialist Report.
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
APPENDIX F
Literature Cited
Abella, Scott R., Peter Z. Fule, and W. Wallace Covington. 2006. Diameter caps for thinning
southwestern ponderosa pine forests: viewpoints, effects, and tradeoffs. Journal of Forestry
104(8):407-414.
Allen, S.R., M. Savage, D.A. Falk, K.F. Suckling, T.W. Swetnam, T. Shulke, P.B. Stacey, P.
Morgan, M. Hoffman, and J.T. Klingel. 2002. Ecological restoration of southwestern
ponderosa pine ecosystems: a broad perspective. Ecological Applications. 12(5):1418-1433.
Clary, Warren P. 1975. Range management and its ecological basis in the ponderosa pine type of
Arizona: the status of our knowledge. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain forest and Range Experiment Station Research Paper RM-158. 35 pp.
Conklin, David A. 2000. Dwarf mistletoe management and forest health in the southwest. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 30 pp.
Conklin, David A. and Mary Lou Fairweather. 2010. Dwarf mistletoe and their management in the
Southwest. USDA Forest Service. Southwestern Region. R3-FH-10-01. 23 pp. Available at:
http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5238459.pdf (24 March 2011)
Cooper, Charles F. 1960. Changes in vegetation, structure, and growth of southwestern pine forests
since white settlement.” Ecological Monographs 30(2):129-164.
Covington, W. Wallace. 1993. Implications for ponderosa pine/bunchgrass ecological systems.
Sustainable Ecological Systems: Implementing an Ecological Approach to Land Management.
U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-247. pp. 92-97.
Crookston, Nickolus L., Melinda Moeur, and David Renner. 2002. Users guide to the most similar
neighbor imputation program version 2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-96.
Dahms, Cathy W. and Brian W. Geils. 1997. An assessment of forest ecosystem health in the
southwest. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report RM-GTR-295. 97 pp. Available
at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gtr295.pdf (19 December 2008 ).
Dixon, Gary E. 2008. Essential FVS: a user’s guide to the forest vegetation simulator. United States
Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Washington office, Forest Management Service
Center Fort Collins, CO. 240 pp.
Drew, T.J. and J.W. Flewelling. 1979. Stand density management: an alternative approach and its
application to Douglas-fir plantations. Forest Science. 25:518-532.
Fairweather, Marylou. 2008. Dwarf mistletoe and other insect and disease activity in the Rim Lakes
Forest Health project area. Letter addressed to the Black Mesa Ranger District.
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
Fiedler, C.E., Arno, S. F. Harrington, M.G. 1996. Flexible silvicultural and prescribed burning
approaches for improving health of ponderosa pine forests. Conference on Adaptive
Ecosystem Restoration and Management. USDA, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station, RM-GTR-278. pp.69-74.
Hawksworth, F.G. and D. Wiens. 1996. Dwarf mistletoes: biology, pathology, and systematics.
Agricultural Handbook 709. USDA, Forest Service. 410 pp. Available at:
http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/publications/ah_709/ (19 December 2008).
Huffman, David W. 2013. Fire history of a mixed-conifer forest on the Mogollon Rim, Northern
Arizona, USA, preliminary summary research results. 7 pp.
Hurteau, S. 2010. Preliminary Forest Spatial Structure Representation at Eagar South and Mineral.
Draft data prepared by The Nature Conservancy. Flagstaff, AZ.
Keen, F.P. 1943. Ponderosa pine tree classes redefined. Journal of Forestry 41(4): pp. 249-253(5).
Long, J.N. 1985. A practical approach to density management. Forestry Chronicle.
61:23-27.
Long, J.N. and F.W. Smith. 1984. Relation between size and density in developing stands: a
description and possible mechanism. For. Ecol. And Management 7:191-206.
Long, J.N. and T.W. Daniel. 1990. Assessment of growing stock in uneven-aged stands. Western
Journal of Applied Forestry. 5:93-96.
Long, James N. and John D. Shaw. 2011. A density management diagram for even-aged Sierra
mixed-conifer stands (Draft). 23pp.
Malmsheimer, Robert W., Patrick Heffernan, Steve Brink, Douglas Crandell, Fred Deneke,
Christopher Galik, Edmund Gee, John A. Helms, Nathan McClure, Michael Mortimer, Steve
Ruddell, Matthew Smith, and John Stewart. 2008. Forest management solutions for mitigating
climate change in the United States. Journal of Forestry 106(3):115-173. Available at:
http://saf.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/content/saf/jof/2008/00000106/
00000003 (17 September 2008).
McMillin, Joel. 2004. Stand hazard rating for bark beetles attacking southwestern ponderosa pine.
Region 3 Entomologist Report for the Nagel Forest Health Project.
Moir, William H., Brian Geils, Mary Ann Benoit, and Dan Scurlock. 1997. Ecology of southwestern
ponderosa pine forests. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-GTR-292. 27pp.
Moore, Margaret M., W.W. Covington, and P.Z. Fule. 1999. Reference conditions and ecological
restoration: a southwestern ponderosa pine perspective.” Ecological Applications Vol. 9, No.
4 pp. 1266-1277.
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
Moore, Margaret M., David W. Huffman, Peter Z. Fule, W. Wallace Covington, and Joseph E.
Crouse. 2004. Comparison of historical and contemporary forest structure and composition on
permanent plots in southwestern ponderosa pine forests. For. Sci 50 (2) 2004. pp 62 – 176.
