North Central Washington

Hungry Hunter Multi-Party Monitoring

Quick links for files discussed in this document:
image

Area Analysis for Key Ecosystem Components
in Hunter Mountain Late-Successional Reserve
and Hungry Hunter Environmental Assessment
by
George Wooten, Conservation Northwest Associate, PO Box 501, Twisp, WA 98856

Date: February 23, 2004

To: Responsible Official, James L. Boynton
Forest Supervisor Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests
c/o District Ranger John E. Newcom
24 West Chewuch Road
Winthrop, WA 98856

Subject: Hungry Hunter Ecosystem Management Project

Dear Okanogan & Wenatchee Forest Planning Staff:

Enclosed are analysis documents in support of comments submitted for the Hungry Hunter Ecosystem Management Project. Our analyses determined likely treatment impacts from on the following ecosystem components: old growth / mature forests, Late-Successional Reserves, RARE II roadless areas, uninventoried roadless areas, unsuitable harvest areas, distance to wildland-urban interface (WUI) zones, wetlands, unroaded road density and forest connectivity.

Sincerely yours,
image
George Wooten
Conservation Northwest Associate

Background

There is a need to evaluate ecosystem management projects using a geographic information system (GIS). A GIS provides information on the spatial arrangement of management units under different environmental and managerial scenarios.

Kettle Range Conservation Group evaluated the Hungry-Hunter Ecosystem Management Project Environmental Assessment (EA), which is proposed within areas managed under the Northwest Forest Plan. In order to assess the area, we used Arcview GIS in combination with information from field visits.

Methods

Our analyses determined likely treatment impacts from on the following ecosystem components: old growth / mature forests, Late-Successional Reserves, RARE II roadless areas, uninventoried roadless areas, unsuitable harvest areas, distance to wildland-urban interface (WUI) zones, wetlands, unroaded road density and forest connectivity.

The treatment area boundaries were created by digitally scanning timber sale maps and converting these to feature (polygon) shape files. The maps were overlaid onto digital orthophotos. Additional layers added included streams, roads, vegetation cover types, digital raster graphics, vegetation seral stages, and USDA Forest Service online data.

Layers created for this analysis include the following:

All of these layers were exported to an external DBASE4 database (x7.dbf) and linked to the stand ID field so that there was one record for each of the 151 polygons representing treatment units. The table was added into Arcview and joined to the treatment unit layer and used to create a new shape file containing all of the fields above. The shapefile containing this information linked with the unit boundaries is referred to here as Units-12.

The unit numbers for the treatment areas were retained in cases where the original unit boundaries did not change shape, but new unit numbers were assigned in the sequence from 901-920 for polygons which had to be split out to allow different treatment proposals to be selected.

Results

Our analyses determined likely treatment impacts from on the following ecosystem components: old growth / mature forests, Late-Successional Reserves, RARE II roadless areas, uninventoried roadless areas, unsuitable harvest areas, distance to wildland-urban interface (WUI) zones, wetlands, unroaded road density and forest connectivity. These are discussed individually below.

Mapping accuracy

Our maps were compared with the acreage figures in the EA on pp. 2-6 to 2-10 to determine the following levels of agreement between our mapping efforts and that of the Forest Service. These are shown in the following table.

Treatment KRCG (ac) EA(ac) Difference %
Alternative 2 BT 1017.900 1017 0.1
Alternative 2 LP 30.246 28 8.0
Alternative 2 HT 1993.794 1964 1.5
Alternative 2 ST 179.601 175 2.6
Alternative 2 TSI 2281.28 2334 -2.3
Alternative 3 BT 928.104 941 -1.4
Alternative 3 LP 39.877 43 -7.2
Alternative 3 HT 2067.714 2110 -2.0
Alternative 3 ST 200.077 214 -6.5
Alternative 3 TSI 1816.466 1775 2.3
Alternative 4 BT 696.449 683 2.0
Alternative 4 LP 0 0 ----
Alternative 4 HT 1803.762 1785 1.1
Alternative 4 ST 0 0 ----
Alternative 4 TSI 1386.414 1335 3.9

Table of difference between Kettle Range Forest Group and Methow Ranger District mapping of Hungry Hunter treatment units (BT = Biomass Thin; LP = Patch Lodgepole Regeneration Harvest; HT = Harvest Thinning; ST = Seed Tree Regeneration Harvest; TSI = Timber Stand Improvement).

