Landscape Management and Monitoring Strategy

Version #1

April 18, 1997

• Introduction
  • Background
    • Project Goals
  • Adaptive Management Concept
  • Relationship to Forest Plan, Adaptive Management Area Guide, and NEPA
  • Setting
  • Analytical Process
• Phase 1 - Basic Information
• Phase 2 - Landscape Management Strategy
  • Special Area Reserves
  • Landscape Areas
    • Process
    • General landscape area prescriptions
    • Spatial pattern of retention trees
    • Dead trees
    • Prescribed fire
    • Inclusions
    • Response to Unplanned Disturbances
  • Aquatic Reserves
  • Watershed Restoration
    • Refugia
    • Timber harvest areas
    • Other locations
    • Roads
    • In-stream structures
    • Riparian vegetation
    • Terrestrial habitats
• Phase 3 - Spatial and Temporal Projection
  • Landscape Blocks
  • Timber Harvest Scheduling
  • Refugia Watersheds
• Phase 4 - Evaluation
  • Interim Plan
    • Prescriptions
  • Landscape Structure
  • Plant and Animal Habitats
  • Spotted Owls
  • Riparian Habitat
    • Condition of riparian areas
    • Species of concern
  • Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives
    • Objective #1
    • Objective #2
    • Objective #3
    • Objective #4
    • Objective #5
    • Objective #6
    • Objective #7
    • Objective #8
    • Objective #9
  • Timber production and operational feasibility.
• Phase 5 - Monitoring
  • Background
  • H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest
  • Watershed scale
    • Landscape pattern
    • Northern spotted owls
  • Subwatershed scale
    • Management simulation of disturbance regimes
    • Stream discharge
    • Social acceptability
  • Small-stream scale
    • Stream-dependent amphibians
    • Fish populations
    • Stream temperature
    • Wood input
  • Site scale
    • Erosion
    • Forest regeneration
    • Stand development
    • Nonvascular plants
• Literature Cited

---

Introduction

Background

A history of landscape-scale case studies conducted in the central Willamette National Forest have developed and demonstrated methods to minimize fragmentation of older forests (Cook-Quentin - 1988), identify "ecologically significant old growth" and connective corridors (Upper Fall Creek - 1990), and establish integrated landscape and watershed objectives based upon historical disturbance regimes (Augusta Creek - 1995). Additionally, a landscape field experiment was proposed for the Blue River watershed in the late 1980’s to test hypotheses concerning the effects of alternative landscape patterns. This experiment was never implemented because the Blue River watershed was designated as a Habitat Conservation Area for the spotted owl (HCA) in 1990, precluding further timber harvest in the watershed. That designation was superseded by the Northwest Forest Plan in 1994. The Blue River watershed and surrounding lands are now in the Central Cascades Adaptive Management Area, an allocation in the Northwest Forest Plan that encourages development and evaluation of new approaches to integrating ecological and social objectives. Specific objectives for the Central Cascades Adaptive Management Area listed in the Record of Decision for the Northwest Forest Plan include: "intensive research on ecosystem and landscape processes and its application to forest management in experiments and demonstrations at the stand and watershed level; approaches for integrating forest and stream management objectives and on implications of natural disturbance regimes" (ROD p. D-12).

Results from the Augusta Creek landscape analysis provide a solid foundation for projects designed to meet the Adaptive Management Area objectives in the Blue River watershed. The Augusta Creek Project demonstrated that it is feasible to use historical fire regimes as a general template for future vegetation management. Additionally, results from the Augusta Creek analysis indicated that this form of landscape management may provide advantages over the long-term for a wide variety of species, particularly those associated with late-successional forests, such as the northern spotted owl, as compared to the interim Northwest Forest Plan (Cissel et al., in press). This concept needs a landscape-scale test to further evaluate the feasibility and consequences of managing with a historical disturbance regime general template.

Project Goals

The purpose of the Blue River Landscape Project is to develop, demonstrate and test an integrated landscape management strategy to achieve ecological and social objectives based upon historical disturbance regimes for the Blue River watershed (approximately 57,000 acres). The primary goal is to sustain native habitats, species, and ecological processes while providing a sustained flow of wood fiber for conversion to wood products. The general assumption is that the more future landscapes resemble historical landscapes, the higher the likelihood of retaining native habitats, species and ecological functions. A goal of the Blue River Landscape Project is to further develop and refine the general landscape management approach demonstrated in the Augusta Creek Project. Studies performed within this watershed, such as the spotted owl demography study, provide additional information upon which to base the Blue River landscape management approach.

Another goal for this project is to develop a watershed restoration component for the Blue River watershed and integrate this approach with the landscape management strategy for vegetation. The general goal is to reestablish habitats, species, and processes where feasible so that aquatic ecosystems can function within a range of variability that approximates historical ecosystems in this watershed. The intent is to integrate this strategy with the landscape management approach so that the spatial and temporal extents of management activities is coordinated as closely as feasible to meet overall landscape and watershed management objectives. Studies performed within this watershed, such as the peak streamflows study, provide additional information upon which to base the watershed restoration strategy.

An additional goal is to develop and portray the landscape management strategy in sufficient temporal and spatial detail that planning for subsequent projects to implement the strategy can be focused on site-specific issues and conditions. Future management actions will likely include prescribed fires, timber sales, stream and road restoration projects, reduction of exotic species, wildlife enhancement projects and silvicultural activities such as reforestation and thinning. A project schedule will be developed by Blue River Ranger District program managers as a transition step between landscape planning and project planning.

A major goal of this project is to evaluate the effectiveness of this historical disturbance-based management strategy for achieving the objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan. The presence of the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest within the watershed provides unique monitoring opportunities. Existing long-term datasets are available for the Andrews and surrounding lands to help evaluate trends within the watershed. In addition, the Andrews landscape itself provides a reference point for comparison with the rest of the watershed where management activities are planned. The 15,700 acre Andrews has had very little manipulation for the last 25 years (since 1970) and very little manipulation is anticipated in the future. Spotted owl demography, stream discharge, and amphibian populations have been monitored across the larger Blue River watershed. Comparison of future habitat patterns with nearby matrix lands, wilderness and large private industrial lands is also feasible. Vegetation and land-use data have been compiled using remote sensing for a much larger study area in the McKenzie and South Santiam watersheds since 1972.

A final goal for this project is to support and facilitate landscape-scale research opportunities. The strategy described in this document is new and should present numerous opportunities for new research. The ongoing landscape pattern and process research based at the Andrews provides a sound basis for additional work. In addition, much hydrology and stream ecology research has been conducted in this watershed, and the implementation of this strategy should augment existing research opportunities.

Adaptive Management Concept

The central concept of this project is that approximating key aspects of historical fire regimes through forest management practices can sustain native habitats and species, maintain ecological processes within historical ranges, and provide a sustained flow of timber. A premise of this approach is that native species are adapted to the range of habitat patterns resulting from historical disturbance events over the last 500 years, and the probability of survival of these species is reduced if their environment lies outside the range of historical conditions for a prolonged period of time (Swanson et al 1993). Similarly, ecological processes, such as those involved in nutrient and hydrologic cycles, have functioned historically within a range of conditions established by disturbance and successional patterns. Operating outside the range of past conditions may affect these processes in unforeseeable and perhaps undesirable ways. While this concept is largely untested, various projects are exploring this approach in a variety of settings across North America (e.g., Baker 1992, Hunter 1993, Mladenoff et al. 1993, Stuart-Smith and Hebert 1996).

Historical fire regimes in this portion of the central western Cascades vary over time and space (Teensma 1987, Morrison and Swanson 1990, Weisberg 1996). General fire regimes have been identified and mapped for the Blue River watershed based upon these studies. In the Blue River landscape strategy timber harvest and prescribed fire regimes have been set to approximate key parameters of historical fire regimes (e.g., disturbance frequency, intensity and spatial pattern) to the degree feasible while still meeting the underlying objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan. These management regime interpretations of past fire regimes reflect mean conditions and do not incorporate the extremes of past fire behavior. For example, very large and intense fires were a part of the historical fire regime, but are not incorporated into future management regimes. In addition, timber harvest frequencies were lowered in comparison with the corresponding fire frequency since unplanned and unsuppressed future fires will likely occur.

Two important qualifications to this approach should be understood. First, existing conditions are far different from historical conditions in many cases (e.g., the presence of roads, clearcuts and a reservoir). Existing conditions require modification to historical disturbance regime based approaches in order to meet the objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan. And second, the combination of timber harvest and prescribed fire is different from the historical occurrence of fire in ways that can not be replicated in a timber harvest regime (e.g., much lower levels of residual dead wood). Large-scale habitat modifications resulting from past management actions in combination with societal expectations (e.g., that native species be maintained, timber produced, and fire suppressed) limit the degree to which historical patterns can be applied in future management regimes.

Testing these concepts requires ongoing monitoring, evaluation and adjustment programs. Traditional science-based hypothesis testing, using controls and replication, is not practical for projects of this scale. The monitoring strategy focuses on comparing development of stand and landscape structure under this approach to stand and landscape structure resulting from natural disturbances, and on the consequences of this management approach on key taxa, ecological processes and human uses (see Monitoring section). Monitoring systems currently in place on and nearby the Andrews provide numerous opportunities to implement the monitoring strategy. Periodic interdisciplinary assessment of monitoring results and evaluation of the need to modify the landscape management strategy is planned.

Relationship to Forest Plan, Adaptive Management Area Guide, and NEPA

This document describes the landscape management strategy intended to guide management activities within the Blue River watershed. It is an implementation and monitoring guide meant to provide consistency and focus to activities in the Blue River watershed that are directed to achieving Central Cascades Adaptive Management Area objectives. The Blue River landscape management strategy is based upon concepts developed at the watershed scale. It provides context and guidance to projects so that the underlying concepts are implemented over time. The effectiveness of larger scale monitoring and evaluation (see Monitoring section) depends upon project implementation consistent with the landscape management strategy.

This document is consistent with the Northwest Forest Plan (USDI and USDA 1994). The Blue River watershed and surrounding lands were allocated to the Central Cascades Adaptive Management Area in the Northwest Forest Plan. The purpose of the Adaptive Management Area is to encourage development and evaluation of new approaches to integrate ecological and social objectives, with a specific emphasis on approaches for integrating forest and stream management objectives and on implications of natural disturbance regimes (ROD p. D-12).

This document is also consistent with the Central Cascades Adaptive Management Area strategic guide. The guide was developed to provide focus and coherence to Adaptive Management Area activities, and to meet Northwest Forest Plan requirements. The Adaptive Management Area guide identifies themes for Adaptive Management Area activities, and suggests potential projects to implement those themes. The Blue River Landscape Project is identified in the guide as a project to meet the landscape management theme, and is summarized in Appendix E of the guide.

This document does not make formal decisions resulting in activities affecting the environment. Decisions that commit resources to management actions will be made at the project-scale. Prior to commencement of any activity potentially affecting the environment a formal NEPA document will be prepared. Environmental analyses under NEPA for projects relying on guidance contained in this document will incorporate relevant material form this document into the project NEPA document. In particular, cumulative effects analyses for project assessments will incorporate information from this document.

Setting

The Blue River watershed (approximately 59,000 acres) lies within the McKenzie River subbasin (approximately 873,000 acres), a major tributary to the Willamette river in western Oregon. The water of the McKenzie River is cherished for recreational, scenic, and economic values, and is a source of drinking water for over 200,000 people. Most of the watershed (97%) is administered by the Blue River Ranger District. The Northwest Forest Plan (1994) designated the entire watershed as an Adaptive Management Area, a management allocation that emphasizes research, monitoring and education focused on integrating ecological and social objectives. A unique and important component of the watershed is the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest (approximately 15,700 acres), occupying the entire Lookout Creek subwatershed. The Andrews was established in 1948 and has a long history of ecological and forest management research and monitoring.

The Blue River watershed is located on the eastern edge of the western Cascade physiographic province (9-40 million years old) in Oregon. The terrain is steep, varied and deeply dissected reflecting a complex history of lava flows, uplift, faulting, glacial advance and retreat, mass movements, and hydrothermal alterations. Elevations range from 5,349 ft. at Carpenter Mountain, to 1,040 ft. at the confluence with the McKenzie River. Wolf Rock is a prominent volcanic intrusion visible from many areas in the watershed. Wet, cool winters and dry, warm summers typify the climate in this area. Seasonal snowpacks usually develop above 3,500 ft. elevation, with the lower elevations dominated by rain, or rain-on-snow from November through May. The streams within the watershed are generally high gradient (>2%) with a step-pool morphology. Most are steeply incised with narrow valley widths.

Forest structure and composition reflect climatic gradients and the complex fire history of the area. The watershed lies within the western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and Pacific silver fir (Abies amabalis) vegetation zones. Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) is the dominant tree species over most of the planning area, with western hemlock and western redcedar (Thuja plicata) being the most common associates. Pacific silver fir and noble fir (Abies procera) dominate colder sites. Natural stands of trees in the watershed contain a mixture of younger forests ranging in age from 60-150 years old, and older forests 400-500 years of age. Plantations regenerated following clearcutting are dispersed throughout most of the roaded area. Most timber harvest from 1950-1970 occurred within the Lookout Creek basin, while most timber harvests since 1970 were located in the remainder of the watershed.

The diversity of wildlife in the watershed is similar to other nearby watersheds. Bald eagles, peregrine falcons, harlequin ducks, Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted owls, beaver, bear, deer and elk are some of the species of special interest sighted within the watershed. Wolf Lake provides habitat for waterfowl and pond-breeding amphibians. A long-term spotted owl research study is centered on the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest.

Thirteen species of fish and ten aquatic amphibians are known to inhabit the watershed. Aquatic habitat includes a reservoir, river, streams, and ponds. Blue River dam is an upstream migration barrier for fish, isolating upstream fish populations. Cutthroat trout occur both upstream and downstream of the dam and are the most common wild salmonid in the watershed. Both wild and hatchery rainbow trout exist in the watershed. Approximately 25,000 hatchery rainbow trout are annually stocked in the reservoir and lower Blue River.

Humans have used this watershed for at least the last 10,000 years. Numerous prehistoric use locations have been documented in the watershed, indicating that native people were occupied with broad spectrum hunting and gathering, exploiting available food sources on a seasonal basis. Gold Hill was once an active gold mining district employing approximately 250 men during the early twentieth century. Existing uses are quite varied. The H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, established in 1948, is a national and world resource for ecosystem research. Blue River Reservoir provides boating, swimming fishing and camping. Carpenter Mountain, Tidbits Mountain, Buck Mountain, and Wolf Rock are popular destinations.

Analytical Process

The landscape management strategy was developed in four distinct phases. In practice, however, there was a great deal of overlap among phases and multiple iterations of some work. Each of these phases was conducted in the context of the larger adjacent watersheds, and was designed to efficiently link to project-level planning.

In the first phase, information about past and current conditions, ecological processes, disturbance regimes and human uses were compiled. This basic information provided the foundation for all succeeding analyses.

In the second phase, a landscape management and watershed restoration strategy was developed based on the range of "natural" variability of forest conditions as interpreted from fire and other disturbance history studies, and modified where current conditions were perceived to be outside the range of past conditions. The watershed was stratified into various management zones with differing management approaches prescribed for each zone.

In the third phase, spatially- and temporally-explicit portrayals of potential future landscape conditions were developed based upon the management strategies developed in the second phase. The resulting maps of future landscape structure provide a specific and direct link to project-scale planning for timber sales, prescribed fire, silvicultural activities, and restoration or recovery projects.

In the fourth phase, this landscape management approach was evaluated, in part by comparison to the standard, unmodified Northwest Forest Plan direction as applied to Matrix lands. Key objectives, such as the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives, spotted owl population, landscape structure, and timber harvest volume were evaluated through a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods.

Phase 1 - Basic Information

The basic information used for development of the landscape management and watershed restoration strategies is compiled elsewhere. Much of the underlying information resides in the Blue River watershed analysis report (available at the Blue River Ranger District office). This watershed analysis was conducted in the winter of 1996 following procedures in the Federal Guide to Watershed Analysis. Past and present conditions and trends are documented for a wide range of resources, ecological processes and human uses. Management interpretations that relied upon this information will be reviewed when the watershed analysis is updated.

In addition to the watershed analysis report, three other information sources were important references for development of the landscape management and watershed restoration strategies. The "Blue River Fire Regime Analysis and Description" (Weisberg 1996) and supporting maps provided critical data and descriptions of general fire regimes in the Blue River watershed (available at the Blue River Ranger District office). This document took the form of an informal report on research in progress as part of an ongoing graduate student program. Management interpretations that relied upon this interim report will be reviewed when the final thesis is completed.

Similarly, "Herpetofauna in the Blue River Watershed, Western Cascades, Oregon" (Hunter 1996) was provided as an informal report on research in progress as part of an ongoing graduate student program. Information and maps in this report (available at the Blue River Ranger District office) document locations of amphibians and reptiles in the Blue River watershed. Management interpretations that relied upon this interim information will be reviewed when the final thesis is completed.

A multifaceted, long-term research program on the northern spotted owl is centered out of the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, and includes the entire Blue River watershed. Data on the reproductive rates and perceived habitat quality for each pair of owls in the watershed were provided to the Blue River Ranger District. This information is documented in the form of a map with several levels of productivity indicated (available for review at the Blue River Ranger District office). Management interpretations that relied upon this information will be reviewed whenever new information is available.

Phase 2 - Landscape Management Strategy

We followed four general steps to develop the landscape management strategy:

1. "Special area reserves" allocated in the Willamette National Forest Plan, as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan, were delineated. We adopted the reserve boundaries and general management prescriptions in the Forest Plan for these areas.
2. The remainder of the planning area was subdivided into noncontiguous zones of similar ecological conditions and disturbance regimes, and vegetation management prescriptions were developed for each zone based on an interpreted range of natural conditions. These zones were termed "landscape areas".
3. "Aquatic reserves" were then established to ensure that the full range of objectives in the Northwest Forest Plan would be met, with particular attention given to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives (ROD 1994). These reserves were based, in part, on the type and intensity of upslope management in the local landscape area, and were designed to reflect general patterns of disturbance processes.
4. A watershed restoration component was then developed to enable the aquatic ecosystem to function within a range of historical variability and retain a capacity to recover from management disturbances.

Figure 1 shows the location of these reserves and landscape areas; Table 1 shows the acres in each category.

Special Area Reserves

The following reserves in the 1990 Willamette National Forest Plan were kept in a reserve status in this landscape management strategy: Thirty-five 100-acre Late-Successional Reserves associated with pairs of northern spotted owls, Hagan Late-Successional Reserve, H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Carpenter Mountain Special Interest Area, Wolf Rock Special Interest Area, and Gold Hill Special Interest Area. Management prescriptions described in the 1990 Forest Plan continue to be appropriate for these areas. Objectives associated with other allocations in the 1990 Forest Plan (e.g., visual management and special wildlife habitat areas) were felt to be met or exceeded through the landscape management strategy described below.

Landscape Areas

Process

The remaining portion of landscape not in Special Area Reserves is expected to provide some level of timber harvest while meeting a variety of ecological and social objectives (e.g., scenic views, functional riparian areas, and unique habitats). The need for additional reserves to meet the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives was evaluated as a separate step (described in a later section). These reserves were considered after the general landscape management strategy was established so that the relative need for additional reserves could be considered in light of likely future management actions. Based upon past experience with the Augusta Creek project, we anticipated that the landscape management strategy would feature upslope management regimes containing variable but generally longer rotations, lower timber harvest frequencies, and variable but generally higher levels of green tree retention as compared to the Willamette National Forest Plan. Where feasible, the landscape management strategy was modified to meet the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives instead of creating additional reserves.

Three noncontiguous landscape areas were mapped, each representing different portions of a complex gradient of ecological conditions and disturbance regimes. The fire regime map (Weisberg report 1996) was a primary basis for these delineations. This map portrayed potential fire frequencies in three classes as derived from a linear regression model. While this map appeared to represent a good first cut at fire regimes, modifications to the map were made where data were lacking. Interpretations drawn from this map were integrated with other information sources to delineate landscape areas. In particular, the plant series map, road map, stream map, and topographic maps provided relevant information. Boundaries were drawn so they could be readily located on the ground.

General prescriptions for each of these three landscape areas were drawn from an examination of the fire history (Weisberg report 1996) and other analyses documented in the Blue River watershed analysis report. Parameters of timber harvest regimes were derived from corresponding parameters of fire regimes. Timber harvest rotation ages (cutting frequency) approximated the frequency of stand- or partial stand-replacing fires for each landscape area. Rotations were lengthened by 20-40 years relative to the corresponding fire-return interval in recognition of the likelihood of an occasional escaped fire. The amount of forest cover retained at the time of regeneration harvest was matched with the interpreted severity of stand- or partial stand-replacing fires in each area. Spatial pattern objectives for each landscape area were developed from analysis of individual fire event sizes, and from the pattern of patch sizes resulting from recurring fires over time within each area (Morrison and Swanson 1990).

