Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.2009051210A .... S ... P.Efflll MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Forman, City Forester Parks Departmen THRU: Stephen Ellsperman, Parks and Open Space Direct9� DATE OF MEMO: May 6, 2009 MEETING DATE: May 12, 2009 RE: Smuggler Mountain Open Space Forestry and Mountain Pine Beetle Management CC: Steve Barwick, City Manager Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This work session presentation is to provide information regarding ongoing forest management specific to our community forest as well as management specific to Smuggler Mountain Open Space which is concurrent with the Smuggler Mountain Open Space Management Plan adopted in 2008. It is staff's request of council to provide direction to continue our assessment and recommendations in order to provide practical, scientifically based management strategies on the Smuggler Mountain Open Space and in our community forest. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Approval of the Smuggler Mountain Open Space Management Plan (October 2008) I . , CIE" tifieWt1IT Community Forest Our community forest management by the City Parks and Recreation Department is comprised of many species of trees growing on publicly owned property such as street right of ways and parks. Within this population of trees, there are several species of pines that are susceptible to Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB). For several years, ongoing management has been successful in preventing MPB attack in most of the highly valued pines within our community forest. Smuggler Mountain Open Space Smuggler Mountain Open Space, a roughly 250 acre property jointly owned by the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, includes diverse ecological resources and multiple acres of forested zones. Page 1 of 4 The Smuggler Mountain Open Space Management Plan, the guiding document for the management of the open space, provided specific direction on the management of forest resources on the property, including direction to complete data inventory, analysis, and management recommendations for the forest resources on the property. As the analysis portions of this effort are nearing completion, staff felt it was important to convey information to City Council and receive general direction on the management recommendations for this parcel of land. The Smuggler Mountain Open Space Management Plan provides specific direction related to the management of the forest resources on the site. Specifically, the plan outlines a method for providing the best possible management of the forest resources, including accomplishing a detailed forest resource baseline inventory, performing an analysis of this inventory, and providing recommendations for management of the forest resources on the site (Attachment A). The inventory of the forested resources on the site has been completed and an analysis of this inventory was recently completed as well. The inventory included 2182 acres. Of that total area, 1812 acres are U.S. Forest Service, 22 acres are AVLT, 250 acres City/County, and the rest is private land. That data has since been analyzed by an environmental consultant (Dahl Environmental), which has just presented their findings to the Roaring Fork Valley Forest Coalition as of April 29, 2009. This assessment can be found as an attachment to this document, which provides some key insights into the forested resources including the following: • Bark beetles are a natural component of this forest ecosystem • Eradication of the beetle is neither possible nor desirable • Less intense tree mortality should be expected due to the diversity of tree species found within the Smuggler Mountain Open Space Area • Smuggler Mountain Open Space's tree species composition includes aspen, fir, Douglas - fir, Gambel oak, spruce, and pine. As low as 10 to 15 percent of the open space is comprised of lodgepole pine • Management options range from forest thinning operations to prescribed bums to allowing nature to take its course DISCUSSION: Community Forest The City of Aspen Community Forest Management Plan provides the guiding principles for MPB management in our community pine trees. One of the most important ongoing actions taken year after year is the aggressive public outreach program designed to promote educational information to citizens regarding MPB management. We also implement an integrated pest management strategy approach to controlling this particular insect. What this means is that we don't just simply spray all of the pines as a preventative measure. Cultural treatments are continually being administered to promote healthy trees to allow them to fend off insect attacks, coupled with best management practices determined on a tree by tree basis dependent upon its location, health, size, and value to the community forest. We also employ the use of the pheromone Verbenone in areas where traditional preventative sprays cannot be utilized due to sensitive surroundings. Another key portion of this ongoing management is the fact that additional budget dollars have been set aside for the next several years, as the MPB threat will Page 2 of 4 continue for at least 4-6 years. At this point, control efforts have been highly successful, and it seems as if citizens are continually administering preventative tactics on their land in response to the actions proven effective in the community forest. Smuggler Mountain Open Space As forest management planning efforts move forward as outlined in this document, it is evident that one of the most discussed management planning issues is understanding how the Mountain Pine Beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) will affect the forest resources of the Smuggler Mountain Open Space. This tiny insect, a natural forest insect in our region, is currently being found in higher densities in Lodgepole Pine (Pinus contorta) forests adjacent to and within the Smuggler Mountain Open Space. This insect and its life cycle and habits are described specifically in the document "Hunter Creek/Smuggler Mountain Vegetation Management Assessment" attached to this memorandum (Attachment B). As the Mountain Pine Beetle, currently sweeping through the western states makes its way through the Roaring Fork Watershed, the City and County have been actively participating in mountain pine beetle discussions as well as developing educational materials for the public. These efforts include the creation of the Roaring Fork Valley Forest Coalition which includes the following groups dedicated to management for healthy and sustainable forests in our region: • USDA Forest Service — White River • 101h Mountain Huts National Forest • Bureau of Land Management • Colorado State Forest Service • Aspen Fire Protection District • The Aspen Valley Land Trust • Upper Colorado River Interagency • City of Aspen Fire Management • Pitkin County • Wilderness Workshop • For The Forest As part of these discussions, appropriate management alternatives regarding forest health on the Smuggler Mountain/Hunter Creek properties have become the focus to date. The scientific assessment completed by Dahl Environmental has provided good insight into the current status of the forest and has also provided some potential treatment scenarios. It is also clearly noted in their assessment that the mountain pine beetles "are a natural component of this forest ecosystem. Eradication is neither possible nor desirable." Staff agrees with this comment and feels that any management strategy should consider that environmental fact. The majority of lodgepole pine forest is located at the upper elevations of the assessed area, which is predominately U.S. Forest Service land. The U.S. Forest Service has been open with their plan to allow the beetles to run their natural course and only manipulate forest stands in and around campgrounds for safety purposes. It was noted that the City/County portion of the area consists of approximately 10 to 15 percent lodgepole pine, with other species such as aspen, Douglas -fir, subalpine fir, Gambel oak, and spruce being the dominant cover type(s). Page 3 of 4 A joint meeting/presentation between the City and County Open Space and Trails Boards was conducted on May 6, 2009 in which both boards gave clear direction to continue with its evaluation with the forest assessment in order to define short term management recommendations. Staff is currently conducting this review of the assessment and inventory data with the goal of presenting our findings to the Open Spaces Boards by May 22, 2009. These recommendations will be in consideration of the natural resources portion of the Smuggler Mountain Open Space Management Plan that was completed in 2008. Preliminarily, the recommendations that staff will be presenting at a future meeting with the City and County Open Space Boards will consist of the need for hazard tree removal adjacent to trails and other heavily used areas, public education/outreach strategies such as signage and publications, and wildfire considerations. We are also investigating the efficacy and potential use of the pheromone Verbenone. At this point in time, the only application approved by the Colorado Department of Agriculture and the EPA are pouches placed on individual trees or small non biodegradable flakes distributed throughout the forest. It is possible that biodegradable flakes will be available soon, which will be a more appealing option for the use of this product. The ability for staff to take time and review the inventory, evaluate the data, and carefully consider the potential treatment scenarios is a major factor in the success of any management plan to be implemented in the Smuggler/Hunter Creek area. It was clearly defined by the recent ecological analysis provided by Dahl Environmental that whatever path is chosen, it is a long term and dynamic commitment to be implemented for years to come, and not a simple one time entry into this area. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Financial impacts depend upon the management strategies approved for implementation. Monetary figures are not yet determined. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Impacts vary greatly with the wide diversity of management options that may be recommended upon further evaluation of the ecologic assessment. Any and all impacts will be considered during the evaluation and recommendation formulation process. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: A. Smuggler Mountain Open Space Management Plan B. Hunter Creek/Smuggler Mountain Vegetation Management Assessment Page 4 of 4 Pace 17 and 18, of the adopted Smuggler Open Space Management Plan 4.2.3 Forest Management: Forest management is an important component in maintaining the scenic quality and wildlife habitat on Smuggler. Different types, quantities, and qualities of vegetation species will determine what birds and mammals use the property and the attractiveness of the land from a visual perspective. Specific management steps will incorporate best management practices in an effort to guide managers toward the creation of a place that is safe, healthy, and attractive. Management should strongly consider all ecological consequences of direct and indirect impacts to vegetation. After the analysis of the biological resources inventoried and described on the Smuggler property was completed (Appendix 5.5), it was apparent that forest resources on the property play a pivotal role to the fabric and matrix of the ecological associations on the parcel. Four distinct and separate vegetation communities inventoried within the confines of Smuggler include a significant overstory forest component including vegetation communities that were defined by the following dominant overstory: • Gambel Oak (Quercus gambellii) • Aspen (Populus tremuloides) Overstory Dominant Communities • Lodgepole Pine (Pinus contorta) Overstory Dominant Communities • Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) Overstory Dominant Communites Within each of these dominant overstory types inventoried and described on the Smuggler parcels, there were many specific plant associations that included a number of other typical upper elevation forest species including Englemann Spruce (Picea englemanii) and Sub -alpine Fir (Abies lasiocarpa). The analysis of the forest resources found on the Smuggler property provided an excellent picture into what is a very diverse and evolving forest condition with multiple species and multiple overstory/understory associations. The vitality, function, and overall health of the forest resources on Smuggler parcels is an extremely important component of the overall property and drives ecological and social systems which have been protected with the purchase and subsequent management goals of the property. In order to provide the best possible management of these forest resources, forest management planning specific to Smuggler will be critical. Forest resources on this parcel of land are dynamic, and management planning for the resource should also be dynamic, with specific action plans designed to accommodate specific changing goals or changes or stressors on the resource. A successful forest management planning effort will utilize scientific and technical ability and function with specific land -management and public goals for this important resource, which is tied to the ecological health of the entire property. Attachment A Implementation: 1. Perform a Forest Resource Baseline Inventory: A specific inventory of the forest resources on site needs to be completed in order to begin planning specific management goals and prescriptions for forest resource protection and improvement. This inventory should include aerial photography, field stand analysis, density analysis, age class analysis, percent species overstory, forest associations, insect and disease analysis, fuel loading and fuels inventory, unit partition, and all other items typically utilized in forest management activities that sound forest management activities will be based on. 2. Develop a Forest Resource Management Plan: Utilizing specific data collected in the Forest Baseline Inventory, a Forest Resource Management Plan will be created. The Forest Resource Management Plan will combine all of the critical scientific data collected with the goals and expected outcomes of the public and the land -management staff into one set of obtainable goals for the protection and continued health of the forest resource. The Forest Resource Management Plan will also be vital for all decisions related to the property parcels including recreation and other management related areas. 3. Forest Insect Planning and Action Plan: An important subset of the Forest Resource Management Plan will include inventory and management prescriptions of insects and disease which are of concern to the public and how they affect the values of Smuggler. Insects, such Mountain Pine Beetle, have a looming presence on the property and specific action items, based upon scientific inventory and public direction, will be important to implement and guide the management of forest on Smuggler. 4. Fire and Fuel Management Action Plan: Another important subset of the Forest Resource Management Plan will include an inventory and management prescriptions for wildfire and fuel loading. During the current analysis of the forest resources, it was quite evident that fire suppression in a number of the vegetation communities inventoried has had a specific effect on the forest health. Specific fire and fuel management activities prescribed in the Forest Resource Management Plan should be implemented. 5. Collaboration: Multiple federal, state, and local land management agencies as well as adjacent private property owners have a vested interest in the health and the vitality of the forest resources on Smuggler. A collaborative effort among each of the entities to address areas of specific concern such as insect management or wildfire potential analysis should be created in order to pool resources. Attachment A HUNTER CREEK / SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT PREPARED FOR: The Roaring Fork Valley Forest Coalition and For The Forest P.O. Box 3346 Basalt, Colorado 81621 PREPARED BY. Dahl Environmental Services, LLC and Associates 23890 Genesee Village Road Golden, Colorado 80401 April 29, 2009 • ` Socic[y ofAmericao Formecs Copyright Dahl Env ironmental Services, LLC AttaclnnentB DAHL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, LLC Bjorn Dahl Certified Forester, ACF Natural Resource Consultant Wayne D. Shepperd, Ph.D. Consulting Silviculturist Bruce F. Short, CF Certified Forester Natural Resource and Silviculture Consultant Sam Parsons, CF Certified Forester Natural Resource and Wildfire Consultant Cover photo is the City of Aspen from Smuggler Mountain Photo Courtesy, For The Forest 23890 Genesee Village Road • Golden, Colorado 80401 Office: 303-526-2822 • Fax: 303-526-5197 Email: bdahlnn dahlservices.com • Website: www.dahlseivices.com u Copyright Dahl Environmental Services, LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................. "' 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................ 4 2.0 BACKGROUND ........................................... :............................................................... ..... 6 2.1 ASSESSMENT AREA................................................................................................... 6 2.2 FOREST HEALTH SITUATION.................................................................................. 7 2.3 FOREST ECOLOGY.................................................................................................... 10 2.4 HUMAN / SOCIAL BACKDROP............................................................................... 13 3.0 CURRENT MANAGEMENT SITUATION.................................................................... 15 3.1 OWNERSHIP PATTERN............................................................................................ 15 3.2 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND DIRECTION ................................................. 15 3.2.1 PRIVATE LANDS.................................................................................................... 15 3.2.2 ASPEN / PITKIN COUNTY..................................................................................... 15 3.2.3 ASPEN VALLEY LAND TRUST............................................................................ 16 3.2.4 WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST.................................................................... 17 4.0 POTENTIAL TREATMENT SCENARIOS.................................................................... 19 4.1 TREE CUTTING... ................................................ ...................................................... 19 4.1.2 INDIVIDUAL TREE CUTTING - MIXED SPECIES ............................................. 20 4.1.3 SPECIES DESIGNATION CUTTING - MIXED SPECIES .................................... 20 4.1.4 THINNING TO TARGET DENSITIES - LODGEPOLE PINE .............................. 21 4.1.5 REGENERATION HARVEST - LODGEPOLE PINE ............................................ 21 4.2 PHEROMONE TREATMENTS.................................................................................. 22 4.3 PRESCRIBED FIRE..................................................................................................... 22 4.4 FUELS MANAGEMENT............................................................................................ 23 4.4.1 FUEL "SPOT" TREATMENTS............................................................................... 24 4.4.2 GENERAL FUELS TREATMENTS........................................................................ 25 4.5 NO TREATMENT........................................................................................................ 25 5.0 RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT PLAN STRUCTURE .......................................... 27 6.0 GLOSSARY.....................................................................................................................28 7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................................................................32 8.0 APPENDIX.......................................................................................................................36 8.1 APPENDIX A - CRUISE DATA................................................................................. 37 8.2 APPENDIX B - MAPS................................................................................................ 38 iii Copyright Dahl Environmental Services, LLC 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) (hereafter referred to as MPB) is an insect native to the Rocky Mountain area that typically infests ponderosa (Pinus ponderosa), lodgepole (Pinus contorta) and limber pines (Pinus flexihs) (Amman, McGregor and Dolph 1989). Populations of the mountain pine beetle in Colorado have been steadily increasing since the late 1990's and currently are at epidemic levels. Since the late 1990's, the beetle has killed over two million acres of mature lodgepole pine forest statewide (CSFS 2008). The beetle has severely affected portions of the White River National Forest and is now moving into the vicinity of Aspen. The Roaring Fork Valley Forest Coalition, which includes the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, the Aspen Valley Land Trust, private individuals and For The Forest are participating in an assessment of the opportunities for forest management activities aimed at combating the spread of mountain pine beetle in the upper Roaring Fork River valley. This vegetation management assessment covers a diverse landscape immediately northeast of the city of Aspen, Colorado. The area is roughly triangular, bounded by Hunter Creek on the north, the City of Aspen on the southwest and the Frying Pan Wilderness on the southeast (Figures 1 and 2). Specifically, this assessment covers 45 forest stands (see Appendix A), totaling 2182 acres that were delineated and inventoried in 2007-2008. Recent MPB mortality was found in 6 of the 45 stands inventoried in 2008, representing 688 acres (31.5%) of the inventoried area. The Smuggler Mountain Road, the principle access to the center of the assessment area, is a favorite route for hiking, mountain biking, cross country skiing, snowshoeing, and other recreational uses of the area. The close proximity of the assessment area to the city of Aspen, its historic significance, and the diversity of vegetation within it make it a highly desirable and socially significant area to both locals and visitors in Aspen. The proximity of public lands to private homes in this area links the interest of all parties as to how lands should be managed to respond to potential threats and expected changes to vegetation. Since MPH and wildfire do not respect property boundaries, what occurs in one ownership can potentially affect all ownerships. Therefore, any management activities that occur in the area must consider social and political concerns, regulations, and objectives as well as ecologic and physical constraints and be mutually acceptable to all. Several factors need to be considered with respect to current and potential MPB activity in the Hunter Creek assessment area. First, we must recognize that native tree -killing bark beetles are a natural component of this forest ecosystem. Eradication is neither possible nor desirable. Secondly, susceptibility is strongly dependent upon the condition of the forest. Tree diameter, stand age and density are positively correlated with likelihood of MPB attack. The diversity of species composition and diversity of stand densities within the assessment area may be one factor favoring a less intense MPB mortality here compared to elsewhere in Colorado. The majority of the stands within the assessment area are of mixed species composition and few are heavily stocked with lodgepole pine. The presence of aspen throughout the area might impart some additional natural resistance from MPB attack in mixed aspen and lodgepole stands. 