Discussion

The two largest differences were -6.5 % and 8 %, neither of which represented more than about 4 acres, so the agreement between the two different maps of treatment boundaries indicates an acceptable comparative analysis can be made with these unit boundaries.

EA map discrepancies

One of the initial objectives accomplished by this analysis was to independently identify inaccuracies or unaccounted assumptions made in the EA. The EA maps did not use a consistent delineation of stands for each alternative, making it difficult for comparisons to be made between alternatives. More importantly, because stands are not the same size and shape for each alternative, the EA was inconsistent and sometimes in error in describing impacts for each alternative, which precludes confidence in any conclusions drawn. To avoid this pitfall in our analysis, all of the stands from each different alternative were intersected which resulted in splitting out 20 new polygons that could be consistently mapped for all EA treatment descriptions. From this new map of proposed harvest treatment areas, we were able to determine mapping inconsistencies in the EA.

The treatment areas which were inconsistently mapped or described in the EA included the following:

Discussion

There are significant numbers of inconsistencies and errors in the EA. Because of this, the EA information on stand shapes, acreages, numbers and treatments should be corrected and used to run the analyses again. This will be necessary to establish accurate baseline data before monitoring can begin.

Determination of roaded areas

To determine roaded areas in the analysis area, the roads layer of the Okanogan National Forest was overlaid onto the orthophotos and digital raster graphics maps and adjusted using photo-interpretation. This resulted in the following road layer which is only slightly different from the one in the EA:
image

Discussion

Our road maps are fairly consistent with those in the EA, however a few errors have likely affected the road density calculations in the EA. There are ghost roads (roads which do not exist, in purple) evident where no road is apparent on the 1998 orthophotos. If so, these should be removed from the EA and Forest Service maps. There are also several miles of roads not included in the EA such as the one crossing the analysis boundary on the center right above, which were not included in the road mileage analysis. Overall there are about as many errors of commission as omission between the maps.

During field visits, the closed roads were found to be impacting the environment significantly in a number of different ways. Many closed roads had scattered patches of weeds, which are spreading in an uncontrolled fashion due to the fact that there is no effective way to inspect these roads. Almost all roads at lower elevations had extremely degraded, sandy ash-cap soils which made breathing difficult during cattle movements. Almost all closed roads had blocked culverts and eroding cut banks in some places. Many old roads were used as logging and skidding roads in the past, and received heavy abuse, which we recommend should be corrected.

In order to accomplish this, it would be necessary to for every one of the closed roads to be visited on the ground by specialists who would determine the need potential permanent obliteration and/or rehabilitation. Our field visits found areas that do not appear to have the attention of the Forest Service, which we recommend should be corrected.

The impact of closed roads will get worse as weeds spread without management, and as cattle continue to graze the area in an uncontrolled manner. Thus, the primary impacts from roads is on soils, weed and hydrology. In contrast, the EA used an analysis of open road density which does not adequately address impacts, nor lay a sound framework for future restoration. Because of this, the EA did not disclose enough information about impacts from treatment units. Treatment units with significant miles of closed roads should not be treated until this analysis is complete.

Higher road densities that were omitted from the EA were scored with a “1” in the unit shapefile Units-12.shp (see table at end of document). Units which will have greater impacts than documented in the EA are 36, 39, 42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49, 53, 56, 57, 60, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 69, 74, 77, 87, 89, 103, 165, 167, 903. These units are illustrated below.
image

Determination of roadless areas

To determine where proposed treatments occur in roadless areas the unit boundaries were intersected with both inventoried and uninventoried roadless areas.

Units overlapping RARE II roadless areas (shown in red below) are: 105, 107, 111, 112, 114, 117, 126, 134, 910, 911, 917.

Units overlapping uninventoried roadless areas shown in purple below are: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 34, 40, 41, 42, 49, 51, 58, 66, 70, 73, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 85, 89, 90, 92, 93, 99, 102, 103, 105, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 134, 135, 136, 146, 150, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 166, 901, 902, 903, 906, 907, 910, 911, 912, 914, 916, 917, 918, 919.