The correlation between the desired characteristics of future human-initiated disturbances with past disturbance regimes was general. For example, we tried to reflect the variability of patch sizes in the historical landscape and the tendency for some parts of the landscape to have smaller patches than others. The landscape management strategy calls for a range of created patch sizes across the landscape with small patches (<100 acres) emphasized in certain landscape areas, and larger patches (200-400 acres) in others. However, we assumed that it would be socially unacceptable to reflect the full range of historical conditions, which included some very large and intense fires creating patches thousands of acres in size.

Prescriptions were further developed based on results from the stand simulator ZELIG.PNW (Garman 1992, Urban 1993) to provide more details for silvicultural prescriptions and to evaluate the feasibility of these prescriptions. This model simulates stand dynamics over long rotations (200+ years) with varying levels of overstory retention. Variables considered in the analysis of prescriptions included reforestation composition and density, pre-commercial thinning density and residual composition, and the timing and density of commercial thinning. The ability of ZELIG.PNW to simulate stand development under previous, standard silvicultural prescriptions was first demonstrated by comparing model results with the Willamette National Forest stand projection tables. Sensitivity analyses were conducted comparing a wide range of potential timber management regimes. Results identified prescriptions providing sustainable production of wood fiber volume over multiple rotations.

Hydrologic analyses were used to evaluate and adjust landscape prescriptions to ensure that the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives will be met. Prescriptions set for areas of potential high susceptibility to rain-on-snow flood events or high contribution to late-summer baseflow were adjusted if necessary to ensure that these hydrologic processes would not be substantially affected by management activities. Guidelines for placement of retention trees, location and scheduling of future timber harvests, and the size of future timber harvest blocks were developed considering the sensitivity of the landscape to altered hydrologic functions.

General objectives were also established for the occurrence of fire. Moderate to high severity fires were replaced in this management approach by the use of prescribed fire following timber harvest activities, and by the anticipated occasional escaped fire. Objectives were also established for low-severity fires through either natural or human ignitions.

General landscape area prescriptions

Vegetation management within each of the three landscape areas is intended to approximate key elements of an interpreted historical fire regime associated with that area. Each landscape area has a general disturbance regime associated with it:

Landscape Area 1: - General objective: approximate key elements of a relatively frequent, moderate severity (40-60% mortality) stand-regeneration fire regime.

Landscape Area 2: - General objective: approximate key elements of a moderate frequency, moderate-to-high severity (60-80% mortality) stand-regeneration fire regime.

Landscape Area 3: - General objective: approximate key elements of an infrequent, high severity (>80% mortality) stand-regeneration fire regime.

Key elements of the landscape area prescriptions are displayed in Table 2.

Continuation of a general fire suppression policy and goals for economically viable, long-term timber production limit the ability of managers to replicate the historical role of fire. The vegetation management regimes described in this section focus primarily on the role of fire in controlling forest and landscape structure, and secondarily on the process effects of fire itself (e.g., soil heating or nitrogen volatilization). Vegetation management regimes described in table 2, and the anticipated occasional fire that escapes initial suppression efforts, are intended to develop forest and landscape structure similar to historical landscapes. Variation in the frequency, severity, and spatial distribution of timber harvest is designed into the regimes themselves, and escaped fires will add still greater variability. The process roles of fire are simulated to a degree by the use of controlled fires after timber harvests and after forest stands mature (table 2), and by escaped fires. The actual effects of these fires may vary substantially from historical fires. However, these fires will be less frequent, of lower severity, and smaller in size than those that occurred historically.

A timber management program and prescribed fire regime are clearly different than the historical role of fire. These differences are largely unavoidable, but should be considered in the implementation of this strategy. Major differences include:

• Variability - historical fire frequency, severity, size, and spatial pattern were all more spatially and temporally variable than the landscape management strategy.
• Intense fire - the effects of an intense fire are substantially different than the effects of an intense timber cutting followed by prescribed fire (e.g., effects on soil litter).
• Harvest logistics - the use of timber harvest machinery and roads imposes limitations on the resulting opening size, configuration and remaining forest structure.
• Economics - the need to ensure that proposed silvicultural activities are economically viable precludes some forms of low intensity vegetation management.
• Dead trees - a major difference with a timber harvest strategy is that only a small percentage of dead trees remains on the site in comparison with a similar severity fire.
• Frequency of low-severity fires - low severity fires will be significantly less frequent in this vegetation management strategy than they were historically in some areas of the landscape.
• Large patches - the very large patches (thousands to tens of thousands of acres in size) that sometimes occurred historically will not be generated with this vegetation management approach.

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. Criteria for placement are as follows:

1. Retention trees should be both clumped and scattered individuals. Clumps should range in size from 1/4 acre to 5 acres. Larger blocks should have larger clumps. Scattered individual trees can range from 40 to 70 % of the total retention trees (see Appendix A).
2. Variable levels of retention should be provided adjacent to streams. In landscape area 3, at least 25% of the total retention trees should be in clumps adjacent to intermittent streams. An additional 25% of the total retention trees should be provided as clumps within the higher retention zone along perennial streams.
3. Scattered retention trees should generally be left in the larger tree size classes, as needed to meet objectives for retention levels and species mix for retention trees.
4. Retention trees should include the largest, oldest live trees, decadent or leaning trees, wolf trees, and hard snags.
5. Higher levels of retention should generally be located near streams and lower slope positions, and lower levels on upper slope areas. In particular, where a significant proportion of the length of a given stream lies within a landscape block a greater proportion of retention trees should be left near the stream.
6. 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.
7. No trees should be cut on any floodplain or streambank, nor should trees directly contributing to streambank stability be cut.
8. Rock outcrops, wet areas or other special or unique habitats could be used to anchor retention clumps.
9. Spatial patterns of retention trees should consider the structure and timing of future cutting in adjacent blocks, and minimize edge contrast where feasible.
10. 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.

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 windthrow 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.

Dead trees

Provision for standing and down dead trees should be included in prescriptions to ensure habitats and ecological functions associated with dead wood (e.g., storage of carbon and water). Levels of dead trees to be left or created at the time of regeneration harvests are in addition to the green tree retention levels; long-term replacement dead trees can be obtained from the green tree retention levels. Levels of dead trees are intended to vary across landscape areas reflecting variable disturbance frequencies. The guidelines and levels of dead trees by plant series in the Forest Plan can be used for this vegetation management strategy. Generally leave or create dead trees at the low end of the range given in the Forest Plan in landscape area 1, the middle of the range for landscape area 2, and at the high end of the range for landscape area 3.

Prescribed fire

Low-severity fire (0-30 % mortality of overstory trees) is included in landscape prescriptions to help maintain ecosystem processes and historical plant and animal habitats. Fire exclusion is inconsistent with one of the stated goals of this project - to sustain ecological processes - since fire itself is an ecological process that has historically played a significant role in this landscape. The absence of fire may be affecting ecosystems in unknown ways. Effects of fire exclusion become evident most rapidly where historical fire return intervals are shorter (e.g., eastern and southern Oregon), and may become more obvious in the wetter westside environments as the length of time fire suppression has been in force approaches or exceeds historical fire return intervals. Since fire suppression is expected to continue as a basic policy governing response to unplanned fires, prescribed fire provides opportunities to restore fire to the landscape. Habitats and ecological processes are expected to more closely resemble historical conditions where fire is restored. While many direct effects of high-severity fire are well-known, knowledge of the influence of fire on habitats and other ecological processes is incomplete, especially for low- and moderate-severity fires. Goals for prescribed fire are to:

• Kill a small proportion of overstory trees to create snags and future down wood.
• Reduce fuel loading and fuel ladders lowering the probability of future high-severity fire.
• Stimulate herb and shrub growth by increased light levels and through an initial flush of nutrients released by the fire.
• Provide horizontal heterogeneity to understory habitats.
• Provide a mix of fine-scale habitats similar to historical conditions following low-severity fires.
• Provide research and monitoring opportunities to study the effects of low- and moderate-severity fire on plants and animals under a variety of stand structures.

The degree to which each of these objectives are applicable depends on the overall management category the site lies within, the timing and spatial extent of projected management activities on and nearby the site, and site-specific conditions (e.g., stand structure, fuel loading, levels of snags). Site-specific analysis will be needed to determine locations where fire can be prudently used. Stand conditions, fire history, wind patterns, potential fuel breaks, slope position, aspect, and elevation all need to be considered. Some areas will not be suitable for prescribed fire due to operational and safety reasons. In areas where timber management is prescribed, landscape blocks are intended as operational units and should provide a basis for site-specific planning for prescribed fire. Where feasible, the upper boundaries of a block were placed along ridgelines or roads to help establish safe firelines.

Additional guidance for different management categories is provided in the following sections. Since the underlying fire history analysis was designed primarily to detect moderate- to high-severity events, these prescriptions should be regarded as first approximations.

Landscape areas

Timber management and harvest is expected to occur in landscape areas. Prescribed fire should be scheduled and planned to complement timber management activities and minimize avoidable conflicts where feasible. Low-severity fire is prescribed both in conjunction with scheduled regeneration timber harvests, and later in the rotation when trees are more resistant to potential fire damage. Prior to an age of approximately eighty to one hundred years old fires may cause high levels of mortality to overstory dominants, and interfere with early stand silvicultural activities (e.g., precommercial and commercial thinnings).

Prescribed fire should be planned at the scale of the individual landscape block when stand initiation timber harvests are planned for that block. Fires should be prescribed to reduce slash where needed as well as meet the above goals. Prescribed fire may also be scheduled to occur simultaneously on sites that will not be harvested within these blocks (e.g., on soils unsuitable for timber harvest, see Inclusions). In neither case are prescribed fires intended to significantly reduce the soil litter layer or levels of coarse woody debris. Site-specific analysis should ensure that unique or rare plant and animal communities are not adversely affected. Existing plantations should be protected from prescribed fire.

As a part of the long-term prescriptions, low-severity fires were prescribed to occur one or two times between age one hundred and the timber harvest rotation age (100-260 years depending upon landscape area, see table 2). Where blocks are not scheduled for cutting for several decades, fire should be planned in Landscape Areas 2 & 3 (Landscape Area 1 has a relatively short rotation age, 100 years). Natural post-fire recovery processes can then occur for several decades prior to timber harvest.

Prescribed fire in harvested areas will vary in severity depending on fuel loadings created by the timber harvest. In general the intent is to create sufficient mortality in overstory trees through prescribed fire to meet wildlife objectives for dead-tree habitat. The spatial pattern of prescribed fires should be variable creating patches of understory mortality in some places while leaving unburned patches in others.

Prescribed fire in unharvested areas is intended to be of low severity. Flame lengths of 2-3 feet are expected, resulting in approximately 80-90% mortality of trees <5" DBH, 40-50% mortality of trees 5-12" DBH, and 5-15% mortality of trees >12" DBH within the western hemlock plant series. Where Pacific silver fir is a significant component of the stand fire prescriptions should be adjusted to achieve similar levels of mortality, if feasible. Otherwise prescribed fire should be postponed in that area. The spatial pattern of prescribed fires should be variable creating patches of understory mortality in some places while leaving unburned patches in others.

Reserves

Reserves are generally intended to provide late-successional habitat. Low-severity fire (1-10% mortality of overstory trees) may be prescribed in reserves where operationally feasible, and where there are no unacceptable risks to other values. The primary goal is to reduce fuel loadings and lower the probability of high-severity fires in the future. Low-severity fire (1-10% mortality) in aquatic reserves may also be appropriate on sites where fire has substantially influenced plant communities in the past (higher fire frequencies) and there is no significant risk to ecological processes or existing communities. Fire may also be appropriate in aquatic reserves to better integrate upslope and riparian habitats, and to induce a range of seral conditions more closely resembling historical conditions. Prescribed fire is a higher priority in reserves with high-frequency fire regimes where fuel loads can be reduced with low risk of accidental escalation of fire severity. In general, prescribed fire in reserves is a lower priority than elsewhere in the watershed. Lack of road access may substantially increase costs of treatment and reduce options for fire ignition, holding, and mop-up tactics in some reserves.

Inclusions

Land not appropriate for long-term timber management occurs in some landscape blocks where timber harvest is scheduled. These areas could include soils deemed unsuitable for timber management based upon regeneration or slope stability criteria, areas not intended for long-term timber management based upon specific plant or wildlife habitat objectives (e.g., the Willamette National Forest Special Habitat objectives or for Threatened or Endangered species), or other site-specific reserves needed to meet the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives. Inclusions of land not intended for long-term timber management should be identified and mapped during site-specific timber sale planning. Identification of inclusions should consider the size and spatial extent of inclusions within the landscape block as well as the prescription for the corresponding landscape area. For example, the frequency and intensity of timber harvest or prescribed fire intended for that landscape area may help determine whether long-term timber management is appropriate.

Managed disturbances may be appropriate in some inclusions in conjunction with timber harvest or prescribed fire scheduled in the remainder of the landscape block. In many cases fires historically burned through these areas in a similar fashion as in adjacent forests and have been an important factor shaping plant community dynamics. Absence of disturbance has resulted in development of closed-canopy forests in some areas where more open conditions were common in the past. Trees may be felled and fire prescribed within these inclusions to provide more open conditions, create more natural environmental gradients, or for other reasons, but not for the purpose of providing timber products. The decision to leave or remove felled trees in these areas should be made at the project level within the context of the overall prescription for the landscape block. The overall intent is to create conditions more typical of historical disturbance regimes, and to integrate these areas with surrounding lands.

Inclusions are separate from green-tree retention areas. Green tree retention objectives are meant to apply to the remainder of the landscape block where timber harvest is prescribed. Green tree retention marking guidelines should leave densities of retention trees near these inclusions that create a gradient of environmental conditions from the inclusion into the landscape block where feasible. Densities of retention trees near the inclusion may be lower or higher depending upon the prescription planned for the inclusion.

Where these inclusions occupy a significant portion of the landscape block it may be appropriate to reduce the general target green-tree retention level over the remainder of the block. The conditions of the landscape block and the general prescription for the landscape area provide context to help determine if adjustment of the retention tree level objective is appropriate. For example, it may be more appropriate to adjust retention tree levels downward where the overall retention objective is relatively high, or where there are few streams or unique habitats. Similarly, where a significant portion of the landscape block is currently in a clearcut, or young conifer plantation, it may be appropriate to increase the overall target green-tree retention level over the remainder of the block for the first timber harvests in the block under this strategy. The objective in either case is to create a disturbance pattern that approximates past general fire mortality patterns according to the goals for the landscape area.

Response to Unplanned Disturbances

Changes in future conditions will undoubtedly occur through unplanned disturbances. Small-scale disturbances (e.g., small pockets of windthrow, insect-induced mortality, or small fires) create additional variability and are biologically desirable. Changes in the overall schedule of activities would not generally be necessary, and salvage logging of these small patches of mortality should generally be avoided. Large-scale disturbances should trigger reevaluation of landscape objectives and projected management activities. While the long-term landscape and watershed objectives would likely still be applicable, changes in short-term plans may be appropriate.

For example, a large, severe fire may produce early seral conditions over a significant proportion of the planning area. An appropriate response might be to reschedule timber cutting to delay further regeneration harvests of live forest until the post-fire stands have closed their canopies. Salvage logging of a volume of timber approximately equal to that scheduled to be removed over that time period may be appropriate to maintain projected timber flows. The condition of adjacent areas, both within and adjacent to the Adaptive Management Area, provides important context for this evaluation.

The recommended management response to disturbance would depend upon current conditions and knowledge, and should include consideration of these factors:

• Location of disturbance in the area: For example, if reserves were burned, the landscape blocks may need to be reconfigured to provide new reserves; or it may be desirable to redraw blocks to better align block boundaries with new, post-disturbance edges, if fire occurs in landscape areas where timber harvest is planned.
• Timing of disturbance relative to the block schedule: For example, if a fire occurred relatively close in time to when a block is scheduled to be harvested for timber, the block could be salvaged as a substitute for its scheduled cutting. If timber harvest is not scheduled for many decades, though, it may be appropriate to leave the block unsalvaged to provide patches of dead wood habitat.
• Extent of disturbance: For example, small areas of blowdown may be considered a biological bonus adding diversity to the landscape. Large areas of blowdown may trigger a reevaluation of block configuration and scheduling.
• Condition of surrounding watersheds: For example, burned patches may serve particularly important ecological roles if they are the only patches of high snag densities in the entire watershed.

Ecological functions of burned patches need to be considered if salvage for timber values is contemplated. Relative to natural conditions, managed landscapes are generally characterized by low levels of snags, and especially by the lack of high-density snag patches. Leaving fire-killed patches unsalvaged and maintaining the overall block harvesting schedule may be the most appropriate response to unplanned disturbance in many cases. Unplanned disturbances should also be viewed as opportunities to refine understanding of disturbance processes and patterns, and post-disturbance recovery trajectories.

Aquatic Reserves

Aquatic reserves (figure 1) were established to ensure that aquatic habitats and processes are protected, and that management for aquatic features is integrated with upslope management. In particular, the aquatic reserves are meant to ensure that the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives in the Northwest Forest Plan will be met. The pattern of aquatic reserves was based in part upon the likely frequency, intensity, and spatial pattern of future timber harvests, the context of the surrounding watershed, and the degree to which the landscape has been altered by past, intensive human use (e.g., dams, roads, timber cutting). Stream type (fish-bearing, perennial or intermittent) and geomorphic setting (gradient, constrained or unconstrained valley segment type) set the context for reserve decisions.

Several small-basin reserves were established to meet aquatic conservation objectives and to provide contiguous blocks of undisturbed habitat. Reserves were dispersed throughout the watershed and across elevation zones in locations of highest aquatic habitat diversity. In particular, reserves were placed in headwater locations thought to benefit the Cascade torrent salamander (a species thought to be limited in distribution and particularly sensitive to management activities), around important stream junctions, and in locations with a high potential to contribute wood and other materials to streams through mass soil movements. In addition, reserves encompass and adjoin Late-Successional Reserves associated with pairs of spotted owls with the highest reproductive rates, and those located in areas with the highest concentration of late-successional habitat.

Aquatic reserves also took the form of riparian corridors along both sides of all fish-bearing streams. The corridor reserves were essentially linear, and occupy the entire valley bottom and adjacent toe-slopes. These corridors connect aquatic and riparian areas throughout the basin and link with the small-watershed reserves. Along Blue River a streamside reserve was delineated to run from Road 15 on the northwest to two tree-heights on the southeast side of the river. A one tree-height reserve along constrained channels (most of the fish-bearing streams), and a two tree-height reserve along unconstrained segments was designated for all other fish-bearing streams.

No additional reserves were established for non fish-bearing streams and intermittent streams. Management guidelines for those streams are described in the Landscape Area section. The combination of relatively low cutting rates (associated with long rotations) and generally higher green-tree retention levels was thought to provide sufficient large wood input, old forest habitat, and streambank stability.

Management objectives for aquatic reserves are to maintain or establish late-successional forest conditions. These reserves are intended to serve as intermediate-scale refugia in a landscape where timber harvest is occurring. Management guidelines for aquatic reserves should be similar to those in the Northwest Forest Plan. Small-basin reserves are meant to be managed similar to Late-Successional Reserves, while corridor-reserves should be managed similar to Riparian Reserves in the Northwest Forest Plan.

Watershed Restoration

The fourth component of the landscape management strategy is watershed restoration. Restoration of watershed functions and habitats is needed where past management actions have substantially altered stream flows, riparian and aquatic habitats, composition or abundance of aquatic taxa, sediment or temperature regimes, aquatic nutrient cycles, and migration or movement routes of aquatic organisms. Upslope disturbances prescribed in this strategy through timber harvest and prescribed fire are planned so that their frequency, severity and spatial pattern approximate historical patterns. An aquatic ecosystem able to function within a range of historical variability is also essential to maintain ecological functions and habitats and retain a capacity to recover from these disturbances. In some cases restoration actions will need to be sustained over time to ensure long-term recovery.

Restoration actions should be planned in the context of the larger landscape recognizing the connections among upslope and riparian forests, engineered structures, riparian and stream habitats, and stream ecology. For example, upland forest conditions affect stream habitat through modification of stream flow regimes, temperature, or in-stream structure. Similarly, roads affect riparian habitat, sediment and stream flow regimes, and movement routes of aquatic organisms. Blue River Reservoir and road-related barriers block fish migration affecting species composition and nutrient cycles.

