Interagency Clearinghouse of Ecological Information

Adaptive Management – 2000

  1. Adaptive management process 2
    • Introduction:
    • Adaptive Management Model
  2. Adaptive management: iteration # 1 -- year 2000
  3. Adaptive management recommendations
    • Dead Wood
    • Aquatic conservation strategy
    • Timber harvest prescriptions
    • Other topics
  4. Literature Cited
    • Appendix A - 2000 All-Participants Meeting
    • Appendix B - 5/25/00 Field Trip

I. Adaptive management process

Introduction:

A team of scientists and managers based on the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest and the Blue River Ranger District of the Willamette National Forest have been working together for a decade to develop and test a landscape management approach based on natural disturbance regimes. The team has been motivated to a significant degree by concern over the loss and fragmentation of older forests, and the lack of a coherent long-term strategy for conservation of older forests in managed landscapes. The underlying assumption of this approach is that by approximating key aspects of important disturbance regimes in management regimes risks posed to native species and ecological processes are reduced as compared to other historical and contemporary landscape management approaches (Swanson et al. 1994).

Concepts concerning use of information about natural disturbance regimes in management activities are emerging in many forest landscapes (Baker 1992, Hunter 1993, Mladenoff et al. 1993, Morgan et al. 1994, Swanson et al. 1994, Bunnell 1995, Stuart-Smith and Hebert 1996, Cissel et al. 1998, Cissel et al. 1999, Landres et al. 1999). These approaches use information on historical and current landscape conditions, disturbance history, and social goals to set objectives for future landscape structures that provide desired habitat, watershed, timber supply, and other functions. The intent is not to mimic natural conditions, but rather to use them as a reference in developing and evaluating management alternatives to meet these goals.

The Blue River watershed is a part of the Central Cascades Adaptive Management Area, an allocation in the Northwest Forest Plan that encourages development and evaluation of new approaches. The H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest (approximately 6,300 hectares), established in 1948, is located entirely within the Blue River watershed. The overriding objectives given to the Central Cascades Adaptive Management Area in the Northwest Forest Plan are to conduct "intensive research on ecosystem and landscape processes and its application to forest management in experiments and demonstrations at the stand and watershed level", and to develop "approaches for integrating forest and stream management objectives and on implications of natural disturbance regimes" (USDA and USDI 1994).

The Blue River Landscape Study is specifically designed to develop, test and modify a landscape management approach based on natural disturbance regimes using an adaptive management model. Integration of forest and stream management objectives is also a strong and complementary theme of the study. The landscape management approach used in the study is intended to meet the same general objectives underlying the Northwest Forest Plan: provide habitat to sustain species associated with late-successional forests, maintain and restore aquatic ecosystems, and provide a sustainable supply of timber.

Adaptive Management Model:

The adaptive management model followed in this study consists of three phases (Figure 1). In the first phase new information is assessed to determine its potential relevance to the landscape management plan. These findings are evaluated in the second phase to determine their significance and potential implications, and recommendations for change are identified. Adjustments to the landscape management strategy are made in the third phase based on the information produced from the preceding phases, and other sources of new concepts or information.

Four primary sources of new information are assessed in the first phase. The plan is being implemented on the ground through normal Forest Service programs. Novel aspects of the plan challenge ranger district employees to think differently and try new approaches. Hence operational experience is a key mode of learning and a true testing ground. Field-based monitoring efforts are a second major mode of learning. Permanent plots are in place to measure the effects of plan implementation on a variety of species and ecological processes. However, it may take decades before many effects are observable and their significance known. Meanwhile a series of modeling assessments are being conducted to provide preliminary results. A fourth method of learning derives from the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest research program. Applicable research projects conducted in the watershed are designed to help understand patterns and processes directly relevant to the landscape management approach in the study. All of these sources of new information are assessed to determine their relevance, and issues or topics for further evaluation are identified.

Topics and issues identified in phase one are then evaluated to determine if changes should be made to the landscape management plan, or to implementation and monitoring procedures. Small teams of specialists consider the implications of new information, develop options for responding to new information, and make recommendations for change. Options and recommendations are further evaluated through discussions with interested parties during workshops and field tours, and through feedback obtained directly from managers, policy-makers and interest groups through personal interaction. Evaluations and recommendations are posted on the study WWW site (www.fsl.orst.edu/ccem/brls/brls.html) for review. Responsible individuals and teams then document their evaluation and recommended changes.

In the third phase, revisions to the landscape management plan, or to monitoring and implementation procedures, are considered if recommendations from phase two indicate a potential benefit to doing so. Forest Service managers and scientists responsible for conduct of the landscape study make the final decisions concerning changes to the study. Changes will be documented in an update to the landscape management plan, or in monitoring and research plans.


Figure 1. Adaptive management model

II. Adaptive management: iteration # 1 -- year 2000

The initial landscape management plan for the Blue River Landscape Study was developed in early 1997. During the period from 1997 to 2000 numerous sources of new information and experience accumulated prompting the Blue River landscape team to evaluate the need for changes to the landscape plan. One major source of new information was the report: "An evaluation of the Blue River landscape project:

how well does it use historical fire regimes as a model?" (Weisberg 1999). This report was developed under contract by the Willamette National Forest and heavily based on the recent Phd. dissertation: "Fire history, fire regimes, and development of forest structure in the central western Oregon Cascades" (Weisberg 1998). Much of the fire history data used by Weisberg (1998, 1999) came from the Blue River watershed. A number of other recently completed studies were also directly relevant to the Blue River Landscape Study, including work on the relation of fire history to dead wood, the effects of forest roads on aquatic ecosystems, and the use of natural disturbance regimes to plan for maintenance of material inputs to aquatic ecosystems.