Oliver, C.D. and B.C. Larson. 1996. Forest stand dynamics. McGraw-Hill, New York.
467 pp.
Reineke, L.H. 1933. Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. Journal of Agricultural
Research. 46:627-638.
Reynolds, Richard T., Russell T. Graham, M. Hildegard Reiser. 1992. Management
recommendations for the northern goshawk in the Southwestern United States. USDA, Forest
Service, General Technical Report RM-217.
Reynolds, Richard T., Andrew J. Sanchez Meador, James A. Youtz, Tessa Nicolet, Megan S.
Matonis, Patrick L. Jackson, Donald G. DeLorenzo, Andrew D. Graves. Restoring
composition and structure in southwestern frequent-fire forests: a science-based framework for
improving ecosystem resiliency. USDA, Forest Service, General Technical Report RMRS-
GTR-310.
Ronco, Frank Jr., Carleton B. Edminster, and David P. Trujillo. 1985. Growth of ponderosa pine
thinned to different stocking levels in northern Arizona. USDA, Forest Service, Research Paper
RM-262.
Sensibaugh, Mark, Bruce Greco, Walker Chancellor, and Mike Stoddard. 2013. Larson forest
restoration project historic range of variation (HRV reference conditions) assessment report. 20
pp.
Shaw, John D. 2006. Reineke’s stand density index: where are we and where do we go from here?
USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 14pp.
Shepperd, Wayne, Lance A. Asherin, and Carlton B. Edminster. Using individual tree selection
silviculture to restore northern goshawk habitat: lessons from a southwestern study. PNW-
GTR-546, 2001.
Sitko, Sue and Sarah Hurteau. 2010. The first five years of the white mountain stewardship project.
The Nature Conservancy. 125 pp. Available at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/stewardship/reports/WMSP%20Five%20Year%20Report%20Tag
ged%20Compressed.pdf (January 5, 2011)
Society of American Foresters (SAF). 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada.
Society of American Foresters. 148pp.
Society of American Foresters (SAF). 2005. Use of silviculture to achieve and maintain forest
health on public lands. Position Statement Available at:
http://www.safnet.org/policyandpress/psst/silviculture.pdf (11 August 2008)
Society of American Foresters. 1998. The dictionary of forestry. Bethesda, MD: 210 pp.
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
Smith, D.M. 1986. The practice of silviculture, 8th edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 527
pp.
Smith, E. 2006. Historical range of variation and state and transition modeling of historical and
current landscape conditions for mixed conifer of the Southwestern U.S. Prepared for the
U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southwestern Region by The Nature Conservancy, Tucson, AZ. 31
pp. Available
at:http://nmconservation.org/dl/TNCAZ_SWFAP_HRV_Mixed_Conifer_Forest.pdf (14 June
2010).
Stage, A.R. 1968. A tree-by-tree measure of site utilization for grand fir related to stand density
index. USDA For. Serv. Res. Note INT-77, 7pp.
Tuten, Matthew. 2006. Forest structure demonstration plots, Kaibab National Forest. Ecological
restoration Institute. 4 pp.
University of Montana (UOM). 1995. Uneven-aged management: opportunities, constraints, and
methodologies. School of Forestry, The University of Montana, Missoula, MT. MFCES
Miscellaneous Publication No.56.
USDA. 1987. Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Plan, as updated June 2009. USDA Forest
Service, Southwestern Region. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/asnf/projects/docs/ASNF-
1987-Forest-Plan-through-Amend13-AC1.pdf (5 April 2010).
USDA, 1996. Record of decision for amendment of forest plans, Arizona and New Mexico. United
States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region. Available at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/projects/index.shtml (11 August 2008).
USDA. 2008a. Forest and insect disease conditions in the southwestern region, 2007. Forest
Service. Southwestern Region. PR-R3-16-3.
USDA. 2008b. Common stand exam users guide, version 1.8. USDA Forest Service, Chapter 4.
Available at: http://fsweb.nris.fs.fed.us/products/FSVeg/documentation.shtml (19 December
2010)
USDA. 2010. National forest resource management, chapter 2020-ecological restoration and
resilence. Interim Directive No: 2020-2010-1. 12 pp.
Woolsey, Theodore S. Jr. 1911. Western Yellow Pine in Arizona and New Mexico. USDA Forest
Service Bulletin 101. Available at:
http://library.eri.nau.edu/gsdl/collect/erilibra/index/assoc/HASH92da.dir/doc.pdf (5 April
2010).
White, Alan S. 1985. Presettlement Regeneration Patterns in a Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Stand.
Ecology Vol. 66 No. 2. 589-594.
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices
Yoda, K., T. Kira, H. Ogana and K. Hozumi. 1963. Self-thinning in overcrowded pure stands under
cultivated and natural conditions. J. Biol. Osaka City Univ. 14: 107-129.
Youtz, James A., Russell T. Graham, Richard T. Reynolds, and Jerry Simon. 2007. Implementing
the northern goshawk habitat management in southwestern forests: a template for restoring
fire-adapted forest ecosystems. USDA Forest Service PNW-Proceedings of the 2007 National
Silviculture Workshop.
Zeide, Boris. 2010. Comparison of self-thinning models:an exercise in reasoning. Trees(2010) 24:1
1117-1126.
Larson Forest Restoration Project Silviculture Specialist Report Appendices