Prescriptions for restoration projects should be identified based upon specific objectives for future conditions. For example, objectives for input rates of organic and inorganic material to streams, or for riparian vegetation should be developed prior to project design. Historical conditions for aquatic ecosystems provide important reference points for restoration objectives. Studies conducted on the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest provide data to help estimate reference conditions. The FEMAT report (FEMAT 1993, Table V-J-1) identifies a wide variety of restoration measures that may be appropriate.

Three general approaches will be used in the restoration of Blue River watershed. One will focus on restoring the quality of aquatic and terrestrial habitat in drainages that serve as refugia. Another will focus on areas that are being entered for timber extraction. The last approach will be restoration methods utilized throughout the watershed, wherever the need occurs.

Refugia

Watersheds of varying size are anticipated to serve as refugia so that organisms can repopulate areas negatively impacted by natural (e.g., wildfire or landslides) or human-initiated (e.g., timber harvest or prescribed fire) disturbances. Refugia habitats are intended to exhibit characteristics found in late-successional forests. Existing or future refugia subwatersheds are distributed throughout the larger watershed where Special Area Reserves and Aquatic Reserves are designated. In addition, timber harvest is planned to concentrate in certain subwatersheds so that timber harvest can be delayed in other watersheds that currently function as refugia. Untreated stream reaches within refugia habitats can be considered as control sites for comparison with actively restored stream reaches, and with stream reaches in areas where timber harvest occurs, to evaluate the effectiveness of management activities. Potential restoration activities include addition of large wood to streams and the river, closure of roads (including the pulling of drainage structures), riparian silviculture (including thinning, planting, release). Refugia habitats should generally receive first priority for restoration actions, with a particular emphasis on Cook and Quentin Creek watersheds where habitat for native cutthroat and rainbow trout exists.

Timber harvest areas

Timber harvest frequently occurs in locations that could benefit from watershed restoration activities, and can contribute restoration funding for the nearby area. Timber harvests are likely to occur in accessible areas where past road construction, clearcutting, and stream channel clearing may have adversely affected aquatic habitats and processes. In addition restoration or mitigation activities may need to occur in conjunction with future timber harvest or prescribed fire. Restoration activities can sometimes take advantage of heavy machinery that may be in the location due to logging operations. Timber harvest also creates funding opportunities for restoration through road reconstruction and maintenance funds, and through K-V fund deposits. Potential restoration projects include decreasing the impact of FS Road 15, obliteration of roads and skid trails, riparian silviculture activities, and increasing culvert capacities to accommodate 100-year flood events.

Other locations

A variety of additional restoration activities that could occur in the watershed without regard to timber harvest or refugia locations should be evaluated. These activities include:

• Work with ODF&W to discontinue stocking of hatchery rainbow trout in Blue River above Blue River Reservoir. Introduced fish stress wild rainbow trout, may introduce disease, and compete with wild fish for food and habitat. The wild rainbow trout are much less resilient than they were in the past because Blue River Dam blocks their genetic interchange with the McKenzie River population.
• Replace culverts at Ore Creek and Road 2620.126 to restore upstream fish passage.
• Restore the nutrients that spawned-out chinook salmon historically provided to Blue River. Work with ODF&W to dispose of spawned out chinook carcasses from the hatchery in historical Blue River chinook spawning areas, or release live excess hatchery chinook spawners and allow them to spawn naturally in Blue River and Lookout Creek and die. Another potential option may be to seasonally release synthetic nutrients into the historical spawning waters in concentrations that approximate levels provided historically through decomposition of chinook salmon carcasses.
• Determine the extent of the pollution left from the mining activities on Gold Hill, including the potential mercury in North Fork Quartz Creek. Develop a clean-up plan and implement and monitor as needed.

Roads

Older and more recent studies have shown significantly higher rates of landslides associated with roads, and a linkage of roads to increased peak stream flows during flood events (Jones and Grant 1996, Wemple 1996). In addition, roads occupy riparian areas, contribute to chronically higher sediment loads in some streams, obstruct movement of organisms, and impede delivery of organic and inorganic material to streams. Because of these adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems substantial restoration effort focuses on roads. Potential restoration projects in the Blue River watershed include road obliteration or decommissioning, road storage, road cut stabilization, side-cast stabilization, slide re-vegetation, and obliteration and revegetation of landings and spur roads. Addition analysis is needed to identify roads most likely to contribute to increased peak stream flows and landslides. Refugia subwatersheds should be emphasized in road restoration activities.

In-stream structures

Placement of in-stream structures is an inherently short-term measure to restore channel and habitat complexity where existing conditions are degraded. The range of historical conditions in comparable streams should be used as an approximate guide for the amounts of large woods or other structures desired in streams. Trees located near streams can be placed back in streams or adjacent riparian areas. The highest benefits of installed in-stream structures may be in basins with low landslide frequencies, because basins with more frequent landsliding may have relatively rapid natural recovery. In-stream structures are also more likely to survive peak stream flows when installed in stream reaches of relatively low gradient (<4%). Refugia subwatersheds should be emphasized for in-stream restoration activities.

Riparian vegetation

Silvicultural activities in riparian areas may be needed to restore longer-term ecological functions. Planting, releasing or thinning to promote rapid establishment and growth of large conifers may accelerate the time where large wood can be input to streams channels at historical rates. Unstable areas, such as bankside slides, may also benefit from revegetation. Refugia subwatersheds should be emphasized for in-stream restoration activities.

Terrestrial habitats

A variety of additional activities to restore terrestrial habitats will likely be implemented. Potential projects include meadow burning, tree habitat enhancement (e.g., creation of bat roost sites), control of exotic plant species, and snag creation. Site-specific proposals for these activities will be evaluated for consistency with the landscape management strategy.

Phase 3 - Spatial and Temporal Projection

In Phase 3 we developed a spatially- and temporally-specific portrayal of the landscape management strategy created in Phase 2. Our purposes were to:

1. test the feasibility of the landscape prescriptions
2. provide a more explicit basis for evaluation of future landscape conditions, and to
3. link landscape objectives to future project-level activities.

We first delineated management blocks, termed "landscape blocks", in the three landscape areas where future timber harvest is prescribed, and then used these blocks as scheduling units to project future landscape conditions. These blocks are also the units used for prescribed fire and timber sale planning and implementation. Refugia watersheds were then identified to help establish watershed restoration priorities.

Landscape Blocks

Landscape blocks are management units representing the spatial locations of future stands created through timber harvest and subsequent forest regeneration. The same general age-class structure will prevail within a block after timber harvest, but the spatial patterning and composition may be quite variable. Objectives for individual landscape areas provided specific guidance for the range of landscape block sizes, and for the spatial distribution of the blocks. Landscape blocks range in size from tens to hundreds of acres, and may be further subdivided into operational units, such as cutting units, to implement management activities. Existing stand conditions may be quite variable within a block, ranging from very young plantations to old growth.

Landscape blocks (figure 2) were mapped according to the landscape objectives for block sizes and spatial distribution, and the following mapping criteria:

1. Use existing large patches of a similar structural stage wherever possible. Rationale: large patches with interior forest habitat are the most critical, since they are hardest to establish and maintain.
2. Use ridges and streams for boundaries whenever feasible. Rationale: they are definable on the ground and are relevant to ecosystem processes and operational realities.
3. Delineate blocks stream to stream, rather than ridge to ridge, where applicable. Rationale: spreads management effects over more than one drainage area, and increases stability of riparian areas by having a mature forest bordering riparian zones on at least one side.
4. Use roads as boundaries where feasible, if ridges and streams were not feasible. Rationale: roads are definable on the ground and influence habitat conditions through edge effects.
5. Delineate blocks to include similar landforms where feasible. Rationale: landforms substantially influence disturbance processes and environmental conditions.
6. In Landscape Area 3 (where retention levels are relatively low) include no more than 30% of the boundary of a Late-Successional Reserve as a landscape block boundary. Rationale: will minimize edge impacts to a given Late-Successional Reserve during any given period of time.
7. Place smaller blocks in most visually sensitive areas in the Blue River region (see map). Rationale: degree of perceived change in the landscape is less with smaller blocks.

Timber Harvest Scheduling

Scheduling will be controlled at two scales: landscape blocks and landscape regions. Landscape blocks will be the basic scheduling unit; desired block sizes are described above for each landscape area. These blocks roughly correspond in size with the size of individual mortality patches from past fires. Landscape regions are large general areas roughly corresponding in size with the outer perimeter of many past fire events. Six landscape regions are defined for these purposes (figure 3, table 3): Mann, Cook-Quentin, Tidbits, Quartz, Reservoir area, and Upper Blue River.

At the watershed scale, the general approach will be to group harvest blocks within one or two landscape regions in a given time period (20 years) for all regions but the Reservoir area and upper Blue River. The scheduling priority should follow this sequence: first Quartz, then Mann, Tidbits, and finally Cook-Quentin. This priority postpones significant disturbance in landscape regions that are contributing the best refugia habitat for both aquatic species and for interior, late-successional species, and most quickly restores a desired spatial pattern of vegetation patches in the most fragmented regions. Grouping harvests within one or two landscape regions in a given time period roughly simulates the scale of a fire event. Within a region where timber harvest occurs, blocks selected for harvest will match the desired size of landscape blocks given in the landscape prescriptions and be dispersed within the region. Individual landscape blocks where harvest will occur roughly simulates the size of past fire-induced mortality patches. In addition to simulating past fires, this approach concentrates disturbance and habitat loss on relatively few spotted owl pairs at any one time, provides meso-scale refugia by not scheduling harvests in broad regions for an extended period of time, and opens up the possibility of large-area road closure strategies in conjunction with extended post-harvest recovery periods.

Within the Reservoir and upper Blue River regions, harvest of landscape blocks will be regularly dispersed through time and space. The intent of this strategy is to disperse the visual effects of timber harvest throughout the area seen from the heavily-used areas around Blue River, the Blue River Reservoir and Road 15.

The following additional criteria are meant to guide specific scheduling choices:

1. No more than one block adjacent to a given Late-Successional Reserve should be cut in a given time period (20 years). Rationale: avoids rapid changes in habitat and edge conditions in close proximity to spotted owl nest sites.
2. No more than 25% of the area in the "high" rain-on-snow susceptibility zone (see map) should be cut in a given time period in Ore, Cook and Quentin landscape regions. Rationale: avoids concentration of timber cutting in areas potentially susceptible to harvest-induced increases in peak stream flows.
3. Schedule initial cuttings in blocks that are currently the most fragmented. Rationale: retains existing large blocks for the maximum potential time, and establishes the desired landscape pattern most quickly by creating larger blocks where fragmented conditions currently exist.
4. Delay cutting of a landscape block that is adjacent to blocks containing large openings. Rationale: since spatial pattern objectives are designed directly into the landscape block pattern itself, cutting a block next to existing openings would create an opening larger than that described in the landscape objectives.
5. Schedule block harvests so that the mix of block sizes cut in any 20-year time period is roughly proportional to the prescribed mix of block sizes within that landscape area. Rationale: ensures that the desired range of block sizes is present at all times.

Refugia Watersheds

Watersheds of varying size are anticipated to serve as refugia so that organisms can repopulate areas negatively impacted by natural (e.g., wildfire or landslides) or human-initiated (e.g., timber harvest or prescribed fire) disturbances. Existing or future refugia are distributed throughout the larger watershed where Special Area Reserves and Aquatic Reserves are designated. In addition, timber harvest is planned to concentrate in certain landscape regions so that timber harvest can be delayed in other regions that currently function as refugia. The Cook-Quentin region is intended to function as refugia for the first several decades while timber harvest is scheduled elsewhere. Figure 4 identifies the location of planned refugia; table 4 shows the land area in each category.

Phase 4 - Evaluation

The purpose of this section is to evaluate the landscape management strategy in terms of meeting Northwest Forest Plan objectives. The intent of the strategy is to meet these objectives. Comparisons with the Northwest Forest Plan as if it were applied unmodified to the Blue River watershed managed under Matrix and Riparian Reserve allocations are made to clarify the implications of this strategy. For purposes of this evaluation the landscape management strategy is termed the "Landscape Plan" and the Northwest Forest Plan is termed the "Interim Plan".

Interim Plan

For purposes of comparison, we projected future landscape conditions for the Interim Plan using similar procedures as those used for the Landscape Plan. See Cissel et al. (in press) for more detail.

Prescriptions

General prescriptions were derived from the allocations, and standards and guidelines in the Willamette National Forest Plan as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (figure 5, table 5). Specific assumptions from the Willamette National Forest timber harvest scheduling model were also applied. Timber harvest rotation lengths were derived from the scheduling model and then applied using a simple area-control method. The following specific guidance was used as a basis for projecting future landscape conditions:

• Reserves from the Willamette National Forest Plan as modified by Northwest Forest Plan were applied.
• Riparian Reserve widths were based upon one or two tree heights slope distance, depending upon stream flow and fish presence. We used a site potential tree height of 172 feet.
• No timber harvest was scheduled within Riparian Reserves.
• Within General Forest Management Areas, timber harvest was scheduled using an 80-year rotation with 15 percent retention of green trees at the time of regeneration harvest.
• Within Scenic Management Areas (11A, 11C, 11D, 11E, & 11F), timber harvest was scheduled on rotations ranging from 100-200 years with 15-percent retention of green trees at the time of regeneration harvest.

Landscape Structure

The forest landscape changes over time as vegetation develops through a series of structural stages, and in response to disturbances such as timber harvest and fire. Forest stands were modeled as a function of two characteristics: age since stand-initiation and the density of trees retained at the time of stand initiation. Total acres in each structural stage are presented in table 6 for the existing condition and for both plans as long-term averages.

Late-Successional Reserves, Special Interest Areas and the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest (36% of the planning area) are common to both scenarios. Stands are assumed to progress towards old-forest conditions and remain as old forest in these areas. The remainder of this section compares conditions in the rest of the planning area.

The Interim Plan develops a distinct, high-contrast landscape composition within the remaining portion (64%) of the planning area (table 5). Upper slopes within the General Forest Management Area (34% of the planning area) contain early (1 to 40 years) and young (41 to 80 years) stands with light overstory retention (15 percent). Timber harvest rates based on 80-year rotations truncate the successional sequence before mature or old stands develop. Minor amounts of mature stands (81-200 years) occur in scenic management areas close to Blue River and Blue River Reservoir (6% of the planning area) where rotation ages are 100, 140 and 200 years. Lower slopes within Riparian Reserves (16% of the remaining planning area) all grow into and remain in the old-growth stage (greater than 200 years) over time. Additional wildlife habitat reserves (2%) also grow into old growth. Forest stands created during the last 35 years of clearcut timber harvest with zero retention levels eventually disappear from the landscape and are not replaced in this scenario. The overall landscape is missing the higher retention-level, mixed-age stands found in this area over the past 500 years, and develops a large gap in successional stages due to a low amount of the mature age class (81 to 200 years) (table 6).

The Landscape Plan develops a more complex and varied landscape composition in the remaining portion (64%) of the planning area (table 1). The portion of the planning area where timber harvest was prescribed (49%) was further subdivided into three Landscape Areas, each developing a different mix of structural stages. Landscape Area 3 attains a mix of all age classes in response to a very long rotation age (260 years). Young stands have a relatively low level of overstory (15 percent). The other two landscape areas contain all age classes except old in response to moderate or long rotations (100 or 180 years), with 30-percent or 50-percent overstory retention levels. Aquatic Reserves (10% of the planning area) provide blocks of old forest intermingled with areas managed for some timber removal. Forest stands created from the last 35 years of timber harvest with zero retention levels eventually disappear from the landscape and are not replaced in this scenario. The mix of rotation ages and retention levels prescribed for different landscape areas results in substantial amounts of all structural stages (table 6), and more closely resembles the landscape composition of the previous 500 years.

Distribution of structural stages across slope positions differs markedly between the scenarios (table 7). In the Interim Plan, old forests are confined to riparian areas and lower slope positions. Old and mature forests are not allowed to develop in middle and upper slope positions because of the relatively short rotation age of areas scheduled for timber harvest in the Interim Plan. Similarly, young forests in riparian areas and lower slope positions phase out of the landscape in the Interim Plan because Riparian Reserves are designated along all streams. The Landscape Plan distributes a wider range of structural stages across all slope positions. Long rotations and moderate to high levels of canopy retention allow development of mature and old forests within harvested areas. Low to moderate intensity cutting would occur within some riparian areas and lower slope positions at a low frequency in the Landscape Plan.

The Landscape Plan leads to a less fragmented future landscape than either existing conditions or the Interim Plan. Significant differences in the distribution of patch sizes between the two plans can be expected (see Cissel et al. (in press) for a comparable analysis). Frequent cutting due to relatively short rotations and generally narrow areas where cutting occurs between Riparian Reserves result in an increasing number of small patches in the Interim Plan. Conversely, the number of small patches gradually decreases over time in the Landscape Plan as cutting occurs in larger blocks and at lower frequencies. Larger patch size classes exhibit the opposite trend. Mature and old forest patches in the Interim Plan are found in either the relatively narrow, linear Riparian Reserve network or in the larger Special Area Reserves. The Landscape Plan provides large patches of mature and old forest distributed across the landscape.

The amount of edge between forest and open areas can also be expected to differ significantly between the two plans (see Cissel et al. (in press) for a comparable analysis). The Interim Plan will result in an increase in edge compared to existing conditions, primarily as a result of cutting units in upslope positions bordering old forests in Riparian Reserves. This relatively abrupt transition from riparian areas and lower slopes to upper slopes introduces artificial gradients in environmental conditions, such as light, temperature, soil moisture, and wind penetration (Chen and others 1993, 1995). Plant communities and mortality rates may be affected by abrupt edges (Chen and others 1995). The Landscape Plan decreases the amount of edge in the landscape relative to existing conditions. Long rotations reduce the rate of change in forest conditions over time, and moderate to high levels of overstory retention reduce contrasts between cutting units and adjacent stands.

Plant and Animal Habitats

The Blue River Landscape Plan provides a wide diversity of seral stages and stand structures to support native plant and animal species. Through implementation of the three timber harvest regimes, the existing landscape will gradually develop to resemble historical landscape patterns created by fire. Spatial and temporal connectivity of habitats will be retained and restored across the landscape. Biological diversity of habitats in the form of seral stages, vertical and horizontal structures, habitat types, and species richness including rare species, will generally be greater under the Landscape Plan than the Interim Plan. The following paragraphs briefly sumarize broad differences in habitat types between the two scenarios (table 6):

Shrub/sapling seral stage: Implementation of the Landscape Plan would decrease the total acres in this habitat type from 10% in the existing landscape to approximately 5% of the watershed, with a relatively even mix of the three overstory retention levels (15%, 30%, and 50% retention). Under the Interim Plan, approximately 9% of the watershed would be in this type of habitat with a light overstory retention level of 15%.

Closed-pole seral stage: Closed-pole habitat currently makes up approximately 14% of the watershed, with almost no large, remnant overstory trees. Under the Landscape Plan, closed-pole habitat would eventually make up 7% of the watershed, with a relatively even mix of the three overstory retention levels. The Interim Plan would eventually have approximately 11% of the watershed in this type of habitat with a light overstory retention level of 15%.

Young seral stage: This type of habitat currently makes up approximately 9% of the watershed. The Landscape Plan would eventually have approximately 11% of the watershed in this type of habitat, with a fairly even mix of the three overstory retention levels. Under the Interim Plan, approximately 18% of the watershed would eventually be in the young seral stage, and all of this habitat would have a light overstory retention level (15%).

Mature seral stage: Currently, approximately 26% of the watershed is in the mature seral stage. If the Landscape Plan is implemented hrough time, approximately 19% of the watershed would eventually be in this seral stage with 8% having light retention (15%), 9% having moderate overstory retention (30%), and 2% with heavy overstory retention (50%). The Interim Plan would eventually provide only 2% of the total watershed acres in this type of habitat, and all would have a light overstory retention level. With an 80-year rotation length under the Interim Plan, stands that are logged would never provide this habitat condition.

The mature seral stage structures provided by the Landscape Plan would benefit species which depend on older forests and their horizontal and vertical habitat diversity. Although late-successional species such as the northern spotted owl thrive in old-growth forests, they have been found to nest in mature forests with a mix of old remnant trees, such as that provided by the varied overstory retention levels. The high-retention areas in the Landscape Plan probably will function as old-forest habitat 50-80 years after logging for some species. In addition, this plan would offer greater amounts and more widely dispersed nesting and denning habitat for species which use large trees or large logs (see Cissel et al. in press). Other late-successional species such as the northern goshawk, pileated woodpecker, marten, or red tree vole may also benefit from the more diverse mature habitat structures that the Landscape Plan would provide.