These areas and the overlapping units are depicted below.
image

Discussion

Roadless areas have intact soil strata that should be protected from disturbance by ground-breaking machinery. The Northwest Forest Plan designation of the Hungry-Hunter Late Successional Reserve and Matrix lands would not be fulfilled if significant ground disturbances occurred in the soils supporting these stands. In view of this, we note that these areas are not compatible with tractor implementations of Harvest Thinning, Biomass Thinning, Seed-Tree cutting or Regeneration cutting, however TSI and controlled burning are compatible. We recommend that some or all of the above units with ground-breaking management plans be changed to eliminate ground-disturbing machinery.

Determination of LSR zones

To determine proposed harvest areas within LSR zones the unit boundaries were intersected with the Hunter Mountain LSR.

Units that overlap LSR areas are: 31, 66, 67, 70, 73, 88, 91, 98, 100, 113, 121, 124, 125, 129, 130, 135, 136, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 158, 160, 161, 163, 166, 902.

The areas where the LSRs overlap unit boundaries are shown below along with old growth overlap.

Determination of old growth and structured mature zones

To determine proposed harvest areas within stands containing old growth and mature trees, the unit boundaries were intersected with the delineation of old growth and structured mature forests digitized on screen using the digital orthophotos as a base image and using photo-interpretation of shadows and crown size to determine structure. In units that contained more than one polygon after the intersection, the areas of the separate polygons were added together and made into a single record before exporting to external files.

Units that overlap old growth areas are: 9, 19, 26, 32, 35, 39, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 53, 56, 58, 61, 65, 67, 69, 72, 73, 77, 78, 83, 93, 103, 107, 110, 111, 114, 118, 121, 130, 146, 149, 152, 153, 163, 904, 905, 910, 911, 917, 918.

The areas where unit boundaries overlap LSRs (purple) or old growth (red) overlap are shown below.
image

Discussion

An example of stands identified by photo-interpretation of mature forest is shown below in red (unit 73), within two units planned for TSI under Alternative 3 or Alternative 2. For conservation of mature forests (or potential future late-seral forests) it is important that treatments not remove the older components of the stand, or break up the corridors connecting these stands within the open areas.
image

Another example of late-seral / mature forest structured forest (green or red) is shown below, along with areas where unit boundaries (blue labels) overlap the older forests in red. This is an area where TSI is planned.
image

The use of digital orthophoto interpretation to identify stands of old growth or mature-structured stands is useful for protecting areas within the Northwest Forest Plan. As long as treatments only involve TSI without the use of ground-disturbing machinery, this is an acceptable management option which we can support. There should be no significant overstory removal within the LSRs or mature stands, nor any activity that will fragment the forest connectivity.

Determination of suitable harvest areas

The EA defers harvest only within areas designated as suitable. To determine which proposed harvest units were located on suitable forest, the unit boundaries were intersected with the suitable areas layer from the Okanogan National Forest. In units which contained more than one polygon after the intersection, the areas of the separate polygons were added together and made into a single record before exporting to external files.

Units that overlap areas unsuitable for timber harvest are: 37, 39, 48, 53, 61, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 78, 83, 95, 101, 102, 112, 120, 126, 134, 148, 159, 904, 918.

The unit boundaries which overlap areas unsuitable for timber harvest are shown below in purple along with areas within 300 feet of NWI wetlands (red).

Determination of wetland buffers

To determine which proposed harvest units were within 300 feet of wetlands, the unit boundaries were intersected with a 300-foot buffer zone around all National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands.

Units which overlap areas within 300 feet of NWI wetlands are: 9, 77, 93, 118, 120, 146, 159, 901.

The unit boundaries which overlap areas unsuitable for timber harvest (purple) or areas within 300 feet of NWI wetlands (red) are shown below.
image

Discussion

There should be no timber harvest using ground machinery in areas designated unsuitable for harvest. Any units listed above as unsuitable should be dropped from consideration for management involving machine-based ground disturbances.

Forested wetlands respond to soils more than to shade tolerance. This is their primary difference from upland forests. In addition, wetlands differ from riparian areas because their soils are low in nutrients. Specialized plants grow in wetlands due to their tolerance of anaerobic soil conditions. In the Hungry-Hunter area, wetlands are of limited extent.