The Blue River Ranger District also gained operational experience with implementing the landscape plan through two timber sale projects and several road restoration projects. These experiences uncovered several areas in the plan where ambiguities caused unnecessary confusion over the objectives and strategies of the Blue River Landscape Study. In addition, issues continued to arise over the site-specific treatment of riparian and lower slope areas in the landscape plan because the plan employs an alternative approach to meeting aquatic ecosystem objectives. Team members felt that concepts and approaches initially developed at the project level had application at the landscape level, and had the potential to improve the landscape plan.

Efforts to consider new information and recent operational experience began by compiling a list of topics for evaluation (figure 2). An individual or small teams were assigned to each topic. A form to summarize new information sources, the options considered, and recommendations for change was created to document deliberations for each topic (figure 3). The landscape team then conducted two structured activities to share findings from their evaluations, to discuss options and implications, and to hear ideas from others. The first session was conducted during the annual Blue River Landscape Study All-Participants meeting. This meeting is held as a way to maintain communication among the scientists and managers involved with the study and to jointly consider items important to conduct of the study. Small group discussions focused on the recommendations for each of the major topic areas (Appendix A). Shortly thereafter a field tour was held for interested managers and citizens in the local area and across western Oregon. Field stops were located so that each of the major topics could be discussed in the field (Appendix B). Both efforts were well attended, resulted in vigorous discussion, and helped team members refine recommendations.

Dead Wood

1. Snag levels and methods

5. Snag creation in landscape areas 2 & 3

17. Down wood levels and methods

18. Dead wood creation in 100% retention areas

Aquatic conservation objectives

4. Road restoration strategy

6. Water quality source areas

7. Large wood and coarse sediment source areas

9. Refugia objectives and activities

13. Adjustments to aquatic reserves

21. Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives analysis

Timber harvest prescriptions

3. Spatial variability & spatial pattern of retention trees

8. Commercial thinning regimes

11. Use of crown closure

15. Canopy cover level in landscape area one

19. Complex prescriptions - fire history

Other topics

2. Lands suitable for timber production

14. Adjustments to landscape area one boundaries

16. Wetlands

20. Prescribed fire

Figure 2. List of adaptive management topics

Blue River Landscape Study

Adaptive Management Summary Form

Topic # 4

Date:

Reviewers:

Question:

Information source(s):

Relevant study component:

Background:

Evaluation:

Recommendations:

Figure 3. Adaptive management summary form

III. Adaptive management recommendations

The next section contains the recommendations for each topic. Full documentation for each topic is in Appendix C.

Dead Wood

1. Snag levels and methods

Recommendation:

Snag levels will be prescribed based on a percentage of the overstory canopy before harvest by landscape area. This will account for varying stand types and diameters. Creation of these snag levels is reasonable based on future expected KV funding and an expectation that some of the snags would be created by post-harvest prescribed fire.

Prescribed Snag Levels by Landscape Area

Prescribed Overstory Retention Level Example Trees per Acre Left After Harvest Additional % Retention for Snag Habitat Based on Overstory Canopy Before Harvest Example Trees per Acre for Snag Creation General Guideline
Landscape Area 1 50% 35-50 5% 5 Lowest number of snags
Landscape Area 2 30% 25-35 10% 10 Moderate level of snags
Landscape Area 3 15% 10-20 15% 15 Big pulse of snags

In addition there is material for an implementation guide (appendix?) in this process paper and in a related snag habitat implementation guide.

5. Snag creation in landscape areas 2 & 3

Recommendation:

Snag creation should continue to be used in Landscape Areas 2 and 3 to avoid unacceptably low snag levels for 80 years after logging. Longer rotations require less snag creation during intermediate thinning entries because overall snag levels will be achieved after the last entry and continue to recover throughout the rest of the rotation. The prescribed number of snags should be created at the time of the initial regeneration harvest. With one thinning entry, snags should be monitored in 40 years and if levels do not meet the prescription, they should be created at that time. With more than one thinning entry, a very low level of snag creation would occur during the intermediate thinning entries to replace those lost during the logging operation. If snag levels drop below half the prescription, snags should be created at that time. During the final thinning entry, snags will be created to achieve the required number originally prescribed during the regeneration harvest.

17. Down wood levels and methods

Recommendation:

Prescribed Down Wood Levels by Landscape Area

Prescribed Overstory Retention Level Example Trees per Acre Left After Harvest Additional % Retention for Down Wood Habitat Based on Overstory Canopy Before Harvest Example Additional Trees per Acre for Down Wood Habitat Creation (based on 100 TPA) General Guideline
Landscape Area 1 50% 35-50 1-2% 1-2 Lowest amount of down wood
Landscape Area 2 30% 25-35 3-4% 3-4 Moderate level of down wood
Landscape Area 3 15% 10-20 5% 5 Big pulse of down wood

18. Dead wood creation in 100% retention areas

Recommendation:

Snags - Overall snag creation guidelines which are specified in the prescription will determine the desired per acre snag level for the entire harvest unit, including the retention areas. For each 100% retention area, the ID team shall discuss and document whether snag creation is allowed. The following four factors will be used to guide this decision.

    • Size and shape of the 100% retention area
    • The reason for the 100% retention area
    • Location in block - spatial orientation of existing snags, down wood
    • Location in cutting unit - logging systems (corridor, flight path)

Retention areas less than two acres may have snags created to replace those needing to be felled due to the safety hazard to the logging operation. Retention areas greater than two acres may have snag creation activities if there is a snag deficiency based on the prescription for the entire unit. For example, if the snag prescription for the entire unit is four/acre, and the three acre retention area has only two snags per acre, two additional snags per acre may be created.

If a retention area was placed around a rare species location which requires dead wood, snag creation may be recommended. If existing large snags or down wood is near the retention area, additional dead wood creation may not be required.