Old seral stage: This type of habitat is currently found in approximately 36% of the watershed. Both the Landscape Plan and the Interim Plan would provide similar amounts of this habitat type over time, 52% and 56% respectively. However, due to the increased edge effects which would result under the Interim Plan with relatively narrow riparian habitat corridors, the Landscape Plan would provide more effective old-growth habitat. Those old-growth species which require fairly large and more contiguous home ranges, for example, northern spotted owls, northern goshawks, and pileated woodpeckers, would also benefit under the Landscape Plan as compared to the Interim Plan. Late-successional species would generally fare better under the Landscape Plan than under the Interim Plan.

The Aquatic Reserve system of the Landscape Plan will provide a variety of habitat types and seral stages. Habitat diversity within riparian areas under the Landscape Plan will provide for greater species richness in riparian areas than under the Interim Plan. Riparian and old-growth plant and fungi species identified in the Northwest Forest Plan to be protected by Riparian Reserves will be provided for by the implementation of the Aquatic Reserve system, and by guidelines providing higher levels of green-tree retention in and near riparian areas.

The Landscape Plan includes long stand rotations which are more in keeping with the long life spans of many native plant species. Rotations of 100 to 260 years will reduce the frequency of stand disturbance, as compared to past practices and the Interim Plan, and provide large patches of mature habitat with more old-growth attributes and species diversity across the landscape. Work done in the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest showed that mature and old growth forests (140 to 510 years old) had 40 percent more lichen species than younger (40 to 70 year old) forests (Neitlich, 1993). Neitlich’s work found that not until the interior forest stands had attained an average of 140 years did these stands begin to take on species richness close to that of old-growth stands. His work found that many lichen are restricted to forests at least 140 years old. The Landscape Plan will provide mature forests (81 to 200 years old) over 19.4 percent of the watershed as compared to 2.6 percent under the Interim Plan, and old forests (> 200 years) over 51.8 percent as compared to 55.7 percent under the Interim Plan.

The Landscape Plan retains a higher percentage (30 to 50 percent) of older overstory trees at the time of stand initiation in Landscape Areas 1 and 2 than the 15 percent retained under the Interim Plan. Stands with higher retention levels will provide more sources of epiphytic species to recolonize younger stands. The nitrogen-fixing lichen Lobaria oregana has been found to establish in second growth within 10 meters of mature forest stands (Neitlich, 1993). Lobaria oregana accounts for over half of the total epiphyte biomass in old-growth forests (Pike et al., 1977). The biological and economical importance of lichens are of great significance. Nitrogen fixation levels by lichens in old-growth forests have been found to be approximately 145 times of those of 40 year-old stands and can contribute approximately 16 pounds of nitrogen per acre per year to the forest ecosystem (Neitlich, 1993).

The Interim Plan concentrates late-successional and old-growth forests in riparian corridors. Within-stand diversity will occur in small patches from insect, disease, windthrow, and natural fire. These small openings will allow early successional species to develop, frequently with a diverse mixture of hardwood and conifer species. Hardwood gaps generally have the most unusual and rare epiphytic lichen and bryophyte species. Deciduous hardwoods provide seasonal gaps for lichen and moss growth. Bryophyte and lichen species found on hardwood species could become scarce due to insufficient habitat under the Interim Plan. Openings created through timber harvest near nonfish-bearing perennial and intermittent streams in the Landscape Plan will reduce the amount of old forest and increase the abundance of deciduous trees and shrubs as compared to the Interim Plan.

In essence the Interim Plan manages riparian and upslope forests as separate systems and creates a forest pattern very different than that which occurred historically. As a result biological diversity will be diminished in the young upslope stands by maintaining 80 year timber harvest rotations, and in riparian areas by only maintaining old-growth plant communities. Conversion of old-growth forests into young stands threatens the ecological processes and species diversity that have evolved in these systems over thousands of years. The Landscape Plan provides a timber harvest regime more in balance with natural ecosystem processes.

Spotted Owls

This section is a qualitative assessment of the likely impacts of the Landscape Plan on this owl population. It compares the Landscape Plan to a hypothetical alternative strategy outlined in the Record of Decision for lands designated as Matrix (herein referred to as the Interim Plan). The assessment is based on several foundational assumptions supported by research and/or ecological theory: 1) the extent of late-successional forest habitat is positively associated with owl site occupancy, reproduction, and survival and extensive forest fragmentation (at scales resulting from dispersed even-aged management regimes typical of federal forests in this region) is detrimental, 2) forests with 40% canopy closure and 11 inches dbh provide minimal conditions conducive to owl dispersal and forests exceeding these conditions are all the more so, 3) northern spotted owls are well suited to the dynamic forest disturbance regimes present throughout their range prior to Euro-American influence (fire, windthrow, infestation, disease, etc.). It should be noted that both alternatives being compared are expected to be more detrimental to this owl population than a no-action alternative.

Desired Landscape Features

• Reduced landscape fragmentation
• Increased structural heterogeneity within stands (horizontally and vertically)
• Reduced disturbance for long time-periods on sub-watershed basis
• Delayed impact on Cook-Quentin region
• Avoid creating "islands" out of owl activity centers on the landscape
• Provide the possibility for future recruitment of additional owl activity centers
• Augment area reserved around productive owl activity centers

Landscape Prescription Elements

• Landscape structure (vegetation composition, structural stage, and spatial pattern) matching historical/natural landscape and watershed patterns.
• Using sub-region approach for scheduling harvest
• Using knowledge of owl site productivity when scheduling harvest
• Unit boundaries limited to 30% of owl 100-acre LSR boundary
• Location of sub-basin reserves to augment select activity centers and provide potential for future activity centers.

Conclusion

In general, the Landscape Plan would impact this owl population substantially less than the hypothetical Interim Plan. Although northern spotted owls have been extensively studied, attempts to predict how they would respond to specific silvicultural prescriptions or to changes in landscape patterns are highly speculative. The Landscape Plan should be viewed as an attempt to maximize the chances of this species' persistence on a landscape where timber production is a major goal. Concerns include the unknown impacts of silvicultural prescriptions (e.g. late-entry thins), and the effectiveness of reproducing historical landscape patterns (via timber harvest) without historical processes (insofar as these processes affect owls).

Background

Comprehensive surveys of the Blue River watershed have been conducted annually since 1987. Thirty-five northern spotted owl activity centers have been identified, 34 of which have been allocated 100-acre Late-Successional Reserves (LSR's). Twelve of these LSR's are located on the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest and one is located in the Simmonds Creek portion of the large Late-Successional Reserve in the southwest portion of the watershed. The remaining 21 will be directly affected by the Landscape Plan and will be the focus of this assessment.

Because the northern spotted owl is a "threatened" species, this sub-population of owls is an integral part of the total population that occurs throughout western Washington, western Oregon, and northern California. The Blue River watershed is in the heart of the Western Oregon Cascades physiographic province (Thomas et al. 1990) which is considered a strong-hold for the sub-species (USDI 1992) in spite of an apparently declining population trend for the period of monitoring since 1987 (Miller et al. 1996). In this context it is important to think of the Blue River watershed in relation to the large land allocations (e.g. AMA, large-LSR's, Matrix) specified by the Northwest Forest Plan. The Northwest Forest Plan provides large LSR's and other mechanisms to ensure long-term persistence of northern spotted owls. Several mechanisms are pertinent to the Blue River watershed.

Due to its geographic position and designation as critical habitat for the spotted owl by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, this watershed is an important dispersal link among large LSR's. Without quantitative estimates of this habitat, dispersal conditions cannot be fully compared between the two strategies. However, both strategies are likely to provide adequate conditions for dispersal (i.e., meet "50-11-40" conditions - 50% percent of the landscape supporting forests of at least 11" average diameter with at least 40% crown closure). Under the Landscape Plan there would be fewer patches not meeting "11-40" criteria and most would substantially exceed those measures. However, those patches not meeting "11-40" criteria would be substantially larger, which may compromise the "50" criterion in localized areas for short periods (esp. Mann Creek sub-region near private inholdings).

Portions of the large LSR's adjacent to the watershed are not providing optimum habitat yet. As habitat conditions improve in these LSR's over the next several decades, it is prudent to maintain spotted owls on the intervening lands. Some portions of the Blue River watershed are especially important in this regard. The Cook-Quentin sub-region has large tracts of old-growth forest and the associated owl pairs are highly productive (unpublished data, Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit). In contrast, the Mann Creek sub-region has much less old-forest and fewer owl sites. Using the knowledge of where the best reproducing pairs are located allows timber harvests to be placed in ways that minimize impacts on specific owl-sites. Additionally, treating the landscape on a sub-regional basis enables managers to delay harvesting important areas (e.g., Cook-Quentin) by focusing in the interim on areas that are currently contributing little toward owl population persistence.

The Landscape Plan designates several small-watershed reserves. These reserves were placed to augment some of the owl sites that have demonstrated the highest reproductive output over time. At least two of these reserves are currently sub-optimal habitat or are not associated with an active owl site, but may provide future activity centers. These reserves also help maintain large patches of late-successional habitat and thereby reduce fragmentation. The Landscape Plan should further reduce the amount of high-contrast edge on the landscape by using larger patches, by ensuring that no owl activity center becomes an island (since no unit will contain more that 30% of the boundary of a 100-acre LSR). Aggregating timber harvest over significant time periods within sub-regions will also localize and group harvested patches, permitting larger areas of the landscape to be closer in age. This will also minimize harvest and post-harvest disturbances to most owl sites during long periods of time. In contrast, the Interim Plan would ensure that most owl sites were disturbed somewhat, on a frequent basis. Though post-harvest disturbance does not appear to affect spotted owl behavior, little is known about its cumulative effects. Common sense indicates the less frequent, the better.

Obviously one of the most important items for maintaining spotted owl populations is the provision of high-quality habitat. Though northern spotted owls occupy many habitats, those most often selected have relatively closed, multi-species, multi-layered canopies with large overstory trees; large snags, downed wood, and fairly open understories (Thomas 1990). The higher retention levels and longer rotations of the Landscape Plan should allow these conditions to occur much more of the time over much more of the area than would the Interim Plan. Additionally, the Landscape Plan gives specific attention to size, type, arrangement, and location of retention trees with emphasis on creating variable and diverse structural conditions (i.e., non-uniform) within stands.

Table 6 illustrates the similarities and differences regarding owl habitat between the two plans. The plans are similar in the amount of old-growth forests. However, the arrangement of those reserves on the landscape would be noticeably different: old growth in the Interim Plan would be primarily riparian (lower slope and linearly distributed), whereas, old growth in the Landscape Plan would occur in larger patches across a greater range of slope positions. Other habitat for owls would differ between the two plans in two primary ways: First, there is a noticeable difference in the amounts of 20-80 year-old forests (closed-pole + young) and 81-200 year-old forests (mature). There is a shift from higher amounts of pole and young forest in the Interim Plan (approximately 28% vs. 19% in the Landscape Plan) to higher amounts of mature forest in the Landscape Plan (approximately 19% vs. 2.6% in Interim Plan). Secondly, younger-aged stands (<80 yrs., particularly <40 yrs.) with low overstory retention contribute very little toward meeting owl foraging and nesting requirements. Habitats matching that description would comprise approximately 36% of the area in the Interim Plan (with 19% of the area < 40 years of age with low overstory retention) compared to 8.3% (with 4.8% < 40 years) in the Landscape Plan. The remainder of the <80 year-old forests in the Landscape Plan (15.5% of total area) would consist of stands with 30% or 50% overstory retention. Half of those stands (7.7% of total area) would be 41-80 years old and would serve as owl habitat to some degree.

In summary, the Landscape Plan would benefit spotted owls as compared to the Interim Plan due to: longer timber harvest rotation lengths, higher overstory retention levels, incorporation of site-specific owl reproductive information in small watershed reserve desiginations, augmentation of select 100-acre LSR's in the small-watershed reserves, provision of future (potential) owl activity centers, reduced fragmentation, and minimized disturbance. Implementation of these attributes should provide an increased probability for short- (40-60 years) and long-term (1-2 centuries) persistence of the owl population in the Blue River watershed due to improved conditions for survival, reproduction and dispersal.

Though the Landscape Plan appears superior to the Interim Plan, it is not an improvement over current conditions for owls nor is it making the land "better" than a no-action alternative. Additionally, there are some specific concerns. The effects of the various silvicultural prescriptions are untested and unknown. For example, repeated entries are called for post-regeneration harvest, to conduct various thinnings. Some of these thinnings may improve some conditions for owls but thinning stands as old as 100 years may be detrimental to owl occupancy. A larger and more difficult concern to assess is the degree to which a landscape that looks similar (in pattern) to the historical landscape really is similar (in ecological function or process).

Riparian Habitat

Condition of riparian areas

The following is an evaluation of the amount of existing habitat types adjacent to fish-bearing streams (Class I & II streams) and nonfish-bearing streams (Class III & IV stremas) for projected conditions under the Landscape Plan and Interim Plan. For the purposes of this analysis, the riparian area was defined as two site potential tree widths adjacent to fish-bearing streams, and one site potential tree width adjacent to perennial nonfish-bearing streams. Broad seral stages were also determined for a historical reference year of 1900, and presneted in a general comparison table for all stream classes combined (table 8). The general seral stage of the riparian area is an indicator of riparian wildlife habitat conditions, large woody material input potential, and suitability for dispersal habitat for many species.

Class I-II streams (table 9):

• Shrub/sapling and closed pole seral stage: These habitat types would become less abundant adjacent to Class I-II streams under both the Landscape and Interim Plans, decreasing from a current combined total of approximately 23% of the riparian area to 4% under the Landscape Plan, and virtually none of this habitat under the Interim Plan.
• Young seral stage: This habitat type would drop from a current 11% of the riparian area to 5% under the Landscape Plan and almost none of this habitat under the Interim Plan.
• Mature seral stage: Currently approximately 16% of the riparian areas consist of mature seral stage habitat. The Landscape Plan would provide approximately 8% of this habitat type. The Interim Plan would not provide this habitat type because the entire riparian area is in Riparian Reserves.
• Old seral stage: Currently approximately 49% of the riparian area is old-growth. While the Interim Plan would provide almost only this habitat type in the riparian area at 98%, the Landscape Plan would provide 81%.

Class III-IV streams (table 10):

• Shrub/sapling seral stage habitat: Currently this habitat makes up approximately 11% of riparian areas adjacent to Class III-IV streams, but none of it has any overstory retention. Tailed frog tadpoles, which inhabit Class I-III streams, are an example of a species which have been found to be more abundant in stream openings, and would thus benefit from the approximately 6% of Class III-IV streams in riparian areas in the shrub/sapling seral stage under the Landscape Plan. The Landscape Plan would also provide various overstory retention levels. Presence of large trees directly adjacent to streams may benefit bats by providing roosting areas near foraging sites. The Interim Plan would provide almost none of this type of habitat, unless natural causes such as wildfire or landslides create it.
• Closed-pole seral stage habitat: This habitat type would decrease from a current 16% of riparian areas adjacent to Class III-IV streams to approximately 6% with the Landscape Plan and none in the Interim Plan.
• Young seral: This habitat type currently makes up about 9% of riparian areas adjacent to Class III-IV streams, and would change to approximately 12% under the Landscape Plan, and none in the Interim Plan.
• Mature seral stage: Currently approximately 24% of the riparian areas adjacent to Class III and IV streams consist of mature seral stage habitat, and with the Landscape Plan the amount would be almost identical at 23%. The Interim Plan would not provide mature seral stage habitat adjacent to Class III and IV streams.
• Old seral stage: Approximately 37% of the riparian areas adjacent to Class III and IV streams in the Blue River watershed currently consist of old-growth. With implementation of the Landscape Plan, the amount of old-growth in Class III and IV riparian areas would increase to approximately 49%, while the Interim Plan would eventually provide almost all old-growth habitat in riparian areas.

Species of concern

The effects of implementing the Landscape Plan on species which are expected to benefit from Riparian Reserves in the Northwest Forest Plan were analyzed using the Riparian Reserve Evaluation Techniques and Synthesis document, Supplement to Section II of Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale: Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis, Version 2.2 as general guidance. For the purposes of this analysis, the riparian area was defined as two site potential tree widths adjacent to fish-bearing streams (Class I and II), and one site potential tree width adjacent to perennial nonfish-bearing (Class III) and intermittent (Class IV) streams.

A species list was compiled based on the Survey and Manage Species list (ROD, table C-3), the Regional Forester’s Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species list, as well as those species which were listed in the FSEIS that were expected to benefit from Riparian Reserves. No additional animal species were added based on local concerns. Table 11 shows whether these species are known or believed to have a potential of occurring in the Blue River watershed and the Willamette National Forest. Table 12 shows how dependent the species listed in Table 11 are on riparian habitat in the Blue River Watershed. Table 13 shows the habitat type associated with those species for which there is a higher level of concern in the Blue River watershed.

Table 13 identifies four habitat types as being of highest concern: riparian, aquatic lotic, aquatic lentic, and special-springs and seeps. For this analysis, the aquatic lentic habitat condition was not further examined because no lake or pond habitat would be modified as part of the Blue River Landscape Plan.

White-footed voles feed on alders within riparian areas. However, alder is not abundant within Class III and IV riparian areas where vegetation manipulation may occur. In addition, white-footed voles are believed to be more abundant in the Coast Range and are very rare in the western Cascades, so the overall risk of impacting them by implementing the Landscape Plan project is very low.

Logging near some Class III and IV streams may impact Cascade torrent salamander and Dunn’s salamander by modifying the microclimate within and adjacent to streams. Increased sunlight and wind effects could reduce ground moisture in stream channels. However, leaving riparian no-cut areas on some Class III streams, bank trees on Class IV streams, higher levels of green-tree retention along these streams as well as the overall prescription for green-tree retention of 15%, 30%, and 50% will pose a low risk to these species. Vesely (1996) found canopy closure within riparian areas positively correlated to abundance of all species of amphibians he studied in the central Oregon Coast Range. Those blocks with higher canopy retention levels near streams would thus have a lower risk of decreased habitat suitability compared to lower canopy retention levels.

Dunn’s salamander inhabits headwater streams and seepages, using the splash zone or streambanks and spaces under rocks. However, they are known to wander further from streams than torrent salamanders, especially during wet spring conditions. In general, torrent salamanders have not been found greater than approximately 30 feet from streams, and they show a relative inability to disperse overland from one small stream to the next. This combined with an apparent avoidance of open water and large streams (Nussbaum et al, 1983, Welsh, 1990) may have restricted gene flow and facilitated speciation. Torrent salamanders also have one of the lowest and narrowest ranges of temperature tolerance of any salamander (Brattstrom, 1963). However, in spite of the apparent sensitivity that is indicated by the literature, discussions with three local herpetologists (Applegarth, Hunter, Olson personal communication) indicate that the levels and rates of timber harvest in the Blue River Landscape Plan is not of high concern and poses a low risk. There have been situations in which torrent salamanders were found to be tolerant of logging adjacent to creeks as long as the original streambed remained intact. It is possible that torrent salamanders are at much higher risk in the southern parts of their range in southern Oregon and northern California, but less so in the midpoint of their north-south distribution on the Blue River Ranger District. One year of amphibian sampling on the northern half of the Blue River Ranger District found comparable numbers of Cascade torrent salamanders in creeks within unlogged and logged stands that are currently in an early seral stage. Although for most areas sampled the total numbers of salamanders were not high, there was an instance in which three different age classes were found, indicating a reproducing population in that creek. With the current amount of information available, it does not appear that the riparian area management in the Landscape Plan for the Blue River watershed would jeopardize the viability of torrent salamanders.

Tailed frog juveniles may benefit from local, temporary forest openings in riparian canopies to some extent (Cissel et.al, in press), however it is unknown if tadpoles and adults would benefit or be impacted.

Red-legged frogs and harlequin ducks generally do not use Class III and IV streams, and would not be impacted by the proposed management activities if water quality habitat conditions are maintained downstream. Narrower riparian buffers may increase the risk of water quality conditions being impacted, although it is perceived to be quite low. This is also the case for red-legged frogs which generally use Class I and II streams, although they sometimes use Class III streams.

Sandhill cranes will not be impacted by any activities in the Blue River watershed because no suitable habitat exists. Similarly, bull trout are not present in Blue River watershed.

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives

All nine Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives identified in the Northwest Forest Plan are evaluated in this section. The purpose of the evaluation is to determine if the landscape management strategy identified in Phases 2 and 3 would meet these objectives. First, desired landscape features and landscape prescription elements that contribute to meeting the objectives are listed for each objective. Then an evaluation of the effectiveness of these elements at meeting the objective is presented.