4 Copyright Dahl Environmental Services, LLC Wildfire is the other major forest management concern for the assessment area. The proximity of homes and other infrastructure as well as the desire to protect the scenic backdrop for the city of Aspen drive the concern about catastrophic wildfire following the MPB outbreak. Several potential treatments alternatives that address both the trajectory of the MPB outbreak and fuels treatments are presented with potential effects. Copyright Dahl Environmental Services, LLC 2.0 BACKGROUND The mountain pine beetle is an insect native i to the Rocky Mountain area that typically aG infests ponderosa, lodgepole, and limber pines (Amman, McGregor and Dolph 1989). j Populations of the mountain pine beetle in 0-'k 0 Colorado have been steadily increasing since the late 1990's and currently are at epidemic '' "� • ill'. levels. Since the late 1990's, the beetle has �� F killed over two million acres of mature e lodgepole pine forest statewide (CSFS 2008). The beetle has severely affected r� portions of the White River National Forest and is now moving into the vicinity of Aspen. Landowners around Aspen, including Figure 1. Location Map the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, the Aspen Valley Land Trust and several private individuals are participating with the Roaring Fork Valley Forest Coalition and For The Forest in assessing the opportunities for forest management activities aimed at combating the spread of mountain pine beetle in the upper Roaring Fork River valley. This document is that assessment. The site location is adjacent to Aspen, Colorado (Figure 1). 2.1 ASSESSMENT AREA This vegetation management assessment covers a diverse landscape immediately northeast of the city of Aspen, Colorado. The area is bounded by Hunter Creek on the north and west, the Roaring Fork River on the south and the Frying Pan Wilderness on the east (Figures 1 & 2). Specifically, this assessment covers 45 forest stands totaling 2182 acres that were delineated and inventoried in 2007-2008. White River National Forest lands comprise the majority of the assessment area, predominately at higher elevations with City of Aspen and Pitkin County lands comprising the next largest ownership. Two private parcels, the Estamar Trust and McCloskey properties along with an Aspen Valley Land Trust tract occupy the remainder of the assessment area. The assessment area is located in the Southern Rocky Mountain Steppe -Open Woodland - Coniferous Forest -Alpine Meadow Ecoregional Province (Smith Environmental and Engineering 2008, Bailey 1995). Elevations of the assessment area range from 8,000 ft. on the western edge near Hunter Creek to 10,500 ft. where the Smuggler Road crosses the southeastern boundary (Google Earth 2009). Lower west -facing slopes are dominated by mountain shrub vegetation, including Gambel oak (Quercus gambehi), and servicebetry (Amelanchier alnifolia). Aspen (Populus tremuloides) groves dominate these slopes from 8,500 ft. to 9,700 ft elevations. Lodgepole pine increases in abundance above these elevations, with nearly pure stands of lodgepole occurring at the highest elevations of the assessment area on south and westerly aspects. North -aspects facing Hunter Creek consist of mixed conifer/aspen forest containing Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca), limber pine, lodgepole pine, and aspen in various combinations, with lodgepole pine dominating above 9,000 ft. Occasional small 6 Copyright Dahl Environmental Services, LLC meadows are also interspersed in drainages throughout the upper elevations of the assessment area. Figure 2. The Hunter Creek Assessment Area with inventoried stands by ownership Geology of the assessment area consists of granite rocks formed 1.3 to 1.48 million years ago, with deposits of glacial drift of the Pinedale and Bull Lake glaciations occurring at higher elevations and along the Roaring Fork valley at the base of the area (Geology Map of Colorado 2009). Soils are characteristically shallow and rocky and derived from metamorphic or sedimentary rock of mixed origin (City of Aspen and Pitkin County Open Space and Trails 2008). 2.2 FOREST HEALTH SITUATION Several insects, including MPB influence the structure and composition of mixed conifer forests similar to those that occur in the Hunter Creek assessment area. The Douglas -fir tussock moth (Orgyia pseudotsugata) and fir engravers (Scolytus ventralis) prefer Douglas -fir. Western spruce budworm (Choristoneura occidentalis) attacks Douglas -fir, subalpine fir (abies lasiocarpa), and Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), but usually ignores pines. Spruce beetle (Dendroctonus rufrpennis) attacks only Engelmann spruce (Hood and others, 2007). While all of these insects could potentially affect the assessment area, MPB is of the most concern at this time. Several factors need to be considered with respect to current and potential MPB activity in the Hunter Creek assessment area. First, we must recognize that native tree -killing bark beetles are a natural component of this forest ecosystem. Eradication is neither possible nor desirable and Copyright Dahl Environmental Services, LLC periodic outbreaks will occur as long as susceptible forests and favorable climatic conditions exist (Fettig and others 2006). Susceptibility however, is strongly dependent upon the condition of the forest. It has long been known that tree diameter and stand age, are positively correlated with likelihood of MPB attack (Amman and others 1977). Tree density has also consistently been associated with the occurrence and severity of bark beetle infestations (Fettig and others 2006), with uniformly -stocked, dense, old lodgepole pine forests being most susceptible to MPB. Forested landscapes that contain little heterogeneity promote the creation of large contiguous areas susceptible to insect outbreaks (Fettig and others 2006). Therefore, management to reduce stand or landscape -level susceptibility to bark beetles must address factors related to tree density (Fettig and others 2006). Reduction of tree density must be done at a large scale to be effective. Schmid and Mata (2005) report that a 17 year study of 1 ha research plots in ponderosa pine in the Black Hills showed that MPB incidence declined with increased levels of thinning, but thinning areas less than 10 ac was ineffective if surrounded by unmanaged high density forest However their results indicate a 100 ft wide strip thinned to an equivalent of 70 ftx of stem cross sectional area per acre (BA 70) may be sufficient to limit MPB spread from unmanaged to partially -cut (managed) areas. (Note that this study was conducted ponderasa pine and not under the pandemic condfrtionr existing in Colorado today). Romme and others (2006) hypothesize that the extensive and severe MPB outbreaks in Colorado today are due to four interacting ecological factors: (1) long-term drought, as indicated by the Palmer Drought Severity Index (Figure 3), that stresses trees; (2) warm summers and (3) warm winters, which enhance beetle growth and survival; and (4) abundant food sources (trees) for beetles. Figure 3. Colorado Statewide PHDI' January 19oo - May 2002 6.0 "°��"'°• 8.0 2.0 0.0 Takner Hydrdopirsl Orapht Index -2.0 4.0 i -6.0 ey sow I Wtl SpNI 1900 1920 1"0 1960 1960 2000 Year National Climatic Data Caner I NESDIS I NOAA With respect to the Hunter Creek assessment area, it should be noted that MPB activity has not yet reached levels of mortality that have occurred in over two million acres in northern Colorado and Wyoming. Recent mortality was found in only 6 of the 45 stands inventoried in 2008 and 8 Copyright Dahl Environmental Services, LLC summarized by Jeff Webster of Total Forestry Services, Anderson, CA in Appendix A. The infested stands total 688 acres (31.5%) of the assessment area. The diversity of species composition and stand densities within the assessment area may be one factor favoring the less intense MPB mortality occurring here compared to elsewhere in Colorado. The majority of the 45 stands within the assessment area are of mixed species composition and only 16 stands (938 ac) contain over 100 BA of lodgepole pine (Appendix A). Of these, all but one stand have quadratic mean diameters (diameter of the tree of average basal area) less than 8 inches, indicating that many small diameter trees exist in these stands that might survive MPH attack. Mixed species stands containing aspen might have some additional natural resistance from MPB attack as research on the effect of volatile chemicals on MPH activity suggests that compounds produced in the bark of aspen disrupt the ability of MPB to successfully disperse (Borden and others 1998). Similar compounds have been shown to increase the effectiveness of the anti - aggregate pheromone Verbenone (Fettig and others 2008, Huber and Borden, 2003). Even with the optimistic expectation of moderate MPB mortality, the real forest health issue in the Hunter Creek assessment area is likely to be increasing risk of Wildfire. Hood and others (2007) state that most pre -settlement era fires in mixed conifer forests were of mixed severity, with surface fires occurring on south and west aspects and patchy crown fires and high intensity surface fires occurring in densely stocked areas typical of northerly aspects. The pattern and species distribution of trees within the assessment area suggest that these forests were also subject to both stand replacement and mixed severity wildfires before the Roaring Fork Valley was settled. Hood and others (2007) summarize available literature and report that mean fire return intervals (MFRI) for mixed conifer forests in southern Utah range from 2-to 129 years. The MFRI for the mixed conifer component of the Hunter Creek landscape is likely very similar. The ages, densities, and average diameters of these forests (Appendix A) also reflect the intensive cutting during the mining era that is described in the historic assessment of the Smuggler Mountain Open Space (Smith Environmental and Engineering 2008). The resulting vegetation mosaic fits that described by Arno (2000) as "small stands dominated by various age structures of seral coniferous species and seral hardwoods such as ...... aspen" that are characteristic of a mixed severity fire regime. Amo's description that "stands within [this] forest zone may have undergone significant changes in recent decades" also fits the maturing of forests within the assessment area and portends a potential change in wildfire risk, regardless of MPH activity. Currently, the USFS/Pitkin Wildland Fire Hazard Map (Pitkin County Emergency Management 2005) lists the steep slopes of the western edge of the assessment area immediately above the town of Aspen as High hazard (Class 5 of 5) with respect to fuels and topography. The Estamar Trust and Pitkin County properties occupying the northwestern corner of the assessment area are also classed as High hazard. The southern portions of Sections 3 and 4 (T10S, R84W, 6PM) as well as most of Section 10 within the Hunter/Smuggler Assessment area are rated moderately high hazard (Class 4 of 5) Most of the remaining Assessment Area is classed as Moderate (Class 3 of 5) on the Wildland Fire Hazard Map. With respect to Risk+ Hazard+Value, only the areas and properties mentioned above that are near the town of Aspen are classified as moderately high (Class 11 or 12 of 13). These hazards and risks are likely to abruptly change if significant MPB mortality occurs within the assessment area. A buildup of downed woody and ladder fuels may move these communities 9 Copyright DaM Enviromnental Services, LLC toward a long -interval stand -replacement fire regime and result in larger, more intense fires than occurred in the past (Arno 2000). Therefore, the USFS/Pitkin Wildland Fire Hazard Map is not likely to be valid if significant MPB mortality occurs. Major MPB mortality is also likely to affect hydrologic relationships and streamflow from the assessment area, similar to that of partial cutting (Shepperd and others 1992). This effect is principally due to a reduction of snow intercepted by live tree crowns and sublimated back into the atmosphere and will contribute to additional early spring runoff that is proportional to the amount of canopy biomass removed from a watershed. Although MPB mortality might produce a measurable increase in water yield in streams within the assessment area, it should not affect water quality since soils would not be disturbed, However, a much different scenario is likely if a typical stand -replacement wildfire burned over the area. In addition to removing all live crown biomass, the fire would also remove all understory vegetation, creating the potential for maximizing runoff and soil erosion. While these events occurred naturally in the past, they would adversely affect fishery habitat and domestic water supplies today. 