Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Plan Area

Chapter 12: Integrating Ecological and Social Science to Inform Land Management in the Area of the Northwest Forest Plan

Thomas A. Spies, Jonathan W. Long, Peter Stine, Susan to reassess how well the goals and strategies of the Plan are Charnley, Lee Cerveny, Bruce G. Marcot, Gordon Reeves, positioned to address new issues. Paul F. Hessburg, Damon Lesmeister, Matthew J. Reilly, The NWFP was developed in 1993 through a political Martin G. Raphael, and Raymond J. Davis1 process involving scientists in an unusual and controversial role: assessing conditions and developing plan options “We are drowning in information, while starving directly for President Bill Clinton to consider with little for wisdom. The world henceforth will be run by involvement of senior Forest Service managers. The role of synthesizers, people able to put together the right Forest Service scientists in this planning effort is differ- information at the right time, think critically about ent—scientists are now limited to producing a state-of-the- it, and make important choices wisely.” science report in support of plan revision and management —E.O. Wilson, Consilience: The Unity of (USDA FS 2012a), and managers will conduct the assess- Knowledge (1988) ments and develop plan alternatives. Implementation of the NWFP was followed by moni- Introduction toring, research, and expectations for learning and adaptive Long-term monitoring programs and research related to management; however, little formal adaptive management Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP, or Plan) goals, strategies, actually occurred, and the program was defunded after a few and outcomes provide an unprecedented opportunity years. The goals of the NWFP were daunting and set within WRH[DPLQHKRZWKHVFLHQWL¿FEDVLVDQGVRFLRHFRORJLFDO the policy and ecological context of the time. President Clin- context of the Plan may have changed during the 23 years ton’s question to the Forest Ecosystem Management Assess- since its implementation. We also have a prime opportunity ment Team (FEMAT) was “How can we achieve a balanced and comprehensive policy that recognizes the importance of the forest and timber to the economy and jobs in this region, and how can we preserve our precious old-growth 1 Thomas A. Spies and Gordon Reeves are senior scientists, and Damon Lesmeister is a research biologist, U.S. Depart- , which are part of our national heritage and that, once PHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH)RUHVW6HUYLFH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW5HVHDUFK destroyed, can never be replaced?” (FEMAT 1993). The 1982 Station, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331; Jonathan W. Long is an ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest planning rule guided land management planning on National 6HUYLFH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW5HVHDUFK6WDWLRQ5HVHDUFK3DUN Drive, Davis, CA 95618; Peter Stine was director of partnerships Forest System lands, emphasizing conservation based in part and collaboration (retired), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest on maintaining population viability of native species. 6HUYLFH3DFL¿F6RXWKZHVW5HVHDUFK6WDWLRQ5HVHDUFK3DUN Drive, Davis, CA 95618; Susan Charnley is a research social Although many conservation concerns have not scientist and Bruce G. Marcot is a research wildlife biologist, 86'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH)RUHVW6HUYLFH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW changed, new science and challenges have emerged. For Research Station, 620 SW Main St., Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205; example, since the Plan was developed in the early 1990s, Lee Cerveny is a research social scientist, U.S. Department of Agri- FXOWXUH)RUHVW6HUYLFH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW5HVHDUFK6WDWLRQ the invasive barred owl (Strix varia) has become a major North 34th Street, Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103; Paul F. Hessburg is a research landscape ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, threat to populations of the (S. )RUHVW6HUYLFH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW5HVHDUFK6WDWLRQ1:HVWHUQ occidentalis caurina) (chapter 4), the number of Endangered Ave., Wenatchee, WA 98801; Matthew J. Reilly is a postdoctoral researcher, Humboldt State University, Department of Biological 6SHFLHV$FW (6$ OLVWHG¿VKVSHFLHVKDVJRQHIURPWR Sciences, 1 Harpst Street, Arcata, CA 95521; Martin G. Raphael is a senior scientist (retired), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest PRUHWKDQDQGWKHIUHTXHQF\DQGH[WHQWRIZLOG¿UHVLQ rd 6HUYLFH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW5HVHDUFK6WDWLRQ Ave. SW, dry forest portions of the Plan area have increased substan- Olympia, WA 98512; and Raymond J. Davis is a wildlife biologist, 86'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH)RUHVW6HUYLFH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW tially in response to climate warming (chapter 2) (Reilly et Region, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331. al. 2017a, Westerling et al. 2006).

919 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

The policy context and social dimensions of the NWFP 2012 planning rule also emphasized that plans must provide have also changed. For example, the 2012 planning rule for “social, economic and ecological .” This (USDA FS 2012a) places more weight on managing for increased emphasis on integrating social and ecological HFRORJLFDOLQWHJULW\ DQHFRV\VWHPRUFRDUVH¿OWHUDSSURDFK  aspects of forest planning coincides with the developing sci- and less weight on population viability of individual species ence of coupled human and natural systems or “social-eco- DVSHFLHVRU³¿QH¿OWHUDSSURDFK  6FKXOW]HWDO  ORJLFDOV\VWHPV´ /LXHWDO  ¿J  than did the 1982 rule. The Plan’s evaluation of societal This socioecological perspective goes well beyond the LQÀXHQFHVGLGQRWDGGUHVVWKHHPHUJHQFHDQGH[SDQVLRQ ecosystem management framework that guided develop- of collaborative processes throughout the NWFP region ment of the NWFP by accounting for interactions between (Skillen 2015), and the FEMAT assessment itself (1994) social and ecological systems to help deal with system com- largely focused on commodity-based economic develop- SOH[LW\ ¿J VXUSULVHVDQGXQLQWHQGHGRXWFRPHVIURP ment and support for maintaining stability of local and policies (Spies et al. 2014). For example, the relationship of regional economies (Charnley 2006a). In addition, many but federal forests to community well-being has changed since QRWDOOORFDOHFRQRPLHVRIWKHUHJLRQKDYHGLYHUVL¿HGDZD\ initiation of the Plan. Many communities no longer depend from dependence on federal timber, and the forest products on the economic contributions of products as they industry has largely moved away from using and valuing once did (Charnley 2006a). There is growing recognition of large logs, favoring instead the use of small-diameter WKHHFRQRPLFEHQH¿WVRISXEOLFODQGVWRFRPPXQLWLHVIURP (Haynes 2009). recreation and tourism (White et al. 2016a) and nontimber Scientists in the Plan region also now more fully forest products (Alexander et al. 2011), and recognition that understand that the social and political context of the HFRV\VWHPVSURYLGHPDQ\EHQH¿WVWRKXPDQFRPPXQLWLHV 1:)3KDGDVWURQJLQÀXHQFHRQWKHVHWWLQJDQGDWWDLQLQJ beyond timber and nontimber resources. Many studies of the ecological goals of the Plan—opinions and debates indicate that the impact of humans on the environment about federal in the region were as much in the NWFP area is much broader than the effects of DERXWVRFLDOYDOXHVDQGFRQÀLFWUHVROXWLRQDVWKH\ZHUH natural resource extraction. Furthermore, it is clear that the about science (Lange 2016, Spies and Duncan 2009). Given timber industry has also experienced changes throughout this context, it is important to have realistic expectations for the NWFP region, many of which are independent of how this science synthesis might contribute to the assess- PDQDJHPHQWGHFLVLRQVRQIHGHUDOODQGV HJÀXFWXDWLRQV ments and subsequent revision of individual forest plans in national and global markets for wood products, transfor- DQGIRUHVWPDQDJHPHQW6FLHQWL¿F¿QGLQJVDORQHZLOOQRW mations in how forest products companies are structured, resolve political debates about the use of natural resources. and adoption of new technologies for ) 5HGXFLQJVFLHQWL¿FXQFHUWDLQW\ZLOOQRWQHFHVVDULO\UHGXFH (chapter 8). At the same time, researchers and managers political uncertainty; and politics will always outweigh better understand connections between the organizational science because “science does not compel action” (Pielke capacity of agencies, mill infrastructure, and business  +RZHYHUSURYLGLQJWKHODWHVWVFLHQWL¿FLQIRUPDWLRQ capacity in the private sector (e.g., a skilled workforce) in DQGUHGXFLQJVFLHQWL¿FXQFHUWDLQW\DUHH[SHFWHGWROHDGWR achieving goals (chapter 8). better management decisions within the context of social The fundamental assumption of the NWFP was that and political constraints. the breadth of the biological and socioeconomic strategies There is also an increased emphasis on the social would achieve its biodiversity conservation and socioeco- dimension of planning today compared to when the NWFP nomic goals, and that those goals were also compatible was developed. Federal managers increasingly use collab- with each other. Scientists and managers now have the oratives, stewardship contracts, and local participation in perspective afforded by 23 years of research, monitoring, decisionmaking (Leach 2006, Urgenson et al. 2017). The DQG¿HOGH[SHULHQFHWRVXJJHVWWKDWWKHVHDVVXPSWLRQVZHUH

920 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Social Component Ecological Component

Laws/policies Climate

Social, cultural Economics values Ecosystem Species

Management/use

Social-Ecological System

Altered Ecosystems Social Interactions Ecological Ecosystem Services

Figure 12-1—Major components and interactions in the Northwest Forest Plan social-ecological system. only partially correct. In this chapter, we explore these VFDSHVDQGVSHFLHVRIWKH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW assumptions in depth, using the lens of socialecological 3. Characterize how the conservation, restoration, systems, and we identify new issues and concerns. We have and socioeconomic strategies of the NWFP inter- four major objectives in this chapter: act, and how well they meet the original goals and 1. Set the broader context of the NWFP goals and new issues that have arisen since the Plan was conservation approaches in terms of the science of established. socialecological systems. 4. ,GHQWLI\NH\VFLHQWL¿FXQFHUWDLQWLHVUHVHDUFK 2. Increase awareness of the diversity of ways that needs, and management considerations. KXPDQVKDYHLQÀXHQFHGIRUHVWHFRV\VWHPVODQG-

921 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Guiding Questions Key Findings The guiding questions for this chapter are partly based on Perspectives on Conservation in an Era of the questions from the managers (chapter 1), which are Global Environmental Change addressed more directly in individual chapters, and on 2YHUYLHZRIKXPDQLQÀXHQFHVRQ1RUWKZHVW)RUHVW FURVVFXWWLQJTXHVWLRQVDQGLVVXHVLGHQWL¿HGE\WKHDXWKRUV Plan forests and aquatic-riparian ecosystems— The guiding questions for this chapter are: The effects of humans on forest ecosystems in the Plan 1. :KDWDUHWKHODWHVW¿QGLQJVDQGSHUVSHFWLYHVRQ area go well beyond timber management impacts and often how global environmental change (including cli- originate from Earth system processes outside the region. mate, , and changes) is The impacts of human activity to the global environment altering forest and aquatic-riparian ecosystems, have become so pervasive that many scientists are begin- and their disturbance processes, and how relevant ning to argue that we are in a new geological epoch called is this science to the NWFP area? the “Anthropocene” (Crutzen 2006, Steffen et al. 2007). 2. :KDWDUHWKHODWHVWVFLHQWL¿FSHUVSHFWLYHVRQ Beginning in the early 1800s, this period of rapid industri- reserve management for species conservation, alization, population growth, and global trade and transpor- given new understanding of ecosystem dynamics, tation led to dramatic increases in atmospheric carbon, land DQGWKHLQÀXHQFHVRIJOREDOHQYLURQPHQWDOFKDQJH" use change, altered disturbance regimes, and introduction 3. What are key social components and drivers of the of nonnative species. (Carey 2016, Corlett 2015, Creed et social-ecological systems in the NWFP area? al. 2016, Lewis and Maslin 2015, Lugo 2015, Sun and Vose 4. How compatible are the goals and strategies of the 2016, Wohl 2013). NWFP, and how well have the goals been met? Americans Indians had managed landscapes in the 5. +RZFRPSDWLEOHDUHFRDUVHDQG¿QH¿OWHU NWFP area for 10,000 years to create conditions that approaches that simultaneously guide management IDYRUHGIRRGUHVRXUFHVDQGRWKHUFXOWXUDOYDOXHV¿UHZDV for forest ecological resilience and single species their most important environmental management tool viability across the range of disturbance regimes in (Charnley et al. 2007, Robbins 1999, White 1993). However, the NWFP area? human activity since development of industrial society in 6. What are new concerns within the social-ecologi- the 19th century has brought many additional large changes cal system of the NWFP area, and how well are the to species, forests, streams, and landscapes of the Plan area. original Plan goals and strategies positioned to deal Although the ecosystems of the NWFP area are relatively with them? unaltered by recent human activity compared to much of 7. What is known about the tradeoffs of restoration the , little if any area of the Plan area could be actions across a range of conservation and commu- FRQVLGHUHGXQLQÀXHQFHGE\KXPDQV)RUHVWVDQGODQGVFDSHV nity socioeconomic well-being goals? have been altered from pre-Euro-American conditions by 8. What are the current and projected regional-scale human activity including , management, issues and challenges associated with the goals of building roads and trails, dam and levee construction, and the NWFP? ¿UHH[FOXVLRQ(YHQIRUHVWVDQGZDWHUVKHGVLQGHVLJQDWHG 9. What planning and management approaches are wilderness areas and in large unroaded areas (Strittholt and available for dealing with uncertainty in com- 'HOOD6DOD KDYHEHHQLQÀXHQFHGE\KXPDQVFOLPDWH plex-social-ecological systems? FKDQJHLQWURGXFHGGLVHDVHV¿UHVXSSUHVVLRQDQGRWKHU 10. What are uncertainties, research needs, and man- factors (chapter 3) (Hessburg et al. 2016). agement considerations related to plan revision in 1HDUO\DOOIRUHVWVZLWKLQWKH1:)3DUHDGHSHQGRQ¿UH the area of the NWFP? to different degrees. Fire exclusion in dry forests, which occupy 43 percent of the Plan area, has had a profound