Objective #1

Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations and communities are uniquely adapted.

Desired Landscape Features

• Landscape structure (vegetation composition, structural stage, and spatial pattern) matching historical/natural landscape and watershed patterns.
• Historical/natural disturbance regimes.
• Transportation system that minimally impacts hydrologic and sediment regimes.
• Stream network free of human-caused barriers to upstream and downstream fish migration.

Landscape Prescription Elements

• Match timber harvest regimes to historical/natural fire regimes (rotation age, overstory retention level, spatial pattern of retention trees within a harvested block, block size, spatial pattern of blocks).
• Place "no scheduled harvest areas" in places where fire rarely occurred (e.g., along sheltered stream reaches).
• Recondition or decommission roads that are presently affecting soil mass movements and peak flows.
• Minimize sharp edges across forest age classes (overstory retention levels and the spatial pattern of retention trees within a harvested block)
• Avoid large open-canopied areas within areas rated as "high" contribution to rain-on-snow peak flows, or high proportions of an area rated as "high" contribution to rain-on-snow peak flows in an open-canopy condition.
• Use prescribed fire in combination with timber harvest regimes to mimic historical/natural fire regimes.
• Remove human-placed barriers to migration of aquatic species.
• Encourage release of adult chinook salmon above the dam, or consider stream fertilization.

Conclusion

Over the long term, the Blue River Landscape Plan will restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of landscape-scale features to ensure protection of aquatic systems to which species, populations, and communities are uniquely adapted. The Landscape Plan is based upon estimated historical fire regimes within the watershed. Implementation of the plan would simulate the vegetative pattern historically left by fires on the landscape. It is to this landscape pattern that species have adapted, over the last several thousands of years. Restoration of stream channel complexity and habitat connectivity, concurrent with improving riparian stand diversity, is expected to contribute to improving aquatic system health.

Background

Riparian stand composition and structure is an important component in restoring riparian and aquatic function across the Blue River landscape. The two different management strategies described would result in significantly different landscape and riparian composition and structure. Aquatic and riparian-dependent species adapted to this landscape are believed to have evolved within the influence of riparian stands composed of a diversity of seral stages. Riparian stand composition is expected to more closely resemble historical riparian composition and structure if managed by the Blue River Landscape Plan as compared to the Interim Plan. Lack of management in Interim Plan Riparian Reserves and suppression of fire may move stand conditions exclusively toward late-seral conditions. Riparian areas consisting almost entirely of late-seral stands may be expected within the next 200 years (table 7) in the absence of management or disturbance. Riparian and adjacent areas managed to move toward historical conditions under the Blue River Landscape Plan may more closely approximate historical stand composition and structure in the long term.

In the Blue River Landscape Plan, continuous reserves have been established along Class I and II streams as they are believed to have burned less frequently due to their cool, damp micro-climate. Class III and IV streams are thought to have burned similar to the surrounding slopes in most cases as demonstrated by historical vegetative patterns. This pattern would be simulated by partial harvests adjacent to Class III and IV riparian areas. Flexibility is built into the Landscape Plan so that site-specific implementation can provide additional riparian protection if needed to prevent mass movements or unacceptable increases in stream temperature. Some local, short-term reduction of large wood supply available for recruitment from the adjacent stands may occur with the Blue River Landscape Plan. Available light and openings to encourage understory and overstory development and maintain hardwoods as riparian components will occur. Stream canopy openings may also contribute to local increases in stream temperature, although guidelines in the Landscape Plan call for no removal of bank trees or trees directly contributing to streambank stability. State Water Quality Standards, based upon the habitat needs of native fish, will be maintained. The resulting vegetation of Class I-IV riparian and adjacent areas will reflect historical stands and historical disturbance regimes. This vegetative composition and structure approximates historical conditions to which aquatic species have adapted.

The establishment of LSR/SIA/Aquatic Reserve blocks distributed throughout the watershed (approximately 45% of the watershed area, table 1)) maintains a distribution of late-successional reserves which can serve as refugia for late-successional dependent species. These blocks are intended to protect unstable soil, provide large wood input to upper watersheds, and provide refuge for amphibian species such as the Cascade torrent salamander.

The restoration of critical components of the aquatic ecosystem, including in-stream large wood, fish population interactions, and absent members of the pre-dam fish community are important to enable the proper functioning of processes across the landscape. The addition of large wood into Class I and II streams in the Blue River Watershed will restore in-stream complexity to the watershed. The addition of wood to the stream channels restores an important component of channel function which existed in Blue River streams historically and to which aquatic species adapted. It is restored channels that will act as refuge for native aquatic species as adjacent streams recover from disturbance. In-stream restoration effort will focus on recovery of disturbed habitat while maintaining or enhancing high-quality habitat (refugia) within the Blue River watershed. By designating refugia and integrating an in-stream restoration plan with a vegetation management strategy, recovery of Blue River aquatic habitat is expected to occur. One species found by the Blue River watershed analysis team to have been adversely affected since the 1940’s is rainbow trout. Current aquatic conditions appears to challenge this species abundance in the sub-basin. Using the historical range of rainbow trout as an indicator to prioritize restoration and designate refugia, recovery of species sharing rainbow trout distribution may be expected.

A stream "network" as described by Sedell and others (1990) is a combination of connected stream sections providing for the life history requirements of an assemblage of aquatic animals. Blue River aquatic restoration will consist of a collection of stream sections in conditions ranging from poor (habitat disturbed by natural or human cause) to high quality (undisturbed, complex habitat). High-quality stream sections are currently serving as aquatic refugia, sustaining remnant aquatic organisms capable of recolonizing adjacent disturbed habitat. The Blue River stream network provides connected avenues to access resistant refuge habitat, while disturbance occurs or an area is in the state of recovery elsewhere. The time scale to approach reference vegetative conditions in the Blue River watershed is approximately 150 years.

Current areas of higher quality that may be serving as aquatic refugia are located in Landscape Area 2 and consist of the subwatersheds of Cook and Quentin Creek. As a part of the Blue River Landscape Plan, these subwatersheds are subject to delayed vegetation treatment and receive increased emphasis for restoration, such as road decommissioning and slope stabilization. In-stream restoration efforts will focus on Cook Creek, Quentin Creek, and Blue River. Concurrent with maturing riparian areas along Blue River is restoration of large in-stream wood to the Blue River channel. This restoration effort would seek to restore habitat of indicator species rainbow trout to benefit the associated aquatic assemblage and provide a stream network of high quality habitat available as refuge during episodes of natural and human-caused disturbance.

A missing historical strength to the fish populations within the Blue River Watershed is their ability to genetically interact with populations in the McKenzie River and its other tributaries. This genetic interchange and added ability to recolonize habitat was an important strength to the Blue River fish populations prior to the construction of Blue River Dam. Correction of an impassable culvert at the mouth of Ore Creek will also restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of aquatic habitat across the landscape. This will restore the availability of important rainbow trout habitat. The success of the implementation of this landscape-scale project is dependent upon the resiliency of animal populations across the watershed. The Blue River watershed fish community is not expected to have the same resiliency as once possessed during the historical fire regime due to the additional stresses of management activity. Restoring fish access to historical habitat and allowing for genetic interactions between historical populations will increase fish community resiliency and enhance the potential of project success. Providing areas of high quality refuge are the means current fish communities will need to survive future disturbance. Restoring upstream and downstream fish passage at Blue River Dam and Ore Creek are important ingredients in the successful implementation of this landscape-scale management strategy.

Objective #2

Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections must provide chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life history requirements of aquatic and riparian-dependent species.

Desired Landscape Features

• Unobstructed subsurface water flows.
• Unobstructed debris-flow paths.
• Continuity of habitat features both within the stream network and between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
• Connected system of aquatic refugia
• Streams that can access their floodplains during flood events.

Landscape Prescription Elements

• Use long timber harvest rotations, high levels of overstory retention, and distribute retention trees near streams to maintain riparian and landscape connectivity.
• Use small-basin and streamside reserves to connect high-probability landslide and debris-flow source areas to fish-bearing channels.
• Delay harvest in areas where roads that are obstructing flows can be decommissioned, or schedule harvest in areas needing reconditioning to fund repairs.
• Maintain soil hydrologic characteristics and productivity.
• Correct human-placed barriers to fish passage.

Conclusions

The Landscape Plan maintains spatial and temporal connectivity of habitats within and between watersheds over the long term. The connections provide chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical to fulfilling life history requirements of aquatic and riparian-dependent species. This connectivity is provided by reserves on Class I and II streams, higher levels of green-tree retention on Class III streams, and well-distributed refugia reserves. There is also an opportunity to restore the connection between stream networks above and below roads utilizing this landscape approach to land management.

Background

Reserves established along Class I and II streams protect the integrity of fish-bearing streams. Riparian reserves are designed to provide shade and maintain cool, moist micro-climate conditions. These reserves provide unobstructed routes to areas critical to fulfilling aquatic and riparian-dependent species life history requirements in Class I and II streams.

Partial overstory retention along Class III streams extends the migration corridors upstream from Class I and II streams for riparian-dependent species. Long rotation ages for forest stands also provide connectivity across the landscape. By approximating historical vegetative patterns left by fire, future landscape patterns should provide for improved connectivity across the landscape. Almost 80% of the landscape would be in forests greater than 80 years of age, and the majority of the younger forests would have 30-50% retention of an older overstory cohort (table 6).

LSR/SIA/Aquatic Reserve blocks, well distributed across the landscape and particularly situated in headwater areas, protect areas that appear to be critical to fulfilling the life history requirements of some amphibian species. These reserve blocks may serve as source areas for these species, to disperse across the landscape or downstream.

The Blue River Landscape Plan promotes decommissioning of portions of the road system in drainages not entered for several decades (see Phase 3, Refugia Watersheds). Decommissioning roads will reduce the drainage network and allows for streams to function more naturally. Large wood and debris flows moving downstream will be allowed to continue their migration uninterrupted, due to the removal of road crossings of channels. These bedload and wood elements are necessary for fulfilling life history stages of many aquatic species.

To enable the connectivity and functioning of reserves along Class I and II streams, barriers to the upstream migration of fish should be addressed. Two critical barriers are Blue River Dam and the culvert at the mouth of Ore Creek. Blue River Dam blocks upstream migration of chinook salmon which, at one time, were an important component of the Blue River aquatic ecosystem. Chinook salmon provided nutrients to the aquatic ecosystem in the form of carcasses and young as food sources for other fish. Salmon increased the diversity of the fish community within the watershed. The dam also blocks the upstream migration of McKenzie River fish populations, including rainbow and cutthroat trout. Successful restoration of aquatic function will need to address human-made barriers to migration.

Objective #3

Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations.

Desired Landscape Features

• Streambanks and channel substrates exhibiting historical/natural dynamics.
• Inputs of wood and bedload materials that closely approximate historical/natural rates of input, and contain similar types, quantities and sizes of materials as historically input.
• Unobstructed stream crossings (primarily roads) that allow materials normal movement down the stream network.

Landscape Prescription Elements

• Do not remove bank trees, or trees contributing directly to streambank stability.
• Place small-basin reserves in critical source areas for large wood and inorganic materials.
• Concentrate retention trees and small-basin reserves in areas of potential slope instability.
• Fix road crossings that are affecting the physical integrity of nearby stream segments, potentially by delaying harvest and decommissioning the road, or by scheduling harvest in areas needing reconditioning to fund repairs.
• Encourage growth of streamside conifers for future input of large wood to streams.
• Add large wood to streams that currently lack large wood due to past management activities.

Conclusion

The physical integrity of the aquatic system would be maintained with implementation of the Landscape Plan in all Landscape Areas for fish-bearing streams. Implementation of the Landscape Plan would reduce the large wood input levels on small, non fish-bearing streams in the short term, but the physical integrity of the channels would be maintained. In the long term, high levels of large woody debris (LWD) would be achieved in Landscape Areas 2 and 3. Small, non fish-bearing streams in Landscape Area 1 may be most susceptible to declines in LWD input in the long term relative to the Interim Plan. Maintenance of the physical integrity of the channels may still be achieved and habitat diversity within riparian areas and the aquatic system would be similar to historical conditions within Landscape Area 1. Anticipated additions of large wood to some stream channels and riparian silvicultural treatments will also restore the physical integrity of the aquatic systems, particularly the channel banks and bottom configurations.

Background

Along larger, fish-bearing streams the Landscape Plan would provide a high degree of protection for existing riparian areas throughout the Blue River watershed. These larger, perennial streams were historically more likely to maintain adjacent riparian vegetation resulting from natural disturbance such as fire. In the long-term, approximately 80% of all Class I and II riparian areas would remain in old-growth conditions (>200 years old.) An additional 8% would be mature forest (80-200 years old), with another 8% in sapling, pole or young trees with at least 30-50% retention of overstory trees. The reserve system along these larger streams should provide components necessary to maintain the physical configuration of the stream channel; i.e., wood delivery, canopy cover and streambank stability.

In comparison, the Interim Plan would maintain all 4,600 acres of Class I and II riparian areas in old growth in the long-term. Studies of past fire history indicate that infrequent fire created diverse stand types within portions of Class I and II riparian areas.

In riparian areas of smaller, non fish-bearing streams, implementation of the Landscape Plan would reduce potential sources of wood delivery and canopy cover as compared to the Interim Plan. However, the Landscape Plan would provide for greater diversity within riparian areas and the aquatic system, similar to historical conditions. Streambank stability would be maintained by retaining higher levels of overstory near streams, bank trees, and potentially unstable sideslope areas. The Interim Plan would maintain Class III and IV Riparian Reserves in old growth conditions (>200 years in age) in the long-term, providing maximum levels of wood delivery to streams and channel stability.

Due to the relatively short rotation of 100 years, Class III and IV streams located within Landscape Area 1 may be most susceptible to declines of LWD in the long term. These areas, such as the Quartz Creek drainage, historically burned frequently, though less intensely than Landscape Areas 2 and 3. As a result, retention levels are the highest prescribed in the watershed, reflecting the moderate intensity burns. Retention levels of 70% and 50% adjacent to Class III and IV streams, respectively, coupled with maintenance of bank trees would provide stability and short term inputs of LWD adequate to maintain the physical integrity of the aquatic system. Through time, however, LWD levels may be reduced from levels which would result with the Interim Plan where all riparian areas would be in old growth. Over the long term, LWD supply would be chronic, with pieces falling in slowly over time. With a 100-year rotation length, riparian areas in Landscape Area 1 never reach an age where LWD input is maximum.

Landscape Area 2 contains riparian areas adjacent to Class III and IV channels that burned similarly to the upslopes. Historically, these areas such as the Quentin Creek drainage, burned at a moderate- to high-severity, with a moderate return frequency. With the initial disturbance, some wood would enter the Class III and IV channels as a "pulse", with the remainder consumed or left standing. Under the Landscape Plan LWD loadings would decline in harvested areas in the short term, but would remain at or above levels that historically occurred with fire. This is particularly true for Class III streams, where maintenance of all bank trees and 50% retention within 75’ of the channel would provide retention levels greater than upslope retention levels. In the short term, the physical integrity of the aquatic system would be maintained in Landscape Area 2.

With a rotation length of 180 years in Landscape Area 2, long term additions of LWD to Class III and IV channels would be at high levels sufficient to maintain channel bank and bottom configurations. Retention levels of 30% in the upslope, 30% adjacent to Class IV streams, and 50% adjacent to Class III streams, would result in approximately 74% and 68% of riparian areas with stand ages >80 years old for Class III and IV streams, respectively. These levels of stand ages within riparian areas would supply LWD to the channel at regular intervals. Thus, in Landscape Area 2, the channels would shift in response to periodic inputs of LWD. Rates of LWD input would probably increase at approximately 150 years following harvest.

The Class III and IV streams of Landscape Area 3 such as Mann-Wolf and Cook Creek drainages, would be most susceptible to reductions in LWD inputs in the short term. Maintenance of bank trees, plus 30% retention adjacent to Class III streams, and 15% retention adjacent to Class IV streams would result in a decline in LWD into Class III and IV channels for approximately 150 years in harvested areas. Based on fire return intervals, however, it is probable that in the past, these riparian areas burned similarly to the adjacent upslopes, and that there were historical time periods when LWD input was less than optimal. Large, high severity fires that burned in the Landscape Area 3 in the past likely consumed a large number of riparian area trees and caused LWD input as a "pulse" of many of the remaining trees. Implementation of the Landscape Plan along these Landscape Area 3 channels would not provide the initial "pulse" that would have likely occurred with fire. However, maintenance of all bank trees and retention levels of 15% and 30% for Class IV and III streams, respectively, would provide LWD levels at or above those likely supplied historically. This level of LWD input would be an adequate amount in the short term to maintain the physical integrity of the channels. Harvest rates in Landscape Area 3 are low due to the very long rotation age (260 years), so very little of the area would be in a young condition at any one time.

In the long term, Class III and IV streams within Landscape Area 3 would have LWD inputs at very high levels due to a long rotation interval of 260 years. Approximately 70-80% of the Class III and IV riparian areas would be >80 years of age. LWD input over the long term would receive large wood input from the adjacent upslope as well. Stream channel bank and bottom configurations would continue to shift and adjust to additions of LWD through time, as well as remain more static in terms of channel adjustments when LWD inputs are less frequent in the short term.

In the past, large wood has been extracted from the channel of Blue River and its tributaries, and harvest has occurred immediately adjacent to stream channels. The placement of large wood and riparian silviculture treatments should aid in restoring the integrity of the banks and bottom configuration, as well as encourage the growth of a riparian forest.

Objective #4

Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic and wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities.

Desired Landscape Features

• Maintain or restore historical/natural stream temperature, nutrient and sediment regimes, including the temporal variability of those regimes.

Landscape Prescription Elements

• Release excess hatchery chinook salmon above the dam to simulate historical nutrient input from spawned-out salmon. If excess hatchery chinook salmon are not available, consider direct addition of nutrients to streams.
• Manage riparian vegetation so that the composition and structure of riparian areas is similar to historical/natural conditions.
• Schedule timber harvest to concentrate in alternating subwatersheds over the long term.
• Delay timber harvest in areas where roads with a high potential to deliver sediment to streams can be decommissioned, or schedule harvest in areas needing reconditioning to fund repairs.
• Avoid new permanent road construction in riparian or mid-slope areas.
• Avoid timber harvest in areas with a high potential to generate mass movements.
• Add large wood to streams to increase particle retention.
• Ensure streams can access their floodplains during floods.

Conclusion

Water quality would be maintained with implementation of the Landscape Plan along fish-bearing streams. Stream temperatures and turbidity levels may locally increase in the short term along smaller, non fish-bearing streams with implementation of the Landscape Plan, but would be well within the range of natural variability and would meet State Water Quality Standards. In the long term, water temperature and turbidity along small, non fish-bearing streams would remain in the range that maintains the integrity of the system and benefits individuals composing aquatic and riparian dependent communities. The release of adult salmon or the fertilization of adult salmon habitat would restore the nutrients that were historically present when adult salmon returned to spawn.

Background

The parameters used to measure water quality are temperature and turbidity. The aquatic community that has evolved in the Blue River watershed relies on cold, clear water. Implementation of the Landscape Plan would maintain shade and turbidity levels along all fish-bearing streams (see discussion of Class I and II streams for Objective #4). Spawned-out salmon historically released a great amount of nutrients into Blue River with the decomposition of their carcasses. The release of adult salmon to spawn naturally and die, or fertilization of historical salmon habitat would restore those missing nutrient concentrations.

Along smaller, non fish-bearing streams, some timber harvests will create openings that could create warmer conditions in the short term. This is particularly true for Class III and IV streams in Landscape Areas 2 and 3. In Landscape Area 2, Class IIIs and IV’s would have 50% and 30% streamside retention including all bank trees, respectively. In Landscape Area 3, Class IIIs and IV’s would have 30% and 15% streamside retention including all bank trees, respectively. Harvest rates are low, however, due to the long rotation ages (180 years in Landscape Area 2 and 260 years in Landscape Area 3), so very little of the area would be in a young condition at any one time. Thermal effects would be of short duration because of rapid vegetation regrowth and overstory canopy closure, and little overall stream warming is expected along fish-bearing streams (<1-2o F). Any increase in stream temperatures would remain within State Standards for water temperature for maintenance of water quality. Stream temperature increases are not generally of concern in Class IV streams because the majority of stream length is devoid of surface water during the period of peak stream warming which occurs around August. However, Class IV streams will often contain short segments of ponded water, where stream temperatures may increase during the middle to late summer. Some species of concern (Table C3 in the ROD, USDA FS and USDI BLM, 1994) such as algae grazers would benefit from local, temporary open forest conditions created by this management approach. Plants that require higher inputs of solar radiation would also benefit, such as aquatic lichens.