Down Wood - Down wood creation in 100% retention areas is not necessary since all existing Class I and II logs within retention areas are prescribed to be maintained. Depending on the location of the areas within the cutting unit it may be prudent to mark the boundaries of the retention area on the ground. Sale contracts include language which prohibits removal of Class I and II down wood which timber sale officers will monitor

Aquatic conservation strategy

4. Road restoration strategy

Recommendation:

Incorporate the following elements of the roads analysis into a new road restoration section of the landscape management plan:

  • Individual road ranking, including overall aquatic ecosystem risk and human use ratings
  • Subwatershed level ranking of aquatic ecosystem risks

Develop guideline similar to "priority for road restoration activities should be set according to the matrix of subdrainage and individual road aquatic ecosystem risks." As follows:

Sub watershed
Priority
Road Priority
Low Moderate High
Low Low Low Moderate
Moderate Low Moderate High
High Moderate High High

6. Water quality source areas and

7. Substrate source areas

Recommendations:

Integrate the mapped water quality and substrate source areas into the map of landscape areas and reserves for the landscape management plan. Include the following guidelines for these source areas in the landscape management plan:

A. Prescription elements to be applied in Substrate source areas include:

  1. Fifty percent retention of evenly spaced mature trees will be applied within Blocks where the soils are shallow, coarse texture and occupy slopes greater than seventy percent. Leave tree retention along streams within sediment sources areas will be those designated for that Landscape Area. Retention trees should not be allocated from elsewhere in the Block, but in addition to the green tree retention a described for that Landscape Area.
  2. Active earthflows are identified and dropped from the timber base. Within identified quaternary earthflow terrain or glacial deposits adjacent to perennial streams there will be, generally, a one site tree height no harvest buffer, and on Class IV streams a one half to one full tree height no harvest buffer in order to maintain a supply of large wood to the stream system while maintaining maximum stability and retention of fine sediments. Dependent of operability, slope and topographic characteristics no harvest buffers may vary in width (longer and shorter). Where possible the entire toe of the earthflow should be deferred from harvest in order to maintain toe stability and to retain the large wood source. Retention trees should not be allocated from elsewhere in the Block, but in addition to the green tree retention as described for the Landscape Area.

B. Prescription elements to be applied in Water Quality source areas include:

  1. No road construction, ground skidding, or other activity with the potential to affect surface and subsurface water flow should be permitted within two site-potential tree height of wetlands, unless site specific analysis indicates that surface and subsurface flows will not be affected.
  2. All perennial streams with substantial flows will have a one site-potential tree height buffer where at least 70% canopy cover will be retained. On streams flowing east to west, the entire buffer will be situated on the south side of the stream. On streams flowing north to south, the buffer will extend for one half site-potential tree height on each side of the stream.
  3. Silvicultural treatments such as pre-commercial thinning, fertilization, and commercial thinning should be evaluated and utilized to accelerate development of large wood, shade, and late successional stand structure in existing managed stands, adjacent to perennial streams with substantial flows.

9. Refugia objectives and activities

Recommendations:

Clarify the purpose, extent and management strategy for deferred harvest areas ("refugia") in the landscape management plan. Change the terminology to "deferred harvest areas".

Spatial extent - Cook/Quentin subwatersheds alternate with Tidbit/Mann/Wolf subwatersheds.

Temporal extent - designated refugia switch on a 40-year cycle, starting with 1995-2035.

Purpose - to maintain or enhance late-successional and aquatic habitat so that populations using this habitat are able to recolonize other subwatersheds where disturbance is occurring.

Functions - reproduction, growth, dispersal, and recruitment of late-successional and aquatic species.

Management strategy - 1. coordinate the scheduling of management activities so necessary projects can be conducted prior to road closure to reduce future management disturbance, including noise; 2. provide a focus and priority for road and watershed restoration activities; 3. delay regeneration harvests until after refugia time-period.

Consistent activities - 1. desirable activities - those that maintain or enhance late-successional and aquatic habitat; 2. allowable activities - those that are neutral to late-successional and aquatic habitat; 3. not allowable activities - those that degrade late-successional and aquatic habitat

13. Adjustments to aquatic reserves

Recommendation:

Keep the aquatic reserve criteria unaltered, but move the location of one small-watershed reserve, located at the confluence of Cook Creek and Blue River, slightly upstream to include more late-successional habitat. All other reserve locations were suitable as currently mapped.

21. Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives

We intend to redo the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives analysis to incorporate new information and a broader approach to meeting these objectives. Multiple, integrated components define the aquatic conservation strategy for the Blue River Landscape Study:

1. A less intense timber management regime patterned after historical fire regimes - this results in lower timber harvest frequencies and intensities as compared to Matrix land management in the NFP.

2. A stream corridor reserve system applied to fish-bearing streams - this less extensive riparian reserve network (as compared to the NFP) allows for implementation of timber harvest at spatial scales and patterns more similar to historical fires.

3. A small-watershed reserve system consisting of 200-600 acre blocks distributed across the watershed - these reserves are intended to meet multiple objectives including maintenance of watershed processes, aquatic habitats, and provision of interior late-successional habitat.

4. Large wood, coarse sediment and water quality source area management - areas most likely to provide these materials to key stream reaches are mapped and specific prescriptive elements are provided to ensure continued delivery of these materials to streams.

5. Riparian and lower slope prescriptions - specific prescriptive elements are included to ensure retention of large trees and hardwoods in riparian and lower slope areas.

6. Road restoration strategy - all roads in the watershed have been evaluated for risks to the aquatic ecosystem, and restoration priorities have been established and integrated with the overall landscape management plan.

7. Watershed restoration - a variety of other restoration activities are being implemented including addition of large wood to stream channels, encouraging growth of large conifers near streams, and removal of human-placed migration barriers.

8. Timber harvest scheduling - we've scheduled timber harvest over the watershed to act more like a pulse disturbance & less like a press disturbance.

New information to be incorporated in the revised analysis of aquatic conservation strategy objectives includes:

1. Water quality and substrate source areas and related management guidelines

2. An integrated road restoration strategy

3. Landscape simulations projecting future conditions so that a more quantitative assessment could be made

4. Fire history information for riparian and lower slope areas allowing comparison of planned disturbance rates to historical disturbance rates

The updated analysis would not be part of the landscape management plan per se, but would constitute part of the evaluation of the plan.