922 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

effect on forest structure and composition, native biodiver- In summary, forests, watersheds, and biotic communi- VLW\DQGUHVLOLHQFHWR¿UHDQGFOLPDWHFKDQJH FKDSWHU  WLHVLQWKH3ODQDUHDKDYHEHHQLQÀXHQFHGE\QDWLYHSHRSOHV $OWKRXJK¿UHDFWLYLW\KDVLQFUHDVHGVLQFHWKH1:)3ZDV for millennia, while human activities during the past LPSOHPHQWHGPRVW¿UHSURQHIRUHVWODQGVFDSHVDUHVWLOO 150 years have not merely altered them but reduced their UXQQLQJD¿UHGH¿FLWLQFRPSDULVRQZLWKFRQGLWLRQVSULRUWR resilience to natural disturbances. This reality has at least WKHPLGWRODWHVZKHQ¿UHIUHTXHQF\GHFOLQHGDFURVV three major implications: the dry-forest zone (chapter 3) (Parks et al. 2015, Reilly et 1. Some ecological conditions, even in old-growth al. 2017a). Burned area is also less than would be expected forests, that are perceived as “natural” have been under the current warming climate (chapter 2), for both LQÀXHQFHGE\KXPDQDFWLYLW\ PRLVWDQGGU\IRUHVWVDVDUHVXOWRI¿UHVXSSUHVVLRQ FKDS- 2. Restorative actions may be needed to achieve goals ter 3). The decline or elimination of intentional burning for desired species and levels of resilience of for- by American Indians is also part of altered disturbance ests and aquatic ecosystems to climate change and regimes and ecosystems in many areas (chapter 11). The disturbances. wildland-urban interface is also expanding rapidly in the 3. Knowledge of historical ecology can help guide Plan area. This expansion creates challenges to conservation us to the future, but management cannot recreate DQGPDQDJHPHQWLQFOXGLQJEDODQFLQJ¿UHSURWHFWLRQDQG¿UH historical conditions. restoration goals (Hammer et al. 2007, Paveglio et al. 2009), both of which have implications for biodiversity conserva- Conservation in the Anthropocene tion (McKinney 2002). Unprecedented ecological shifts or alterations that have Biotic changes are also altering the ecosystems of occurred across the globe are also described by an emerging the NWFP area. The extirpation of top predators and concept of “novel” ecosystems, which describes systems invasions by other species have altered food webs and the that have “departed entirely and irreversibly from their trophic structure and dynamics of terrestrial and aquatic historical analogs” (Hobbs et al. 2009, 2014; Radeloff et al. ecosystems (Beschta and Ripple 2008, 2009; Wallach et al. 2015). One implication of this perspective is that society 2015) across the region. Invasive species such as the barred may have to accept and manage for some of these novel RZODUHKDYLQJVLJQL¿FDQWHIIHFWVRQWKHQRUWKHUQVSRWWHG or “hybrid” (seminatural) states, where it is impractical to owl, and the sudden oak death pathogen (Phytophthora change existing conditions. Pressures to maintain the status ramorum LVDOWHULQJFRPPXQLW\VWUXFWXUHDQG¿UHEHKDYLRU quo of altered conditions will most likely occur where cur- across large areas of northern California and southern rent conditions provide values (supporting local livelihoods, Oregon (Metz et al. 2011). Many of these biotic changes are quality of life, or of desired species) that may not challenging to deal with in a forest-management context have occurred there historically.2 This perspective does not because they are rooted in biological processes (e.g., demog- mean that maintenance or restoration of native communities raphy, dispersal, and competition), whose control is often or historical dynamics could not be a goal—only that many beyond the scope of federal forest land managers. scientists increasingly recognize that restoring and main- Finally, climate change is increasingly warming all taining ecosystem integrity based on the historical range parts of the NWFP region to levels that may exceed climate of variation of ecosystem attributes may not be attainable conditions experienced in the past 1,000 years (chapter 2). in some places, for ecological or social reasons. Sayer et al. These conditions will continue to alter disturbances, eco- logical processes, plant and animal community structure, and biotic diversity (chapter 2) (Watts et al. 2016), and they 2 There is a precedent for this in the National Forest Management will change the expected outcomes of NWFP conservation $FW³«¿VKDQGZLOGOLIHKDELWDWVKDOOEHPDQDJHGWRPDLQWDLQYLD- ble populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate strategies (chapters 2, 3, 6, and 7). species in the planning area” (36 Code of Federal Regulations, sec. 219.19, app. 13).

923 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

(2013) and Hobbs et al. (2014) recommended using land- may become more valuable (Hiers et al. 2016, Higgs et al. scape approaches (e.g., spatially based planning over large 2014). Information about the historical range of variation and heterogeneous areas and long time frames) that recog- may be derived from simulation and statistical models and nize the social dimensions of the problem (e.g., see Cissel et from empirical reconstructions of ecological history and its al. 1999, Hessburg et al. 2015, 2016) to identify where it is variations (Hessburg and Povak 2015). Safford et al. (2012) possible to retain or restore native biodiversity, and where provided several recommendations on the use of history in acceptance or management for some novel or “hybrid” restoration and conservation including the following: (seminatural) qualities or ecosystems might be desirable. • Do not ignore history; to understand where an Recognizing the realities of altered ecosystems in the ecosystem is going, you must understand where it current era has implications for using the 2012 planning has been. rule (USDA FS 2012a). The rule is based on managing for • Do not uncritically set management objectives based ecological integrity—ecosystems that “…occur within their on historical conditions and avoid aiming for a sin- “natural range of variation3 and can withstand and recover gle, static target. from most perturbations.” The rule also includes the concept • Historical conditions may be a useful short-term or of resilience4 as related to ecological integrity, in the sense medium-term “waypoint” for management, but they that ecosystems with integrity are resilient and able to ZLOOUDUHO\VXI¿FHWRSUHSDUHDQHFRV\VWHPIRUDQ recover from disturbances (Bone et al. 2016). Given the pace altered future. and scale of environmental change, it may be tempting to • Plan for the future, but do not forget that the past assume that history or the historical range of variation are no provides our only empirical glimpse into the range longer relevant to conservation and management; however, of possible futures. this is not necessarily the case (Higgs et al. 2014, Keane et al. Our advances in understanding the role of ecological 2009, Safford et al. 2012). In conservation and management, history in a time of global change, notwithstanding the the question is not the fundamental value of history, but how development of guiding principles, clear ecological goals, it is used (Keane et al. 2009, Safford et al. 2012). Knowledge DQGPHWULFVLVVWLOODVLJQL¿FDQWFKDOOHQJHDQGPXVW of the past can inform management in several ways: (1) increasingly consider the social dimensions of envi- history as information for how ecosystems function, or as ronmental problems. Managing for ecological integrity a reference, (2) enriching cultural connections to the land, rather than more narrowly for the historical range of and (3) revealing possible futures (Higgs et al. 2014). Using variation is considered a more realistic approach, but it is history to set precise reference information and targets may not without its own limitations. Managing for ecological become less important and even have negative consequences LQWHJULW\LQFOXGHVVLJQL¿FDQWHIIRUWWRFRQVHUYHQDWLYH (in the case of precise targets) as climate and landscape biodiversity and promote resilience of species and eco- changes continue, but other types of historical information systems to climate change and invasive species (chapter 3) (Hessburg et al. 2016, Wurtzebach and Schultz 2016).

3 For our purposes in this chapter, we use “historical range of But more importantly, managing for ecological integrity variability” and consider it synonymous with “natural range recognizes the importance of ecological processes such of variability.” See Romme et al. 2012 for comparisons of the GH¿QLWLRQVRIKLVWRULFDOUDQJHRIYDULDELOLW\DQGQDWXUDOUDQJHRI as natural disturbance agents that control the dynamics of variability. ecosystems. Managing for ecological integrity and using it 4 Resilience is the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize (or return to its previous organization) so as to to guide monitoring and restoration efforts is a relatively still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks (see Forest Service Manual Chapter 2020 and see also new idea that has yet to be widely applied and evaluated “socioecological resilience” in the glossary). Broad conceptions in a land management context (Wurtzebach and Schultz of resilience may encompass “resistance” (see glossary), while QDUURZHUGH¿QLWLRQVHPSKDVL]HWKHFDSDFLW\RIDV\VWHPRULWV 2016). Ecological integrity also includes managing for constituent entities to respond or regrow after mortality induced by a disturbance event. ecological resilience, which is the capacity to “reorganize

924 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

while undergoing change so as to essentially maintain still in an exploratory, conceptual stage (Folke 2006), and it the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks” remains to be seen how using this framework could improve (Walker et al. 2004). The concept of ecological resilience the effectiveness of federal management. is increasingly used by the Forest Service, but its use has Fire exclusion— been ambiguous and open to local interpretation (Bone et Although of moist old forests had a major al. 2016). “Resilience” can be a useful term and goal only HIIHFWRQHFRV\VWHPVLQWKHDUHDRIWKH1:)3DOWHUHG¿UH ZKHQFODUL¿HGLQWHUPVRI³UHVLOLHQFHRIZKDWWRZKDW"´ regimes have also affected species and ecosystems. Fire (Carpenter et al. 2001). A major challenge of managing for is a critical ecological process in most of the forests of the ecological integrity or resilience, which are both based on Plan area, and this chapter devotes considerable attention understanding ecological history, is the lack of historical to complex and sometimes controversial (see chapter 3) knowledge of ecosystems and their variability in many ¿UHUHODWHGLVVXHV7KLVHPSKDVLVRQ¿UHLVPRWLYDWHGE\ ecological components and processes. A second challenge VHYHUDOIDFWRUV  ¿UHLVDIXQGDPHQWDOSURFHVVWKDWDIIHFWV is knowing future states: there may be multiple possible most forest ecosystems, species, and human communities alternative states of ecological integrity based on certain RIWKHUHJLRQ  WKHVFLHQWL¿FXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIWKHUROHRI realities of climate change, invasive species, and changing ¿UHLQERWKPRLVWDQGGU\IRUHVWVKDVLQFUHDVHGVLJQL¿FDQWO\ social values (Duncan et al. 2010, Romme et al. 2012). since the Plan was developed; (3) the 2012 planning rule Given changing anthropogenic climate change, land emphasized ecological integrity and restoration, which are use changes, and changes in societal preferences, it is JURXQGHGLQGLVWXUEDQFHHFRORJ\²DQG¿UHLVJHQHUDOO\WKH necessary to acknowledge the critical importance of social PRVWVLJQL¿FDQWDQGDOWHUHGGLVWXUEDQFHLQWKHUHJLRQ   systems as both drivers of ecological change and as drivers PDQDJHUVKDYHUHODWLYHO\PRUHLQÀXHQFHRQ¿UHWKURXJK of policy goals and expectations for forests. The importance suppression policies and management of vegetation, than of the social system suggests that the concept of resilience do most other disturbance processes (e.g., wind or diseases) or integrity should be broadened to focus on managing for LQWKH3ODQDUHDDQG  SUHVFULEHG¿UHDQG¿UHVXSSUHVVLRQ social-ecological resilience to global changes within the have become a major component of federal land manage- inherent capacities of earth life-support systems (Carpenter ment efforts in policy and budgets in recent years. et al. 2001, Folke 2006). Managing for a broader concept of The area of the NWFP encompasses a wide range UHVLOLHQFHPD\EHPRUHUHDOLVWLFWKDQPDQDJLQJIRUDVSHFL¿F of forest environments and can be broken into two major range of historical variation (Safford et al. 2012, Stine et al. IRUHVW]RQHV GU\DQGPRLVW DQGIRXUGLIIHUHQWKLVWRULFDO¿UH 2014, Wurtzebach and Schultz 2016) or only a biophysical UHJLPHV FKDSWHU¿J  condition. It means focusing on both ecological and social One of the most pervasive anthropogenic effects within V\VWHPVDQGWKHLULQWHUDFWLRQVDQGGH¿QLQJUHVLOLHQFHQRWMXVW the drier forest zone, which makes up almost half of the in terms of recovery of desired ecological or social conditions 1:)3DUHDLVDPDMRUVKLIWLQ¿UHUHJLPHVDVDFRQVH- (which may not be possible) but also adaptation, transforma- TXHQFHRI¿UHH[FOXVLRQDQGVXSSUHVVLRQ5 (chapter 3). Lack tion, learning, and innovation that may lead to new systems RI¿UHLQGU\IRUHVWVDQGPRLVWPL[HGFRQLIHUIRUHVWVZKLFK that are better adapted to the current biophysical and social historically experienced frequent to moderately frequent environments. Using social-ecological systems frameworks ZLOG¿UHDOWHUHGIRUHVWVWUXFWXUHDQGFRPSRVLWLRQDQGKDG may provide a pathway toward better recognition of how cascading ecological effects on ecosystems and species. IHGHUDOIRUHVWPDQDJHPHQWLVLQÀXHQFHGE\WKHLQWHUSOD\RI these two systems and where opportunities and barriers lie to reaching federal land management goals, which typically 5)LUHH[FOXVLRQLVWKHPLQLPL]LQJRUUHPRYDORIZLOG¿UHDVDNH\- include both ecological and social outcomes. However, man- stone ecological process, either indirectly as a result of livestock grazing, roads, railroads, agriculture, and development, or directly DJLQJVSHFL¿FDOO\ZLWKVRFLDOHFRORJLFDOUHVLOLHQFHLQPLQGLV YLDLQWHQWLRQDO¿UHVXSSUHVVLRQDQGSUHYHQWLRQDFWLYLWLHV)LUH VXSSUHVVLRQLVWKHDFWRISXWWLQJRXWZLOG¿UHV

925 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Figure 12-2—Idealized spatial patterns of forest successional stages in the two major forest zones and the four historical disturbance regimes of the Northwest Forest Plan area at three arbitrary points in time. Time 1 and 2 are separated by about 100 years; time 3 is at least 400 years later so that patterns from time 1 and 2 are not evident. See chapter 3 for more information. Illustration adapted from Agee 1998.