2.3 FOREST ECOLOGY The distribution of coniferous forests in the southern Rocky Mountains is influenced by both climate and disturbance regime with climatic factors, such as temperature and precipitation, determining where certain forest types can grow and disturbance history determining species dominance and occurrence (Hood and others 2007). Species found within the Hunter Creek assessment area include lodgepole pine, aspen, Engehmann spruce, subalpine fir, Douglas -fir, blue spruce (Picea pungens), ponderosa pine (one stand only), and limber pine (observed, not inventoried). A brief description of the ecologic and growth characteristics of these species follows: Lodgepole pine is a common conifer in the southern Rocky Mountains. It is found in the upper montane and subalpine life zones, occurring in either pure stands, or mixed with other conifers and aspen. Lodgepole is intolerant of shade and prefers full sunlight and bare mineral soil seedbeds to establish and grow well. The most common natural agents influencing lodgepole pine in Colorado and southern Wyoming are fire, MPB, dwarf mistletoe, and wind (Kaufmann and others 2008). Fire and MPB have the capacity to change forests at large scales. Lodgepole pine is considered to be a fire dependent species, meaning that it easily establishes in openings created by high intensity crown fires. Although lodgepole pine is easily killed by such fires, they are uniquely adapted to quickly re-establish on burned sites. The seed of lodgepole pine is often stored in serotinous cones which remain unopened on the tree until the heat of a crown fire melts resin in the cones, allowing them to open and disburse seed on the bare ground and germinate in full sunlight with minimal competition from other plants. Lodgepole pine stands also generally regenerate after a MPB epidemic, because serotinous cones on branches that have fallen near the ground heat adequately in sunlight to release seeds (Kaufmann and others 2008). Trees with larger crowns produce more cones (Lotan and Perry 1983), so density and other factors that control crown size will likely affect the number of seed available to germinate. However, not all lodgepole pine produce serotinous cones. In the Rockies, many stands have less than 50% serotinous trees (Lotan and Perry 1983). Regeneration after MPB may be problematic in stands with a high percentage of non-serotinous trees, since an ample supply of stored seed isn't available and the best full -crowned cone producing trees will likely be killed. Competition with understory vegetation is another complicating factor. Regeneration stocking may be highly 10 Copyright Dahl EnviroTmental Services, LLC variable across a stand depending on the post -epidemic understory species composition and level of occupancy. Lodgepole pine is not as long-lived as other conifers and thus, is dependent upon periodic wildfire to rejuvenate and thrive over time. Lodgepole pine establishes in the first decade after a wildfire. Mortality is initially high but decreases in the fast decade. Self -thinning begins at 25 years of age and increases for the next 200 years (Johnson and Fryer 1989). Mortality is higher than recruitment over time, indicating that populations are not self -reproducing and that wildfire frequency appears to control long-term population dynamics (Johnson and Fryer 1989). Lodgepole pine can occur in pure forests or as components of subalpine or mixed conifer ecosystems at higher and lower elevations, respectively (Kaufmann and others 2008). The purity of lodgepole forests generally reflect the size, intensity and severity of wildfires that created conditions for them to develop. If past wildfires were large and intense, then pure lodgepole forests resulted. If the wildfires were patchy or of mixed severity, then other species are likely to survive and regenerate along with lodgepole pine (Kaufmann and others 2008). MPB is a major insect pest of lodgepole pine. Periodic outbreaks normally kill weaker and larger trees at low to mid elevations of its range. The current west -wide MPB outbreak has been described as unprecedented, but there is little scientific evidence to suggest that similar MPB outbreaks did or did not occur in the distant past (Kaufmann and others 2008). Attacks that might have occurred more than a century ago leave little or no physical evidence on site that can be helpful for determining dates or severity of such attacks. It is certainly possible that outbreaks similar to the current epidemic could have occurred in past centuries or millennia (Kaufmann and others 2008). Aspen is also a sun -loving relatively short-lived tree that depends upon periodic disturbance to thrive (Shepperd and others 2006). Although pure aspen stands do not readily bum in high intensity crown fires, it quickly re -sprouts from its extensive lateral root system following crown fires in mixed conifer/aspen forests. Aspen and lodgepole pine occupy the same successional niche and can be considered to be competitors where they occur together. Both establish in dense stands following fire, thrive in full sunlight and can be replaced by more shade tolerant tree species over time. When they do occur together, aspen dominates the early post -fire site, owing to its fast growth from a pre-existing parent root system. However, lodgepole pine is capable of establishing under the light shade of aspen and will eventually overtop and suppress the aspen to the point that only occasional live aspen trees remain in the forest (Shepperd and Jones 1985). Aspen do not host MPB, but some aspen stands in Colorado are currently being affected by Sudden Aspen Decline (SAD), a stress -related rapid die -off that has been associated with recent drought (Worrall and others 2008). Maintaining an aspen component in a forested landscape can have a very positive benefit on wildlife habitat, predominately by maintaining a rich diverse and productive component of understory vegetation in the forest. Understory biomass in aspen/conifer forests is inversely linked to the amount of conifers present in a stand (Stam and others 2008) (Figure 4). Douglas -fir, a component of northerly slopes in the assessment area, normally occurs in mixed stands in Colorado. More shade tolerant than either lodgepole pine or aspen, it prefers cool shady environments and establishes well in the shade. Douglas -fir exists in areas with a mixed -mode fire regime where periodic surface fires are interspersed with occasional patchy crown tires. 11 Copyright Dahl Enviromnental Services, LLC Crown fire behavior usually occurs in mixed -mode fire regimes where suffigient tree density has built up over time to sustain ignition and consumption of the crowns. Mature Douglas -fir has thick bark, similar to that of ponderosa pine and is very resistant to fire. However, seedlings and saplings of Douglas -fir are vulnerable to surface fires, unlike those of ponderosa pine (Hood and others 2007). The combination of periodic surface and occasional crown fires resulted in a pre - settlement mixed conifer forest that was patchy and very diverse in nature. Aspen and lodgepole pine were also components of these forests, establishing in fire -created openings that were gradually seeded -in by surrounding Douglas -fir. Both species remain as inclusions and minor components of the northerly portion of the assessment area. Douglas -fir is not a host to MPB, but is susceptible to the Douglas -fir bark beetle as well as spruce budworm in Colorado. t � —Predictive Equati t t t JN o t0 PO a0 +0 60 00 ITW ea t00 ConHe Corer (%) on naa • 2003 High Ptrtandal ■ 2003 Law Ptttert0el 9K10 000 two • ea0 400 Z� ■ • 0 Figure 4. Relationship between conifer canopy cover and herbaceous understory production on high- and law potential sites, 2003 data. (Stem and others 2008) Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir occur on north -facing aspects and at higher elevations within the assessment area, but are not dominant in any of the inventoried stands (Appendix A). Both species are very shade tolerant and can readily establish under other conifers. Both are very sensitive to fire, and prefer cold, moist sites with infrequent fire return intervals of a century or longer. Neither are MPB hosts, but mortality attributed to MPB has been reported for spruce in northern Colorado (Personal Communication, Dr. Jose Negron, Rocky Mountain Research Station). Like lodgepole pine, Engelmamr spruce also establishes mostly in the first decade after fire, with recruitment continuing occurring for the next 200 years. As with lodgepole, mortality is higher than recruitment over time, indicating that populations are not self —reproducing and appear to be controlled by fire frequency (Johnson and Fryer 1989). Recent spruce bark beetle outbreaks have affected Engehnarttr spruce elsewhere on the White River National Forest and could be active within the assessment area. Subalpine fir is susceptible to fir engraver and other insects, currently active in Colorado. 12 Copyright Dahl Environmental Services, LLC Other conifers present in the assessment area include ponderosa pine, limber pine, and blue spruce. Ponderosa pine, like lodgepole pine is susceptible to MPB, but typically occurs at lower elevations subject to surface fire regimes. It was inventoried in only one stand in the assessment area (Appendix A). Limber pine being sensitive to fire, is restricted to rocky outcrops and dry areas with little understory vegetation. It is also susceptible to MPB as well as white pine blister rust, an invasive disease that has been found throughout Colorado. While not occurring in any inventory plots, its observed presence in the assessment area indicates that it is of ecological importance to the area and should be retained. Blue spruce, the Colorado State tree, is a riparian species that is found along Hunter Creek and the Roaring Fork River at the lower edges of the assessment area. It is not a MPB host, but has also reportedly been attacked by MPB in the extreme outbreak in north -central Colorado (see Negron communication, above). All of the above species, except limber pine have wind -disseminated seed that are dispersed through the forest during periodic good seed years. Limber pine seed is heavy and dispersed by birds and small mammals. Seed of all of these conifers establishes best in mineral soil, but germination and establishment is possible under litter and understory vegetation as well. 2.4 HUMAN / SOCIAL BACKDROP The Hunter Creek Assessment Area has had a long history of human use and disturbance and remains very important to the culture of the Aspen community today. Prior to Euro-American settlement, the Roaring Fork Valley and mountains to the east were traditional Ute Indian hunting grounds (Smith Environmental and Engineering 2008). The Utes did use intentionally set fires for maintenance of hunting grounds, but whether the Utes used fire in the Aspen area is unknown. The discovery of gold in the Aspen area led to the greatest human impacts in the assessment area. Dozens of mining claims were filed and numerous mines, pits, ditches, and structures were constructed throughout the area. The most intensive activity occurred on lands included in the Smuggler Mountain Open Space, where over 16,800 linear feet of underground workings once existed (Smith Environmental and Engineering 2008). Extensive logging to provide lumber to support mining and the Aspen community also occurred in the late 10 century. This including complete removal of some forests as evidenced by stumps remaining today (Smith Environmental and Engineering 2008). The species composition, age and size class structure of forests growing in the area today (Appendix A) is further evidence of the extensive disturbance from mining activities throughout much of the assessment area. The historic record of disturbance also plays a role in the extensive recreational use of the area today. The Smuggler Mountain Road (Figure 5, Photo courtesy William Murray), was originally constructed for access to the mines located on the mountain and for Figure 5, Smuggler Mountain Road 13 Copyright Dahl Environmental Services, LLC movement of ore, mining timbers and other natural resource products. The road is still the principle access to the center of the assessment area and now is a favorite route for hiking, mountain biking, cross country skiing, snowshoeing, and other recreational uses of the area. The present alignment and condition of the road is not conducive to hauling of logs or other forest products using conventional log or chip trucks without substantial reconstruction (personal communication with Jan Burke, White River National Forest Acting Renewable Resources Staff Officer). Reconstruction of the road for truck traffic would likely be expensive and unpopular with the residents of the area. The road may possibly be acceptable for short -wheelbase trucks (i.e., "bobtail" trucks) for removal of firewood and log "bolts" for posts and poles with drainage improvement and running surface leveling and grading. The close proximity of the assessment area to the city of Aspen, its historic significance, and the diversity of vegetation within it make it a highly desirable and socially significant area to both locals and visitors in Aspen. The proximity of public lands to private homes in this area links the interest of all parties as to how lands should be managed to respond to potential threats and expected changes to vegetation. Since MPB and wildfire do not respect property boundaries, what occurs in one ownership can potentially affect all ownerships. Therefore, any management activities must consider social and political concerns, legal regulations and objectives of the various landowners, as well as ecologic and physical constraints. 