In the long term, stream temperatures in Class III and IV streams of Landscape Area 2 and 3 are not expected to remain elevated. Long rotations of 180 years and 260 years for Landscape Area 2 and 3, respectively, would provide long time periods of 100% canopy cover along Class III and IV streams. Approximately 65-80% of Class III and IV riparian areas would be >80 years old, with 10-30% of young tree or sapling/pole stands maintaining >30% canopy retention. In addition, concentration of harvest activities within one or two subwatersheds in a given time period (approximately 20 years) will allow for refugia in subwatersheds that are not being harvested during that particular period. Prescribed retention levels along Class III and IV streams for all landscape areas are within the range of historical levels, and in many cases, retention levels may be higher than levels which might have existed following a natural fire. Stream temperatures associated with the various retention levels are likely to remain within the range of historical variability.

Landscape Area 1 would maintain 70% and 50% streamside retention along Class III and IV streams, respectively. Maintenance of canopy cover at 50% levels or greater would probably result in very little increase in stream temperatures, and would remain within State Standards for water temperature.

Turbidity levels along fish-bearing streams may increase slightly with implementation of the Landscape Plan but would be immeasurable. There would be no direct input of sediment due to management activities from sources adjacent to Class I and II streams due to maintenance of old-growth stands within one site potential tree height from the channels. Turbidity levels along the smaller, non fish-bearing streams may increase as compared to the Interim Plan in the short term as a result of partial harvest within riparian areas, but would not exceed State Standards for turbidity. Increases would likely be the highest in drainages composed mainly of Landscape Area 3, for example Mann-Wolf and Cook Creeks, due to 30% and 15% retention adjacent to Class III and IV streams, respectively. The amount introduced to these channels would probably be less than turbidity levels resulting from historical fires at moderate to high intensity. In addition, the rules for placement of retention trees are intended to prevent streambank and upslope slides. In the long term, Class III and IV riparian areas within Mann-Wolf and Cook Creek drainages would be 70-80% mature or old growth forests, with the remaining, younger, riparian area stands maintaining a minimum of 15% retention. The levels of retention and forest conditions of riparian areas would likely cause some sediment to enter the Class III and IV channels, but would be much less than levels that were introduced historically as a result of fire disturbance. Turbidity levels would be at levels necessary to support healthy riparian and aquatic ecosystems.

Compared to Landscape Area 3, Landscape Areas 1 and 2 would maintain less riparian area of Class III and IV streams in mature and old growth conditions. However, retention levels of 50% to 70% adjacent to Class IIIs, and 30% to 50% adjacent to Class IV streams would result in very little addition of sediment to the stream channels from sources adjacent to the channels. In the long-term, turbidity levels for drainages within Landscape Areas 1 and 2 may actually be less than compared to the Interim Plan, even though riparian areas are not maintained in old growth as they are in the Interim Plan. This is due to the high retention levels upslope that provide slope stability and minimize mass wasting within harvest units. Table 6 shows the distribution of acres within the watershed by stand type for the Landscape Plan as compared to the Interim Plan. The first twenty years following a stand-initiation timber harvest is a time of increased vulnerability to landslides (Swanson and Dryness 1975, Swanson unpublished data). Approximately 5% of the watershed will be in a shrub-sapling stage (less than 20 years old) under the Landscape Plan, while approximately 9% of the watershed will be in the same age class under the Interim Plan. In addition, higher overstory retention levels (1.8% with 30% and 2.1% with 50% retention) are provided in the Landscape Plan as compared to the 15% retention prescribed in the Interim Plan. Both plans include provisions to avoid management activities that increase landslide risks on highly unstable slopes. As a result, sediment introduced as a result of mass wasting would likely be reduced with implementation of the Landscape Plan.

Objective #5

Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input, storage, and transport.

Desired Landscape Features

• Maintain or restore the historical/natural sediment regime, including the temporal variability of that regimes.

Landscape Prescription Elements

• Delay timber harvest in areas where roads with a high potential to deliver sediment to streams can be decommissioned, or schedule harvest in areas needing reconditioning to fund repairs.
• Avoid new, permanent road construction in riparian or mid-slope areas.
• Avoid timber harvest and road construction in areas with a high potential to generate mass movements.
• Do not remove bank trees, or trees contributing directly to streambank stability.
• Place small-basin reserves in critical source areas for large wood, cobbles, etc.
• Concentrate retention trees and small-basin reserves in areas of potential slope instability.
• Decommission roads in areas where timber harvests will be delayed.

Conclusions

The frequency and amplitude of slope failures predicted to occur with implementation of the Landscape Plan will likely increase slightly as compared to unharvested forests; however, slope failures will probably be less than could be expected following a stand-replacement fire. The disturbance regimes proposed in Landscape Areas 1, 2 and 3 through timber harvest and prescribed fire will leave more live trees than a stand replacement fire. The greater densities of trees and the strategic locations of those trees (e.g., left on potentially unstable slopes and near unstable stream channels) provides effective slope stability by maintaining a relatively high density of live roots and high evapotranspiration demands. In addition, the longer timber harvest rotations in the Landscape Plan result in a lower proportion of the watershed in younger age classes than the Interim Plan. Slope failures will remain the primary contributor of geologic materials and large woody debris into stream systems. Sediment transport in the form of sheet erosion will continue to be rare. Dry ravel will be minimal by maintaining existing litter cover and large woody debris, and through continued litter input from the remaining canopy. The rate of stream channel migration, bank erosion and the transport of geologic materials within the drainage network will not likely be altered via implementation of the Landscape Plan. Consideration of potential effects on rain-on-snow floods and the strategic location of retention trees will minimize changes in the hydrologic regime. Discharge volume, rate and peak flows could be altered, but less than that expected following a fire of severe intensity. As a result, present and future changes in flow regimes will support historical rates of channel migration, bank erosion and transport capabilities.

Background

The Landscape Plan establishes disturbance regimes which result in a landscape structure that approximates the landscape structure created historically through infrequent high and moderate severity fires that are known to have occurred during the latter part of the Holocene. By approximating the patterns of this disturbance regime, within which the present ecosystems evolved, the temporal and spatial distribution of impacts by timber harvest (erosion and slope failure) will more closely match the frequency and amplitude of the natural system than did past timber harvest strategies.

The effects of moderate- and high-severity stand replacement fires historically occurred on a landscape scale up to tens of thousands of acres. Overstory canopy was reduced to various degrees dependent on the severity of the fire and the conditions of the forest. Following a stand replacement fire the natural processes of slope failures, accelerated erosion, and additions of large woody debris on to the forest floor and into channel stream channels were greatly accelerated. Erosion, sediment yield and slope failures increased due to the lose of effective ground cover, the onset of hydrophobicity and the lose of the live root network. These effects decline with time as the system recovers and proceeds successionally toward mature forest conditions.

Significant portions of the surface litter, seedbank and large woody debris are consumed during a stand replacement fire leaving more bare soil than is anticipated through the Landscape Plan. However, historical stand-replacement fires resulted in a tremendous increase in the number of down and dead trees several years following the fire. These trees trap sediment generated by dry ravel, rain drop impact and/or overland flows. Large woody debris also provides moisture retention and a suitable micro-environment for vegetation establishment. The large woody debris necessary to maintain these conditions is provided in the Landscape Plan through the retention of green trees and down woody debris. Leave tree retention along riparian areas will provide for future additions of large woody debris for the retention of gravel and cobble substrate within stream channels.

Table 6 shows the distribution of acres within the watershed by stand type for the Landscape Plan as compared to the Interim Plan. The first twenty years following a stand-initiation timber harvest is a time of increased vulnerability to landslides (Swanson and Dryness 1975, Swanson unpublished data). Approximately 5% of the watershed will be in a shrub-sapling stage (less than 20 years old) under the Landscape Plan, while approximately 9% of the watershed will be in the same age class under the Interim Plan. In addition, higher overstory retention levels (1.8% with 30% and 2.1% with 50% retention) are provided in the Landscape Plan as compared to the 15% retention prescribed in the Interim Plan. Both plans include provisions to avoid management activities that increase landslide risks on highly unstable slopes.

Objective #6

Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The timing, magnitude, duration and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows must be protected.

Desired Landscape Features

• Landscape structure (vegetation composition, structural stage, and spatial pattern) matching historical/natural landscape and watershed patterns.
• Historical/natural disturbance regimes.
• Transportation system that minimally impacts the hydrologic regime.

Landscape Prescription Elements

• Match timber harvest regimes to historical/natural fire regimes (rotation age, overstory retention level, spatial pattern of retention trees within a harvested block, block size, spatial pattern of blocks).
• Block mapping criteria: map blocks in areas prescribed for 15 or 30% retention so that individual blocks do not encompass entire small watersheds in high rain-on-snow areas; disperse cutting of blocks in high rain-on-snow areas with 15 or 30% retention; place smaller blocks in high rain-on-snow areas with 15 or 30% retention.
• Recondition or decommission roads where existing road drainage appears to be altering the timing of peak flows; e.g., in areas of high rain-on-snow susceptibility.
• Avoid new, permanent road construction in riparian or mid-slope areas.

Conclusion

Peak and high flows would potentially increase in specific areas of Landscape Areas 2 and 3 for the short-term. Increases would probably be less than those resulting from historical large-scale fires. Long-term peak and high flows would be within the historical range of variability. Summer base flows may increase locally, but would be undetectable.

Background

The south-southwest facing slopes of Ore Creek, Cook Creek, Quentin Creek and Blue River Face drainages located in Landscape Area 2 are the most susceptible to rain-on-snow peak flow events. Upslope retention levels of 30% would provide tree canopies to intercept some snow, but harvest blocks would still create openings for snow accumulation on the ground. Additionally, concentration of harvest units within subwatershed regions in a given time period would potentially cause synchronous runoff within a given subwatershed. These two factors, large areas of snow accumulation and concentration of units in a given subwatershed region may cause increased peak flows within the main channels of Ore Creek, Cook Creek, and Quentin Creeks, and possibly, Blue River. The small increases in peak flows expected from implementation of the Landscape Plan would be less severe than flows which likely resulted historically from large-scale fires. Increases in peak flows resulting from the Landscape Plan would also be less than those likely with the Interim Plan due to higher upslope retention levels. With 60-70% of the area composed of stands >80 years in age, and younger stands retaining 30%-50% of the overstory canopy, the probability of snow accumulation on the ground is much less than with the Interim Plan. The harvested portion of the area would all be less than 80 years of age in the Interim Plan with 15% overstory retention. The Interim Plan would provide very little canopy to reduce snow accumulation on the ground except in riparian areas.

South-southwest facing slopes of Quartz Creek., North Fork Quartz Creek., and Tidbits Creek would also be susceptible to rain-on-snow events if large openings were created. However, these areas are located within Landscape Area 1, which would have 50% canopy retention and, therefore, would not likely accumulate large amounts of snow on the ground. Approximately 40% of the upslope stands of saplings, poles and young trees would have 50% retention, and 50% of the upslope would be mature or old growth stands. Thus, increases in peak flows are not expected in these areas with implementation of the Landscape Plan. In comparison, the Interim Plan would have approximately 60% of the upslope area in stands with <15% retention, and 35% in mature or old growth conditions. As a result, increased peak flows are more likely to occur in Quartz, North Fork Quartz, and Tidbits Creeks with implementation of the Interim Plan.

Smaller areas of Mann Creek., located in Landscape Area 3, may also experience increases in peak flows due to retention levels of 15% and large, created openings. With a rotation length of 260 years, though, and a potential effect of 30-40 years, the increased flows would be short term and would be less severe than what might have occurred historically resulting from large-scale fires. These effects would be much less than those resulting from implementation of the Interim Plan. The Interim Plan would maintain very little canopy retention to intercept snow and reduce wind velocities at the ground level. Only 27% of the upslope would have large canopies resulting from the Interim Plan as compared to 74% for the Landscape Plan (percents of mature and old growth stands). In addition, sapling, pole, and young tree stands with 0-15% canopy retention would comprise 60% of the upslope in the Interim Plan as compared to 20% for the Landscape Plan, resulting in high snow accumulations in Mann Creek drainage with the Interim Plan.

In the long term, peak flows within all landscape areas would be within the historical range of variability, retaining patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing.

High flows may increase for the short-term in streams located in Landscape Areas 2 and 3 due to reduced evapotranspiration associated with harvest, but would be less than or equal to flows resulting from the Interim Plan. Harvest in Landscape Area 1 would not likely have measurable changes in evapotranspiration due to the high retention levels of 50%, and would be less than the Interim Plan. Long rotations of 180 years and 260 years for Landscape Areas 2 and 3, respectively, would maintain high flows within the historical range for the long-term. Short term increases in high flows would probably be less than those experienced historically resulting from large scale fires.

Changes in summer base flow are not expected within the Blue River watershed as a result of implementing the Landscape Plan. Northwest facing slopes along Blue River and Wolf Creek, as well as a majority of Mann Creek., are potentially high contributing areas to summer base flows. Short term increases in flows may result, but would likely be undetectable within Blue River and Wolf Creek.

Objective #7

Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands.

Desired Landscape Features

• Landscape structure (vegetation composition, structural stage, and spatial pattern) matching historical/natural landscape and watershed patterns.
• Historical/natural disturbance regimes.
• Transportation system that minimally impacts the hydrologic regime.
• Drainage into and out of meadows and wetlands that is not altered by human activities.

Landscape Prescription Elements

• Place small basin reserves in areas of significant meadows and wetlands.
• Correct road drainage problems affecting meadows and wetlands.
• Match timber harvest regimes to historical/natural fire regimes (rotation age, overstory retention level, spatial pattern of retention trees within a harvested block, block size, spatial pattern of blocks).
• Block mapping criteria: map blocks in areas prescribed for 15 or 30% retention so that individual blocks do not encompass entire small watersheds in high rain-on-snow areas; disperse cutting of blocks in high rain-on-snow areas with 15 or 30% retention; place smaller blocks in high rain-on-snow areas with 15 or 30% retention.
• Recondition or decommission roads where existing road drainage appears to be altering the timing of peak flows; e.g., in areas of high rain-on-snow susceptibility.
• Avoid new, permanent road construction in riparian or mid-slope areas.

Conclusions

Local changes in the hydrology of floodplains and wetlands could occur through implementation of the Landscape Plan through timber harvest and prescribed fire in Landscape Areas 2 & 3. Water yield increases following timber harvests are possible relative to unharvested forested conditions due to reduced interception of precipitation and reduced rates of evapotranspiration. However, these changes are expected to be relatively short term (less than 20 years) and the magnitude of these changes will remain within the range of historical variation, and be of a lower magnitude than that which could be expected under the Interim Plan.

Background

Wetland habitats will be directly protected through designation as reserves or site-specific placement of retention trees within harvested blocks. Treatments in Landscape Area 1 are unlikely to affect the hydrology of wetlands or flood plain inundation due to the retention of fifty percent of the existing canopy at the time of stand initiation through timber harvest. Implementation of timber harvests in Landscape Areas 2 (30% overstory retention) and 3 (15% overstory retention) could change water levels of wetlands adjacent to harvested blocks. Available soil moisture and sub-surface interflow could increase. The result could be higher water elevations and longer retention of surface water later into the growing season. These conditions could expand existing wetlands and possibly shift marginal wetlands to a more hydric moisture regime. Species composition of existing marginal wetlands could shift to one dominated by wetland obligate species. Although the hydrology immediately below a harvested sub-basin or block may change, the magnitude of these changes will remain within the range of historical variation, and be of a lower magnitude than that which could be expected with the Interim Plan.

Flood plain inundation occurs during the winter and spring runoff period, and during flood-producing rainfall events. Streams access floodplains in response reaches of major creeks and rivers in the watershed. Water yield increases are possible following timber harvests relative to unharvested forested conditions due to reduced interception of precipitation and reduced rates of evapotranspiration. Discharge volume and peak flow characteristics may change immediately below the harvested sub-basin and allow for more frequent access to floodplains above Blue River Reservoir. Although the hydrology immediately below a harvested sub-basin or block may change, the magnitude of these changes will remain within the range of historical variation, and be of a lower magnitude than that which could be expected with the Interim Plan.

The proportion of the watershed in a relatively open canopy condition (shrub-sapling seral stage) can be used as a general index of potential changes in watershed hydrology (table 6). Early seral stages have lower transpirational capacity and reduced interception of precipitation. Approximately 5% of the watershed will be in a shrub-sapling stage (less than 20 years old) under the Landscape Plan, while approximately 9% of the watershed will be in the same age class under the Interim Plan. In addition, higher overstory retention levels (1.8% with 30% and 2.1% with 50% retention) are provided in the Landscape Plan as compared to the 15% retention prescribed in the Interim Plan, thereby mitigating changes in local hydrology to some degree.

The spatial and temporal distribution of management activities could also affect the potential for changes in watershed hydrology and wetland and floodplain inundation. Clustering of timber harvests in space and/or time can result in a higher magnitude change as compared to dispersed harvests. The Landscape Plan aggregates harvests in space and time resulting in greater potential effects in the local subwatershed while minimizing effects in other subwatersheds (see Phase 3 - Timber harvest scheduling, and Refugia watersheds). The Interim Plan more evenly distributes harvests throughout the watershed resulting in chronic, lower magnitude changes in hydrology. The greater variation in hydrology in the Landscape Plan is assumed to more closely resemble historical variations and restores wetland and floodplain hydrology.

Stand-replacement fires historically burned over large areas within this watershed, often burning over or near wetlands. These fires frequently occurred during drought years when water levels within wetlands may have dropped sufficiently to allow fire to move into these systems. Although wetlands may have burned, it is unlikely the effects of fire had a long-term effect on wetland functions. Wetland species often have large underground tuberous root systems that are not susceptible to fire. These vegetative parts are important for vegetative reproduction and are capable of supplying the individual plant with nutrients for many years. Wetland plants evolved under the influence of frequent, often seasonal, fluctuations in water levels. Riparian plant communities evolved under the influence of frequent flood events and changes in water levels. Both wetland and riparian habitats are well suited for periodic disturbances associated with fires, floods or those changes that could occur through implementing the Landscape Plan.

Evaluation of the disturbance regimes for this watershed indicated large stand-replacement fires occurred historically. Wildfires changed the hydrologic regime and directly affected wetland and riparian systems through the consumption of live and dead vegetative materials. The effects of these fires were generally felt within the local sub-watershed. The magnitude of changes in hydrology thought to occur following stand-replacement fires are highly unlikely through implementation of the Landscape Plan. Changes in the hydrologic regime are generally felt immediately below a harvested area and not further downstream. Therefore, any spatially limited effects will not affect the conditions overall in the drainage. In effect, changes to the hydrology of wetlands and flood plain inundation will "blink" on following treatment within sub-watersheds. These impacts would be felt locally within a sub-watershed and for a short term. Both past management strategies and the Interim Plan spread relatively minor impacts throughout the watershed exposing the whole system to long-term, low magnitude impacts.

Objective #8

Maintain and restore the species compositions and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration and to supply amounts and distribution of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability.

Desired Landscape Features

• Composition, structural stage, and spatial pattern of riparian vegetation that matches historical/natural riparian vegetation patterns.
• Riparian area to upslope environmental gradients that match historical/natural patterns.

Landscape Prescription Elements

• Match timber harvest regimes to historical/natural fire regimes (rotation age, overstory retention level, spatial pattern of retention trees within a harvested block, block size, spatial pattern of blocks).
• Place "no scheduled harvest areas" in places where fire rarely occurred (e.g., along sheltered stream reaches).
• Provide transition zones between riparian areas and upslope areas with intermediate levels of overstory retention.
• Utilize riparian silviculture to encourage streambank stability and growth of young stands.

Conclusions

Stand-initiation timber harvests in the Landscape Plan approximate the frequency, severity and spatial pattern of historical fires (100 to 260 years) restoring the historical distribution of habitats. Fine- and coarse-grained biotic and abiotic components that provide the vegetation composition and structure necessary for a naturally functioning forest and riverine system will be maintained. This combination of disturbance followed by long periods of recovery without major disturbance will provide for an array of habitats at different seral stages over time (table 6), on a scale that more closely approximates historical habitats throughout the western Cascade Range.