This has not been done yet.

Timber harvest prescriptions

3. Spatial variability & spatial pattern of retention trees

Recommendation:

Replace language in the landscape management plan governing the spatial pattern of retention trees with the following language:

Spatial pattern of retention trees

These guidelines are intended to help translate spatial objectives for retention of live overstory trees at the time of timber harvest from the landscape level to the stand level, and to provide a basis for evaluation of the landscape plan. The intent is to create a variable pattern of retention trees within landscape blocks. Final placement of retention trees should integrate these criteria and fit on-the-ground conditions assessed at the time of timber sale planning. To the degree allowed by the need to protect ecological values, spatial patterns of retention trees should use site-specific disturbance patterns as a general template.

Retention trees are intended to maintain a more natural forest pattern, to provide wildlife habitat, and to integrate upslope and riparian management. Placement of retention trees along edges of cutting blocks should be designed to 1) minimize edge contrast, 2) avoid sharp boundaries with high wind throw potential or abrupt microclimate shifts, 3) emulate common post-fire patterns, and 4) maintain nutrient uptake capacity across the hillslope down to the riparian zone, Hardwood trees should generally be left standing where feasible, but are not considered part of the retention tree component of these prescriptions.

Overall guidelines:

  1. Retention trees should be both clumped and scattered individuals. Retention trees should be left out of some areas to create gaps (see #9).
  2. Clumps should range in size from _ acre to 5 acres.
  3. Rock outcrops, wet areas or other special or unique habitat could be used to anchor retention clumps.
  4. Larger blocks should have larger clumps.
  5. Scattered individual trees can range from 40 to 70% of the total retention trees (see Appendix for examples).
  6. Retention trees should include the largest, oldest live trees, decadent or leaning trees, wolf trees, and hard snags.
  7. Retention tree species mix should meet the goals outlined in the Appendix.
  8. Spatial patterns of retention trees should consider the structure and timing of future cutting in adjacent blocks, and minimize edge contrast where feasible.
  9. There should be gaps in each landscape area. Landscape Area 1 should have twice as many 100% retention areas as 0% retention areas. Landscape Area 2 should have the same ratio of 100% retention areas as 0% retention areas. Landscape Area 3 should have twice as many 0% retention areas as 100% retention areas.
  10. Minimum size of gaps is one tree height by one tree height. This will allow for removal of trees and for understory regeneration.
  11. Small landscape blocks should have relatively smaller gaps and large landscape blocks should have larger gaps.
  12. When unsuited or unavailable lands occupy a significant portion of the landscape within a block it may be appropriate to reduce the general target green-tree retention guidelines (see section titled "Land Unsuited or Unavailable for Timber Management").
  13. When a significant portion of the landscape block is currently in a clear-cut, or young conifer plantation that wont’ be harvested in the first entry, it may be appropriate to increase the overall green-tree retention level for the remainder of the block.

Riparian guidelines:

  1. No trees should be cut on any floodplain or streambank, nor should trees directly contributing to streambank stability be cut.
  2. Higher levels of retention should generally be located near streams and lower slope positions. Lower levels of retention should generally be located on upper slope areas.
  3. Fishbearing streams are mapped as reserved areas. The distance of the reserve depends on whether the channel is constrained or unconstrained. The trees left within this distance do not count towards the prescription retention levels.
  4. Non-fishbearing perennial streams are not mapped as reserve areas but have an additional retention requirement above the prescription retention levels. The prescriptions for these streams vary by Landscape Area. In Landscape area 1, 70% canopy closure shall be maintained within _ tree height (86 feet) of the stream. In Landscape area 2 50% canopy closure shall be maintained within that same distance. These retention levels are prescribed to meet the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. These trees do not count toward overall prescription retention levels.
    • In areas identified as water quality source areas 70% canopy closure will be retained on all perennial streams within one site potential tree height (172 feet) buffer. On streams flowing east-west, the entire buffer will be situated on the south side of the stream. On streams flowing north-south, the buffer will extend for one half site potential tree height on each side of the stream. These trees do not count toward overall prescription retention levels.
    • On areas identified as Substrate Source Areas, portions of blocks where soils are shallow and occupy slopes greater than 70%, retention trees will be left scattered evenly on these areas to achieve 50% canopy closure.
    • On streams within earthflow terrain, or within areas of glacial deposits on potentially unstable earthflow terrain retain a one-site tree no harvest buffer. This will maintain a supply of large wood while maintaining stability and retention of fine sediments.
  1. Intermittent streams are not mapped as reserve areas and in general have no additional retention requirements. However, a portion of the overall retention trees should be placed near these streams. 50% canopy closure should be retained along these streams in Landscape area 1, 30% canopy closure in landscape Area 2 and 15% canopy closure in Landscape area 3.
    • Where intermittent streams flow through earthflow areas, a _ to full site tree no-harvest buffer is prescribed. These trees do not count toward the overall retention level. This will maintain a supply of large wood while maintaining stability and retention of fine sediments.
    • In Landscape Area 3 for every 1000 feet of stream reach approximately _ acre of 100% canopy closure would be retained to provide for riparian and terrestrial processes. The extra trees provided will count toward overall retention levels.
  1. Retention trees and clumps should be placed on sites of potentially unstable ground, and on localized areas adjacent to streams prone to streamside slides, to the degree needed to minimize mass movement risks.
  2. If on-the-ground conditions indicate that higher levels of retention trees are needed to meet ecological objectives, prescriptions should be modified accordingly. Similarly, reductions in retention levels may be appropriate in some instances to improve operational feasibility, as long as ecological objectives are met.