14 Copyright Dahl Environmental Services, LLC 3.0 CURRENT MANAGEMENT SITUATION 3.1 OWNERSHIP PATTERN The land ownership pattern in the Hunter Creek area reflects past land use history, with both private and public ownership. Public ownership is dominated by the USDA Forest Service, White River National Forest. Based on Geographic Information System calculations, National Forest System lands comprise 1,813 acres (83%) of the planning area. The other public landowners are the City of Aspen and Pitkin County (251acres/12%). The Aspen Valley Land Trust (AVLT) is a quasi -public land manager controlling 22 acres (1%). Privately -owned lands comprise the remaining 89 acres (4%) of the assessment area. National Forest lands dominate the eastern portion of the assessment area. The other ownerships are in the western portion of the assessment area adjoining the city of Aspen. The non -national forest tract patterns are shaped by historic mining claims, so are often linear and do not follow topographic features. The Smuggler Mountain Road (County Road 21/Forest Road 131) climbs eastward from Aspen through the city, county and private ownerships into the National Forest and bisects the assessment area. This road provides public access to the Smuggler Open Space and the National Forest. 3.2 MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND DIRECTION 3.2.1 PRIVATE LANDS The McCloskey tract is one of two privately owned tracts in the assessment area. The other privately owned property, the Estamar Trust, is under a conservation easement with AVLT and discussed in that section. McCloskey Tract The McClosky family has removed individual lodgepole pine infested with MPB in past years to reduce the rate of spread of the infestation. They have not been communicated with directly, but their major concerns are postulated as maintaining a quality scenic backdrop on the property and a reasonably healthy forest situation. To those ends, management objectives are estimated to be: o Remove and/or treat MPB infested lodgepole pine promptly. o Manage vegetation for a natural appearance. o Management should be compatible with the AVLT and Smuggler Mountain Open Space properties. 3.2.2 ASPEN /PITKINCOUNTY The Smuggler Mountain Open Space is managed by the City of Aspen Parks Department. Management emphasis for the area is primarily for recreational uses consistent with preserving the generally undeveloped character of the tract. Specific management objectives for forest management are: 15 Copyright Dahl Emironmentat Services, LLC • Maintain the undeveloped forested landscape as a scenic backdrop for the City of Aspen. • Provide a safe user environment by maintaining healthy forest conditions across the area. Hazard trees along roads, trails and concentrated use areas would be removed as soon as identified. • Protect the Open Space and the City of Aspen from catastrophic wildfire through appropriate fuels management treatments consistent with the native forest ecosystem present in the area. • Manage the forest landscape as a sustainable native ecosystem. 3.2.3 ASPEN VALLEY LAND TRUST Verena Mallory Park and Emilee Benedict Park are owned by AVLT. A private tract, the Estamar Trust, is under conservation easements with AVLT. Specific management direction is outlined below: Verena Mallory Park o The park shall be used exclusively as a natural park, open space area and scenic viewpoint. o Motorized vehicles are prohibited. o No new roads or trails shall be constructed. o The natural topography and vegetation shall not be altered. • Emilee Benedict Park o The park's purpose is scenic protection. o Alteration of the natural topography and vegetation is prohibited. o Disturbance within 20 feet of the mean high water line of Hunter Creek is prohibited. o Motorized use is prohibited except for trail maintenance and emergency access. • Estamar Trust o The property has a "building envelope" containing a caretaker dwelling, access road and horse stable and pasture. Maintenance and improvements to this infrastructure are permitted. o Construction, improvement and maintenance of the Hunter Creek Cutoff access are permitted. o Planting and maintenance of landscaping to screen existing developments from Hunter Creek Trail are permitted. o Grazing and management of the existing horse pastures is permitted. Although these objectives do not specifically state what vegetation manipulations are acceptable to maintain the natural vegetation within conversation easements, removal of MPB infected trees has been done on the AVLT tracts within the assessment area. 16 Copyright Dald Enviromnental Services, LLC 3.2.4 WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST The White River National Forest is managed under the White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 2002 Revision (USDA Forest Service 2002). Management Areas (MA's) defined for the Hunter Creek/Smuggler Mountain assessment area in the Plan are displayed in Figure 6. Figure 6. Hunter Creek / Smuggler Mountain Assessment Area Boundary and White River National Forest Management Areas Forest Plan management direction related to forest vegetation management for the included MA's is as follows: • MA 1.2 Recommended for Wilderness o Timber harvest is prohibited. o Prescribed fire may be used to restore areas to the Historic Range of Variation (HRV) o Noxious weed control is allowed • MA 1.31 Backcountry Recreation — Non -Motorized o Timber harvest is allowed o No new roads are allowed o Noxious weed control is allowed 17 Copyright Dahl Environmental services, LLC • MA 4.2 Scenery o Timber harvest is allowed o Vegetation management activities should be designed to maintain the desired scenery resource objectives and recreation setting o Noxious weed control is allowed • MA 4.32 Dispersed Recreation, High Use o Timber harvest is allowed o Vegetation management activities should be designed to maintain the desired recreation setting o Noxious weed control is allowed o New permanent road construction is allowed, but it should be designed to facilitate recreational uses of the area MA 5.4 Forested Flora and Fauna Habitats o Timber harvest is allowed and will be designed to encourage more early - successional lodgepole pine and aspen stands o Vegetation management is designed to simulate natural disturbances o Prescribed fire may be used to accomplish vegetation management objectives o New permanent road construction is allowed, but open travelways should not exceed an average density of two miles per square mile Project -level environmental analysis per the National Environmental Policy Act is required for any project proposal on National Forest Lands. 18 Copyright Dahl Enviromnental Services, LLC 4.0 POTENTIAL TREATMENT SCENARIOS This section describes potential treatment scenarios for the various ownerships in the planning area and displays benefits and risks of each. No Treatment is included as a viable treatment option. The scenarios are not site -specific treatment prescriptions, but are presented to show the types of treatments which could be implemented for sets of forest types and conditions. The mortality of lodgepole pine that has already occurred in the planning area coupled with the likelihood of some level of continued mortality makes pro -active fuels management important. Wildfire hazard management which includes manipulation and reduction of existing and anticipated fuel loads is recommended to protect the developed areas of Aspen and its environs into the future. 4.1 TREE CUTTING The purpose for cutting trees in response to the current MPH outbreak is several -fold. First, removal of infested trees and disposing of them before adult beetles emerge will reduce the potential for insects to spread to new trees. Reducing forest density in crowded stands will make more water and nutrients available to remaining trees improving their vigor and making them more resistant to MPB attack. Removing trees can also create a more resilient forest by reducing wildfire risk, allowing the establishment of new age classes, and increasing the diversity of understory plants. Tree cutting therefore covers a wide range of activities. It can range from low - intensity individual MPB-affected tree cutting with no removal of products to relatively intensive thinning and strategic patch cutting treatments for MPB and wildfire risk reduction coupled with product removal. Current scientific opinion is that active vegetation management is unlikely to stop the spread of the mountain pine beetle outbreak now occurring in Colorado (Kaufmann and others 2008). However, thinning of lodgepole pine has shown reduction in losses to MPB (McGregor 1985; McGregor and others 1987), particularly when coupled with the use of pheromones (Gillette and others 2009, Samman and Logan 2000; McGregor and others 1984). The tree cutting scenarios displayed below are by no means the only harvest treatments which could be implemented within the assessment area. They are examples of portions of the range of potential treatments and aimed at specific forest cover types present within the area Forest product removal, whether logs, firewood bolts or chips, is problematic in the eastern portions of the assessment area due to the condition of the Smuggler Mountain Road. Helicopter yarding is technically feasible but relatively expensive for the quality and quantities of products available. Truck -based removal of products is more economically feasible in the western portion of the area. Since removal of cut trees by conventional methods is not likely across large portions of the assessment area, other methods to treat both the insects and fuels associated with the cut trees are required. Treatment methods could include: • Piling and burning on -site: Burning of current MPB-infested trees would need to be accomplished by the first of June the year after infestation to reduce beetle populations. Burn pile locations would need to be rehabilitated due to soil sterilization. 19 Copyright Dahl Environmental Services, LLC • Removal to on -site incinerators: Air -curtain incinerators can burn material with little smoke and no soil sterilization issues. The volume of material would likely require several incinerators in order to bum the material prior to beetle flight. • Removal of firewood and bolts by short -wheelbase trucks: This method could provide firewood and post and pole material to the local area. Prompt processing of the bolts and de -barking of the firewood material would be needed to avoid moving beetles elsewhere in the area. • Chipping: Chipping of the material is feasible, but large piles of chips may attract ips beetles. Leaving chips in place would increase fuel loads and potential wildfire hazard. Removal could take up landfill space if the chips are not used for mulch, compost or biofael. • Treat logs in place: This method could be accomplished by de -barking logs in place or covering them with plastic after spraying with carbaryl or a similar insecticide. The bark beetle issue would be reduced, but long -terns fuels would still be increased. 