These effects include: vegetation that is used by the northern spotted owl • Increased forest density and abundance of shade- and other late-successional species. tolerant species. • 'HFOLQHLQKDELWDWVIRUVSHFLHVWKDWXVHRSHQ¿UH • Loss of early-successional, open-canopy young, and frequent forests or early-successional vegetation. open old-growth forest types, and altered succes- • /HVVIUHTXHQW¿UHEXWZKHQ¿UHVRFFXUXQGHUH[WUHPH sional pathways. weather conditions, they can result in uncharacteristi- • Increased area of dense, young, multistoried forest FDOO\ODUJHKLJKVHYHULW\SDWFKHVRI¿UH

926 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

/DUJHUSDWFKHVRIKLJKVHYHULW\¿UHLQWKLVKLVWRULFDO Social perspectives on altered forests— regime may have undesirable short- and long-term effects The challenges to managing for ecological integrity, in terms of accelerated upland erosion, loss of forest resilience, and desired species in the NWFP area are both FRYHUWRFRQWLQXRXVVKUXE¿HOGVFKURQLFVWUHDPVHGL- HFRORJLFDODQGVRFLDO,QPRLVWIRUHVWVZKHUH¿UHZDVDQG mentation, chronically elevated bark beetle populations, continues to occur infrequently, uniform , the and reduction of services from forests of all seral stages time required for succession to old growth (centuries), and FKDSWHU /DUJHSDWFKHVRIKLJKVHYHULW\¿UHLQIRUHVW fragmentation of older forests are key ecological concerns. ecosystems that historically burned with frequent but In dry forests, which historically experienced very frequent ORZVHYHULW\¿UHFDQNLOOPDQ\RIWKHODUJHROG¿UHUH- DQGPRGHUDWHO\IUHTXHQW¿UHUHJLPHV FKDSWHU WKH VLVWDQWWUHHVWKDWVXUYLYHG¿UHVLQWKHSDVW6XFKWUHHVDUH ecological constraints on management include the fact that, FRQVLGHUHGDUHJLRQDOO\DQGJOREDOO\VLJQL¿FDQW³NH\VWRQH ZLWKEXLOGXSRIIXHOVLQKLVWRULFDO¿UHIUHTXHQWUHJLPHV¿UH ecological structure” in a wide range of ecosystem types RIWHQFDQQRWEHUHLQWURGXFHGDVSUHVFULEHG¿UHZLWKRXW¿UVW (Lindenmayer et al. 2014). Extremely large and unusually UHGXFLQJIXHOVYLDPHFKDQLFDOPHDQV$QGPRUHVLJQL¿- VHYHUH¿UHVDOVRKDYHPDMRUVRFLDODQGHFRQRPLFLPSDFWV cantly, climate change and invasive species will continue to through heavy smoke, evacuations, greenhouse gas DOWHU¿UHUHJLPHVDQGYHJHWDWLRQG\QDPLFVPDNLQJWKHVH HPLVVLRQVFRVWVRI¿UH¿JKWLQJORVWSURGXFWLYLW\DQG increases in fuels even more consequential. threats to and loss of lives, income, and property. Such The social and economic constraints to widespread social and economic impacts are expected to increase, UHVWRUDWLRQRI¿UHLQ¿UHIUHTXHQWHFRV\VWHPVDUHODUJHDQG particularly in the NWFP area, as climate change results include agency budgets, limited workforce capacity, air LQPRUHKD]DUGRXV¿UHDQGVPRNHFRQGLWLRQV /LXHWDO TXDOLW\UHJXODWLRQVVRFLDODFFHSWDELOLW\RISUHVFULEHG¿UHODFN 2016). The landscapes left following extremely large of markets for restoration byproducts, and the risk of losing DQGXQFKDUDFWHULVWLFDOO\VHYHUH¿UHVFDQSRVHVLJQL¿FDQW other values (Charnley et al. 2015; Collins et al. 2010; North management challenges too, as treatments et al. 2012, 2015; Ryan et al. 2013) (chapter 8). Public support can be costly and often dangerous in many burned areas. IRUUHVWRULQJ¿UHWRWKHODQGVFDSHZLOOEHUHTXLUHGWRPDNH Planting may be needed to avoid persistent loss of forest progress (North et al. 2015). In addition, the costs of restoring FRYHULQVRPHDUHDV\HWUHLQWURGXFLQJ¿UHVZKLOHSUR- ¿UHWKURXJKPHFKDQLFDOWUHDWPHQWVDQGSUHVFULEHG¿UHDUH WHFWLQJWKHLQYHVWPHQWLQ\RXQJ¿UHVXVFHSWLEOHWUHHVLV high (Houtman et al. 2013), and to be fully funded by Con- particularly challenging. JUHVVZRXOGUHTXLUHVLJQL¿FDQWUHLQYHVWPHQWLQSXEOLFIRUHVW Fire exclusion has also had an effect in moist forests ODQGVDWOHYHOVEH\RQGFXUUHQWDQQXDOZLOG¿UHVXSSUHVVLRQDQG WKDWKLVWRULFDOO\H[SHULHQFHGORQJ¿UHUHWXUQLQWHUYDOV7KH preparedness funding. For example, the recent Forest Service effects are different than in dry forests, and relate mainly budget appropriations for hazardous fuels reduction are less to decreased occurrence of diverse early and mid-succes- WKDQRQH¿IWKZKDWWKH\DUHIRU¿UHVXSSUHVVLRQ &KDUQOH\HW sional and nonforest (meadow) vegetation. High levels of al. 2015), and current rates of restoration treatments in many fuel accumulation at stand scales and landscape connec- areas of the Western United States are well below what is tivity of fuels are characteristic of moist productive forests needed for restoration (North et al. 2012, Reilly et al. 2017a, WKDWJURZIRUPDQ\GHFDGHVRUFHQWXULHVZLWKRXW¿UH 6SLHVHWDO9DLOODQWDQG5HLQKDUGW 7KLVGH¿FLW +RZHYHUODFNRI¿UHLQGULHUSDUWVRIPRLVWIRUHVWVPD\ has led some to call for more use of managed natural ignitions lead to more homogeneous stand structures and fuel beds (North et al. 2012). Some initial studies indicate that managed WKDQRFFXUUHGKLVWRULFDOO\ZKHQLQIUHTXHQW¿UHFUHDWHG DQGVRPHXQPDQDJHGZLOG¿UHVKDYHWKHSRWHQWLDOWRLQFUHDVH a mosaic of seral stages. The broader ecological implica- WKHVFDOHRIUHVWRUDWLRQEHQH¿WV 0H\HU5HLOO\HWDO WLRQV HJHFRV\VWHPIXQFWLRQDQG¿UHEHKDYLRU RIWKHVH E WKRXJKWKHUHODWLYHEHQH¿WVDQGFRVWVRIWKLVDSSURDFK changes are not clear and are in need of further research (table 12-1) are not yet fully understood and will likely differ (Tepley et al. 2013). DFURVVWKH¿UHUHJLPHVRIWKH3ODQDUHD FKDSWHU 

927 and qualityand of ecocultural resources with associated early-successional forests, nonforest communities, and old-growthopen forests ecocultural associated resources dense less with forests Tribal ecocultural resources Reduces quantity enhanceCan and original ecological term economic term economic EHQH¿WWR communities near ZLOG¿UH in recreation forests unburned structures communities Can provide short- Can provide Can promote Protects homes and Creates jobs for local scheduled for timber harvest lossof timber of resources where forest fuels accumulate nontimberof forest products that favor mature forest closed, conditions products and bioenergy and supporthelp local processing infrastructure forest products (NTFPs) associated dense less with forests run because long plantations may become too old or QRORQJHUEHQH¿W restoration from management Timber and and Timber nontimber supply forests Protects Local economies Can increase risk Encourages growth wood provide Can May favor nontimber 1RWVXVWDLQDEOHLQ trees in riparian riparian in trees areas streams heterogeneity, diversity, and layers understory with location in stream network wood inputs to streams if trees removed shading and stream increase temperatures Increases density of Can increase shade on trees large Accelerate vegetation Increases Effects likely variable Can reduce dead Can reduce species that prefer prefer that species dense multilayered canopies effects understood negative and positive short-term and longer term effects Other late- Other successional old- speciesgrowth habitats Aquatic Variable and poorly Variable effects; some development of crowns with thick limbs for predator species Protects habitat Protects for habitat Protects Accelerates May create habitat

northern part of range nesting and roosting KDELWDWLQ¿UHSURQH areas landscape-scale risk habitat to owl promotingby larger high-severity SDWFKHVRIZLOG¿UH quality in southern part of range where habitat includes smaller patches of early-successional and nonforest vegetation development of large nest trees and multiple canopy layers lations red of tree voles, a prey species, in the short term 1RUWKHUQ spotted owls in habitat Protects Marbled murrelets of area Increases Can increase Can reduce habitat Accelerate May reduce popu- tolerant tree species species tree tolerant and canopy cover from trees growth loss growth types and diversity landscape early- diverse successional forest VRPH¿UHUHJLPHV ment large of trees heterogeneity, diversity, and layers understory wood if trees removed Closed-canopy old-growth structure function and shade- Increases old- existing Protects Reduces open old- Reduces area of Reduces resiliency in Accelerate develop- vegetation Increases Can reduce dead ZLOG¿UH plantations in uplands and areas riparian and socioeconomic goals (continued) Suppression of Variable thinning Table 12-1—SummaryTable of possible (known and hypothesized) major tradeoffs (effects) associated with current management activities Management activity

928 ecocultural ecocultural associated resources dense less with forests, including nut-bearinglarge trees resources, cultural fungi, including plants whose germi- nation is enhanced by smoke, and plants affected by insect pests resources cultural associated with forests, dense less including various plants understory animals game and Tribal ecocultural resources enhanceCan enhanceCan eco- enhanceCan eco- and original ecological communities preferred by some recreationists ZLOG¿UHWRZLOGODQG interface urban communities forests may not be preferred by some recreationists DQG¿UHULVNWRORFDO communities support local crews dedicated to using PDQDJHG¿UH health and safety concerns economies Creates jobs for local Open forests may be Reduces risk of Open, managed potentially Could Smoke can cause &DQEHQH¿WORFDO local communities in sustainable long run because restoration may shift prescribed toward ¿UHDVVWDQGVDUH repeatedly treated products and help support local mill infrastructure with associated forest early-seral Timber and and Timber nontimber supply Can provide wood for Local economies May not be wood provide Can Favors NTFPs density thinning streams stream and productivity diversity and promote longer term integrity stream of ecosystems and shade stream increase in temperatures contexts some Same as variable- Can increase light to Can increase habitat Can decrease density thinning species some but PD\EHQH¿WIURP juxtaposition old of and young habitats Other late- Other successional old- speciesgrowth Same as variable- habitats Aquatic Likely reduces habitat, large trees nest to ZLOG¿UH predator species habitat at any scale May reduce loss of May create habitat for 1RWFRPSDWLEOHZLWK

of nestingof and roosting habitat IURPODUJH¿UHV quality at site level with habitat in part theof range landscape in scales southern parts of range 1RUWKHUQ spotted owls patches Can protect Marbled murrelets Reduces habitat May not be compatible Can be compatible at

ODUJHROG¿UH resistant trees forest diversity LQ¿UHGHSHQGHQW disturbance regimes rates and reduce sizes high- of VHYHULW\¿UHSDWFKHV diversity and provide habitat for species dependent on open, habitats and dead trees. old-growthdense forest structure at scales stand ZLOG¿UHHIIHFWVLI does not include SUHVFULEHG¿UH or occur in older stands Closed-canopy old-growth structure function and Can help to maintain increaseCan old- &DQUHGXFH¿UHVSUHDG Same as above Same as above UnknownCan increase habitat Unknown Unknown1RWFRPSDWLEOHZLWK Cannot fully replace Can reduce fuel loads UHVLOLHQFHWR¿UH forests suppressed in closed-canopy forests over 80 years in matrix WRPLPLFZLOG¿UH effects and socioeconomic goals (continued) restore to Thinning 3UHVFULEHG¿UH creation Early-seral Table 12-1—SummaryTable of possible (known and hypothesized) major tradeoffs (effects) associated with current management activities Management activity

929 cultural resources resources cultural associated with forests, dense less including various plants understory animals game and IRUHVWPD\EHQH¿W resources,some but non- of recovery conifer species (e.g., trees and hardwood shrubs) are also concerns, important as well as ability to UHVWRUHIUHTXHQW¿UH regime Tribal ecocultural resources enhanceCan eco- conifer of Recovery and original ecological economies communities local communities &DQEHQH¿WORFDO Some work for local Can provide jobs for products and help support local mill infrastructure with associated early-seral vegetation forest of recovery resources and support local mills Timber and and Timber nontimber supply wood provide Can Local economies Favors NTFPs &DQEHQH¿WORQJWHUP Can provide timber streams stream and productivity diversity and promote longer term integrity stream of ecosystems increase and stream tempera- con- some in tures texts VSHFLHVPD\EHQH¿W term recovery longer of habitat (especially trees large ones) may againstwork riparan/natural aquatic recovery processes Can increase light to Can increase habitat Can decrease shade Planting key tree of Removal of dead habitat for these species, and some VSHFLHVPD\EHQH¿W from juxtaposition and old of open canopy conditions recovery habitat of wood likely not compatible with habitat for some of these species Other late- Other successional old- speciesgrowth Does not likely affect habitats Aquatic 0D\EHQH¿WORQJWHUP Removal of dead current habitat could it although and edge increase of occurrence nest predators at scale landscape recovery habitat of XVHSRVW¿UH or environments dead trees) Does not affect 0D\EHQH¿WORQJWHUP NA (does not

negative effects on dispersal habitat landscapeat scales in southern parts of range VSHFLHVPD\EHQH¿W term recovery longer of habitat trees likely not compatible with habitat 1RUWKHUQ spotted owlsCould some have Marbled murrelets May be compatible Planting key tree of Removal of dead diversity and provide habitat for species dependent on open habitats and dead trees current area old of growth amounts of dense old-growth forest structure stand at land- and scales scales scape ZLOG¿UHHIIHFWVLI does not include SUHVFULEHG¿UH or occur in older stands VSHFLHVPD\EHQH¿W recovery forest dead wood reduces habitat for many wildlife species trees can kill and regeneration erosion increase GHDGWUHHVLQ¿UH excluded forests may impacts reduce on soil if reburn occurs Closed-canopy old-growth structure function and Can increase habitat reduce not Does Will reduce future Cannot fully replace Planting key tree of Removal of large Logging of dead Removal small of in closed-canopy plantations to PLPLFZLOG¿UH effects ZLOG¿UH ZLOG¿UH and socioeconomic goals (continued) creation Early-seral Planting after Salvage after Table 12-1—SummaryTable of possible (known and hypothesized) major tradeoffs (effects) associated with current management activities Management activity