Add detailed implementation examples as an appendix to the plan ("Seven steps of retention")

8. Commercial thinning regimes

Recommendations:

Non-refugia: A moderate first thinning entry (similar to experiment 18) provides a good balance between volume, time to Late-Successional Index (LSI), and risk of blowdown. The stand is opened up enough to promote development of crowns, diameters and root systems. This will reduce the risk of blowdown when the stand is opened up to promote development of the second cohort at age 60.

In areas with a low risk of blowdown, a heavy first thin (similar to experiment 4) would be an option that accelerates development of LSI, but at a significant cost to overall volume production.

Refugia: The main concern in these areas is limiting the number of entries over the 40 year refugia period. The option of skipping one or two thinning entries in dynamic young stands involves some tradeoffs. Not thinning at age 40 and/or 60 can produce good overall volumes, including the maximum. However, the stand becomes very dense, with small crowns and small diameters. After delaying entry, the first thin can have a high risk of blowdown, and care must be taken during the planning process so as not to exacerbate the risk. These prescriptions should be used in combination with other choices to produce relatively long periods (ten years or more) of quiet within the refugia. This means that some stands will have a thinning at age forty, and some will be thinned at ages older or younger, so that periods of disturbance are minimized (perhaps three entries over the 40 year interval). These changes will affect volume production, risk of blowdown, and the time it takes to reach LSI, but the impact should be relatively minor.

Another consideration for stands in refugia, is whether they originated as a result of natural disturbance or management activities.

Managed stands: These stands have been impacted by past harvest, burning of slash, reforestation, precommercial thinning, etc. Unnatural conditions resulted from planting heavily to insure regeneration within five years as required by law. A commercial thinning entry is a relatively small disturbance compared to what the site has been through.

Natural stands: These stands most commonly originated after a stand replacement fire, and regeneration took place over a longer time period and with a significant brush component. Stocking levels were generally much lower, and stands may not have gone through a stem exclusion seral stage. These stands should be evaluated on a case by case basis to see if a commercial thin is desired. Stand characteristics like stocking level, structure, species diversity of the overstory and understory, and canopy height diversity should be considered. Other factors include the existing road network, stream conditions, and how long until the scheduled regeneration harvest for the block? The main reason for commercial thinning is to accelerate the development of late-successional habitat, and maintaining it for a significant period of time.

11. Use of crown closure

Recommendations:

Retain crown closure as the best criterion for measuring what is to be left on the site to represent the various fire intensities that are being used in the landscape strategy. Crown closure represents a desired outcome that is independent of pretreatment stand conditions.

However, a clear definition of crown closure is needed, as well as implementing procedures and measurement techniques.

  • Definition: Crown closure is the percent of area covered by live tree crowns as measured vertically from above or below.
  • Measurement: Aerial photos, at a large enough scale that individual tree crowns can easily be seen, is a method that could measure percent crown closure from above. From the ground, the Moosehorn densiometer allows a vertical look upward to measure crown closure.
  • Implementation: The diameter limit procedure used for the past three projects appears at this point to result in meeting the crown closure objectives outlined in the prescriptions. Desired crown closure also needs to be converted to a measure that can easily be used by a marking crew given their experience (TPA and BA) with the final guidelines usually including a blend of all of the techniques.

15. Canopy cover level in landscape area one

Recommendations:

Retention Mix: The review team agreed that the species mix of retention trees should reflect the current mix of dominant and codominant trees in the overstory of the stand that is being harvested. This provides flexibility to recognize the range of conditions found in the natural landscape. This change will apply to Landscape areas 2 and 3 as well.

Reforestation Mix: The review team agreed that the main concern is for maintaining Douglas fir in these stands. There is also a desire to introduce rust-resistant western white pine into these stands. Western white pine is also more shade tolerant that Douglas fir, and should do well in LA-1 and 2. Western hemlock and western redcedar are expected to seed in naturally over time and grow well under the relatively heavy overstory. Planting is not required and the genetic program is not as advanced as for Douglas fir and white pine. The recommendation is to plant Douglas fir and white pine to ensure their presence in Landscape areas 1 and 2. Planting will take place in the gaps and matrix only. Total trees to be planted will average 140 per acre in LA-1 and 200 per acre in LA-2 (75% DF and 25% WP), and will be somewhat variable with more being planted in gaps and less in the matrix. Spacing will range from 12 feet in the gaps to 20 feet in areas with 30-40% crown closure.

Configuration of Gaps and Clumps: The ratio of clumps to gaps will generally be 2:1. This will allow the overall block to average 50% canopy closure, while the matrix will average 40% or less. This is based on modeling with Organon that showed Douglas fir could survive and grow relatively well at 40% crown closure, but tended to drop out of the stand at 50% or more. Western white pine, being a little more shade tolerant, should also do well.

These changes will be reflected in Table 2.

19. Complex prescriptions - fire history

Recommendation:

The team recommendation is to not make these proposed changes at this time (Weisberg 99), and to keep these ideas in mind for future modifications of the landscape management plan. The team feels there is merit to the recommendation, but that it is premature to significantly modify our existing prescriptions since we have not yet been able to fully implement and evaluate the prescriptions in the first iteration of the plan.

Other topics

2. Lands suitable for timber production

Recommendation:

This topic was meant as a clarification of the "inclusions" section, but was not fully resolved. Rewrite of retention rules may take care of the perceived need for this topic.

14. Adjustments to landscape area one boundaries

Recommendation:

Move the boundary between landscape areas one and two further up the watershed to better match the fire regime map as provided in Weisberg report (1999)

16. Wetlands

Recommendation:

There was a perceived need to address wetland management more directly in the landscape plan, but the topic was not resolved.

Language was proposed to address use of equipment and road work near wetlands:

Use of ground based yarding equipment and road construction should not be permitted within one site potential tree height of wetlands, and use of this equipment or construction of new roads within an additional site potential tree height should only occur if site specific evaluation indicates that alteration of subsurface water patterns will not occur.