4.1.2 INDIVIDUAL TREE CUTTING - MIXED SPECIES This scenario focuses on cutting individual trees, as they are infested by MPB. Trees could be removed as logs or firewood sized bolts or treated on -site, depending on access and removal costs. Trees left on -site would need to be treated by de -barking or spraying with insecticides to kill emerging beetles and would increase fuel loads. This type of harvest treatment can minimize visual effects of treatments and can reduce the population buildup of beetles, but does not ecologically reduce a forest stand's susceptibility to MPB attack. Stands treated in this manner would have to be entered every year until the MPB population dwindled. This type of treatment is most appropriate for mixed species stands in which lodgepole pine comprises less than one third of the trees larger than six inches DBH. This scenario could also be used in conjunction with attractant and anti -aggregation pheromones for trap -tree treatments. Removal of individual dead trees that would pose a hazard to recreational users of the area would also fall within this treatment option. 4.1.3 SPECIES DESIGNATION CUTTING- MIXED SPECIES This treatment would cut all the MPB-susceptible lodgepole pine in a mixed species stand (Figure 7, Photo courtesy William Murray), in one entry. Cut trees would need to be removed or otherwise treated in order to remove the threat of secondary forest insect problems (e.g. Ips beetles) and for fuels reduction. This type of treatment can be effective in reducing MPB population pressure close to the treated stand(s) (Schmid and Mata 2005), but the degree of effectiveness depends on the current level of infestation and the size of area treated. Stands that have less than 50% lodgepole pine greater than six inches DBH would be Figure 7. Mixed -Species Area with Scattered MPB Mortality 20 Copyright Dald Environmental Services, LLC candidates for this treatment scenario. Again, pheromone treatments using attractants in combination with harvest may further enhance effectiveness (Samman and Logan 2000; Gillette and others 2009). 4.1.4 THINNING TO TARGET DENSITIES — LODGEPOLE PINE Forest stands dominated by lodgepole pine which are thinned (Figure 8), to densities of 60 to 80 square feet of basal area per acre prior to infestation by WB have shown reductions in mortality from MPB (Schmid and Mata 2005, Samman and Logan 2000; Anhold, Jenkins and Long 1996; McGregor and others 1987, McGregor 1985). The effect is not permanent, requiring re-entry to maintain those densities over time. This treatment may buy time, maintaining live stands through the current outbreak which would be regenerated to young trees in the future. This scenario would be appropriate for stands of Figure 8. Thinned Lodgepole Pine Stand more than 50% lodgepole pine with minimal WB activity, current and long-term access and management objectives consistent with periodic reentrv. Cut trees would need to be removed or piled and burned in -place for fuels reduction. 4.1.5 REGENERATION HARVEST— LODGEPOLE PINE Lodgepole pine stands with significant current MPB activity (Figure 9), have a low probability of surviving the WB outbreak. Removal of all infested and susceptible trees (lodgepole pine trees larger than six inches DBH) as soon as possible would have the greatest impact on MPB populations in the immediate vicinity of the stands and would provide an opportunity to modify potential wildfire behavior (Jenkins and others 2008). This scenario would be appropriate for currently infested stands consisting of 50% or more lodgepole pine larger than four inches DBH. This treatment option would be limited by access Figure 9. Lodgepole Pine Stand with MPB for harvest equipment and management objectives allowing timber harvest. By definition this is a regeneration harvest. Logging slash treatments would need to provide for prompt regeneration of young trees. Natural regeneration of lodgepole pine would be inexpensive and easy to accomplish by leaving approximately 25% of the tree tops scattered evenly across the harvest area. Aspen, if present, would regenerate easily as well. Regeneration of other species would likely require planting unless seed producing trees are present. 21 Copyright Dahl Environmental Services, LLC 4.2 PHEROMONE TREATMENTS The chemical anti -aggregate pheromone Verbenone has been used in other areas to combat MPB. However it has shown mixed results in both scientific studies and operational use. Formulations with other chemicals have shown effectiveness in some cases (Huber and Borden 2003, Fettig and others 2008, Progar 2003), but not in others (Amman 1994, Negron 2008). Factors that might have influenced these findings include the density and structure of the forests where they were tested, weather patterns during the test periods, insect population levels, or the method of pheromone delivery. While Verbenone has traditionally been applied in the form of baited pouches individually attached to trees, a new method of aerially applying Verbenone-releasing laminated flakes has shown to be effective over large areas. Gillette and others (2009) report that aerial applications of such flakes on 20 ha plots in California and Idaho reduced the rate of MPB attack to a third of that in untreated control plots. While Verbenone has had demonstrated effectiveness in combating MPB, it does not address the associated issues of forest density and crown fire risk. The best chance for successful use of Verbenone would be as part of an integrated approach to combating MPB similar to what has recently been used by the community of Merritt, British Columbia (Shepperd, personal observation). Their approach conducted over the past five years combined mechanical thinning, yearly removal and disposal of infected trees with use of Verbenone pouches to repel MPB away from selected high -value trees. Although such an approach would not be possible in the entire Hunter Creek Assessment Area combining use of Verbenone with silviculture activities would offer the best chance of maintaining desired conditions in the assessment area over the long term. Although use of Verbenone in flake form is currently approved (Gillette and others 2009) additional environmental analysis would also be needed to use it extensively on the National Forest. While this could delay deployment of the pheromone it certainly could be part of an overall treatment strategy in the assessment area. Attractant pheromones have also been used effectively in some locations for trap tree treatments. Prompt removal of trap trees is critical for successful implementation of this type of treatment. 4.3 PRESCRIBED FIRE Prescribed fire applied within the assessment area can, at least theoretically, reduce MPB populations and fuel loads in MPB-affected stands. Applying fire (Figure 10), to the ground can be a complex and uncertain process in practice, however. Burning piles and broadcast burns of material lying on the ground is relatively simple and can be accomplished within reasonably wide "windows" of burning conditions. Burning standing trees however, is much more complicated. The proximity of the western part of the assessment area to structures, Figure 10. Prescribed Fire in Mixed -Conifer Stand 22 Copyright Dahl Environmental Services, LLC homes and other improvement further complicates prescribed fire application in the Smuggler Mountain Open Space area. Management Area 1.2 in the White River National Forest allows the use of prescribed fire for vegetation manipulation. Since timber harvest is not allowed in that MA, prescribed fire is the only vegetation manipulation tool available. Experience with managed fire in lodgepole pine and mixed conifer stands with heavy standing insect and disease mortality on the 2008 Gunbarrel Fire in northwest Wyoming demonstrated the feasibility of reducing fuel loads and regenerating lodgepole pine stands over extensive landscapes while protecting valuable infrastructure (personal observation by Bruce Short). Smoke management for extended periods (10 to 12 weeks), intensive public involvement and information sharing and immediate availability of suppression resources are key concerns in undertaking such a project. 4.4 FUELS MANAGEMENT The MPB infestation will undoubtedly affect potential fire behavior in the conifer dominated stands. Most likely the fire hazard in these stands will be at the highest during the first 2 to 5 years after the epidemic due to the increase in fine fuels on the surface and in the aerial stratum. After the dead needles fall wildfire hazard declines until the dead holes begin falling within 10 years. Wildfire risk increases again for 20 to 50 years due to the large fuel loads present until the tree boles decompose (Manning and others 1982). Decomposition rates are faster in wanner, wetter climates and slower in colder, dryer climates. Jenkins and others (2008) evaluated the influence of bark beetle -caused tree mortality on fuels characteristics over the course of an outbreak. They found that changes in fuels over time (Figure 11), also alter the potential for high intensity and/or severe fires. Decreased aerial fuel continuity following outbreaks resulted in passive crown fires being more likely to occur in post -epidemic stands, but active crown fires were less likely due to occur. M.J. Jenkins et al./Forest Ecology and Management 254 (2008) 16-34 (c) i 16 Lodgepole Pine 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Time (years) Utter 0.5 — — Dufl(DMded by 10) 0.4 a ------ 0 7.62cm y >7.62 (D iAded by 10) 0.3 d Hiebecous Biomass 0 E --- shrub Biomass 0.2 'r Fuel Particle Intercept Depth m n a m 0.1 � Endemic 0 Epidemic Post -Epidemic Figure. 11. The influence of bark beetle mortality on various fuels characteristics during the period between bark beetle outbreaks in lodgepole pine. 23 Copyright Dahl Enviromnental Services, LLC 4.4.1 FUEL "SPOT" TREATMENTS Gercke and others (2006) found that strategic placement of treatments (SPOTS) on the landscape may effectively disrupt or reduce large wildfire spread and can initiate a long-term restoration goal. However, they caution that restoration is not fully achieved after one entry, but requires multiple entries over many years. A hypothetical initial treatment in the central portion of the assessment area is displayed in Figures 12 through 14. All the treatments would be regeneration harvests in lodgepole pine dominated stands. This option would also create spatial and age class diversity in this landscape, which would benefit a variety resources over time. Figure 12. Hypothetical Orientation of Fuel Treatment Polygons —Aerial View Figure 13. Hypothetical Orientation of Fuel Treatment Polygons — View from Aspen Institute 24 Copyright Dahl Environmental services, LLC Figure 14. Hypothetical Orientation of Fuel Treatment Polygons — View from Aspen Mountain 4.4.2 GENERAL FUELS TREATMENTS All mechanical treatments should integrate mitigation or reduction of the woody fuels created. In addition, fuel breaks should be considered for areas within the assessment area in proximity to roads, trails and other public use area in all forest cover types. The concept is to provide defensible space for these areas and to reduce the probabilities of sustained crown fires moving across the landscape. Treatments can be accomplished with small brush mowing equipment, band thinning, pruning, hand piling, and chipping as well as conventional timber harvest activities. 