930 aquatic resources, resources, aquatic but also can limit access to desired ecocultural resources ecocultural resources by UHVWRULQJ¿UH and more open structure above, as but there may also be concerns about effects of large high- in patches severity on areas untended desired resources (e.g., mature oaks) Tribal ecocultural resources &DQEHQH¿WGHVLUHG Can promote and original ecological for recreation and forestother uses quality habitat for game species and increase hunting use risk large of high- VHYHULW\¿UHVWKDW threaten local communities Can reduce access Can improve water Can increase area of future reduce Can for timber management and 17)3JDWKHULQJ trees of value reduce that were scheduled production wood for lower risk loss of of forests unburned Timber and and Timber nontimber supply Can reduce access Local economies May damage and Can reduce fuels and hey may not apply in all contexts and there may be considerable a goal or have negative effects on other goals not emphasized in the potential landslides and debris ÀRZV passages through stream networks diversity and promote longer term integrity stream of ecosystems and shade stream increase temperatures HUVRIWKLVV\QWKHVLV Reduces risk of ,QFUHDVHV¿VK Can increase habitat Can decrease likely similar to response owl spotted Other late- Other successional old- speciesgrowth Unknown habitats Aquatic Reduces erosion Not well known, but populations that prey on nests ORVVIURP¿UHWR surviving patches of habitat habitat May reduce risk of Can eliminate )RUGHWDLOHGGLVFXVVLRQVRIWKHVHHIIHFWVVHHLQGLYLGXDOFKDSW

ORVVIURP¿UHWR surviving patches of habitat habitat 1RUWKHUQ spotted owlsUnknown Marbled murrelets May reduce corvid May reduce risk of Can eliminate invasive species to to species invasive older forest blocks effects for restoration management of old-forest types landscape resilience WRIXWXUH¿UH growth forests and large old trees Closed-canopy old-growth structure function and Can reduce edge Can reduce access Can increase diversity Can increase Can destroy old- for ecological EHQH¿WV and socioeconomic goals (continued) Road removal Can reduce spread of 0DQDJLQJZLOG¿UH NA = not applicable. Note: Effects in regular type are generally consistent with a goal; effects in boldfaced type are generallyNorthwest not consistent Forest Plan. with Effects may differ with spatial and temporal scale and with geography. The effects are generalized,XQFHUWDLQW\HVSHFLDOO\UHJDUGLQJWKHHIIHFWVRIH[WUHPH¿UHV so t Table 12-1—SummaryTable of possible (known and hypothesized) major tradeoffs (effects) associated with current management activities Management activity

931 Another social challenge is that some altered condi- ¿UZKLWH¿UHVWDEOLVKHGRYHUWKHSDVW\HDUVLQIDYRURI tions of ecosystems in the NWFP area may be desirable to ¿UHWROHUDQWDQGGURXJKWWROHUDQWWUHHVSHFLHV6 some people, despite being highly departed from histor- Invasive species— LFDOFRQGLWLRQVDQGDWJUHDWHUULVNWRORVVIURPZLOG¿UH Species invasions or range-expansion species native to North and drought. For example, the denser forests that have America have also affected the native biota of the NWFP developed in forests with very frequent and moderately region (chapter 6). Invasive species are widespread—more IUHTXHQW¿UHUHJLPHVQRZVXSSRUWPRUHDUHDRIKDELWDWIRU than 50 percent of inventory plots in almost all physio- northern spotted owls and other dense forest species such graphic provinces of the Plan area contain nonnative plant as goshawks (Accipiter gentilis) (chapters 3 and 4) than species (Gray 2008), but most of them do not get much atten- WKH\GLGXQGHUWKHKLVWRULFDO¿UHUHJLPH6RPHJURXSVPD\ tion. An exception is the barred owl, which is an example of favor maintaining some dense stands; for example, the an invasive species (Peterson and Robins 2003) (some have Klamath Tribes expressed a concern for promoting mule called it a “native invader species”) (Carey et al. 2012) that deer (Odocoileus hemionus) habitat by retaining dense tree has become a major threat to the viability of northern spotted patches as deer hiding cover within ponderosa pine (Pinus owl populations (chapter 4). Although the barred owl may be ponderosa) forests that were historically open in their the most prominent example, there are many other examples ancestral lands on the Fremont-Winema National Forest in the NWFP area of species that may have been exotic or (Johnson et al. 2008). Based on discussions with stake- native to the region but are having undesirable effects on holders who participate in central Oregon forest collabo- other species and ecosystems as a result of landscape and rative groups, we have observed that some stakeholders other anthropogenic changes. For example, native corvid (the YDOXHWKHDHVWKHWLFDQGZLOGOLIHYDOXHVRIWKH¿UHH[FOXGHG FURZUDYHQIDPLO\ SRSXODWLRQVKDYHH[SDQGHGDVDUHVXOW PXOWLOD\HUHGJUDQG¿U Abies grandis DQGZKLWH¿U A. of human food waste and human disturbance of vegetation Concolor IRUHVWVZKLFKDSSHDUWR¿WDQLGHDOL]HGROG (Marzluff and Neatherlin 2006, Peterson and Colwell 2014), growth forest based on wetter old-growth types. A study and corvids prey on the nests of marbled murrelets (Brachy- from moist forests (moderately frequent, mixed-severity ramphus marmoratus) (chapter 5). ¿UHUHJLPH LQWKHZHVWHUQ&DVFDGH5DQJHRI2UHJRQ 7KHZLGHVSUHDGH[SDQVLRQRIWUXH¿UVLQWRSLQHIRUHVWV indicates that tall, multilayered forests that develop in the ZKHUH¿UHKDVEHHQH[FOXGHGFRXOGDOVREHWHUPHG³QDWLYH DEVHQFHRI¿UHPD\EXIIHUFOLPDWHFKDQJHHIIHFWVRQWKH invader” (Carey et al. 2012, Simberloff 2011) species that were microclimate for wildlife (Frey et al. 2016a, 2016b). It is once rare or uncommon in a landscape, but now have become XQNQRZQLIWKDW¿QGLQJDSSOLHVWR¿UHH[FOXGHGGU\IRU- so abundant that they are altering community (e.g., through ests. Finally, such forests may be more desirable to some competition) and ecosystem dynamics (disturbance regimes) people simply because they occur without active man- LQXQGHVLUDEOHZD\V,QWKHFDVHRIWUXH¿UVLQGU\IRUHVWV agement (except for suppression), which may be simply their expansion has altered forest composition, structure, and mistrusted (e.g., see DellaSala et al. 2013 and “Trust and ¿UHUHJLPHVDQGWKH\DUHGLI¿FXOWWRFRQWUROE\YLUWXHRIWKHLU collaboration” section below). copious seed rain (Hessburg et al. 2016, Stine et al. 2014), $OWKRXJKVRPHSHRSOHVHHEHQH¿WVLQGHQVH¿UHH[- which can lead to rapid recolonization of disturbed areas. cluded forests, many see the risks (see discussion in Brown The impact of barred owls on northern spotted owl 2009). For example, many stakeholders who participate in populations is profound; it is not known if this impact the central Oregon forest collaboratives mentioned above can be reversed or at least stabilized across the spotted are concerned about the increased risk of widespread tree PRUWDOLW\UHVXOWLQJIURPVHYHUH¿UHGURXJKWDQGLQVHFWV and some see opportunity for economically feasible 6 Merschel, A. 2017. Personal communication. Graduate student, restoration treatments that would remove established grand Oregon State University, Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, 321 Richardson Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331.

932 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

owl’s range through efforts to remove them. An ongoing, have increased potential for high burn severity (chapter 3), large-scale experiment will shed more light on this future while rodenticides used in illegal marijuana cultivation and (USFWS 2013, Wiens et al. 2016). A proposal to remove an the spread of barred owls may tax populations of sensitive established species to protect another is a major challenge to ¿VKHUV Martes pennanti) and northern spotted owls, society from ecological, economic, and ethical perspectives respectively, so that they become more sensitive to other (Carey et al. 2012, Livezey 2010), but it is not unprecedented disturbances (Gabriel et al. 2012, 2013) (chapter 6). As an (e.g., Wilsey et al. 2014). Multiple approaches to northern example from aquatic systems, the combination of climate spotted owl conservation, including large-scale experiments FKDQJHVHYHUH¿UHWUHHPRUWDOLW\DQGÀRRGVPD\LQFUHDVH and landscape-scale forest restoration experiments, can pro- WKHSRWHQWLDOIRUGHEULVÀRZV &DQQRQDQG'H*UDII  vide more learning opportunities and more understanding DQGHQVXLQJGHEULVMDPVDWFXOYHUWVDQGEULGJHV6XFKÀRRG of ways to promote resilience of the subspecies. In the long impacts can threaten life, property, and access; damage run, the northern spotted owl may be locally or completely expensive infrastructure; and impair stream functions by displaced by the barred owl. From an ecosystem perspective causing stream bank erosion and channel incision. The (e.g., productivity, food webs, trophic cascades), the effect FKDOOHQJHVWRUHVWRULQJ¿UHDQGJHRPRUSKLFGLVWXUEDQFHVWR of loss of northern spotted owls on the forests and vertebrate these ecosystems are daunting. Landscape and social-eco- communities is unknown, but it is hypothesized that prey logical systems perspectives are needed to meet the broad species and other competing native predators may experi- )RUHVW6HUYLFHJRDO KWWSZZZIVIHGXVVWUDWHJLFSODQ RI ence changes in behavior, abundance, and distribution as a increasing the resilience of forests and aquatic ecosystems result of predation by the barred owls, which has a broader WR¿UHDQGFOLPDWHFKDQJHZKLOHPHHWLQJWKHVSHFL¿F prey base and occurs at higher densities than the northern late-successional forest goals of the NWFP (Fischer et al. spotted owl (Wiens et al. 2014). 2016, Hessburg et al. 2015, 2016; Reeves et al. 1995, 2016; Invasive species occur in aquatic and riparian ecosys- Stephens et al. 2013). tems as well. Across the Plan area, 63 nonnative species and VSHFLHVJURXSVDUHLGHQWL¿HGDVUHJLRQDODTXDWLFULSDULDQ Perspectives on Reserves in an Era of Global invasive or nuisance species priorities (chapter 7). Of these, Environmental Change 31 (49 percent) species or species groups were designated Views of the conservation community— as “high concern” and inventoried by the NWFP’s Aquatic 7KHVFLHQWL¿FFRPPXQLW\¶VUHVSRQVHWRWKHFXPXODWLYH Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Program (AREMP) in effects of climate change, land use change, and invasive 2016. Nonnative species are not always harmful to native species has led some to call for new approaches to conser- ¿VKHVRUWKHLUKDELWDWVEXWLQPDQ\LQVWDQFHVWKH\FDQ   vation (Millar et al. 2007, Wiens 2016). Some researchers compete with, prey upon, hybridize with, or infect native KDYHDI¿UPHGWKDW³WRPRUURZ¶VODQGVFDSHVPD\EHFRPHVR species with novel pathogens; (2) greatly alter the structure altered by human actions that current management philos- of food webs; or (3) cause habitat changes that reduce the ophies and policies of managing for healthy ecosystems, productivity of desirable aquatic organisms. Climate change wilderness conditions, or historical analogs will no longer ZLOOOLNHO\LQÀXHQFHWKHH[SDQVLRQRIQRQQDWLYHSODQWDQG be feasible” and will require a new land ethic (Keane et al. animal species in the NWFP area, while at the same time 2009). Others have advocated for a new science of conser- either reducing or even extirpating native species (Dale et vation rooted in the integrated nature of social-ecological al. 2001, Garcia et al. 2014, Urban 2015). systems (as mentioned above) and designed to promote human well-being as well as biodiversity conservation, par- Other disturbance agents— ticularly where poverty is pervasive, through judicious and Novel ecological conditions are also a concern where sustainable use of ecosystems rather than strict preservation ecosystems are subject to multiple disturbance agents. For (Kareiva and Marvier 2012). In the conservation ethics example, stands infested by the sudden oak death pathogen 933 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