20. Prescribed fire

Recommendation:

Clarification of prescribed fire objectives is a complex issue. As is stated in the strategy already, "…knowledge of the influence of fire on habitats and other ecological processes is incomplete, especially for low- and moderate-severity fires." The plan as written outlines justification of use of fire process and suggested burn area selection criteria from Wolfmann planning effort were based on finding low complexity, less controversial areas to begin using prescribed fire. Future implementation plans should continue along the course planned in the Strategy. Selection of areas within other project proposal areas for burning could be driven by other factors than those used in finding "easy" areas for the Wolfmann plan.

Some scheduling that is constant could be further elucidated. 1) Minimum stand age at the time of application of prescribed fire is at least 100 years for low stand mortality. 2) There should be at least two time periods (40 yrs) between the burn and other activities. 3) Feasibility of accomplishment to meet objectives could be defined in terms of percentage of block being treated, boundary locations being functional fire perimeter or other subjective measures such as political or policy driven limitations.

IV. Literature Cited

Baker, W. L. 1992. The landscape ecology of large disturbances in the design and management of nature reserves. Landscape Ecology 7:181-194.

Bunnell, F. L. 1995. Forest dwelling vertebrate faunas and natural fire regimes in British Columbia: patterns and implications for conservation. Conservation Biology 9:636-644.

Cissel, J. H.; F. J. Swanson; G. E. Grant; D. H. Olson; S. V. Gregory; S. L. Garman; L. R. Ashkenas; M. G. Hunter; J. N. Kertis; J. H. Mayo; M. D. McSwain; S. G. Swetland; K. A. Swindle; and D. O. Wallin. 1998. A landscape plan based on historical fire regimes for a managed forest ecosystem: the Augusta Creek study. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-422. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon, USA.

Cissel, J. H.; F. J. Swanson; and P. J. Weisberg. 1999. Landscape management using historical fire regimes: Blue River, Oregon. Ecological Applications 9(4):183-198.

Hunter, M. L. Jr. 1993. Natural fire regimes as spatial models for managing boreal forests. Biological Conservation 65:115-120.

Landres, P. B.; P. Morgan; and F. J. Swanson. 1999. Overview of the use of natural variability concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications 9(4): 1217-1231..

Mladenoff, D. J. ; M. A. White; J. Pastor; and T. R. Crow. 1993. Comparing spatial pattern in unaltered old-growth and disturbed forest landscapes. Ecological Applications 3:294-306.

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

Stuart-Smith, K.; and D. Hebert. 1996. Putting sustainable forestry into practice at Alberta Pacific. Canadian Forest Industries April/May:57-60.

Swanson, F. J.; J. A. Jones; D. O. Wallin; and J. H. Cissel. 1994. Natural variability - implications for ecosystem management. Pages 89-106 in M. E. Jensen, and P. S. Bourgeron. technical editors. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment - Volume II: ecosystem management: principles and applications. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-318. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon, USA.

USDA Forest Service; and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of decision for amendments for Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. USDA For. Serv. and USDI Bur. Land Manage. 74 p.

Weisberg, P.J. 1998. Fire history, fire regimes, and development of forest structure in the central western Oregon Cascades. Phd. dissertation, Oregon State University. 256 p.

Weisberg, P.J. 1999. An evaluation of the Blue River landscape project: How well does it use historical fire regimes as a model? Unpublished report on file at the Blue River district office. 24 p.

Appendix A - 2000 All-Participants Meeting

Blue River Landscape Study

4/17/00 - H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest

Participants: Art McKee (OSU), Pam Druliner (OSU/PNW/WNF), Karen Geary (WNF), Pat Ford (WNF), Monty Wilson (WNF), Rob Williams (OSU), Allison Reger (WNF), Amy Unthank (WNF), Sam Swetland (WNF), Fred Swanson (PNW), Jim Overton (WNF), Jim Mayo (WNF), Matt Hunter (PNW/WNF), Bruce McCune (OSU), Teresa Hartman (volunteer), Steve Acker (OSU), Mark Harmon (OSU), Dave Kretzing (WNF), Steve Ackers (OSU/USFWS/ODFW), Neal Forrester (WNF), Ray Rivera (WNF), Ruby Seitz (WNF), Glen Christensen (PNW), Gordon Grant (PNW), Jim Stephens (PNW), Steve Garman (OSU), Teiva White (WNF), Cindy McCain (WNF/SNF), Rob Ribe (UO), Rolf Anderson (facilitator), John Cissel (WNF/PNW)

1. Cascade Center for Ecosystem Management director's view

Fred Swanson (PNW) - the process is an important product, others are watching

Art McKee (OSU) - study is an excellent example of our high-quality partnership

Karen Geary (WNF, acting) - key project for Blue River Ranger District

2. Progress on last year's work plan - John Cissel

last year's "all participant's" meeting laid basis for work plan

reviewed each item on work plan

almost all items are complete or well under way

3. Update on current activities

Monitoring - Matt Hunter (stream temperature, amphibians, and channel structure), Steve Acker (upland and riparian vegetation) and Jim Mayo (upland and riparian vegetation) reviewed the status of effectiveness monitoring activities

Implementation planning- Karen Geary updated folks on the status of the WolfMann EIS (on hold pending release of the S&M EIS) which covers regeneration harvesting, commercial thinning and prescribed underburning in upper Blue River

Implementation - Monty Wilson updated folks on the status of the North Fork Quartz (harvest complete), Blue River Face (on hold pending S&M surveys) and Thin Within (will likely start in a couple of weeks) timber sales

Prescription modeling - Jim Mayo briefly reviewed Steve Garman's report on stand growth and development for hundreds of combinations of thinning intensities for each of the three general management strategies in the study. Steve used the ZELIG simulation model to evaluate late-successional habitat and conifer production. Glen Christensen updated us on the status of his analysis of Blue River landscape prescriptions using the ORGANON stand simulator and the LMS landscape projection system.