Additional provisions of the Landscape Plan ensure adequate riparian functions. Small-watershed reserves, corridor-reserves on fish-bearing streams, and higher levels of green-tree retention near nonfish-bearing streams provide riparian functions. Timber harvest scheduling guidelines are intended to protect the highest-quality habitats in the near term while timber harvests are clustered elsewhere. In addition, an active watershed restoration program is intended to restore aquatic habitats and the spatial connectivity of habitats.

Background

Large, stand-replacement fires leave large areas of high mortality with little effective ground cover. Other nearby areas may be relatively untouched by these near catastrophic events. Areas relatively void of vegetation provided open niches for plants adapted to these conditions. Areas untouched by fire provided refugia for those species of plants and animals less adapted to the rigorous post-fire microclimate. These conditions are necessary for some plant and animal species to persist on the landscape. Species associated with early seral conditions often are the most mobile with respect to seed dispersal mechanisms and/or modes of travel. Often immediately adjacent to these impacted areas are islands of refugia that were not impacted by fire in which late seral species persist and provide a "seed source" for biotic components to re-invade the ecosystem as it proceeds successionally toward late seral conditions. All these components are necessary to perpetuate ecosystems over time. The frequency. spatial pattern and amplitude of those disturbances, superimposed over the soils and topography of the landscape determines the characteristics of the ecosystem. Fire suppression has reduced the occurrence of low and moderately intense fires as well as stand-replacement fires. As a result, processes that shaped the structure and composition of the existing forest have not been allowed to proceed. Past timber harvest strategies created unprecedented landscape patterns, and failed to provide important elements (standing live and dead trees, small pockets of refugia within early seral communities) necessary for succession and re-invasion of plant and animal species.

Objective #9

Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species.

Desired Landscape Features

• Composition, structural stage, and spatial pattern of riparian vegetation that matches historical/natural riparian vegetation patterns.
• Riparian area to upslope environmental gradients that match historical/natural patterns.

Landscape Prescription Elements

• Match timber harvest regimes to historical/natural fire regimes (rotation age, overstory retention level, spatial pattern of retention trees within a harvested block, block size, spatial pattern of blocks).
• Place "no scheduled harvest areas" in places where fire rarely occurred (e.g., along sheltered stream reaches).
• Provide transition zones between riparian areas and upslope areas with intermediate levels of overstory retention.

Conclusion

The Blue River Landscape Plan maintains habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. Stream Class I and II no-harvest reserves and small-watershedreserves (which include biologically sensitive or unique habitat, special interest areas, and spotted owl nesting areas) are distributed across the landscape, providing refugia for these plants and animals. Impacts to habitat due to this project (expected directly in Class III and IV streams through increases in temperature and erosion and indirectly downstream through sedimentation) are not expected to exceed what we estimate to be the impacts from historically-occurring disturbance events such as wildfire, nor exceed State water quality guielines. The project is intended to mimic the pattern of vegetation left across a landscape under what we estimate to be the historical fire regime for the area. Established refugia is expected to function to protect the existence of these species and serve as source areas for recolonization of riparian habitat that has recovered from past project impacts. The watershed restoration component of this project will accelerate the recovery of riparian areas that currently may not function as refugia through silvicultural practices and the addition of large wood.

Plants

The long-term goals of the Landscape Plan Aquatic Reserve system are to provide a diversity of seral stages and stand structures that will support native species and ecological functions. The Aquatic Reserve system was designed to maintain and restore habitat to support populations of native plant and riparian-dependent species. Long stand rotations of 100 to 260 years will reduce the frequency of disturbance and provide habitat with old-growth attributes and species diversity.

Streamside retention of overstory trees will provide habitat and connectivity for fungi, vascular and nonvascular plant species with limited dispersal capabilities. In addition, various small-basin reserves dispersed across elevation zones will provide refugia for aquatic and terrestrial plant species. These reserves are located at specific headwaters, important stream junctions, and adjacent to specific Late-Successional Reserves.

The Landscape Plan will create a forest pattern similar to historical conditions with which species have evolved. The Aquatic Reserve system will integrate with upslope stands by retaining overstory trees in the upslope stands.

Conservation of riparian-dependent plant species will be provided by Aquatic Reserves on all fish-bearing streams. The Landscape Plan Aquatic Reserves are one tree-height in constrained channels and two tree-height adjacent to unconstrained stream segments.

Landscape Areas 1 and 2

Streamside green-tree retention levels will provide habitat and stand structure for epiphytic bryophytes and lichens as well as terrestrial plant and fungi species that occur in riparian areas. Remnant trees will moderate habitat climatic factors. Riparian areas with a mixture of hardwood and conifer species usually have the greatest diversity of species and habitats. The young upslope stands adjacent to Class III stream channels will have retention levels of 50 to 70 percent from the original stand. Older remnant trees are often biologically rich and provide habitat for a diversity of species. Many of these species are able to recolonize into younger stands as habitat conditions improve. Retention levels of 30 to 50 percent adjacent to Class IV channels with streamside bank trees will moderate environmental conditions directly contributing to the habitats and microclimates within the riparian zone.

Landscape Area 3

Short-term changes in microclimate associated with timber harvest near Class III and IV streams may reduce habitat for fungi, vascular plants, and nonvascular plants such as lichens and bryophytes because of the lower overstory retention levels in Landscape Area 3. However, the low frequency of timber harvests in Landscape Area 3 due to the long-rotation age (260 years) means that a low percentage of the riparian area is in young forests at any given time (9% of riparian areas less than 80 years old with 15% overstory retention, tables 7B & 7C). The lack of these species in younger forests is generally associated with poor dispersal and slow growth rates. In addition, 30 percent canopy closure of overstory trees are retained for a distance of 75 ft. on Class III streams, and bank trees and other trees contributing to streambank stability are retained on all streams. These provisions of the Landscape Plan help moderate negative environmental effects to riparian-dependent plant species. Retaining 25 percent of the total retention trees in clumps adjacent to Class III and IV streams will provide a variety of habitats and microclimate regimes for riparian-dependent plant species. A well-distributed network of retention trees adjacent to Class III and IV streams will provide connectivity for riparian-dependent plants and transition-zone species. The long-term stand rotation of 260 years within Landscape Area 3 will provide for old-growth species and habitats.

Invertebrates

The Blue River Landscape Project maintains and restores habitat to support well-distributed populations of riparian-dependent invertebrates. The Landscape Plan protects the integrity of Class I and II and some III and IV riparian areas throughout the landscape by establishing riparian reserves for Class I and II streams, maintaining tree retention on Class III streams, and establishing LSR/SIA/Aquatic Reserves distributed throughout the landscape. These reserves maintain cool micro-climate and structure needed to support some populations of invertebrates. It is from this system of refugia that riparian-dependent invertebrates will disperse from to recolonize recovering areas affected by disturbances.

An important component of the landscape project is to restore historical amounts of large wood to Blue River and its tributaries. Large wood dissipates stream energy, collects gravels, provides nutrients, filters and stores fine organic material, and provides attachment and hiding sites for aquatic and terrestrial macroinvertebrates. It is an important component of invertebrate habitat in channel and riparian areas. Cutting trees near streams and removing wood from streams have decreased the amount of large wood in the river, streams, and riparian areas. Although the quantity of this large wood in the riparian area and the channel is expected to return to near historical conditions over the long term, the active placement of large wood in Blue River and its tributaries will accelerate recovery of habitat conditions.

Vertebrates

While every species of amphibian in the watershed may be found within riparian areas, four species are dependent on streams and riparian habitat. Three of these species have aquatic larval stages dependent upon perennial flowing water; Pacific giant salamander (Dicamptodon tenebrosus), Cascade torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton cascadae), and tailed frog (Ascaphus truei). The fourth, Dunn’s salamander (Plethodon dunni), does not have an aquatic larval stage but nonetheless seems restricted in distribution primarily to riparian habitats. Two species of pond-breeding amphibians, the Cascade frog (Rana cascadae) and red-legged frog (Rana aurora), while probably not dependent on streamside habitats, make frequent use of streamsides during the summer season, and are discussed briefly.

Two environmental variables play very important roles in influencing stream-dwelling amphibians: solar exposure and amount of fine sediment in the stream bed (Murphy et al. 1981, Murphy and Hall 1981, Hawkins et al. 1983, Corn and Bury 1989, Bury et al. 1991). Solar exposure can influence stream temperatures, periphyton production, and invertebrate prey biomass. Amount of fine sediment in stream beds influences the size and amount of interstitial space available to amphibians, as well as the invertebrate composition of the stream. Each of these variables, in different combinations and degrees, can have different impacts (positive or negative) on each of the stream-breeding amphibians.

Fluctuations in stream temperature due to the harvest schedule in the Landscape Plan are unlikely to cause long-term reduction in amphibian abundance or distribution in this watershed. Stream temperatures measured in summer 1995 in all parts of the watershed and in all habitat types were well within tolerance limits for all three species. Most streams will receive at least some canopy retention. Even without canopy retention, deciduous cover generally shades small streams within a few years. The Landscape Plan also prescribes relatively long timber harvest rotations (100 to 260 years). In this scenario, only a small percentage of the stream network would be warmed at any time. It is highly unlikely that implementation of the Blue River Landscape Plan would increase average stream temperatures beyond those expected under natural conditions. Small, temporary areas of warming may even have a positive influence on some species for a short period of time. Any detrimental effects that do occur would likely be local, infrequent, and short-lived.

A large increase in fine sediment in streams generally has the effect of decreasing the abundance of aquatic amphibian larvae. Natural levels of sediment in streams vary over time and space. Fine sediment seems generally more abundant in streams in less-steep regions in this watershed. This is apparently related to the interaction of geology, soils, and geomorphology. The greatest possible risk to stream ecosystems in the watershed might be long-term and sustained increases in fine sediment input to the streams. The greatest source of excessive inputs seems to be mass failures associated with road-building (Swanson and James 1975). Some less stable road systems that are already in place may continue to fail during future wet years. However, failure rates on roads would be expected to continue to decline over time, particularly after having many recent failures after the February 1996 storm. In addition, risky road-building methods which are prone to failure in this watershed have been recognized (Swanson and James 1975) and can be avoided or improved upon in the future. When these facts are combined with the fact that most contemporary harvest units have quite a bit of vegetation and slash remaining on them, it seems likely that the Landscape Plan would produce rates of sediment input to streams similar to or less than the expected natural landscape under the estimated historical fire regime.

While densities of Pacific giant salamanders may be reduced somewhat in portions of small streams with relatively high levels of fine sediment (M. Hunter pers. obs.), this species does not appear to be eliminated in areas with high levels of fine sediment. In fact, Murphy et al. (1981), Murphy and Hall (1981), and Hawkins et al. (1983) reported increased biomass of giant salamanders in open-canopy streams regardless of higher levels of fine sediment. Therefore, while giant salamanders may temporarily experience reduced densities in areas receiving excessive volumes of fine sediment, this species will not likely be extirpated from any streams beyond what naturally occurs from debris flows and other natural catastrophic events. Even these areas are likely to be repopulated rapidly by adjacent populations of returning terrestrial adults.

Tailed frog metamorphs occur in streams of all sizes in the watershed, but are most common in smaller streams. Protection of stream bank trees, some level of retention for all streams, numerous scattered reserves, and long rotations in some areas will likely maintain habitat for tailed frog metamorphs in streams of all sizes throughout the watershed. Removal of some riparian canopy will likely reduce metamorph densities temporarily (2-15 years) until increased shade is re-established by deciduous growth or young conifers. Tadpoles, on the other hand, are most frequent and abundant in larger Class III and in Class II streams in this watershed. Therefore most streams used for tadpole rearing will be protected by either a streamside reserve, or by some level of canopy retention. Oddly enough, tadpoles probably would not be negatively impacted by reduced canopy in this watershed, and may even benefit because of increased (but not excessive) algae production. Input of excessive fine sediment from tributaries to these streams containing tadpoles could temporarily reduce habitat for this species, but this effect should be infrequent and inconsequential to the majority of the tadpole population.

The torrent salamander occurs primarily in Class III and IV streams. The Landscape Plan will, in many cases, not protect these stream classes from timber harvest. Therefore, the remainder of this discussion focuses on this species.

Torrent salamander locations found in a 1995 survey were further evaluated. Most special interest areas, 100-acre Late Successional Reserves, aquatic reserves, and some unsuited lands contain streams of the size frequently used by torrent salamanders. These areas together cover about 25% of the non-HJA land area in the watershed. Of 18 non-HJA locations where torrent salamanders were found in summer 1995, 5 are in some kind of reserve or in unsuited land, 7 are in Class III streams without any reserve status, and 5 are in streams currently designated Class IV or not mapped. If all landscape areas have approximately the same density of streams, between 20 and 25% of streams suitable for torrent salamanders would likely be protected by an unharvested buffer of some size. These reserves are located throughout the watershed. Therefore the torrent salamander, as well as other species, are assured protected breeding habitat widespread within the watershed. Of the 12 sites where torrent salamanders were found along streams outside of reserves designated in the Blue River Landscape Plan, 8 would receive at least 50% retention of adjacent canopy (Class III’s in Landscape Areas 1 and 2, and Class IV’s in Landscape Area 1). In addition, riparian reserves along Class I and II streams likely contain a few seeps occupied by torrent salamanders that would also be fully protected. This leaves 4 of 18 that would receive the basic, minimum protection of stream bank trees and 15 to 30% canopy retention.

It is possible that densities of torrent salamanders may be temporarily reduced in Class III or IV streams with less than 50% adjacent canopy retention. It is unlikely, however, that torrent salamanders would be extirpated in any streams in this watershed from timber harvest alone. In summer 1995, torrent salamanders were found in nearly the same frequency in streams surrounded by early seral habitat as streams surrounded by unharvested forest. Torrent salamanders were also found in a road cut bank cliff seep, and in a cliff seep in young forest on the north side of Blue River Reservoir. While these observations do not prove that no population changes have occurred from pre- to post- disturbance, they do indicate that some torrent salamanders persist through these managed disturbances. Protection of stream banks, maintenance of at least some shade, and low rates of timber harvest associated with long rotations reduce risk of excessive sedimentation and stream warming. In streams experiencing high levels of sedimentation or solar radiation that might reduce torrent salamander densities (which should be few), refugia are usually present which probably allow persistence of some individuals through these unfavorable conditions. Likely refugia include steeper gradients, waterfalls, and protected areas near lateral bedrock protrusions. In addition, regions of the watershed where torrent salamanders are most frequent have predominantly shallow, rocky soils which contribute relatively small volumes of sand and silt. Average stream gradients are also higher, moving fine material out of the small streams faster than in the steep ground.

While it appears that torrent salamanders do not venture far from streams, their dispersal capabilities and habits are basically unknown. Tailed frogs and giant salamanders are known to disperse across the landscape, even to ridge tops. Therefore, upslope silvicultural practices will directly affect the forested environments where terrestrial individuals of these species disperse and find refugia. Nonetheless, the prescriptions for each of the landscape areas provide a range of rotation lengths and retention levels, all of which will provide ample, well-distributed habitat for terrestrial forms of each of the stream-breeding amphibians.

No important differences in implications of the three landscape area prescriptions for torrent salamanders were found. Areas with shorter rotations have greater canopy retention levels while areas with longer rotations have lesser canopy retention levels. Short-term impacts (10-20 years) might be greater in areas with the least retention along streams, but the frequency of these impacts would be very low. In contrast, the areas with shorter rotations may have a higher frequency of impacts, but the magnitude of the impacts will likely be less because of the higher levels of retention.

Dunn’s salamander seems fairly widespread adjacent to streams of all sizes throughout the watershed, but too few observations have been made to discern any patterns that might exist. While this species does occur upslope, it seems primarily limited to stream side habitats. They are not aquatic, therefore stream temperature and amounts of fine sediments probably do not influence this species. Habitat needs for this species seem to include ground-level features offering cover and likely habitat for nesting. These would include down wood and subsurface accumulations of loose rock. The Dunn’s salamander is not unusual along streams in young managed stands, and likely either survives through timber harvest activities or migrates from nearby populated habitats. Dunn’s salamander should also maintain frequencies and distributions similar to likely levels of natural variability.

Cascade and red-legged frogs use streamsides during the non-breeding summer season. The Cascade frog seems to most often use streamside areas with little conifer canopy, but with some low, stream side vegetation (such as willows, Sitka alder, or sedge). Red-legged frogs seem to use whatever streamside habitat is available, but avoid hot, dry openings. Since these species are not dependent upon stream bed interstitial spaces and would find the streamside habitats produced by the Landscape Plan adequate, they would likely fair well in this scenario.

Timber production and operational feasibility.

Computer models were used to simulate long-term, average annual per acre yields for each silvicultural treatment. These yields were multiplied by the respective number of acres in the corresponding management category and summed to obtain a long-term sustained yield for each plan (table 14). The Landscape Plan produces about 17% less timber volume in terms of cubic feet than the Interim Plan in the long-term. This difference narrows to just 7% in terms of board feet, because the Landscape Plan produces bigger trees with its average rotation length of 192 years compared to the Interim Plan average rotation length of 88 years. The average board foot/cubic foot ratio is 5.05 for the Interim Plan, and 5.65 for the Landscape Plan. These results should be viewed as highly speculative, however, because empirical data are not available to corroborate model predictions under the combinations of retention level and rotation ages used in these plans. Production figures are beyond the range of the models used to project timber yields, and should be used for comparison purposes only.

Initial harvest levels, based on area control using average acres available for harvest per year by rotation age, show a greater difference between the two plans (table 15). The table shows acres suitable for timber harvest in each land allocation for the Interim Plan and for each landscape area in the Landscape Plan. These acres are multiplied by the percent available for harvest each year for a given rotation length and summed for each plan. A land allocation or landscape area with a 100-year rotation would harvest an average of 1% of the available acres per year. A 200-year rotation would correspond to an average of 0.5% per year, etc. The Interim Plan would harvest 245 acres per year while the Landscape Plan would harvest 152 acres per year (-38%). Greater differences between the two scenarios occur when comparing acres to be harvested because the Landscape Plan harvests at a lower rate due to the substantially longer rotations (average rotation length of 192 years compared to the Interim Plan average rotation length of 88 years). However, in the long term volume differences narrow because the volume harvested per acre is much higher for the Landscape Plan.

Projections of multiple rotations of treatments with high levels of green-tree retention indicate a slight decrease in the dominance of Douglas-fir starting with the second rotation. This is due to the increased shading by the residual trees, which inhibits establishment of Douglas-fir, but promotes the development of shade-tolerant species like western hemlock and western redcedar. The decrease in dominance of Douglas-fir is not as apparent in the shorter rotation, 15% retention prescriptions of the Interim Plan. Again, these results should be viewed as highly speculative because empirical data are not available to corroborate model predictions under the combinations of retention level and rotation ages used in these plans. In addition, the retention trees are intended to be patchy, with a combination of clumps and scattered individual trees, and conditions suitable for Douglas-fir regeneration should be found in portions of each block.

The operational feasibility of timber removal varies between plans because of the greater complexity of silvicultural prescriptions in the Landscape Plan. Given the higher levels of retention and the need to pay more attention to the dispersion of retained trees within a harvest block, the Landscape Plan requires a greater effort for planning harvests and in marking trees for removal or retention. Also, monitoring and tracking protocols will be different and probably more intensive, to insure compliance with the specifics of the prescriptions. The biggest change in operational procedures will be to accomplish the higher retention levels. This will require new and innovative methods of extraction. Safety protocols will need to be enhanced to handle working in and around high levels of large, residual trees.

Road management may present more options with the Landscape Plan because with the longer rotations and bigger blocks there will be greater levels of activity within an area that occurs over relatively short time periods interspersed with long intervals of low activity. This would allow many roads to be kept open for only short periods of time.

Collectively, these additional considerations for the Landscape Plan will likely result in higher costs for planning and implementing timber harvest activities and a lower amount of timber volume harvested per acre. This may result in a net loss of revenue, but will depend on trends in the timber market. Increasing stumpage prices for the higher wood quality that comes with harvesting bigger trees, may offset the increased costs.

Phase 5 - Monitoring

Background

The landscape management strategy described in this document should be viewed as an untested approach to meeting the objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan. It rests upon the assumption that, if habitat patterns and ecological processes function within the range of variation historically expressed in the landscape, the probability of maintaining productive ecosystems and native species is high. In particular, this strategy embodies an ecosystem dynamics view where disturbance processes have historically shaped landscape patterns, and future management practices emulate key aspects of those disturbance regimes (e.g., frequency, intensity and spatial pattern of historical disturbance processes) as closely as feasible. The degree to which management activities, such as timber harvest and prescribed fire, can approximate historical disturbance regimes is not yet clear.