literature, the contrast is often made between humanism, the total forest area on public and private forest lands (chap- emphasizing the importance of productive human use of ter 3). Conservation biologists have argued that protected natural resources, and biocentrism, emphasizing a primary DUHDVDUHQHFHVVDU\EXWQRWVXI¿FLHQWWRPHHWFRQVHUYDWLRQ goal of maintaining ecological integrity (Stanley 1995). objectives (Margules and Pressey 2000, Noss et al. 1997, These new perspectives have received pushback from some Rayner et al. 2014). Governance and management of reserves conservation biologists. For example, Miller et al. (2014) are as important as the designation of the reserve on a map. and Doak et al. (2014) argued that conservation centering on For example, ineffective governance of protected areas in human values, now often organized using the framework of many countries has not kept out detrimental land uses such ecosystem services, is an “ideology” that (1) is not new (e.g., as development, intensive logging for timber, degradation LWUHÀHFWVLGHDVDGYRFDWHGE\*LIIRUG3LQFKRWDFHQWXU\DJR  from invasive species, and illegal hunting (Watson et al. and (2) does not address the root causes of lost biodiver- 2014). In addition, reserves may need active management to sity, which they described as “unabated consumption and meet biodiversity goals (Lemieux et al. 2011, Lindenmayer increasing human populations.” Instead, they emphasized et al. 2000) or to meet needs of local communities that are preservation of biodiversity through large networks of compatible with biodiversity goals (Watson et al. 2014). protected lands arranged to foster connectivity and some Pressey et al. (2007) suggested that appropriate actions sense of permanence. They devoted little attention, however, within or outside reserves may include “control of invasive to what such protection means in disturbance-dependent species, management of disturbance regimes, quarantine and highly dynamic systems with a strong history of human against disease, restrictions on harvesting, and restoration.” impacts, or in systems in which invasive species are wide- In summary, the literature provides overwhelming support spread, or where permanence of certain vegetation, habitat for the idea that reserves have an essential role to play in conditions, or biotic communities is simply unattainable. conservation (e.g., slowing rates of losses of native biodiver- These debates notwithstanding, nature reserves (also sity), if they are effectively managed (Watson et al. 2014). termed “protected areas”) including wilderness areas, Many types of reserves— remain key components of conservation strategies and forest Globally, there are many types of reserves, depending on a SODQQLQJDURXQGWKHZRUOG 6LPRQþLþHWDO:DWVRQHW variety of existing conditions and long-term intentions. For al. 2014). E.O. Wilson, in his book Half-Earth, Our Planet’s example, the International Union for the Conservation of Fight for Life (Wilson 2016), challenged society to set aside 1DWXUH ,8&1 GH¿QHVVHYHQFDWHJRULHVWKDWHQFDSVXODWHWKH half of the Earth’s lands and seas to conserve biodiversity YDULHW\RISXUSRVHVDQGVSHFL¿FFRQWH[WVIRUDUHVHUYH 6SLHV in reserves equivalent to World Heritage sites. Other 2006) (chapter 3). These range from category 1a, “strict scientists have echoed a similar call in advocating for an nature reserve,” which still allows some light human uses, to extensive reserve network focused on riparian areas across category 6, which allows sustainable use of natural resources, the United States (Fremier et al. 2015). Although we are a VXFKDVDJURIRUHVWU\%LRVSKHUHUHVHUYHVGH¿QHGE\WKH long way from these goals (e.g., 10 percent of U.S. land is in IUCN can include “core areas” or sanctum sanctorum a protected area (Aycrigg et al. 2013), the area of wildland ZKLFKDUHRSHQRQO\WRWKRVHZLWKVSHFLDOVFLHQWL¿FSHUPLWV reserves or protected areas is growing (Götmark 2013) and and are bordered or surrounded by buffer zones with various have made essential contributions to maintaining popula- allowances for ingression and resource use and extraction tions of threatened species, or have slowed their rate of loss. (e.g., Cumming et al. 2015, Peine 1998, Taylor 2004). These In the NWFP area, reserves7 on constitute categories of reserve designs differ depending on the amount about 80 percent of the federal forest area and 28 percent of of human activity and use that is considered compatible with the primary conservation objectives of the reserve (Lausche and Burhenne-Guilmin 2011), although many of the IUCN 7 Designated wilderness areas account for about 42 percent of federal reserves, not including riparian reserves, and encompass UHVHUYHGHVLJQDUFKLWHFWXUHVLQFOXGLQJWKHFRUHEXIIHU roughly 7.1 million ac (including some national parks like Olympic and Mount Rainier National Parks). design, are not implemented as such in the United States.

934 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

,QJHQHUDOUHVHUYHVDUHGH¿QHGLQWHUPVRIREMHFWLYHV 2. 7KHORFDOHIIHFWVRQSHRSOHFDQEHEHQH¿FLDO HJ and management actions that are needed or allowed, and in amenity values) (Hjerpe et al. 2017, Holmes et al. terms of actions that cannot be allowed in order to achieve 2016) or negative (e.g., reserves that restrict access primary conservation objectives, that is, by specifying human to commodities or subsistence goods and can activities that are permitted or excluded. As a result, reserves increase poverty in rural areas (Adams 2004, West exhibit a hierarchy of conservation goals, as demonstrated et al. 2006). in the NWFP area, in which conservation of functional older 3. The goals for nature in the reserves can be ambig- forest and northern spotted owl habitat are the top priorities XRXVRUGLI¿FXOWWRDFKLHYHJLYHQWKDWQDWXUHLV in late-successional reserves (LSRs), at least in the wetter PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDOG\QDPLFDQGRIWHQLQÀXHQFHG provinces. In the drier provinces, according to the latest U.S. directly or indirectly by human activity. Fish and Wildlife Service recovery plan for the northern 4. Achieving biodiversity goals often requires man- spotted owl, restoration becomes an “overlapping goal” with agement, especially given effects of past land use northern spotted owl habitat that must be reconciled (USFWS change, invasive species, and climate change, 2011). In addition, the 2012 planning rule emphasizes which can be controversial if stakeholders hold managing forests for ecological integrity and resilience to different values for reserves. climate change, a goal that is not mentioned in the standards 5. Reserves, which typically occupy a small part and guidelines for the LSRs (USDA and USDI 1994b). Thus, RIPRVWODQGVFDSHVDUHQRWVXI¿FLHQWE\WKHP- reserves as they have been conceived and implemented selves to provide for biodiversity (Franklin and globally and regionally exist along a continuum of uses and Lindemayer 2009). management approaches, based on goals and cultural context. 6. 7KH\DUHÀDVKSRLQWVIRUSROLWLFVRIFRQVHUYD- tion related to land use and national and regional Social controversies around reserves— debates about values expressed through different Although reserves are a cornerstone of conservation biol- interest groups (Brockington and Wilkie 2015). ogy, they exist in a larger social context in which they may not be viewed so favorably. The idea of a nature “reserve” is Reserves in dynamic ecosystems— a cultural construct associated with Euro-American notions Some conservation biologists and legal experts (e.g., see of humans as distinct from nature (Cronon 1996) (see chap- Craig 2010) recognize the problem of conserving biodi- ter 11). Rules governing permissible activities in protected YHUVLW\LQ¿[HGUHVHUYHVZKHUHYHJHWDWLRQVWUXFWXUHDQG DUHDVRUUHVHUYHVGLIIHUDFURVVWKHJOREH 6LPRQþLþHWDO FRPSRVLWLRQGLVWXUEDQFHVFOLPDWLFLQÀXHQFHVDQGSODQW 2014) and can be controversial (Brockington and Wilkie and animal communities are highly dynamic. Approaches 2015). Reserves, with strict rules concerning management to reserves in dynamic systems fall along a gradient in or resource extraction, have been criticized for threatening terms of size and objectives. At one end of this gradient livelihoods by denying access to resources, and for not DUHUHODWLYHO\VPDOO¿QH¿OWHURUFRDUVH¿OWHU HJVWDWLF recognizing that nature changes as a result of disturbance vegetation states) reserves that some (Alagador et al. 2014, and succession (Bengtsson et al. 2003); tribes, in particular, Bengtsson et al. 2003, Bisson et al. 2003, Lemieux et al. have expressed such concerns about NWFP reserves (see 2011) suggest could be moved in response to changing chapter 11). Often, the costs of reserves are experienced environmental conditions (e.g., disturbance, invasive E\ORFDOSHRSOHZKLOHEHQH¿WVGLVSURSRUWLRQDWHO\DFFUXH species, climate change). Some of the late-successional to people some distance away (Brockington et al. 2008). UHVHUYHV /65V LQWKH3ODQDUHDDUHVPDOODQGZRXOG¿WLQWR Controversies about reserves have several dimensions: this category in terms of size and objective. At the other 1. They are often written into the founding stories of HQGRIWKHJUDGLHQWDUHODUJH FRDUVH¿OWHU UHVHUYHVWKDWDUH a nation or culture (e.g., old-growth forests in the managed to accommodate dynamic ecosystem processes 3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW 6SLHVDQG'XQFDQ DQG (e.g., disturbance and succession) (Bengtsson et al. 2003, therefore touch deep emotions.

935 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Pickett and Thompson 1978). Some of the large LSRs may conservation to enable possible future replacement options PHHWWKLVVL]HFULWHULRQUHODWLYHWR¿UHVL]HV FKDSWHU EXW associated with private lands, and to provide habitat func- are primarily focused on maintaining or increasing one tions for species that are not restricted to reserves, or other VXFFHVVLRQDOVWDWH²GHQVHROGJURZWKIRUHVWV7KH¿UVW species that were not the focus of the reserve. type of reserve approach—in which new protected areas In contrast to the above species-centric reserves or are established and old ones decommissioned in response conservation areas, large reserves based on dynamic coarse- to changing environmental conditions—has received little ¿OWHUREMHFWLYHV HJHFRV\VWHPSDWWHUQVDQGSURFHVVHV  formal evaluation, and we are not aware of any publications ZLOOPRUHOLNHO\PHHWFRQVHUYDWLRQJRDOVWKDQ¿[HGDUHD that document where a reserve was decommissioned and reserves for particular species or vegetation conditions. replaced with a new one or an alternative approach in the Large protected areas (e.g., larger than 25,000 ac) (more United States. However, dynamic habitat conservation than 100 of the existing LSRs are larger than 25,000 ac) approaches (which do not use the term “reserve”) are being could better support the full range of natural disturbances XVHGIRUWZRHQGDQJHUHGIRUHVWVSHFLHVLQ¿UHSURQHIRUHVWV within their boundaries than could small reserves (see chap- the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), which ter 3 for evaluation of the dynamics of LSRs as a function of GHSHQGVRQ¿UHWRPDLQWDLQROGJURZWKSLQH Pinus sp.) their size). In such cases, it may be more possible to capture forests of the Southeastern United States, and the Kirtland’s inherent ecosystems dynamics—natural and intentional warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii), which depends on dense management disturbances used to change the vegetation in young jack pine (Pinus banksiana) forests that regenerate ways that match the biophysical and topographic template IROORZLQJZLOG¿UHRUORJJLQJLQ0LFKLJDQ 0RRUHDQG and contribute to overall successional diversity and resil- Conroy 2006, Spaulding and Rothstein 2009). These cases LHQFH0DQDJHPHQWPD\VWLOOEHQHHGHGWRDFKLHYHVSHFL¿F LQGLFDWHWKDWDOWHUQDWLYHVWR¿[HGQRPDQDJHPHQWUHVHUYHV JRDOV HJFUHDWLRQRI¿UHUHVLVWDQWIRUHVWVWUXFWXUHVDQG IRUFRQVHUYDWLRQRIOLVWHGVSHFLHVRI¿UHSURQHODQGVFDSHV heterogeneous fuel beds) and could promote resilience of exist, but examples do not exist for old-growth forests and some components of ecosystems components to climate northern spotted owls. FKDQJHGURXJKWDQG¿UH $VLPXODWLRQVWXG\LQ4XHEHF 5D\¿HOGHWDO  Challenges to management of small and large reserves evaluated static and dynamic habitat reserve strategies for DUHVLJQL¿FDQW)RUVPDOOUHVHUYHVZLWKDQDUURZVSHFLHVRU American marten (Martes americana), a species that uses vegetation state objectives, moving reserves dynamically to mature coniferous forests. The results indicated that the deal with climate change, disturbance, and other changes dynamic reserve strategy supported more high-quality hab- may be more effective at maintaining biodiversity than itat over a 200-year simulation than did static reserves. The ¿[HGUHVHUYHV %HQJWVVRQHWDO +RZHYHUDG\QDPLF locations of new reserves were constrained by fragmented reserve in which adjustments to standards, guidelines, and IRUHVWSDWWHUQVFUHDWHGWKURXJKORJJLQJDQGZLOG¿UHVLQ UHVHUYHERXQGDULHVZRXOGEHPRUHGLI¿FXOWWRLPSOHPHQW VXUURXQGLQJQRQUHVHUYHDUHDV7KHVH¿QGLQJVKDYHWZR PRQLWRUDQGJRYHUQWKDQRQHLQZKLFKUHVHUYHVDUH¿[HGLQ major implications: (1) if reserves are focused on just one perpetuity in location and management guidelines. Moving successional stage or habitat for a single species, they may reserves would likely require an ongoing and robust deci- QRWEHHIIHFWLYHLQWKHORQJUXQLQ¿UHSURQHODQGVFDSHV sionmaking process that involved diverse stakeholders and (2) if dynamic conservation strategies are to be successful a high level of trust. In large reserves, with both ecosystem in the long term, the surrounding nonreserved areas must and species goals, there would likely be less need or moti- be managed in a way such that habitat replacement options vation to move reserve boundaries because there would be for target species are available when reserved areas are no fewer options for reserve placement in the larger landscape longer functioning as intended. They also highlight the and because overall vegetation conditions in large reserves importance of investing in and supporting private lands would be less likely to change as a result of disturbances.

936 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

The management of large reserves for ecological integrity et al. 2014; Moore et al. 2017; Penaluna et al. 2017; Smith et and species goals would require development of standards al. 2011). Categories of ecosystem services recognized by and guidelines for dealing with natural disturbance events the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment are provisioning and restoration activities intended to restore ecological services HJIRRGDQG¿EHU supporting services (e.g., SURFHVVHV HJ¿UHDQGK\GURORJLFDOGLVWXUEDQFHV ZKLOH pollination, soil formation, and nutrient cycling), regulating providing for any other goals (e.g., particular species or services HJFDUERQVHTXHVWUDWLRQDQGZDWHUSXUL¿FDWLRQ  vegetation states). In addition, standards and guidelines and cultural services (e.g., spiritual, symbolic, educational, ZRXOGQHHGWREHÀH[LEOHHQRXJKWRGHDOZLWKXQIRUHVHHQ heritage, and recreational services) (Wallace 2007). Many future issues, such as invasive species or climate change resource management systems in the United States took effects that might require different types of intervention to such services for granted until relatively recently, as the meet ecological goals. Changes to reserve boundaries or to limits and vulnerabilities of ecosystems in supporting these standards and guidelines in both large and small reserves EHQH¿WVKDYHEHFRPHPRUHDSSDUHQW+RZHYHUHFRV\VWHP would also involve consideration of environmental justice YDOXDWLRQLVRIWHQGLI¿FXOWRZLQJWRWKHODFNRIPDUNHWVIRU and equity, especially for people living and working near PDQ\FROOHFWLYHJRRGV)RUHVWPDQDJHUVRIWHQKDYHGLI¿- the reserve. culty assigning value to many features of the forests they Although the idea of dynamic reserves, or reserves for manage in ways that appropriately inform decisionmaking dynamic ecosystems, may be relatively new in the liter- (Smith et al. 2011). Kline et al. (2013) indicated that full ature (e.g., Harrison et al. 2008), the literature also lacks development of ecosystem services frameworks for public studies of the conservation of late-successional forests (i.e., lands will be constrained by lack of ecological data for GHQVHROGHUIRUHVWV LQUHVHUYHVZLWKLQG\QDPLF¿UHSURQH planning units and economic capacity in terms of models ecosystems, which is the situation in the dry forests of DQGVWDI¿QJ7KH\DUJXHWKDWJLYHQWKHVHOLPLWDWLRQV the NWFP area. The NWFP was meant to be adaptive, efforts to apply ecosystem services concepts should include and changes to reserve standards and guidelines might be qualitative methods that can be used with stakeholders even FRQVLGHUHGJLYHQFOLPDWHFKDQJH¿UHRFFXUUHQFHLQYDVLYH without more detailed quantitative information. species, and species movements or other relatively new Critics of the concept have argued ecological concerns. See “Reserves” on p. 952 for more that it has constrained thought and conservation of nature discussion of NWFP reserves and challenges of implement- E\IRFXVLQJRQ³PRQHWL]DWLRQDQG¿QDQFLDOL]DWLRQRI ing reserves in dynamic ecosystems. nature” that actually devalues nature by ignoring other values that cannot be monetized, and it creates “make-be- Key Social Components of the Social-Ecological lieve markets” that are not effective in conserving nature Systems of the Northwest Forest Plan Area (Silvertown 2015). These other values include aesthetic, Ecosystem services— spiritual values and intrinsic values that might come The ecosystem services concept, largely developed since the under the title of “cultural services” but are not suited to NWFP was initiated, recognizes that forests and other nat- an instrumental thinking approach (Batavia and Nelson XUDOV\VWHPVVXSSRUWPDQ\EHQH¿WVWRKXPDQFRPPXQLWLHV 2017, Cooper et al. 2016, Winthrop 2014). Others have beyond timber and water supply that were emphasized at the responded by saying that the ecosystem services concept creation of national forests. The recognition of these diverse has value beyond market and monetization, can take EHQH¿WVLVQRWQHZ .OLQHHWDO KRZHYHUHIIRUWVWR many forms (Schröter and van Oudenhoven 2016, Wilson explicitly recognize them within a broader “ecosystem and Law 2016), and is strongly rooted in intrinsic values services” framework is somewhat new, and in the process of WKDWLQFOXGHVSLULWXDOIXO¿OOPHQWDQGVDFUHGQDWXUDOVLWHV being incorporated into federal forest management (Brandt &KDSWHUEULHÀ\GLVFXVVHVVRPHRIWKHVHLVVXHVZKLOH et al. 2014; Bruins et al. 2017; Deal et al. 2017a, 2017b; Long :LQWKURS  UHÀHFWVRQWULEDOFRQWH[WVLQSURSRVLQJ