Timber harvest within 300 feet of wetlands will have negative impacts on hydrology, grazing patterns, water quality, and development of late-seral forest structure. In view of these strong constraints, no timber harvest should occur in the units above listed within 300 feet of wetlands. TSI is not recommended in these areas either, however wetland restoration, beaver re-introduction, and animal movement management can be supported.

Determination of WUI zones

To determine proposed harvest areas within WUI zones the unit boundaries were intersected with a buffer zone around all structures, in intervals of 0.5 mile. A large number of treatment units were split across the WUI distance boundaries. When exported to an external file, only the shortest distances to WUI zones were included in the spreadsheet.

Units which are further completely lying beyond 2 miles from the WUI zone are: 81, 92, 99, 103, 105, 107, 109, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 126, 128, 134, 149, 164, 906, 907, 910, 911, 916, 917.

Units which are between 1.5 to 2 miles and possibly overlapping beyond 2 miles from the WUI zone are: 75, 76, 80, 82, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 95, 101, 102, 119, 120, 146, 148, 158, 905, 912, 913, 914, 915, 918, 919.

The illustration below shows unit boundaries which are beyond 2 miles of the WUI zone in red and units which are from 0.5 to 2 miles in yellow.
image

Discussion

The use of crown fire potential risk beyond a half mile from houses and structures is not well accepted scientifically. Several legal definitions use distances of up to 2 miles for designation of a WUI zone. The purpose and need should be changed so that it does not advocate benefits to human communities and structures from treatments lying beyond 0.5 miles of a WUI zone. Treatments beyond 0.5 mile of structures may be acceptable if they are intended to accomplish ecosystem management.

Management should include a discussion of the trade-offs from fuels management. A thorough discussion was given in the A to A EA by Chelan Ranger District. Thinning has been shown to be ineffective at reducing the severity unless it is accompanied by removal of fuel (van Wagtendonk, 1996). The A to A project noted that even if fuels are effectively removed, the rate of fire spreading will be up to 10 times higher following thinning due to increased rates of drying and wind speeds in open stands. Treatments proposed in the Hungry Hunter project that do not plan for regular removal of fine fuels have a possibility of increasing the risk of fire to nearby communities. This should be frankly discussed with those living in the area. In the event of a fast-moving surface fire that travels from a thinned unit to houses, the Forest Service could be found liable.

Forest fragmentation

To examine fragmentation, the layers containing all treatment units under all alternatives was overlaid onto a digital orthophoto and zoomed out to give a landscape perspective. The location of forested corridors that could be fragmented by at least one alternative under the Hungry-Hunter proposal is shown below.
image

All of the proposed management activities, including controlled burning have the potential to fragment forested corridors. Corridors were identified by the Methow Ranger District “Assessment of the Northeastern Cascades Late-Successional Reserves” (1988). Units which are likely to fragment intact forested corridors are the following: 31, 34, 36, 62, 75, 76, 82, 85, 130, 136, 155, 160, 164, 912.

Discussion

To be consistent with the Northwest Plan, units that will fragment forest connectivity should be mitigated in the EA. In view of the significant other disturbances occurring in this area at this time, it is recommended that all harvest treatments including TSI in these key connectivity corridors be put off for one decade to provide for late-seral wildlife protection in the interim recovery period for the area.

Cumulative impacts

Cumulative impacts were assessed by considering all of the impacts determined from the above analysis in a single spreadsheet. This spreadsheet is printed as a table below. A decision-key for scoring the units is presented first.

The decision key below can be used to determine which units need modification. Units that may need modification are scored based on the highest impact. The procedure for determining whether a unit needs modification is as follows:

Key to decisions
(Note: units 57 and 60 use helicopters, and are not included as ground-based mechanical harvest). WUI distance is not analyzed in this key.)