LTER landscape synthesis - John Cissel summarized Steve Garman's work on landscape simulation experiments for upper Blue River and HJA.

Scenario assessment - Bruce McCune reviewed the status of Shanti Berryman's work aimed at assessing habitat relations among epiphytic lichen community structure and biomass with stand structure and environmental variables. This work will be used as a basis for comparing the landscape management plan with the matrix and riparian reserve approach. Steve Ackers briefly reviewed a proposal to compare spotted owl performance under these same two scenarios. John Cissel summarized a landscape scenario project just getting under way under the auspices of the PNW Wood Compatibility Initiative (WCI). This project will be used to build a landscape simulation model for Blue River watershed to assess scenarios for the WCI and for future development of the Blue River landscape management plan.

4. 2000 adaptive management topics

Each of the topics for the 2000 adaptive management process were briefly reviewed:

Dead Wood

1. Snag levels and methods                                                                   Ruby

5. Snag creation in landscape areas 2 & 3                                             Ruby

17. Down wood levels and methods                                                      Ruby

18. Dead wood creation in 100% retention areas                                  Ruby

Aquatic conservation objectives

4. Road restoration strategy                                                                  John C .

6. Water quality source areas                                                                Dave

7. Large wood and coarse sediment source areas                                  Dave

9. Refugia objectives and activities                                                        John C.

13. Adjustments to aquatic reserves                                                      John C.

21. Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives analysis              Ray

Timber harvest prescriptions

3. Spatial variability & spatial pattern of retention trees              Karen. & Jim O.

8. Commercial thinning regimes                                                 Jim M.

11. Use of crown closure                                                                      Jim M.

15. Canopy cover level in landscape area one                           Jim M.

19. Complex prescriptions - fire history                                     John C.

Other topics

2. Lands suitable for timber production                                      Pat

14. Adjustments to landscape area one boundaries                                John C.

16. Wetlands                                                                                        Pat

20. Prescribed fire                                                                                Sam

5. Small group discussions

We broke into 4 small groups (aquatic analysis, vegetation prescriptions, dead wood and prescribed fire) to review and discuss the adaptive management topics. Small group notes follow:

A. Aquatic analysis

Aquatic Group Discussion: Ray Rivera, Dave Kretzing, Gordon Grant, John Cissel, Amy Unthank, Monty Wilson, Teiva White

We started out by looking at the source area map for sediment. Gordon provided most of the comments during the discussion and asked questions on the logic path of our new proposals.

  • How does this all fit into the big picture (i.e. wood, sediment, water, reserve system)?
  • Many of our identified stream channels are not truly "response" channels (which the team acknowledged during the process). Gorden identified some of our low gradient reaches along the main channel of Blue River as being too confined to store substrate materials and develop habitat, even though gradients were low. He recommended eliminating these reaches since the poor likelihood of meeting our objectives there, could reduce the credibility of our approach.
  • Gordon liked what we are trying to do, but we need to have our logic path "transparent" because at present it is not clear. We need a clear tracking of our history and rationale. Also, the sediment and wood sources are typically "local" in nature, but transport does occur.

Gordon felt we had two objectives: 1) stay out of high risk areas, and 2) we want to keep the "goods and services" that hillslope processes provide for stream channels. So he felt we had two options to go forward with.

  1. Keep our process as is.
  1. Take a look at natural hazard, risks, important resources. Then overlay this information with a map of the plan and ask ourselves, "where are the high risk areas being accommodated with the current reserve system?"
  1. Finally, address the "misfits" that are not covered by the current reserve system.

B. Vegetation prescriptions

Topic #3: Spatial Variability and Retention Trees.

Discussion points:

    1. Should clumps include areas with less than 100% crown closure? A mix of clumps could be provided within a landscape block, that varied from 100% and included some more open clumps as long as they were more dense than the matrix of the block. Logging system restrictions may come into play if clumps are lightly thinned.
    2. What should be the maximum size considered for a clump or gap within a landscape block? The current range is .25 to 5.0 acres, with larger clumps being located in larger landscape blocks. No mention is made of gaps. Is this range of sizes adequate for gaps?
    3. Are models a valid representation of what is on the ground? Current models that have been used with this study (Zelig and Organon) average stand conditions over the block. A range of densities was analyzed to determine how well Douglas fir would do in LA-1 (50% canopy closure). This information was used to prescribe the desired level of clumps and gaps to maintain a matrix canopy closure that averaged 40% or less, to ensure Douglas fir survival and growth.
    4. Should prescriptions represent the variation in conditions caused by changes in aspect? It may be desirable to adjust the ratio of clumps to gaps in some situations to provide a matrix canopy closure that is less dense on a North slope than a South slope, to encourage Douglas fir regeneration and growth.

Topics #8 and 15: Commercial Thinning Regimes.

Discussion points:

    1. Commercial thinning entries should be scheduled and implemented in a way that avoids producing overly dense young stands with little or no understory vegetation. The prescription should account for variations due to aspect.
    2. Heavy thins should be applied on portions of the landscape that are less prone to wind damage. This would vary by landscape block, but would generally include lower slope positions and broad valley floors.
    3. Within areas that are serving as a refugia (40 years), minimize the number of times that the area is disturbed (once every ten years?), but don’t let the young stands stagnate to the point that it slows the time it takes to reach late-successional habitat.

Topic #11: Canopy Closure.

Discussion points:

    1. Need a good way to convert to other measures (BA, TPA, etc) so the information can be related to other data sets (Lichen plots, etc.).
    2. Need to coordinate with other uses of canopy closure as a measurement (wildlife, stream temperature, etc.) and see if they are measured differently, and if so, what are the implications?