937 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

³FXOWXUDOO\UHÀH[LYHVWHZDUGVKLS´DVDXVHIXOIUDPHZRUN A review of several project-level applications of ecosys- for understanding motivations for conservation based upon tem services in Oregon found that place-based applications knowledge of local ecosystems, a world view that humans can highlight the connections between ecosystem condi- DUHDSDUWRIQDWXUHDQGFXOWXUDOSUDFWLFHVWKDWUHÀHFW WLRQVDQGSXEOLFEHQH¿WV 'HDOHWDOE 7KHUHYLHZ residence and use over many generations. hypothesized that using this approach could help transform Deal et al. (2017b) suggested that the Forest Service the agency into a more effective and relevant organization is well positioned to make ecosystem services the “central and will strengthen public investment in Forest Service and unifying concept in federal land management.” A activities. Key ecosystem services provided by federal 2015 presidential memorandum (OMB 2015) directed all forests in the Plan area include water, recreation, wildlife federal agencies to develop and institutionalize policies to and plant habitat, wood products, and . promote consideration of ecosystem services in planning, The contribution of Forest Service lands to water yield in investments, and regulatory policy (table 12-2). However, VWUHDPVGLIIHUVUHJLRQDOO\DQGLVHVSHFLDOO\VLJQL¿FDQWLQ it has been challenging for the Forest Service to describe streams that originate in the western Cascade Range and and value all the potential ecosystem services that public QRUWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLD ¿J 7KHZDWHUVXSSO\IURPPDQ\ lands provide. No published full accounting of ecosystem watersheds in the Plan area originates on national forests services has been conducted for the NWFP area, but some (Watts et al. 2016), and water from undisturbed old-growth localized efforts have been made (Deal et al. 2017a, 2017b; forests can be especially high in quality as a result of high Kline et al. 2016; Smith et al. 2011,) (see also chapter 9), nutrient retention and low erosion (Franklin and Spies and a framework as has been proposed (Deal et al. 2017b).  6WUHDPÀRZLQVXPPHUZKLFKLVW\SLFDOO\TXLWHORZ This framework includes describing the ecosystem services is nevertheless higher from old-growth forest watersheds in provided by forest landscapes, examining the potential the western Oregon Cascades than in watersheds dominated tradeoffs among services associated with proposed man- by maturing forest plantations (Perry and Jones 2016). agement activities, and attracting and building partnerships Forested streamside buffers have been shown to protect ZLWKVWDNHKROGHUVZKREHQH¿WIURPSDUWLFXODUVHUYLFHV water quality in many parts of the world (Sweeney and that the forest provides. According to Deal et al. (2017a), Newbold 2014). the common needs for advancing ecosystem services as a The carbon sequestration potential of old-growth central framework for the Forest Service include: forest ecosystems in the NWFP area has received special • Building staff capacity for the concept and applica- attention (DellaSala et al. 2015, Hudiburg et al. 2009, Kline tion of ecosystem services. et al. 2016, Smith et al. 2013, Wilson et al. 2013). When • Creating and publishing ecosystem service resource the forests and soils of this region develop for long periods and reference materials. (hundreds of years) without natural or human disturbances, • $OLJQLQJDJHQF\VWDI¿QJIXQGLQJDQGSURJUDP they can store some of the highest levels of carbon of any structures with ecosystem service priorities. UHJLRQLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDQGWKHZRUOG ¿J  • Integrating and managing data. The expanded understanding of ecosystem services • ,GHQWLI\LQJLQYHQWRU\PHWULFVGH¿QLQJRXWFRPH also reveals that synergies and tradeoffs can occur based performance indicators; and organizing and between and among biocentric and anthropocentric values linking data. (Hunter et al. 2014, Kline et al. 2016). For example, cer- • Valuing and mapping ecosystem services using tain conservation approaches (e.g., protecting old growth current tools and methodologies. DQGUHVWRULQJZDWHUVKHGV PD\KDYHWKHDGGHGEHQH¿WV • Communication. of increasing carbon sequestration and water quality and • Policy including leadership support of using ecosys- SURYLGLQJHFRQRPLFEHQH¿WVLQWKHIRUPRIVFHQLFTXDOLW\ tem services as part of a governance framework. aesthetics, recreation, or restoration jobs (Brandt et al.

938 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Table 12-2—U.S. natural resource legislation with examples of federal agency responses and applications of ecosystem services for agencies

Legislation Intent of legislation Examples of U.S. federal agency responses Multiple Use–Sustained Yield Promote sustainable management of natural U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Act (1960) resources to meet the growing needs of an Management (BLM) directed to manage timber, increasing population and expanding economy range, water, recreation and wildlife with equal importance

National Environmental Policy Encourage harmony between people and the Any federal, state, or local project that involves Act (1969) environment, enrich the understanding of federal funding, work performed by the federal the ecological systems and natural resources government, or permits issued by a federal important to the Nation, and establish a Council agency must take a multidisciplinary approach on Environmental Quality to decisionmaking, including consideration of alternatives

Federal Land Policy and Establish policy of inventory and planning in USFS and BLM develop land management plans Management Act (1976) and accordance with the Multiple-Use Sustainable in collaboration with the public to determine National Forest Management Yield Act appropriate multiple uses, develop strategies Act for resource management and protection, and establish systems for inventory and monitoring to evaluate the status of resources and management effectiveness

National Forest System Land Regulation developed by the USFS to implement Rule explicitly requires USFS managers to Management Planning Rule planning required by the National Forest address ecosystem services in planning to 2012 Management Act ensure that forests have the capacity to provide people and communities with a range of social, HFRQRPLFDQGHFRORJLFDOEHQH¿WVIRUWKHSUHVHQW and into the future. Staff across the agency develop and apply tools to address ecosystem services in land-management efforts.

Presidential Memorandum: Directs federal agencies to incorporate natural National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Incorporating Ecosystem infrastructure and ecosystem services into XVHVHFRV\VWHPVHUYLFHYDOXDWLRQWRDVVHVVEHQH¿WV Services into Federal decision frameworks of dam removal and coastal rehabilitation, among Decision-Making other projects (OMB2015) Natural Resources Conservation Service applies HFRV\VWHPVHUYLFHTXDQWL¿FDWLRQWRROVWRLWV programs, including watershed rehabilitation and ÀRRGPLWLJDWLRQ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service incorporates consideration of ecosystem services into wildlife refuge management Environmental Protection Agency makes ecosystem services the focus of determining adversity to public welfare in review of air quality standards BLM and U.S. Geological Survey collaboratively DVVHVVDOWHUQDWLYHPHWKRGVDQGTXDQWL¿FDWLRQWRROV for evaluating ecosystem services through a case study in the San Pedro River watershed Source: Deal et al. 2017b.

939 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

)LJXUH²3HUFHQWDJHRIDQQXDOVWUHDPÀRZIURP86)RUHVW6HUYLFHODQGVLQ:DVKLQJWRQ2UHJRQDQGQRUWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLD'DWD IURP/XFHHWDO KWWSVZZZIVXVGDJRYUGVDUFKLYH3URGXFW5'6 DQGKWWSVZZZIVIHGXVUPUVQDWLRQDO IRUHVWFRQWULEXWLRQVVWUHDPÀRZSDFL¿FQRUWKZHVWUHJLRQUHJLRQ

940 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Figure 12-4—Total forest ecosystem carbon density in the United States, 2000–2009. Includes above- and belowground live trees, downed GHDGZRRGIRUHVWÀRRUVRLORUJDQLFFDUERQVWDQGLQJGHDGWUHHVDQGXQGHUVWRU\DERYHDQGEHORZJURXQGSRROV)URP:LOVRQHWDO

 ,QVRPHFDVHVUHFUHDWLRQDQGUHVWRUDWLRQEHQH¿WV 1:)3ZDVLPSOHPHQWHGPDNLQJLWGLI¿FXOWWRWHDVHDSDUW may help to offset job losses associated with declines in the role of federal lands management from other drivers timber production. However, the economic systems and RIHFRQRPLFFKDQJHLQLQÀXHQFLQJFRPPXQLW\VRFLRHFR- accounting for federal lands do not yet fully consider nomic well-being. the values of carbon sequestration and water supply, Despite its limitations, many scientists consider the eco- and newer economies based on amenity values may not system services framework useful for managing the broad make up for job losses associated with protection of DUUD\RIEHQH¿WVWKDWIRUHVWVSURYLGHWRSHRSOH 'HDOHWDO late-successional old-growth habitats and other economic 2017a, 2017b). Although there are challenges in operation- factors in the timber industry (Charnley 2006a) (chapter alizing and measuring the entire set of ecosystem services  7KHVHYDULDEOHHIIHFWVDQGPHDVXUHVPDNHLWGLI¿FXOW outlined by the Millennium Assessment, the framework to generalize about the ecosystem service impacts of the gives managers a more diverse set of possible objectives, NWFP or conservation approaches in general. In addition, including managing forests and rangelands for water, pol- market forces external to NWFP communities and wood OLQDWLRQSRWHQWLDOFDUERQ¿UHZRRGIXHOFXOWXUDOKHULWDJH products have also transformed since the spirituality, solitude, scenery, and many other values.

941 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Institutional capacity— The NWFP represented a dramatic shift in social A key interaction in the social-ecological system lies priorities, from commodity production toward biodiversity between the desire to restore forest dynamics and create conservation, which has been part of a larger national more resilient forests and the limited capacity of human process that has been called “green drift” (Klyza and Sousa communities and federal agencies for active manage- 2010) in environmental policymaking in the United States. ment. Although forest management on federal lands was However, the idea that “working forest landscapes” or often seen in the past (and still is by some) as a threat “anchor forests” (multi-ownership landscapes that support to native biodiversity, it is now seen by many ecologists sustainable timber and production) can provide and managers as critical to restoration and conservation conservation values, funding for restoration, and support of terrestrial ecosystems (Johnson and Swanson 2009). for rural communities has also gained much traction in Interestingly, this view is not widely held for aquatic recent years (Charnley et al. 2014, Corrao and Andringa ecosystems (chapter 7). In the past, revenues from timber 2017). Nevertheless, working forest landscapes are subject harvest often subsidized forest management, yet those to the same concerns that have been raised about the revenues have declined with reductions in harvesting balance between conservation and incorporation of human (chapter 8). Trends of declining agency budgets, increased needs—how to reconcile different world views and values. ¿UHVXSSUHVVLRQFRVWVDQGUHGXFHGDJHQF\VWDI¿QJSRVH This tension can only be resolved through social processes challenges to achieving forest management objectives including public engagement and collaborative efforts that VXFKDVHFRORJLFDOUHVWRUDWLRQUHGXFLQJZLOG¿UHULVNWR take into account social, ecological, and economic consider- human communities, promoting habitat for wildlife (chap- ations and legislative actions (chapter 9). ter 8), and providing diverse opportunities and settings Trust and collaboration— for recreation (chapter 9). Federal agencies lacked the Trust among federal land management agencies and the LQVWLWXWLRQDOFDSDFLW\ VWDIIZLWKWKHUHTXLUHGVNLOOV¿QDQ- public is key to restoration and landscape-scale management FLDOUHVRXUFHVPDQDJHPHQWÀH[LELOLW\DQGLQFHQWLYHV  IRUPXOWLSOHJRDOVEXWWUXVWLVRIWHQODFNLQJDQGGLI¿FXOW to fully implement the NWFP’s ecosystem management to cultivate (chapter 9). Trust among interested parties is goals (Charnley 2006a). Efforts to maintain species and essential for developing adaptive management strategies habitats and restore desired ecological conditions (e.g., old that can nimbly and effectively respond to changing JURZWK DQGSURFHVVHV HJVXFFHVVLRQ¿UHDQGQDWXUDO climate, species, disturbances, human values, and markets. ÀRZV UHTXLUHIXQGLQJIRUHVWPDQDJHPHQWFDSDFLW\ HJ Trust can be lost in many ways on federal lands, especially workforce and wood products infrastructure), and public when local-level agreements or collaborative processes are support. The budgets for restoration and the annual rates overridden by national-level political decisions (Daniels RIWUHDWPHQWDUHZHOOEHORZZKDWLVQHHGHGWRUHVWRUH¿UH and Walker 1995), or when local decisions are seen as WRWKHKLVWRULFDOOHYHOVIRXQGLQIUHTXHQW¿UHODQGVFDSHV circumventing federal laws or policies. Researchers and (North et al. 2012, Reilly et al. 2017b, Spies et al. 2017). practitioners have characterized public trust as integral Limited budget and agency capacity has led to innovative to effective natural resources decisionmaking and imple- approaches to accomplishing restoration, such as steward- mentation (Davenport et al. 2007, Pretty and Ward 2001, ship contracting and partnerships with nongovernmental Shindler and Cramer 1999, Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). organizations or other government agencies (chapter 8). Meanwhile, distrust can be a precursor for natural resource However, wood processing mills needed to support forest FRQÀLFW 1LH 7UXVWDQGGLVWUXVWDUHQRWLQYHUVHO\ restoration are closing in some regions (especially in related, but rather, trust is multidimensional and can coexist less-productive dry forests), where timber supply from with distrust. Moreover, trust is contextual (depending on ERWKSULYDWHDQGSXEOLFODQGVLVLQVXI¿FLHQWWRNHHSWKHP the setting or issue) and dynamic (changing based on each in business (chapter 8). encounter or experience) (Lewicki et al. 1998). Trust in