Impact Precluded harvest Cautionary harvest
RARE II >0.2 ac (total of all impacts) of ground-based mechanical (BT, LP, HT, ST)
Roadless >0.2 ac (total of all impacts) of ground-based mechanical (BT, LP, HT, ST)
LSR >0.2 ac (total of all impacts) of overstory>7" removal (HT, ST) >0.2 ac (total of all impacts) of ground-based mechanical (BT, LP)
Old growth /mature >0.2 ac (total of all impacts) of overstory>7" removal (HT, ST) >0.2 ac (total of all impacts) of ground-based mechanical (BT, LP)
Unsuitable ground-based mechanical (BT, LP, HT, ST) TSI, helicopter units
Wetland all harvests (BT, LP, HT, ST, TSI)
Road Density score of "1" for ground-based mechanical (BT, LP, HT, ST)
Fragmentation score of "1" for forest thinning or logging (BT, LP, HT, ST, TSI)

Table of Unit Impacts
Key: BT = Biomass Thin; LP = Patch Lodgepole Regeneration Harvest; HT = Harvest Thinning; ST = Seed Tree Regeneration Harvest; TSI = Timber Stand Improvement; Rare II = acreage overlapping Rare II roadless areas; Roadless = acreage overlapping roadless areas; LSR = acreage overlapping Hungry Hunter LSR; Old Growth = acreage overlapping old growth or mature-structured stands; Unsuit = acreage overlapping areas unsuitable for harvest; Wetland = acreage overlapping 300-foot wetland buffers; WUI-DX = mileage from closest part of the unit to WUI zone; Road Dens = 1 for significant closed road density not addressed in the EA; Frag = 1 for units which fragment the existing forest.

Click here to view a COLOR pdf file of table (81K)
Click here to view the COLOR table as an excel spreadsheet