Issues:

  1. Safety concerns with future logging around snags that are being created.
  2. Increased internal planning and layout costs of complex prescriptions could lead to below cost timber sale situations.
  3. Look for ways to change designation policy or simplify the prescription in other ways (diameter limit) to reduce costs and workload.
  4. Need to communicate the benefits of this type of landscape management on long-term ecosystem health, and put monetary values to those other resource benefits (wildlife, fish, water quality, etc.).
  5. The idea of managing more complex prescriptions over time (100, 100, 100, 260) by changing harvest cycles was not thought to be a high priority at this time. Natural fires will occur at various times and can be used as a way of changing the prescription.

C. Dead wood

No documentation ever provided

D. Prescribed Fire

Fred Swanson, Sam Swetland

Question: Is more information on prescribed fire objectives needed in the BRLS?

What would the total amount of burning be?

Do low and moderate severity fires meet landscape plan objectives?

What areas are of highest priority for treatment?

Should fire be excluded, on a programmatic basis, from any specific areas?

Reason for Question: During attempts to implement a prescribed planning proposal in the WolfMann TS, questions on objective and desired outcome needed clarification.

Relevant study component: P.15,16 and table2.

Adaptation Options:

Include demonstration of potential burning under different scheduling, prioritizing and selection criteria? (Tables or GIS exercise)

More specific objectives identified. (Literature search, research and monitoring)

Recommended Adaptations:

Proceed with what clarifications are possible in terms of acres proposed for burning under the current landscape scheduling macros. This information will need to be discussed by the BRLS team to decide which direction should be taken in the next planning effort.

Clarification of prescribed fire objectives is a more complex issue. As is stated in the strategy already, "…knowledge of the influence of fire on habitats and other ecological processes is incomplete, especially for low- and moderate-severity fires." Three strategies were discussed relating to methods of improving this knowledge.

Fred felt that there would be the possibility of interesting an instructor in following the low severity fire question and finding a student with research interest in some question regarding fire effects to support application of fire objectives. Many questions are already being asked about difference in effect of change in aspect, position on slope or across gradient of elevation. This would coincide well with current fire management policy that supports increasing use of fuels reduction treatment and the Integrated Natural Fuels Management Strategy.

Encourage taking advantage of all monitoring opportunities in current projects or fires. Included in this would be summation of fire planning efforts across the west cascades.

Work with integrating fire objectives with other disturbance related strategies such as for snags and down wood. Impacts to fisheries, hydrology, botany, etc. need to be discussed for both distribution and timing of disturbance planning as well.

6. General questions and items for consideration

- are monitoring hypotheses explicitly stated?

- is there a consistent concept among coarse sediment/large wood source areas and minimizing mass movement from roads?

- is there a consistent concept among thinning to "capture" mortality and snag creation?

- should biodiversity/habitat feed into road restoration priorities?

- should we model more complex prescriptions?

- where can we simplify the landscape management plan?

- how do we transfer results, or integrate into forest plan revision?

- what are the issues coming down the road?

- need adaptive management process with faster question-answer response time

- need to start thinking about how to incorporate climate change into landscape simulations

- can we place a photo tour on the www site?

Appendix B - 5/25/00 Field Trip

Blue River Landscape Study

Central Cascades Adaptive Management Area

Adaptive Management 2000 (May 25, 2000)

The Blue River Landscape Study is an ongoing, long-term project intended to develop, refine, implement and evaluate a landscape management plan based to a significant degree on information about historical disturbance regimes. New information from modeling, research, and operational experience has led to a series of proposals to modify the landscape management plan and implementation procedures. We'd like your help in evaluating these proposals.

Objectives:

1. Share information about the progress and status of the Blue River Landscape Study

2. Obtain input and feedback regarding proposed modifications of the Blue River Landscape Study

3. Exchange information about landscape management experiences with others

4. Develop and test approaches to adaptive management

Intended audience:

Anyone interested in the use of historical ecosystem information in landscape management planning, or in the adaptive management process.

Agenda:

9:00 - Meet at H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest headquarters

9:05 - Introductions, agenda review (John Cissel)

9:15 - Natural range of variability - passing fad or coming attraction? (Fred Swanson)

9:30 - Travel to Blue River overlook

9:45 - Overview (John Cissel)

landscape management plan

adaptive management process

10:10 - Dead wood (Ruby Seitz)

10:40 - Travel to Mill Thin

10:50 -Commercial thinning (Jim Mayo)

11:20 - Travel to Block 9

11:35 - Prescription (Jim Mayo)

11:45 - Spatial pattern of retention trees (Jim Overton)

12:15   Lunch

12:45 - Return to HJA

1:00 -   Aquatic conservation strategy objectives

large wood, coarse sediment and water quality source areas

(Dave Kretzing, John Phillips, Ray Rivera)

road restoration strategy (John Cissel)

2:20 - Break

2:40 - Group discussion

How is this work relevant to management outside of the AMA?

What are we missing?

3:30 - Fin

PARTICIPANTS:

Non-agency

Craig Patterson

Jim Baker

Carol Ach (Institute for Regenerative Agroforestry)

Doug Heiken (ONRC)

Tom Geisen (Citizens for Public Resources)

Oregon State University

Steve Ackers

Pam Druliner

Eugene BLM

Nancy Wogen

Lynn Larson

Mike Blow

Emily Rice

Trish Wilson

Christy Hardenbrook

Roseburg BLM

Paul Meinke

Anne Boeder

US Fish and Wildlife Service

Kit Hershey

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Fred Swanson

Glenn Christensen

Matt Hunter

Rogue River National Forest

Steve Boyer

Stan Marshall

Ed Reilly

Rod Wilson

George Regas

Umpqua National Forest

Ray Davis

Don Morrison

Jenny Reinheardt

Alan Baumann

Barbara Fontaine

Willamette National Forest

Jim Mayo

Rob Iwamoto

Jim Overton

John Phillips

Norm Michaels

Sam Swetland

Karen Geary

Mike Rassbach

Dave Kretzing

Ruby Seitz

Tom Hayward

Herb Wick

Tim Kee

John Cissel