942 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

natural resource institutions stems from creating trust in Restoration Partnership is another example that builds upon both processes and outcomes, whereas interpersonal trust years of collaboration in northern California. In addition to depends on promoting trusting relationships between the large-scale collaboration, there has been a proliferation of public and agency personnel. For natural resource agencies, community-based collaborative groups in the Plan area that some factors shown to constrain the development of trust are engaged in National Environmental Policy Act planning, include unclear communication, limited public involvement stewardship contracting, and multiparty monitoring, on both RSSRUWXQLWLHVKLVWRULFDOUHVHQWPHQWVFRQÀLFWLQJYDOXHV sides of the Cascades (Davis et al. 2015a) and in northern lack of progress in meeting objectives, lack of community California. Other types of collaboratives in the NWFP area awareness, and high turnover of personnel (Davenport KDYHIRUPHGDURXQGVSHFL¿FUHVRXUFHFRQFHUQVVXFKDV&DO- HWDO 7UXVWDPRQJFRQÀLFWLQJSDUWLHVLQUHVRXUFH ifornia Fire-Safe Councils (Everett and Fuller 2011) and the PDQDJHPHQWFDQEHHOXVLYHEXWLWFDQEHSRVLWLYHO\LQÀX- U.S. Fire Learning Networks (Butler and Goldstein 2010). enced through transparency, having clear processes, stated Collaborative processes are viewed by natural resource objectives, clarity of roles, and commitment to engagement agencies as an effective way to engage stakeholders, (see chapter 9). A desire to build or expand trust is an provide an opportunity for dialogue and deliberation, LPSRUWDQWPRWLYDWRUIRUFROODERUDWLRQDQGFRQÀLFWUHVROXWLRQ and build trust and foster relations among groups that (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000), but “common ground will historically have worked in opposition (Butler et al. 2015, EHHOXVLYHLQFRQÀLFWVLQYROYLQJIXQGDPHQWDOYDOXHGLIIHU- Urgenson et al. 2017). For example, the threat of high-se- ences” (Wondolleck 2009). Frequent turnover among local YHULW\ZLOG¿UHLQIRUHVWVRIWKH1:)3DUHDWKDWKLVWRULFDOO\ forest management staff has been cited as a constraint on burned frequently may be a “common enemy” that can productive collaborations, particularly within tribal commu- enable environmental and timber groups to work together nities (see chapter 11). with the Forest Service to advance restoration projects Current efforts to enhance trust and generate social on the ground (Urgenson et al. 2017). This approach has learning around restoration and other efforts to meet NWFP emerged in some places such as the Western Klamath and other ecological goals are focused on collaboration Restoration Project on the Klamath and Six Rivers National among multiple agencies, and stakeholders around projects Forests in northwestern California, where a broad partner- at various scales, from the watershed level to entire land- ship of interests, including tribal communities (chapter 11) scapes (chapter 9). Collaboration is touted as a means to are coalescing around landscape-level restoration efforts DFKLHYHHFRORJLFDOJRDOVDVZHOODVVRFLDOEHQH¿WVZKLFK URRWHGLQUHWXUQLQJ¿UHWRWKHV\VWHP(IIRUWVOLNHWKLVZLOO LQFOXGHFRQÀLFWUHVROXWLRQWUXVWDQGLPSURYHGGHFLVLRQ potentially be a model in some forest types for making making (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Many of these meaningful progress on large-scale forest restoration. FROODERUDWLRQVDUHRFFXUULQJLQWKH¿UHSURQHUHJLRQVRI Collaboration appears promising, and studies to date the Western United States, and they are supported by KDYHLGHQWL¿HGSRVLWLYHRXWFRPHVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKVRFLDO IXQGLQJUHODWHGWRIRUHVWUHVWRUDWLRQDQG¿UHULVNUHGXFWLRQ interactional concepts such as trust, social capital, learn- programs. The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration ing, and process (Davis et al. 2017). There has been less Program is having some success in encouraging stake- emphasis on evaluating outcomes such as improved social holders to work together to help plan and implement forest and ecological conditions. The tremendous investment restoration treatments, particularly in dry forests at the in collaborative processes may yield enhanced trust and landscape scale (Butler et al. 2015, Urgenson et al. 2017). improved ecological and social conditions. Although the Two well-established collaboratives fall within or imme- landscape collaborative program in the United States has diately adjacent to the NWFP area: the Deschutes Forest Col- provided better community engagement in decisionmaking, laborative in central Oregon and Tapash Forest Sustainable WKHORQJWHUPEHQH¿WVRIWKHSURJUDPKDYHQRW\HWEHHQ Collaborative in eastern Washington. The Western Klamath documented (Butler et al. 2015).

943 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Forest collaboratives have been designed to distinguish vated by the need to build social trust, whereas non-agency the roles of agency staff as decisionmakers who consider participants are motivated by the desire to achieve social and input from stakeholder collaborators, rather than devolving ecological outcomes (Davis et al. 2017). Greater decentral- decisionmaking to local communities or coopting the ization of authority has arisen through co-management or SURFHVVWRPHHWSUHGHWHUPLQHGREMHFWLYHV %XWOHU  ¿J community-based natural resource management efforts, 12-5). In other words, collaboratives are not engaged in true particularly outside of the United States; however, there have power sharing, because ultimately the federal agency’s line been relatively few examples of such efforts in which both RI¿FHUPDNHVWKH¿QDOGHFLVLRQ$JHQF\SDUWLFLSDWLRQLQFRO- resource utilization and biodiversity conservation goals have laborative efforts often takes place at an “arm’s length” with been achieved (Kellert et al. 2000). Strong legal founda- agency participants playing the role of “technical advisor” tions, institutions, and investments in monitoring may have and often not holding roles as voting members of collabo- contributed to these successes, as demonstrated in some rative groups (Butler 2013). In fact, agency (Forest Service) examples of tribes and state governments conserving salmon participants in collaborative groups are more often moti- LQWKH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW .HOOHUWHWDO  FKDSWHU  Team Hymas

Figure 12-5—The Forest Service has built upon precedents such as the Handshake Agreement of 1932 by establishing areas that are spe- cially managed to support resources important to tribes within ancestral lands that are now national forests. Many of these approaches embody principles of cooperative management that go beyond collaboration, yet maintain the agency’s decisionmaking authority. An area in the Sawtooth Berry Fields was reserved in 1932 by a handshake agreement between Yakama Indian Chief William Yallup and Gifford Pinchot National Forest Supervisor J.R. Bruckart for use by Indians.

944 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Tribal perspectives— while also promoting the productivity and diversity of Chapter 11, which addresses American Indian tribal early-successional communities, nonforest communities, values, vividly describes the integrated social and eco- and hardwood communities, and also generating timber logical values of ecosystems in the NWFP area. Tribes DQGQRQWLPEHUIRUHVWSURGXFWV ¿J 7RDFKLHYHVXFK value a vast diversity of animals and plants for utilitarian multifaceted goals, some tribes have developed innovative values that include the use of timber, as well as intangible IRUHVWPDQDJHPHQWSODQVWKDWPDQ\FRQVLGHUWREHIXO¿OO- cultural values. The perspectives held by native peoples ing the promise of the NWFP for addressing both social RIWKH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVWLQIRUPHGE\WKRXVDQGVRI\HDUV and ecological goals (e.g., Baker 2003, Hatcher et al. 2017, of place-based experience, help to internalize many of the Johnson et al. 2008). Chapter 11 highlights the critical role tradeoffs between use and preservation, as well as pro- RI¿UHLQGU\DQGVRPHPRLVWIRUHVWW\SHVIRUPDLQWDLQLQJ vide a long-term, broad spatial perspective about system desired ecosystem conditions. dynamics. For example, many tribes want to sustain the legacy of old trees and associated biological diversity Thomas Dunklin

Figure 12-6—Clarence Hostler gathering matsutake mushrooms under tanoak trees on the Six Rivers National Forest, near Orleans, California, November 2013. 945 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

What Have We Learned About the change across an ecologically diverse region. For example, Components of the Northwest Forest Plan in dry forests within the range of the northern spotted owl, and Their Compatibilities? large portions of the forest conditions that support this VSHFLHVDUHWKHUHVXOWRIRUPRUH\HDUVRI¿UHH[FOXVLRQ &RDUVHDQG¿QH¿OWHUDSSURDFKHVWRFRQVHUYDWLRQ² that has altered forest ecosystems and their resilience to %RWKFRDUVHDQG¿QH¿OWHUVWUDWHJLHVIRUFRQVHUYLQJ GURXJKWDQG¿UH FKDSWHU 7KHHPSKDVLVRQWKH¿QH¿OWHU biodiversity (Hunter 2005, Noss 1987) are a part of the aspect of the Plan—focusing on the northern spotted owl— NWFP and the 2012 planning rule, and the relative impor- challenges the Plan’s ability to meet other ecosystem goals WDQFHRIWKHWZRDSSHDUVWRKDYHVKLIWHGWRZDUGFRDUVH¿OWHU under the 2012 planning rule, including ecosystem integrity DSSURDFKHVXQGHUWKHFXUUHQWSODQQLQJUXOH(DUOLHUVFLHQWL¿F and resilience to climate change and other stressors. GHEDWHRQWKHSURVDQGFRQVRIVLQJOHVSHFLHV HJ¿QH¿OWHU  7KHFRQJUXHQFHRIFRDUVHDQG¿QH¿OWHUJRDOVDQG YVHFRV\VWHP FRDUVH¿OWHU DSSURDFKHVWRPDQDJHPHQW management approaches varies by disturbance regime (Casazza et al. 2016, Simberloff 1998, White et al. 2013) (chapter 3). The most congruence between managing for have been replaced by recognition that these approaches are historical range of variation or ecological resilience (i.e., a complementary, and both are a valuable part of conservation FRDUVH¿OWHUDSSURDFKEDVHGRQHFRV\VWHPG\QDPLFV DQG strategies (chapter 6) (DellaSala et al. 2015, Hunter 2005, for species that use dense older forests is in moist forests, Noon et al. 2009, Reilly and Spies 2015, Simberloff 1998, ZKHUH¿UHZDVLQIUHTXHQW IUHTXHQFLHVRIWR! 7LQJOH\HWDO 0HVR¿OWHUDSSURDFKHV HJKDELWDWHOH- years), and forests would often grow for centuries without ments like snags and large old trees) also have been included PDMRUGLVWXUEDQFH+RZHYHULQUHJLPHVZKHUH¿UHZDVIUH- in a conservation approach hierarchy (Hunter 2005). The quent or very frequent (less than 50 years) and landscapes FKDOOHQJHQRZDQGWKHVRXUFHRIVRPHGHEDWHLVWR¿QGDQ were dominated by open-canopy forests, it is challenging to DSSURSULDWHOHYHORUEDODQFHRIFRDUVHPHVRDQG¿QH¿OWHU PDQDJHIRUERWKDFRDUVH¿OWHUDSSURDFKEDVHGRQODQG- approaches (Schultz et al. 2013). If a plan is weighted too VFDSHVFDOHHFRORJLFDOLQWHJULW\DQGWKH¿QH¿OWHUDSSURDFK much toward single species, or a particular successional of the NWFP based on maintaining or increasing the area of stage, the strategy may succeed “in protecting a few of the dense older forests. That is not to say that the two goals can- actors at the expense of the majority of the cast” (Tingley et not be integrated in dry forests, only that the current NWFP al. 2014). If weighted too much to the overarching ecosystem strategy in dry forests does not guide management toward goals, the “stage” may be conserved but the “star actors may ecological integrity, which would emphasize management not show up” (Tingley et al. 2014). IRUWKHHFRV\VWHPUHJXODWLQJUROHRI¿UH $OWKRXJKWKH1:)3ZDVEDVHGRQFRDUVHDQG¿QH¿O- Congruence between the two approaches (ecological ter strategies, the “star actor,” i.e., providing enough suitable LQWHJULW\DQGFRDUVH¿OWHUEDVHGRQSULRULWL]LQJGHQVH habitat to sustain northern spotted owl populations, had multilayered forests) is intermediate in moderately frequent DYHU\ODUJHLQÀXHQFHRQWKH3ODQ7KHDSSURDFKRIXVLQJ WRVRPHZKDWLQIUHTXHQW¿UHUHJLPHV WR\HDUV RI the northern spotted owl as a surrogate or umbrella for WKHGULHUSDUWRIWKHPRLVWIRUHVWVZKHUH¿UHH[FOXVLRQKDV old-forest ecosystems developed “unintentionally,” driven KDGVRPHZKDWOHVVHIIHFW+HUHKLVWRULFDO¿UHUHJLPHV mainly by the need to meet the mandates of the ESA and created a highly dynamic mosaic of high-, moderate-, and other federal policies (Meslow 1993). The emphasis on the ORZVHYHULW\¿UHDQGKLJKHUGLYHUVLW\RIHDUO\PLGDQG northern spotted owl carried through the development of ODWHVXFFHVVLRQDOVWDJHVWKDQLQWKHLQIUHTXHQW¿UHUHJLPH the Plan, despite the fact that the NWFP was intended to be DUHDV ¿J  FKDSWHU 7KHUHODWLYHDEXQGDQFHVDQG an “ecosystem management” plan. The single-species focus VSDWLDOSDWWHUQVRIGLIIHUHQWIRUHVWVWDWHVLQWKH¿UHUHJLPHV had unintended consequences for other biodiversity conser- of the NWFP area create inherently different biodiversity YDWLRQDQGIRUPDQDJHPHQWRIUHVLOLHQFHWR¿UHDQGFOLPDWH and ecosystem process conditions in the NWFP region. This