Unit Id Acres Alt2 Alt3 Alt4 Rare II Road-less LSR Old Growth Unsuit Wet-land WUI-DX Rd Dens Frag
2 6.769 TSI TSI TSI 6.769 1 0 0
3 33.664 TSI 33.414 0.5 0 0
4 80.272 TSI 77.793 0.5 0 0
5 25.911 TSI TSI TSI 25.911 1 0 0
6 82.803 HT HT HT 39.93 0.5 0 0
8 52.156 TSI 48.984 0.5 0 0
9 94.843 BT 49.783 6.523 14.023 0.5 0 0
10 9.099 HT HT HT 0.5 0 0
11 81.083 TSI 72.58 0.5 0 0
12 22.578 HT HT HT 0.898 0.5 0 0
13 40.425 HT HT HT 33.21 0.5 0 0
15 11.428 TSI 4.448 0.5 0 0
17 18.32 TSI TSI TSI 0.25 0.5 0 0
18 5.281 HT HT HT 0.5 0 0
19 12.858 HT HT HT 9.867 4.463 0.5 0 0
22 77.793 TSI TSI TSI 74.035 0.5 0 0
24 27.539 TSI 18.979 0.5 0 0
26 11.468 TSI TSI 11.468 4.974 0.5 0 0
27 61.549 HT HT HT 27.622 0.5 0 0
28 7.193 HT HT HT 0.5 0 0
29 86.436 HT HT HT 37.773 1 0 0
30 60.344 HT HT HT 5.852 0.5 0 0
31 47.31 TSI 47.31 0.359 1 0 1
32 21.25 HT HT HT 0.658 0.5 0 0
33 18.773 HT HT HT 1 0 0
34 173.894 BT BT BT 169.336 1 0 1
35 46.51 TSI 8.522 0.5 0 0
36 25.548 BT BT BT 1.5 1 1
37 15.69 HT HT HT 0.736 0.5 0 0
39 152.771 HT HT HT 18.755 1.811 0.5 1 0
40 61.633 TSI TSI TSI 61.496 1 0 0
41 20.899 TSI 7.877 1 0 0
42 70.37 HT HT HT 2.614 1 1 0
43 51.444 TSI TSI TSI 1.5 1 0
44 11.419 TSI TSI TSI 1.5 1 0
45 32.668 TSI 1.46 0.5 0 0
46 71.595 BT BT BT 6.033 1 1 0
48 147.276 HT HT HT 49.82 0.112 1 1 0
49 95.017 HT HT HT 2.638 0.075 1 1 0
50 18.729 TSI TSI TSI 0.137 1 0 0
51 28.327 TSI TSI TSI 7.805 1 0 0
53 23.584 TSI TSI TSI 0.069 9.94 1 1 0
56 60.285 TSI TSI TSI 0.122 1 1 0
57 7.002 ST ST 1 1 0
58 43.858 TSI TSI TSI 8.916 0.07 1.5 0 0
60 15.606 ST ST 1.5 1 0
61 39.045 ST ST 4.998 0.532 1 0 0
62 150.442 BT BT BT 1.5 1 1
63 79.086 TSI TSI TSI 1 1 0
64 41.488 TSI TSI TSI 1 0 0
65 66.443 HT HT HT 18.103 1.5 1 0
66 15.081 TSI TSI 0.134 15.081 0.5 0 0
67 122.904 TSI TSI TSI 1.658 0.124 1 1 0
68 10.83 ST ST 1 1 0
69 83.512 ST ST 0.136 4.082 1.5 1 0
70 121.261 TSI TSI 103.632 121.261 7.891 1.5 0 0
71 16.916 TSI TSI TSI 1.5 0 0
72 16.564 TSI TSI 2.347 12.063 1.5 0 0
73 116.463 TSI TSI 116.463 116.463 57.06 83.373 1 0 0
74 165.717 TSI TSI TSI 1.109 1.5 1 0
75 26.416 BT BT BT 22.557 2 0 1
76 49.16 HT HT HT 16.394 2 0 1
77 57.497 TSI TSI TSI 25.172 2.912 2.566 1.5 1 0
78 13.51 TSI TSI 8.747 9.521 1.5 0 0
80 23.606 ST ST TSI 17.437 2 0 0
81 16.42 HT HT HT 4.682 2.5 0 0
82 19.791 TSI 10.301 2 0 1
83 17.029 HT HT HT 7.794 17.029 1.5 0 0
84 24.713 HT HT HT 1.5 0 0
85 80.842 HT HT HT 45.756 2 0 1
86 10.97 TSI TSI TSI 2 0 0
87 34.487 HT HT HT 2 1 0
88 29.663 HT HT HT 0.137 2 0 0
89 24.311 TSI TSI TSI 7.147 2 1 0
90 21.456 TSI TSI TSI 17.24 2 0 0
91 44.814 BT BT 44.814 1 0 0
92 17.721 BT BT BT 9.433 2.5 0 0
93 18.481 TSI 17.775 6.045 0 2 0 0
94 172.105 TSI TSI TSI 1.5 0 0
95 29.587 HT HT HT 5.146 2 0 0
98 28.434 TSI 28.434 1 0 0
99 11.628 HT HT HT 2.821 3 0 0
100 42.094 HT HT 42.094 1 0 0
101 47.143 HT HT HT 19.214 2 0 0
102 63.314 HT HT HT 0.048 27.58 2 0 0
103 42.177 TSI TSI TSI 12.507 0.006 3 1 0
105 7.568 TSI TSI TSI 7.449 3.277 3 0 0
107 8.133 BT BT BT 8.133 0.498 6.455 3 0 0
109 24.126 BT BT BT 10.019 3 0 0
110 49.913 HT HT HT 2.602 0.052 1.5 0 0
111 16.579 TSI TSI TSI 16.579 1.249 0.166 3 0 0
112 45.913 TSI TSI TSI 45.913 20.732 38.049 3 0 0
113 26.42 HT HT 26.42 1 0 0
114 16.191 LP LP 14.26 4.253 0.01 3.5 0 0
115 6.32 HT HT HT 6.32 2.5 0 0
116 14.218 HT HT HT 0.521 2.5 0 0
117 10.478 LP LP 10.478 4.046 3 0 0
118 68.782 HT HT HT 62.728 1.166 4.774 1.5 0 0
119 27.259 HT HT HT 27.259 2 0 0
120 22.195 HT HT HT 1.111 1.722 0.116 2 0 0
121 36.544 BT BT 36.544 36.544 0.402 1 0 0
124 10.336 TSI TSI 10.252 10.336 1.5 0 0
125 108.618 BT BT BT 50.359 2.522 1 0 0
126 3.577 LP LP 3.577 2.021 0.91 3.5 0 0
127 3.219 TSI TSI TSI 3.219 1.5 0 0
128 11.651 TSI TSI TSI 11.651 2.5 0 0
129 45.848 BT BT BT 21.934 4.088 1 0 0
130 69.61 BT BT 56.781 68.991 0.011 1 0 1
131 11.098 TSI TSI TSI 11.098 1.5 0 0
134 12.472 TSI 0.887 12.472 11.7 3 0 0
135 29.396 BT BT BT 19.524 1.24 1.5 0 0
136 40.167 TSI 40.167 40.167 1.5 0 1
146 9.763 TSI 8.228 9.055 5.837 2 0 0
148 14.172 HT HT HT 0.263 2 0 0
149 11.52 TSI TSI TSI 0.027 3 0 0
150 3.806 TSI TSI TSI 3.806 1.5 0 0
151 33.948 TSI TSI 33.506 1 0 0
152 16.375 BT BT 1.308 16.276 1.471 1 0 0
153 12.288 BT BT 8.956 12.288 0.193 1 0 0
154 5.446 TSI TSI TSI 4.971 2.172 1.5 0 0
155 23.151 BT BT 15.807 23.043 1.5 0 1
156 12.742 BT BT 12.416 11.164 1.5 0 0
157 21.642 HT HT HT 0.5 0 0
158 22.078 TSI TSI TSI 2.862 2 0 0
159 49.813 HT HT HT 15.624 12.888 5.542 1.5 0 0
160 11.084 BT BT 5.583 10.912 1.5 0 1
161 19.17 HT HT 19.17 1 0 0
162 16.61 TSI TSI TSI 12.757 0.5 0 0
163 29.879 TSI 29.879 29.879 12.41 0.5 0 0
164 117.483 HT HT HT 117.483 2.5 0 0
165 31.823 HT HT HT 1.5 1 0
166 102.348 HT HT 84.46 102.348 1 0 0
167 11.518 TSI HT TSI 1.5 1 0
901 14.293 TSI 14.293 2.312 1 0 0
902 29.812 TSI 7.448 29.812 0.5 0 0
903 39.45 TSI 6.543 1.5 1 0
904 23.03 TSI 12.879 0.747 1.5 0 0
905 4.248 TSI 0.004 2 0 0
906 6.663 TSI HT TSI 6.359 2.5 0 0
907 12.54 BT HT BT 6.101 2.5 0 0
910 3.725 LP LP LP 3.725 1.335 1.777 3 0 0
911 19.759 BT 19.759 16.629 1.01 3 0 0
912 9.717 TSI HT 9.717 2 0 1
913 5.729 TSI 2 0 0
914 2.76 TSI 2.76 2 0 0
915 2.187 TSI TSI 2 0 0
916 26.839 HT 25.827 2.5 0 0
917 5.916 LP 5.916 3.842 0.264 3 0 0
918 14.036 ST 8.115 0.022 8.231 2 0 0
919 6.44 TSI ST 5.09 2 0 0
920 6.643 HT 1.5 0 0