The Blue River watershed is uniquely positioned to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach to ecosystem management. Research and monitoring centered on the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest have been continuously underway in this watershed for almost 50 years. The Blue River watershed also lies entirely within the Central Cascades Adaptive Management Area, an allocation in the Northwest Forest Plan that encourages experimentation and testing of new approaches to ecosystem management.

The monitoring framework is organized along a hierarchy of spatial scales. Various ecosystem components were selected for effectiveness and validation monitoring because projects are either already underway that provide some of the monitoring data and analysis tools, or the components are of particular importance to evaluating the success of this approach. Other aspects of monitoring the effectiveness of this approach could also be developed. The primary monitoring components identified at this time are briefly described below according to the spatial scale at which the monitoring will occur. Rates of change can be expected to vary substantially by component. Detailed monitoring plans will be developed in separate documents.

H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest

The H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest (15,700 acres) is located entirely within the Blue River watershed. Designated as an Experimental Forest in 1948, the Andrews is managed for the purposes of research and education. Experimental watersheds, plots, monitoring stations and control areas cover virtually all of the Andrews. Over 100 projects are currently active. Major support for the research and monitoring program conducted on the Andrews comes from the LTER (Long Term Ecological Research) program of the National Science Foundation (NSF). The Andrews is a coniferous forest site in the LTER network of 18 sites representing different ecosystems located throughout the United States and Antarctica. Primary support for the Andrews program also comes from the Pacific Northwest Research Station, Oregon State University, and the Willamette National Forest. Numerous project-specific grants come from a wide variety of agencies and organizations (e.g., NSF, NASA, EPA). Physical facilities at the Forest have greatly expanded in the last 5 years. Currently there are three dormitories capable of housing approximately 60 individuals, a new office and laboratory building, and a new conference room/classroom suitable for groups of up to 100 people is under construction.

The emphasis and scope of the research program on the Andrews has changed and grown markedly over the years. The initial emphasis of research at the Andrews in the 1950s was to learn how to convert old forests to new forests in an efficient manner. Attention shifted in the 1960s to look at the effects of forest cutting, particularly on soil and water. The 1970s ushered in a new era of ecosystem science, focused initially on old-growth forests. The emphasis on ecosystem science continues today. Studies have been undertaken on the structure and composition of forest communities, the vertebrates and invertebrates that inhabit the forest, aquatic ecology, decomposition, nutrient cycles, long-term ecosystem productivity, disturbance patterns, fungi, lichen, and the relationships among these features of the ecosystem. A long-term measurements and permanent plot program provides critical baseline data for vegetation, fish, hydrology, climate, and erosion. These monitoring programs provide critical context for interpreting changes occurring elsewhere in the watershed.

Watershed scale

Beyond the boundaries of the watershed lie several other land-use categories that could provide instructive comparison points for future monitoring. A large Wilderness located nearby (Three Sisters Wilderness) is a designated Biosphere Reserve as is the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest. Federally-managed watersheds allocated largely as Matrix and Riparian Reserves in the Northwest Forest Plan are also located nearby. And large blocks of industrial forest lands occur a short distance to the west of Blue River watershed. Each of these land-use categories produces alternative landscape patterns through different vegetation management regimes at a watershed scale. Large-scale monitoring can use these varied treatments to help evaluate the effectiveness of a disturbance-based approach to ecosystem management. The following components may be best evaluated at this scale:

Landscape pattern

Several projects are already underway to evaluate landscape pattern across multiple land-use categories in the central western Oregon Cascades. Satellite imagery has been assembled dating from 1972 to 1995, and classified into several broad vegetation categories. The classified images are being further analyzed using various habitat models and tools. Landscape pattern evaluation software (FRAGSTATS) has been used to compare patch sizes, the amount of edge in the landscape and a variety of other landscape measures across land use categories and over time. Vertebrate habitat models are now being developed to further analyze these images. These kinds of tools will continue to be developed and applied in this area, and can be used to compare this management approach to other management approaches practiced in the central western Oregon Cascades in terms of a wide variety of basic habitat parameters.

Northern spotted owls

The entire watershed lies within a larger, long-term northern spotted owl study area. Study components include the prey base of the spotted owl, predators of the spotted owl, spotted owl habitat use, demography of spotted owls, and total density of spotted owls. Continuation of this monitoring program will allow for future evaluation of how spotted owls respond to this disturbance-based management approach. Reproductive rates of owls in this watershed can be compared to reproductive rates of owls nesting in other land-use categories. There is also a potential to expand the study area boundary to encompass more land-use categories so that comparisons can be made with larger watersheds managed under different regimes.

Subwatershed scale

Some monitoring components are better evaluated at a smaller scale than across large watersheds, but at a larger scale than individual small stream basins. The H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest (15,700 acres) has had very little timber harvesting since the early 1970s, and very little manipulation is expected in the future. In some respects the Andrews represents a twenty five-year old late-successional reserve, providing a reference point for comparison with the disturbance-based approach to ecosystem management envisioned within the remainder of the watershed. The following components may be best evaluated at this intermediate scale:

Management simulation of disturbance regimes

Several disturbance regime studies have been undertaken in this watershed in the past, and others are underway now. These studies aim to describe parameters of disturbance regimes in increasingly more accurate and precise terms. For example, fire history studies have described in general terms the frequency, severity and spatial pattern of past stand-replacement fires. Current and future work will help specify the variability of these regimes, how that variability is expressed across landforms and other features, and identify the characteristics of low-severity fire regimes. These studies provide a basis for comparing disturbance parameters from management regimes to the historical disturbance regimes they are designed to emulate.

Stream discharge

A large program of hydrology monitoring in this watershed relies on the combined efforts of the Forest Service, Oregon State University, and USGS to develop and maintain a network of eleven gauging stations, and to store and analyze the data from these stations. Stream discharge has been monitored in four pairs of watersheds for 25-45 years in the Blue River watershed. Three of these pairs are small watersheds in the Andrews, and a fourth pair couples the entire Andrews with the upper Blue River area. Data from these pairs of watersheds are being reanalyzed to assess the effects of management activities on peak flows. Additional work is underway to refine those analyses and to assess summer low flows. This long-term dataset will allow for future analyses to assess the effects of this management approach on stream discharge by comparing upper Blue River to Lookout Creek.

Social acceptability

This landscape management strategy will produce a range of stand and landscape conditions designed to emulate historical disturbance patterns to the degree feasible with a timber harvest system. The resulting patterns of vegetation will vary across the landscape and look different from both traditional and recent harvest units. Human reaction to and degree of acceptance of these patterns is an important component of the monitoring framework. Surveys and interviews could be conducted using standard methodology to gauge people’s reactions to landscape and stand patterns. Varying levels of information about the goals, alternatives and future practices could be given to better understand the role information plays in forming judgments about the acceptability of these practices.

Small-stream scale

The small stream-scale provides opportunities to evaluate the effectiveness of the landscape management strategy on a variety of stream ecosystem components. Practices prescribed in the landscape strategy for nonfish-bearing and intermittent streams vary across landscape areas, and vary from the general prescriptions in the Northwest Forest Plan for Matrix and Riparian Reserve lands. A sample population of stream reaches that includes streams from all three landscape areas and from reserves can be established for long-term monitoring. The following components may be best evaluated at this scale:

Stream-dependent amphibians

Because the health of stream-dependent species is central to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives, and because methods for amphibian sampling are reasonably well developed, a two-year watershed-scale monitoring effort was undertaken to describe pre-treatment distribution of stream-dependent amphibians in the Blue River watershed (Hunter 1996). These data provide a context for evaluating the effectiveness of this management approach at maintaining stream-dependent amphibian populations, and for designing more specific monitoring measures at the stream reach scale.

Stream segment monitoring should focus on densities of amphibians and refugia used in paired streams with different treatments, and should include both pre- and post-harvest sampling. Post-harvest monitoring of paired streams should be annual for several years following treatment, then less frequent in later years. Monitoring should focus on changes in the abundance of Cascade torrent salamanders when funding limitations prevent evaluation of a larger amphibian community.

Fish populations

Fish populations are currently monitored at several locations within the Blue River watershed, primarily in the Andrews. These population studies provide a context for distinguishing management related effects from broader trends occurring over a larger area. These data can also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of a halt in hatchery trout stocking in terms of accelerating the recovery of wild trout populations. Additional monitoring sites could be established for paired streams. Comparisons of stream reaches in refugia areas with and without active restoration, and with stream reaches in the different landscape areas where timber harvesting occurs could provide useful insights into the effectiveness of the landscape management strategy.

Stream nutrient status is also being monitored in the Andrews providing background data useful for analyzing the effectiveness of stream nutrient augmentation through release of spawned-out chinook salmon carcasses.

Stream temperature

Prescriptions for the three landscape areas in the landscape management strategy will each result in different densities of residual overstory trees near nonfish-bearing and intermittent streams when timber harvesting occurs. Elevated stream temperatures may occur in the short-term in harvested areas. A set of streams of varying geomorphic characteristics (e.g., orientation, drainage area, gradient, substrate, aspect) and from all three landscape areas and reserves could be monitored to determine to what extent elevated temperatures occur, the duration of any observed increase, and how the density of residual overstory trees affects the magnitude of observed increases. Sites within harvested landscape blocks could be compared with upstream and downstream locations, and to streams with different management regimes.

Wood input

Prescriptions for the three landscape areas in the landscape management strategy will each result in different densities of residual overstory trees near nonfish-bearing and intermittent streams when timber harvesting occurs. Felling trees within a zone adjacent to streams where trees could potentially fall into the channel could reduce long-term wood input to streams. Long-term monitoring of comparable streams within the three landscape areas and reserves will allow evaluation of this concern.

Further analysis of the historical record also needs to occur to assess historical rates of large wood input and storage in streams. Historical disturbance patterns produced a mosaic of differing successional stages and stand structures across the landscape, including riparian areas. Further work needs to occur to determine the range of variability of large wood structures in streams of varying sizes and geomorphic characteristics.

Monitoring of stream restoration sites where large wood is introduced is also needed. Monitoring can help determine the fate and longevity of introduced wood, and the effectiveness of varying types of structures in producing desired habitats. Several sites within the watershed are already measured to assess both habitat and population effects of restoration structures.

Site scale

Stand and site-level practices to implement this strategy differ from both traditional practices and from those prescribed in the Northwest Forest Plan in several critical respects: e.g., higher levels of residual trees during timber harvest operations, larger spatial scale of timber operations, reduced frequency of timber harvests, and partial harvests near smaller streams. The effects of these site-specific practices are in some cases unknown and best determined at the site-scale. The following components may best be evaluated at this scale:

Erosion

Numerous studies have been conducted in this watershed to assess the occurrence of landslides, debris-flows, and surface erosion. In addition, several deep-seated, slow-moving earthflows have been measured in the watershed to determine their rates of movement and the degree to which their movement patterns correlate with climatic variations. A detailed inventory of landslides across the entire watershed was completed in 1996 following the February, 1996 flood. These data show rates of landslides and erosion by landtype, and the effects of clearcutting and roads on erosion rates. These data can be used to assess the effects of this management approach on erosion rates and volumes. In particular, the influence of varying overstory retention levels on erosion should be assessed.

Forest regeneration

Standards for soil suitability for timber harvest based upon the probability of reforestation within five years following harvest were based upon a presumption of clearcutting as the harvest practice. Practices in this strategy call for varying levels of overstory retention (15-50% retention). Overstory retention reduces evapotranspiration of seedlings and increases relative humidity at the soil surface, and provides more wood inputs to the soil over the long-term. There is a potential for some soils judged to be unsuitable because of regeneration difficulty to successfully reforest where higher amounts of overstory are left. However, high retention levels on some sites may hinder regeneration due to increased competition for soil moisture. The effectiveness of this practice should be monitored wherever it is attempted until a solid knowledge base is developed. A range of retention levels could be applied to a given soil type and monitored for tree establishment and growth.

Stand development

The landscape management strategy uses historical disturbance regimes as a general template for management regimes to achieve human use objectives. Stand-level practices to implement the landscape management strategy are also intended to follow successional pathways that closely resemble successional pathways following fires. Stand development in the landscape areas where timber harvest occurs will also be heavily influenced by silvicultural practices aimed towards ensuring that stand composition, structure and growth meet objectives for long-term timber management. Monitoring plots designed to develop information on successional pathways following a range of fire severities on a variety of sites have been established in recent large fires on the Willamette National Forest (e.g., Warner Creek). These plots can be used as comparison points for monitoring stand development in the Blue River watershed. The purpose of the monitoring is to determine if stand development adequately meets both ecological and timber management objectives, and to refine those objectives over time as more information becomes available.

Nonvascular plants

Several species of lichens and bryophytes have been identified as potentially benefiting from the interim Riparian Reserves prescribed for Matrix lands in the Northwest Forest Plan. Allowing some timber harvest near nonfish-bearing perennial and intermittent streams could potentially affect habitats for these species. Also, managing multiple canopy levels on upslope areas may enhance retention and dissemination of some nonvascular species. Monitoring plots for selected lichens and bryophytes could be linked to the Continuous Vegetation Sampling (CVS) inventory plots already established in the Blue River watershed. Additional plots could be established on a finer grid nested within the CVS network to ensure adequate coverage. Plots could be established to cover a range of riparian and upland habitats within each of the three landscape areas and reserves to monitor for changes in abundance of selected species.

---

Literature Cited

NOTE: incomplete

Applegarth, John. 1996. Personal communiciation. Herpetologist, Eugene District BLM, Eugene, Oregon.

Baker 1992.

Brattstrom, Bayard H. 1963. A preliminary review of the thermal requirements of amphibians. Ecology, 44(2): 238-255.

Bury, R. Bruce; Corn, Paul Stephen; Aubry, Keith B.; Gilbert, Frederick F.; Jones, Lawrence L. C. 1991b. Aquatic amphibian communities in Oregon and Washington. In: Ruggiero, Leonard F.; Aubry, Keith B.; Carey, Andrew B.; Huff, Mark H., tech. coords. Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-285. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 353-362.

Cissel, John H., Swanson, Frederick J., Grant, Gordon, Olson, Dede, Gregory, Stanley, Garman, Steve, Ashkenas, Linda, Hunter, Matthew G., Kertis, Jane, Mayo, James, McSwain, Michelle, Swetland, Sam G., Swindle, Keith A., Wallin, David O. A disturbance-based landscape plan for a managed forest ecosystem: the Augusta Creek study. In press.

Corn, Paul Stephen, Bury, R. Bruce. 1989. Logging in western Oregon: Responses of headwater habitats and stream amphibians. Forest Ecology and Management 29:39-57.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. US Gov. Print. Off., Washington D.C.

Garman, S. L., A. J. Hansen, D. L. Urban, and P. F. Lee. 1992. Alternative silvicultural practices and diversity of animal habitat in western Oregon: A computer simulation approach. Pages 777-781 in Proceedings of the 1992 Summer Simulation Conference, Society for Computer Simulation, Reno. (P. Luker, ed.). 1273 pp.

Hawkins, Charles P.; Murphy, Michael L; Anderson, N. H.; Wilzbach, Margaret A. 1983. Density of fish and salamanders in relation to riparian canopy and physical habitat in streams of the northwestern United States. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40(8):1173-1185.

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

Hunter, Matt. 1996. Herpetofauna in the Blue River Watershed, Western Cascades, Oregon. Informal report on file at the Blue River Ranger District office.

Hunter, Matthew. 1996. Personal communication. Wildlife ecologist, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Jones, J. A., G. E. Grant. 1996. Cumulative effects of forest harvest on peak streamflow in the western Cascades of Oregon. Water Resources Research 32(4): 959-974.

McGarigal, K., and B. J. Marks. 1995. FRAGSTATS: Spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-351. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 122 p.

Miller, G. S., S. DeStefano, K. A. Swindle, E. C. Meslow. 1996. Demography of northern spotted owls on the H. J. Andrews study area in the central Cascade mountains, Oregon. Studies in Avian Biology No. 17: 37-46.

Mladenoff, David J., Mark A. White, John Pastor, and Thomas R. Crow. 1993. Comparing spatial pattern in unaltered old-growth and disturbed forest landscapes. Ecological Applications 3(2): 294-306.

Morrison, P.; Swanson, F.J. 1990. Fire history and pattern in a Cascade Range landscape. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-254. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Murphy, Michael L.; Hall, James D. 1981. Varied effects of clear-cut logging on predators and their habitat in small streams of the Cascade Mountains, Oregon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38:137-145.

Murphy, Michael L.; Hawkins, Charles P.; Anderson, N. H. 1981. Effects of canopy modification and accumulated sediment on stream communities. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 110(4):469-478.

Nussbaum, Ronald A., Edmund D. Brodie, Jr., and Robert M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. University Press of Idaho (Moscow), 332 pages.

Olson, Dede. 1996. Personal communication. Research biologist, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.

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

Swanson, Frederick J.; James, Michael E. 1975. Geology and geomorphology of the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, western Cascades, Oregon. Res. Pap. PNW-188. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 14P.

Swanson, F. J., J. A. Jones, D. O. Wallin, and J. H. Cissel. 1993. Natural Variability - Implications for Ecosystem Management. In: Jensen, M. E. and P.S. Bourgeron eds. Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment - Volume II: Ecosystem management: principles and applications. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 89-103.

Teensma, P. D. A. 1987. Fire history and fire regimes of the central western Cascades of Oregon. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Oregon. Eugene, OR.

Thomas, J. W.; Forsman, E. D.; Lint, J. B.; Meslow, E. C.; Noon, B. R.; Verner, J. 1990. A conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR: Interagency Scientific Committee to Address the Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl. 427 p.

Urban 1993. ZELIG.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1992. Draft recovery plan for the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of the Interior. 662 p.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Land and resource management plan, Willamette National Forest. Willamette National Forest, Eugene, OR.

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.

USDA Forest Service, Willamette National Forest. 1996. Blue River Watershed Analysis. Informal report on file at the Blue River Ranger District office.

Vesely, D. 1996. Terrestrial amphibian abundance and species richness in headwater riparian buffer strips, Oregon Coast Range. Master’s thesis, Dept. of Forest Science, OSU. Corvallis, OR.

Weisberg. Pete. 1996. Blue River Fire Regime Analysis and Description. Informal report on file at the Blue River Ranger District office.

Welsh, Hartwell H., Jr. 1990. Relictual amphibians and old-growth forests. Conservation Biology, 4(3): 309-319.

Wemple, B. C.; Jones, J. A.; Grant, G. E. 1996. Channel network extension by logging roads in two basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin Vol. 32(6): 1195 -1207.

---

Appendix A - Spatial Pattern of Retention Trees

Retention trees should be left to maintain a more natural forest pattern, provide plant and wildlife habitat, and integrate upslope and riparian management. Numbers and placement of retention trees vary by Landscape Area. This discussion addresses the first criterion for the placement of retention trees; i.e., that retention trees should consist of both scattered individuals as well as clumps. Scattered trees should range from 40 to 70% of the total retention trees prescribed. However, clumps are accounted for on an area basis. In order to maintain this range of scattered trees, clumps will be limited to a specific proportion of the harvested acres within a block. The allowable range of area in clumps and the corresponding level of canopy closure for scattered retention trees by Landscape Area are as follows:

Landscape Area 1:

The overall goal for the block is 50% canopy closure. The proportion of harvested area in clumps can range from 15 to 30% for the block. This leaves 40 to 70% of the retention trees for scattering and feathering edges. The average canopy closure outside the clumps will vary from 30 to 40%.

Landscape Area 2:

The overall goal for the block is 30% canopy closure. The proportion of harvested area in clumps can range from 9 to 18% for the block. This leaves 40 to 70% of the retention trees for scattering and feathering edges. The average canopy closure outside the clumps will vary from 17 to 26%.

Landscape Area 3:

The overall goal for the block is 15% canopy closure. The proportion of harvested area in clumps can range from 4 to 9% for the block. This leaves 40 to 70% of the retention trees for scattering and feathering edges. The average canopy closure outside the clumps will vary from 7 to 11%.

The following table summarizes the potential area in clumps and the corresponding level of scattered retention trees for each Landscape Area. The range of combinations that meet the guideline for 40%-70% of the retention trees to be left as scattered trees are highlighted in bold.

---

Figures

---

Tables

NOTE: Late-Successional Reserves include 1,210 acres within the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest.

NOTE: Thinning entries were designed to maintain stocking of species according to their levels in the stand at the time of entry. Shade intolerant species may not thrive under 50% canopy retention, so it may not make up 40% of the stocking at the time of thinning. However, retention trees are intended to be patchy, and should allow regeneration of both shade-intolerant and shade-tolerant species.

NOTE: Acreages include all lands within the watershed boundary, including non-National Forest lands (approximtely 3%).