4.5 NO TREATMENT Not treating properties in the assessment area is a viable management option, but it has a number of consequences. The major consequences are visual and safety -related. The anticipated mortality from the MPB epidemic will change the scenic views from some viewpoints around Aspen, reducing the amount of green forest over the next ten years. The impact will be more noticeable in stands that have a larger amount of lodgepole pine. Since these stands are at higher elevations, many of these stands are not seen from downtown Aspen., but some are Views of the assessment area from the upper slopes of the ski areas will be most affected. Of course, the most dramatic and intimate visual impacts will be to recreational users of these sites. Stands with less than 30% lodgepole will quickly recover their pre -outbreak scenic quality as the dead trees lose their needles within 3 to 5 years. The diversity of tree species in these stands will insure a forested appearance in the future, although standing dead lodgepole will remain for some time. These stands are at lower elevations and generally more visible from Aspen. Similarly, surviving trees of other species and regenerating lodgepole pine will screen 25 Copyright Dahl Environmental Services, LLC dead trees and soften the visual impact to recreational users of the Hunter Creek/Smuggler Mountain area. Stands with more than 30% lodgepole pine will have more noticeable effects on scenic views for longer periods as the stands regenerate themselves. Any wildfire occurrence will extend these timeframes. Safety issues revolve around hazard trees and wildfire. The dead lodgepole will begin falling within 10 years and can be a hazard if they are in proximity to roads, trails and other public use areas. The fuels resulting from the MPB epidemic will be an increased wildfire hazard for up to 50 years. Under a no treatment option, recreation use of the area will likely have to be severely restricted because of the hazard of falling trees, and danger of fire ignition during windy days and dry fuel conditions. 26 Copyright Dahl Environmental Services, LLC 5.0 RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT PLAN STRUCTURE The development of specific treatment options for individual stands is not within the scope and intent of this assessment. However, we would like to suggest an outline for such a Plan. A Forest Management Plan for the assessment area should consist of the following parts: A. Ecological Background B. Forest Health Situation C. Fuels Management Situation D. Current Forest Stand Structure and Composition by Ownership E. Management Constraints, Direction and Objectives by Ownership F. Evaluation Criteria G. Response Options H. Management Prescriptions by Ownership and by Stand I. Monitoring/Evaluation Recommendations Although this assessment document discusses the listed subject areas, the management plan should go into more site -specific detail in developing treatment options. Each stand within the assessment area was delineated to encompass a uniformly stocked and structured area that could be managed as a unit. Therefore, development of treatment options for each of theses areas should consider its unique attributes within the context of the above topic areas. The resulting treatment prescriptions should include complete and detailed summaries of stand structure and stocking and present detailed marking and treatment descriptions including recommended procedures to accomplish the desired management goals for the site. The Hunter Creek/Smuggler Mountain area presents an excellent opportunity for collaboration among a variety of federal, local government and private landowners and stakeholders to accomplish an integrated vegetation management response in a landscape highly regarded by all. Management of this area is not about cutting trees to prevent MPB attack. It is about maintaining a desired forest condition that meets the long-term needs of the people sharing the land. The political and regulatory solutions to meet those needs, can work here, but can also serve as a model for other highly -valued near -urban lands throughout the West. 27 Copyright Dahl Envirormnental Services, LLC 6 0 GLOSSARY acre: an area of land containing 43,560 square feet or 10 square chains. A square acre would be about 209 feet by 209 feet. A circular acre would have a radius of 117.75 feet. artificial regeneration: trees that are planted and not naturally reproduced in a particular location. basal area: the cross -sectional area of a single stem, including the bark, measured at breast height (4.5 feet above the ground) For example, the basal area of a tree 14 inches in diameter at breast height is about 1 square foot. Basal area = 0.005454 times diameter squared. (b) of an acre of forest: the sum of basal areas of the individual trees on the area. For example, a well stocked pine stand might contain 80 to 120 square feet of basal area per acre. blowdown: trees or trees felled or broken off by wind canopy: the foliage formed by the crowns of trees in a stand coppice: the production of new stems from the stump or roots; to cut the main stem at the base or to injure the roots to simulate the production of new shoots for regeneration clearcut: a regeneration method which removes all the trees (regardless of size) on an area, makes openings in the forest canopy and is most used with species like pine which require full sunlight to reproduce and grow well, produces an even -aged forest stand. defensible space: an area around a structure where fuels and vegetation are treated, cleared or reduced to slow the spread of wildfire towards the structure diameter at breast height (dbh): the diameter of a stem of a tree at 4'/x feet above the ground dominant: One of four crown classes recognized on the basis of relative position and condition of the stand. Specifically, trees with crowns extending above the general level of the crown cover, receiving full light from above and partly from the side; larger than the average trees in the stand, and with crowns well -developed but possibly somewhat crowded on the sides. downed fuels: the accumulated woody and vegetative material on the forest floor from leaf/needle fall, natural pruning and breakage that serves as fuel for wildfire. even -aged forest: a stand in which relatively small age differences exist between individual trees, the maximum difference in age permitted to consider a stand even -aged is usually 10-20 years. For example, during a 100 year rotation, the age difference would not exceed 20 years. An even -aged forest may be a natural or an artificially regenerated stand free -to -grow: a seedling or small tree free from direct competition from other trees, shrubs, grasses or herbaceous plants. 28 Copyright Dahl Environmental Services, LLC fuel loading: the oven -dry weight of fuel per unit area fuelbreak: A strategically located strip or block of land (of varying width) depending on fuel and terrain, in which fuel density is reduced, thus improving fire control opportunities. The stand is thinned and remaining trees are pruned to remove ladder fuels. Most brush, heavy ground fuels, snags and dead trees are removed and an open park -like appearance established. improvement cutting: the removal of less desirable trees of any species in a stand of poles or larger trees, primarily to improve composition and quality interplant: setting young trees amongst existing forest growth, planted or natural ladder fuels: combustible material that provides vertical continuity between vegetation strata and allow fire to climb into the crowns of trees or shrubs with relative ease. litter: the surface layer of a forest floor that is not in an advanced stage of decomposition, usually consisting of freshly fallen leaves, needles, twigs, stems, bark, and fruits lop and scatter: a hand method of removing the up -ward branches from tips of felled tress to keep slash low to the ground, to increase rate of decomposition, lower fire hazard, or as a pre- treatment prior to burning. natural regeneration: trees or an age class of trees growing from natural seeding or natural vegetative reproduction (suckering, layering or sprouting). overstory removal: third step of a shelterwood cut when the seed trees are harvested creating an open patch in full sunlight. patch clearcut: form of clearcutting leaving irregular openings in the forest canopy. pioneer species: a plant capable of invading new bare sites, e.g., newly exposed soil, and persisting there or colonizing them until supplanted by successional species. pure stand: a stand composed principally of one species, conventionally at least 80 percent based on numbers, basal areas, or volumes salvage cutting: the removal of dead trees or trees damaged or dying because of injurious agents other than competition, to recover economic value that would otherwise be lost. sanitation cutting: the removal of trees to improve stand health by stopping or reducing the actual or anticipated spread of insects or disease. sapling: a usually young tree larger than a seedling but smaller than a pole. serotinous: pertaining to fruit or cones that remain on a tree without opening for one or more yea 29 Copyright Dahl Enviroranental Services, LLC snag: a standing, generally unmerchantable dead tree from which the leaves and most of the branches have fallen seed cut of a 2-step shelterwood harvest: establishment cut which removes all trees from a patch except the most viable seed trees which provide the natural regeneration seed source for the next generation. seedling: (a) a tree, usually less than 2 inches in DBH, which has grown from a seed (in contrast to a sprout). (b) a nursery grown tree which has not been lifted and replanted in the nursery (see transplant) shelterwood cut: removing trees on the harvest area in a series of two or more cuttings so new seedlings can become established from the seed of older trees. This method produces an even - aged forest. shelterwood steps: a regeneration method an even -aged stand to establish a new age class beneath the and under the care of residual trees. Sequence of treatments can be three distinct types of seed step cuttings: First step is optional preparatory cut to enhance conditions for seed production; Second step is the establishment cut to prepare the seed bed and to create a new age class Third step is the Overstory Removal cut to release established regeneration from competition of older overstory trees. These shelterwood steps can be done on 1, 2 or 3 sequences depending stand structure and management objective. Cutting may be done systemically throughout the stand (called a Uniform Shelterwood), in groups or patches (Group Shelterwood), or in strips (Strip Shelterwood), (US Forest Service, 2007) silviculture: the art, science, and practice of establishing, tending, and reproducing forest stands of desired characteristics. It is based on knowledge of species characteristics and environmental requirements stand: a contiguous group of trees sufficiently uniform in age -class distribution, composition, and structure, and growing on a site of sufficiently uniform quality, to be a distinguishable unit thinning: a cultural treatment made to reduce stand density of trees primarily to improve growth, enhance forest health, or recover potential mortality track scarify: mechanically breaking up the forest floor to increase the likelihood of seed finding a suitable seedbed. Can be best accomplished with a tracked machine. Also presses the cones closer to the soil surface. uneven -aged forest: a stand with trees of three or more distinct age classes, either intimately mixed or in small groups. 30 Copyright Dald Environmental Services, LLC windbreak: a strip of trees or shrubs maintained mainly to alter windflow and microclimates in the sheltered zone, usually farm buildings windfirm: trees able to withstand strong winds and resist windthrow Source: (Helms 1998) 31 Copyright Dahl Environmental Services, LLC 7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY Amman, G.D. 1994. Potential of verbenone for reducing lodgepole and ponderosa pine mortality caused by mountain pine beetle in high value situations. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW 150. Albany, CA. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station. p33-37. Amman, G.D., McGregor, M.D., Cahill, D.B., Klein, W.H., 1977. Guidelines for Reducing Losses of Lodgepole Pine to the Mountain Pine Beetle in Unmanaged Stands in the Rocky Mountains. GTR-IN'r-36. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, 19pp. Amman, G.D., McGregor, M.D., and Dolph, R.F., Jr. 1989. Mountain pine beetle. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 2 (rev.). USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 1 1p. Anhold, J.A., Jenkins, M.J., Long, J.N. 1996. Management of lodgepole pine stand density to reduce susceptibility to mountain pine beetle attack. West. J. Appl. For. 11(2): 50-53 Arno, S.F. 2000. Chapter 5: Fire in Western Forest Ecosystems In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p97-120. Aspen Valley Land Trust. 2009. Website accessed 3/22/09 at: <http://www.avlt.org/sitepages/pidl5.php> Bailey, R.G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States (2nd ed.). 1995. Misc. Pub. No. 1391. USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C. Borden, J.H.; Wilson, I.M.; Gries, R.; Chong, L.J.; Pierce, H.D.; Gries, G. 1998. Volatiles from the bark of trembling aspen, Populus tremuloides Michx. (Salicaceae) disrupt secondary attraction by the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins (Coleoptera: Scolytidae). Chemoecology 8:69-75 City of Aspen and Pitkin County Open Space and Trails. 2008. Smuggler Mountain Open Space Management Plan. 45p. Found 3/19/09 at <http://www. aspenpitkin. com/pdfs/depts/21!SMOS_MP%20Final%20Adopted.pdf> Colorado State Forest Service., 2008. 2007 Report on the Health of Colorado's Forests. Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO. 34p. Dennis, F.C., 1999. Creating Wildfire -Defensible Zones. Colorado State University Cooperative Extension Resource Publication no. 6.302. 2p. Fettig, C.J.; Dabney, C.P.; Mckelvey, S.R.; Huber, D.P.W. 2008. Nonhost Angiosperm vilatiles and verbenone protect individual ponderosa pines from attach by western pine beetle and 32 Copyright Dahl Envirotunewal Services, LLC red turpentine beetle (Coleoptera: Curculoinidae, Scolytinae). Western Journal of Applied Forestry 23(1): 40-45. Fettig, C.J.; Klepzig, K.D.;Billings, R.F.; Munson, A.S.; Nebeker, T.E.; Negron, J.F. Nowak, J.T. 2006. The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States. Forest Ecology and Management. 238(1-3): 24-53 Geologic Map of Colorado 2009. <httn://geology.about.com/library/bl/maosiblcoloradomay.htm> accessed 3/19/09. Gercke, D.M.; Stewart, S.A. 2006. Strategic Placement of Treatments (SPOTS): Maximizing the Effectiveness of Fuel and Vegetation Treatments on Problem Fire Behavior and Effects. In: Andrews, P.L.; Butler, B.W., comps. Fuels Management —How to Measure Success: Conference Proceedings. 28-30 March 2006; Portland, OR. Proceedings RMRS-P-41. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 185-192. Gillette, N.E.; Erbilgin, N.; Webster, J.N.; Pederson, L.; Mori, S.R.; Stein, J.D.; Owen, D.R.; Bischel, K.M.; Wood, D.L. 2009. Aerially applied Verbenone-releasing laminated flakes protect Pinus contorta stands from attack by Dendroctonus ponderosae in California and Idaho. Forest Ecology and Management 257 (2009) 1405-1412 Hardy, C. C., Smith, H.Y., McCaughy, W. 2006. In: Andrews, P. L., Butler, B. W., comps. 2006.Fuels Management — How to Measure Success: Conference Proceedings. 28-30 March 2006; Portland, OR. Proceedings RMRS-P-41. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p451-464. Helms, J. A., editor. 1998. The Dictionary of Forestry. The Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, Maryland. 210p. Hood, S.M.; Miller, M.; Long, D.; Ryan, K.C.; Battaglia, M.; Sheppard, W.D.; Bartos, D.; Tausch, R.J.; Kitchen, S.G.; McArthur, E.D.; Brooks, M.; Esque, T.; Duck, T. 2007. Fire ecology and management of the major ecosystems of southern Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-202. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 110p. Huber, D.P.W.; Borden, J. H. 2003. Protection of lodgepole pines from mass attack by mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae, with nonhost angiosperm volatiles and verbenone. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 99(2): 131-141. Michael J. Jenkins, M.J.; Hebertson, E.; Page, W.; Jorgensen, C.A. 2008. Bark beetles, fuels, fires and implications for forest management in the Intermountain West. Forest Ecology and Management 254: 16-24. 33 Copyright Dahl Envirorunental Services, LLC Johnson, E. A.; Fryer, G.I. 1989 Population Dynamics in Lodgepole Pine-Engelmann Spruce Forests. Ecology. 70(5): 1335-1345. Kaufmann M.R.; Aplet, G.H.; Babler, M.; Baker, W.L.; Bentz, B.; Harrington, M.; Hawkes, B.C.; Stroh-Huckaby, L.; Jenkins, M.J.; Kashian, D.M.; Keane, R.E.; Kulakowski, D.; McHugh, C.; Negron, J.; Popp, J.; Romme, W.H.; Schoennagel, T.; Shepperd, W.D.; Smith, F.W.; Kennedy -Sutherland, E.; Tinker, D.; Veblen, T.T.. 2008. The status of our scientific understanding of lodgepole pine and mountain pine beetles — a focus on forest ecology and fire behavior. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. GFI technical report 2008-2. Lotan, J.E.;Perry, D.A.. 1983. Ecology and regeneration of lodgepole pine. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Handbook. 606. 51p. Manning, G.H., Safranyik, G.H., Van Sickle, R.B., Smith, W.A., Hetherington, E. 1982. A Review of Mountain Pine Beetle Problems in Canada. Environment Canada, Canadian Forestry Service, Victoria, BC McGregor, M. D., Amman, G. D., Schmitz, R.F. and Oakes R.D., 1987. Partial cutting lodgepole pine stands to reduce losses to the mountain pine beetle. Can J. For. Res. 17: 1234-1239. McGregor, M. D., Cole, D.M., eds. 1985. Integrating management strategies for the mountain pine beetle with multiple -resource management of lodgepole pine forests. Gen Tech Rep INT-174, Ogden, UT: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 68p. Negron, J.F; Allen, K.; McMillin, J.; Burkwhat, H. 2006. Testing Verbenone for Reducing Mountain Pine Beetle Attacks in Ponderosa Pine in the Black Hills, South Dakota. Research Note RMRS-RN-31. Fort Collins, CO: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 8p. Pitkin County Emergency Management. 2005. Pitkin County Wildland Fire Plan. 57p. Progar, R.A. 2003. Verbenone Reduces Mountain Pine Beetle Attack in Lodgepole Pine. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 18(4): 229-232. Romme, W.H.; Clement, J.; Hicke, J.; Kulakowski, D.; MacDonald, L.H.; Schoennagel, T.L.; Veblen, T.T. 2006. Recent Forest Insect Outbreaks and Fire Risk in Colorado Forests: A Brief Synthesis of Relevant Research. Ft. Collins, CO, Colorado Forest Restoration Institute. 24p. Samman, S., Logan, J., tech. eds. 2000. Assessment and response to bark beetle outbreaks in the Rocky Mountain area. Report to Congress from Forest Health Protection, Washington Office, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture. Gen Tech Rep. RMRS-GTR-62, Ogden, UT: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 46p. 34 Copyright DaW Environmental Services, LLC Schmid, J.M.; Mata, S.A. 2005 Mountain pine beetle -caused tree mortality in partially cut plots surrounded by unmanaged stands. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-54. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 1 1p. Shepperd, W.D., Jones, J.R. 1985. Nurse crop. In DeByle, N.V. and Winokur, R.P., editors. Aspen: ecology and management in the western United States. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM 119, p 181-184. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Shepperd, W.D.; Troendle, C.E.; Edminster, C.E. 1992. Linking water and growth and yield models to evaluate management alternatives in subalpine ecosystems. In: Murphy, D., comp. Getting to the future through silviculture - Workshop proceedings; May 6-9, 1991; Cedar City UT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-291. Ogden UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. p42-48. Shepperd, W.D.; Rogers, P.C.; Burton, D.; Bartos, D.L. 2006. Ecology, biodiversity, management, and restoration of aspen in the Sierra Nevada. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS- GTR-178. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 122p. Smith Environmental and Engineering. 2008. Historic assessment of the Smuggler Mountain Open Space Pitkin County, Colorado. Unpublished report, City of Aspen Parks and Recreation Department. 26p. Stam, B.R.; Malechek, J.C.;. Bartos, D.L.; Bowns, J.E.; Godfrey, E.B. 2008. Effect of conifer encroachment into aspen stands on understory biomass. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61(1): 93-97. USDA Forest Service., 2002. White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 2002 Revision. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Golden, CO. 202p. USDA. Forest Service. 2009. White River National Forest Management Areas Map, revised 2006. Found on 3/22/09 at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver/proj ects/forest_plan/plan/maps/mgmt_area_map.pdf Worrall J.J., Egeland L., Eager, T., Mask, R.A., Johnson, E.W., Kemp, P.A., Shepperd W.D. 2008. Rapid mortality of Populus tremuloides in southwestern Colorado, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 255(3-4): 686-696. 35 Copyright Dahl Enviromnental Services, LLC 8.0 APPENDIX 36 Copyright Dahl Environmental Services, LLC 8.1 APPENDIX A- CRUISE DATA 37 Copyright Dahl Enviromnental Services, LLC r,na t1.r111 Cruise Stands for Smuggler Mountain Forest Vegetation Simm at or Summary end.,,Ara, roon. Sod,, bmu,d o o tlA �M'r. ��r -•®___Ei3.lfffi3lfffEf!?i���Iff��IflffS3fffft�7tlr3�l�Eb:.�E�6:T--�1�—_ee�1�®__mot--•--�_©_uvt���� WWI �� •s:�_®�����®ELF3�����116'llQS.•'IE'3."_•E@Q�[7®m_u��o__`�If©I_I©t.5Gk8Jl3nP�Ys-'J•� �®�:sip®���ce:.:d�.s®�Er �� resif6_f®E4it:���d9��lEiS���,'.'iL£.��^'E6'�S?.E@0fl ©ESE .:�t.�"'®_6S`�����E���.'"—..t.'..��G�._..EL+r�'�•Ll�©�F3�3�0__�"f©—©L'li:F�l4i��� ��� �Xi___�6®®EE4I;�®���.—..Ei.��-5�3',E�®�00E•im�r�__®©—�JULl�IFia�� �E—i :F1�__!}' ®®E!§3,��®�_L:.t2 rr&.� �;.� d:QF', t!a©©_EF14�©__®©—©IEL;I!•t•FJ� ®���31'Ef3'��..��ELr^©0_©k'FA�O__0_—©'IiL[l♦�� ■�■ �■�r a ■■■e��®���®�■�����■���®�■■sue©■■�■e■�� EN ■■■MME 19w�t�S'.'.��'�_."ECG,�'mom®_ELY3�©__®iIi_®©IJI=2��.. ■ wwwwwwom Ecroa_©Enna®__a.�r�,ao©—ouct+L�ttrl® EL�"IfO�__E�1�®__lill_®ouu�� a—_rsn�o__�s1,__—IEc+c�lF]zi•�. ©_--19(i.�SHilFix��Il ®�i4'1Lv.9511F]a��' 11151�©__tt�Ff no 0 M ©■■®■■■RM�E= ��: ®�f:..:: Eta_®r�n�®�������r�����Em•+®a__rra�m__o_®ii��rr�¢�-ram �O�E4:r`��Ri#i����®�Er�".���®E4}S:'.Ir�©__[!�.'f�©__m Ef}iS.®�©L7 lim' mm_—®_—_� ^�IIEF]3!•CP`rS� B—ii11G'ellF ©—urs���t�taa 'J•f3•�'rsa --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Total Forestry Explanations of Columns on Stand Exam Summary 1. Webster - 11/13/08 4/2/2009 Column Heading Explanation Stand Number Last 3 digits of USFS stand numbers Cruise Acres Acres of stand cruised TPA Total Live Trees per Acre MD Quadratic Mean Diameter Breast Height DBH SDI Stand Density Index Dom Spp Age Avg. Age of the Dominantspecies for Trees >7" DBH Total BA Total Basal Area Sub -Alpine BA BA of Sub -Alpine Fir DF BA Douglas -fir Basal Area LP BA Lod a ole BA PP BA Ponderosa Pine BA ES BA En elmann Spruce BA Aspen BA Aspen Basal Area OH BA Other Hardwood BA % BA Percent of BA of above species Stand Type Based on Percent BA Species type for species greater than 50% of stand Recent Mortality Recent mortality as collected In stand exam MPB Risk 2008 Mountain Pine Beetle Risk Based on Stand Exam data MPB Risk 2018 Mountain Pine Beetle Risk Based on Stand Exam data grown for 10 yrs Visual Index My estimate based on Species % potentially removed, slope, vicinity to visible public, this will change depending on location, N=No change, L=Low risk of visible activity, M=Moderate visibility of activity, H=Activity Highly visible Current fire Risk Need USFS model and prediction Projected Fire Risk Need USFS model and prediction Stand after LP Harvest Dominantspecies after potential harvest of Lod a ole Log Haul Potential Log Haul Route, H=Hunter Creek, S=Smuggler Mountain Log Need LoggIng needed to remove LP? N=No, Y=Yes Log Type Type of Logging, H=Helicotor, T=Tractor Species Original Stand Type in USFS Database Ownership Property ownership Comments Roadless = In Designated Roadless area, If to treat roads will most likely need to be built or logged by Helico for(very expensive) AppendixA_FVSReport 8.2 APPENDIX B - MAPS 38 Copyright Dahl Emiromnental Services, LLC z of fRy ANNA Hq er ek 4Planning Area ation Map y it t J^•. .. ex 3 � � +�� ..� t ".r p� K tx. c a r a a yr •., ` t r e G xr 36.57,ac q+ 22,43 ac 52.43 ac 345.18 ac 5.45 ac t hip . • _' P' x Ea i 4 a � *3s ��(((( r� 1812.89 ac k S' 77134 ac. fTOR iY.} r ' • u 5.41 ac. a r Y 177.77 ac.. 427.81 ac. 9 r, a 348.9 ac. r k { x' • _ on mn iiut