Conclusion

Our analysis identified 45 treatment units that appear to require modification of size or treatment, or possibly deletion from the project. These stands are: 19, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 39, 46, 48, 61, 62, 65, 69, 75, 76, 77, 82, 83, 85, 93, 95, 100, 101, 102, 107, 113, 114, 117, 118, 126, 130, 136, 146, 148, 151, 155, 159, 160, 161, 166, 901, 910, 911, 912, 917, 918. The analysis also identified numerous other treatment units that need a review and possibly mitigation as well.

The Alternative 2 treatment units recommended for modification/deletion (red) or caution (blue) are shown in the following map.
image

The Alternative 3 treatment units recommended for modification/deletion (red) or caution (blue) are shown in the following map.
image

The Alternative 4 treatment units recommended for modification/deletion (>red) or caution (blue) are shown in the following map.
image

These analyses were made possible by the advent of relatively powerful desktop computing environments and software such as Arcview Spatial Analyst as well as many data layers available online at GIS repositories. In addition to identifying potential treatment impacts, the use of a GIS to do this analysis allowed results to be visualized easily and be shared by all interested in land management planning. These analyses can be readily extended to include temporal scales, as in the decision to temporarily defer all harvest in forests that would be fragmented by the harvest units. The tables and shapefiles used in this analysis are available for download at this website.

References

  • Methow Ranger District. 1998. An Assessment of the Northeastern Cascades Late-Successional Reserves.
  • van Wagtendonk, J.W. 1996. Use of a deterministic fire growth model to test fuel treatments. in Status of the Sierra Nevada: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Final Report to Congress Volume II. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 37. Center for Water and Wildland Resources. University of California, Davis.