946 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

ecological and geographic variability means that weighting Marbled murrelet— the plan too much in favor of a single successional stage The marbled murrelet has habitat needs that overlap those (e.g., dense older forest) will not likely succeed in maintain- of the northern spotted owl and that are compatible with ing a broader set of goals related to ecological integrity or PDQ\GH¿QLWLRQVRIROGJURZWKIRUHVWV ¿J 7KXV resilience to climate change and drought. plans and strategies that focus on northern spotted owls and ROGJURZWKIRUHVWVDUHOLNHO\WREHQH¿WWRDODUJHGHJUHHWKH 1RUWKHUQVSRWWHGRZO² marbled murrelet within its range. However, there are some The northern spotted owl was listed as threatened under the distinctive habitat differences between marbled murrelets ESA in 1990. Despite extensive efforts of federal agencies to and northern spotted owls that require special conservation protect northern spotted owls, conserve remaining habitat, considerations (chapter 5). The most obvious difference and set aside areas as future habitat, populations have con- is that the murrelet is a diving seabird whose foraging tinued to decline (chapter 4). When the NWFP was imple- habitat is in the coastal marine environment, thus marine mented, northern spotted owl populations were predicted to conditions must be considered in murrelet habitat needs. continue declining for as long as 50 years owing to lingering Murrelet nesting habitat occurs in coastal forests that typ- impacts of previous habitat loss before populations would LFDOO\H[SHULHQFHGLQIUHTXHQWKLJKVHYHULW\¿UHUHJLPHV UHFRYHUZKLOHVXI¿FLHQWDUHDRI\RXQJHUIRUHVWVJUHZLQWR Within that environment, marbled murrelets preferentially conditions that supported the owl (chapter 4). Unknown at select larger, more contiguous patches of forest throughout the time were the effects that competitive pressure by barred their range and tend to avoid edge habitats where risk of owls would have on spotted owl populations, which have fur- nest depredation is greater (Raphael et al. 2015) (chapter ther compounded the challenges faced by northern spotted 5); therefore, unlike for the northern spotted owl, prox- owls and accelerated their rate of population decline. Without imity of early-seral forest is undesirable because it can the protections afforded by the NWFP and ESA, northern increase abundance of birds that prey on murrelet nests. spotted owl populations would likely have experienced even ([WHQVLYHHIIRUWVWRUHVWRUH¿UHUHVLOLHQWRSHQROGJURZWK steeper declines (chapter 4). Clearly, efforts to recover the forests in the somewhat infrequent to moderately frequent, subspecies are facing multiple challenges related to both mixed-severity regimes in the range of the murrelet may habitat management and the barred owl invasion (USFWS reduce habitat quality by increasing the exposure of nests 2011). With the continued population expansion of the barred to predators. owl within the range of spotted owls, the long-term prospects for spotted owls are not good and remain uncertain. Aquatic ecosystems— $OWKRXJKVWUXFWXUDOGH¿QLWLRQVRIROGJURZWKIRUHVWV Goals of aquatic ecosystems partly overlap with char- and northern spotted owl habitat are similar in many ways, acteristics of old-growth forests, and with habitats for they are not synonymous (Davis et al. 2016), and strategies QRUWKHUQVSRWWHGRZOVDQGPDUEOHGPXUUHOHWV ¿J )RU WRFRQVHUYHWKHPPD\GLIIHU ¿J $GGLWLRQDOO\ example, large dead trees and shading from dense patches northern spotted owls do not function as an umbrella for all of streamside conifer forests contribute to habitat quality in or even most other species within the full range of vege- stream channels and cool stream temperatures that support tation conditions in the NWFP area (Burnett and Roberts salmonid populations (chapter 7). In coastal areas, tall, 2015, Carroll et al. 2010), a fact that was recognized at the multilayered conifer canopies can intercept fog and deliver time of the development of the NWFP and which led to the more moisture to streams than can shorter dense forests, development of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) mitigating some of the effects of climate change (chapter 7). and additional species protections in the form of the Survey However, the absence of disturbance for extended periods and Manage program (chapter 6) (Carroll 2010, Molina et al. can result in the decrease in suitable substrates, reducing 2006, Raphael and Marcot 1994, Thomas et al. 2006). habitat quality (Reeves et al. 1995) (chapter 7). Riparian and stream environments are also dependent on geomorphic and 947 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

A

COG Large/old Original focus of Northwest OOG Forest Plan WDL conservation

O/Y MAT

Tree size/age O/E

Marbled murrelet YNG Northern spotted owl Aquatic habitat ESL/NF Other species Seedlings/young Open/nonforest High Tree canopy closure/layering

B

High ESL

COG Original focus of Northwest Forest Plan conservation MAT

Dead wood OOG

WDL YNG Marbled murrelet Northern spotted owl NF Aquatic habitat Other species Low Open/nonforest High Tree canopy closure/layering

Figure 12-7—Distribution of habitat (dotted line ellipses) in relation to (A) tree canopy closure and tree size and (B) tree canopy closure and dead wood for different biodiversity components in the area of the Northwest Forest Plan. Northern spotted owl habitat refers to forests that are suitable for nesting and roosting. Gray ellipses refer to selected vegetation structure classes: COG—closed-canopy old JURZWK22*²RSHQFDQRS\ROGJURZWK<1*²\RXQJIRUHVW0$7²PDWXUHIRUHVW2(²HDUO\VXFFHVVLRQDOZLWKROGOLYHWUHHV 2<²\RXQJIRUHVWZLWKROGWUHHV:'/²ZRRGODQG(6/1)²HDUO\VHUDOQRQIRUHVW VKUXEODQGJUDVVODQG &RQVHUYLQJDQGUHVWRULQJ aquatic ecosystems requires a range of vegetation states, including older forest through time, but is not restricted to old growth (chapter 7). Many terrestrial species, including some tribal ecocultural resources, require early-successional and nonforest vegetation. Similarly, salmonid community assemblages differ between recently disturbed streams and undisturbed streams in old-growth forests.

948 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

hydrological disturbances that make many riparian areas a IRUQDWLYH¿VKWRWKHYDOOH\ÀRRUV %LVVRQHWDO mosaic of older conifers, younger conifers, hardwoods, and Flitcroft et al. 2016, Reeves et al. 1995) (chapter 7). Active VKUXE¿HOGV7KLVPRVDLFDQGWKHGLVWXUEDQFHDQGVXFFHV- management will continue to be used to reduce fuels and sional dynamics that drive it means that the range of varia- vegetation that make the forests susceptible to uncharacter- tion in riparian vegetation habitats may include conditions LVWLFDOO\ODUJHDQGVHYHUHZLOG¿UHV6XFKPDQDJHPHQWRIWHQ that do not qualify as old-growth forests (e.g., a lack of old strives to prevent disturbances to streams, which can reduce conifer trees) or meet the habitat needs for northern spotted or eliminate the occurrence of periodic disturbances that RZOVDQGPDUEOHGPXUUHOHWV ¿J  deliver sediment to the valley bottoms and stream channels. Fires burning through riparian areas and surrounding The lack of these disturbances and sediment can have seri- uplands may have reduced some stream qualities in the ous unintended consequences to riparian-dependent wildlife short term, but these events often improve conditions as and aquatic organisms (chapter 7). ODUJHGHDGWUHHVIDOOLQWRVWUHDPVDQGDVSRVW¿UHÀRRGV 'LVWXUEDQFHVVXFKDVÀRRGVODQGVOLGHVDQGGHEULV landslides, and debris torrents reorganize streams into ÀRZVZKLFKDUHHVVHQWLDOIRUDTXDWLFHFRV\VWHPIXQFWLRQV more complex habitats (chapter 7) (Bisson et al. 2003). FDQEHDIIHFWHGE\URDGVWKDWDOWHUGLVWXUEDQFHÀRZSDWK- 7KHDEVHQFHRI¿UHUHVXOWVLQWKHODFNRIODUJHLQÀX[HVRI ways and disconnect streams from uplands (Jones et al. sediments and wood, the basic building blocks of habitat 2000). These changes can reduce the resilience of these Tom SpiesTom

Figure 12-8—Mosaic of vegetation and substrate conditions along the North Fork of the Elk River, which occurs in an unlogged and largely unroaded watershed on the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest in coastal Oregon. 949 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

ecosystems to these natural disturbance events. Decommis- conservation of those species. Reduction in survey status or VLRQLQJRIURDGVFDQDOVRLPSURYHSDVVDJHIRU¿VKDQGRWKHU removal from the Survey and Manage species lists resulted VSHFLHVDQGKHOSUHFRQQHFWVWUHDPVDQGÀRRGSODLQVDQG from efforts to locate species during “predisturbance improve water quality. Not all roads are the same, however, surveys” before harvests or other management activities. in terms of their ecological effects, and knowledge of how Since the 2006 synthesis (Haynes et al. 2006), no species road networks are distributed relative to geomorphic pro- have been added to the Survey and Manage species list; any cesses can aid in the design of more effective road systems additions would occur through a renewed annual species and restoration of watershed processes. review process, and none was added the last three times the The potential of federal lands to contribute to the review process took place in 2001, 2002, and 2003. UHFRYHU\RIOLVWHG¿VKSDUWLFXODUO\3DFL¿FVDOPRQLQ The approach of the Survey and Manage program many parts of the NWFP area is likely more limited than UHSUHVHQWHGD¿QH¿OWHUVWUDWHJ\DSSOLHGWRKXQGUHGVRI was recognized when the ACS was developed (chapter species, which created a nearly impossible administrative and 7). The primary reason for this difference is that, in many ¿QDQFLDOFKDOOHQJHWRODQGPDQDJHPHQWDJHQFLHV 0ROLQD situations, federal lands have a limited capacity to provide 2006). This approach may not be consistent with the goal KLJKTXDOLW\KDELWDWIRUVRPHRIWKHOLVWHG¿VK)HGHUDOO\ of having “a few species of special concern” under the new managed lands are generally located in the middle to upper planning rule, although the rule also calls for creating lists of portions of watersheds, which tend to have steeper gradients “species of conservation concern.” At present, we recognize DQGPRUHFRQ¿QHGYDOOH\VDQGÀRRGSODLQVPDNLQJWKHP WKDWDOWHUQDWLYHVWUDWHJLHVWRDSSO\LQJD¿QH¿OWHUDSSURDFKWR LQKHUHQWO\OHVVSURGXFWLYHIRUVRPH¿VK %XUQHWWHWDO ODUJHQXPEHUVRIVSHFLHVLQFOXGHDPHVR¿OWHUDSSURDFKWKDWLV Lunetta et al. 1997, Reeves et al. 2016). Federal lands may, based on functional groups and habitat elements (chapter 6). however, be major sources of wood, sediment (Reeves et As levels of intensive timber management from late-succes- al. 2016), and water (Brown and Froemke 2010, 2012) for sional and old-growth forests continue to be low, as has been downstream nonfederal lands, and will be important for the WKHFDVHLQUHFHQW\HDUV ¿J DQGDOOVXFKIRUHVWVDUH potential recovery of most populations. Nevertheless, their excluded from timber management, the original motivation FRQWULEXWLRQWRUHFRYHU\PD\LQPDQ\FDVHVEHLQVXI¿FLHQW for the program—logging of unreserved older forest in the without parallel contributions from nonfederal land owner- matrix (Molina et al. 2006)—would seem to have weakened. ships elsewhere in the basin (Grantham et al. 2017). Most of the logging that has occurred under the NWFP appears to have been associated with restoration in plantations Other species of late-successional and old-growth forest— LQPRLVWIRUHVWVDQGIXHOUHGXFWLRQDFWLYLWLHVLQGU\¿UHH[- 7KH6XUYH\DQG0DQDJHSURJUDP FKDSWHU LGHQWL¿HG cluded late-successional and old-growth forests. The situation and listed many fungi, lichens, bryophytes, invertebrates, in dry forests raises the question of how to reconcile the goals and other species groups that were deemed to require of dense-forest species with those of ecological integrity VSHFL¿FVXUYH\LQJWRKHOSHQVXUHWKHLUFRQVHUYDWLRQXQGHU DQGVSHFLHVWKDWXVHPRUHRSHQ¿UHGHSHQGHQWIRUHVWV")LUH the NWFP. Although the NWFP protects 80 percent of exclusion has dramatically altered the habitats of both types the remaining old-growth forest in the region, this amount of native species in these regimes (chapter 3) (Dodson et al. of old growth may represent only about 15 percent of the 2008; Keane et al. 2002, 2009); however, effects on biodiver- historical amounts of old growth that occurred in the moist sity have received little empirical study in the NWFP area forests across all lands in the NWFP area (chapter 3). The (Lehmkuhl et al. 2007), and broader evaluations of other Survey and Manage program helped reduce the number of dimensions of biodiversity (e.g., population genetics, food species on the list that were originally ranked as having low webs, and ecological functions) have generally not been made. potential for persistence. The program also helped evaluate Forest carnivores, particularly those associated with old other species for potential addition to the lists and to make forest conditions, were not a primary focus of the original adjustments to surveys and site protection as needed for

950 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

10 60 High A 9 High B Moderate 8 Moderate 50 Low Low 7 40 6 5 30 4 20 3 2 10 1 Acres harvested (thousands) 0

100 100 90 C 90 D 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 Percentage of area harvested Acres harvested (thousands) Percentage of area harvested 0 0

199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011 199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011 Year Year

Figure 12-9—Trends in area of (A) old-growth structure index (OGSI) 80 harvested and (B) OGSI 200 harvested by intensity class (low, medium, and high) and percentage of harvest of (C) OGSI 80 and (D) OGSI 200 by intensity class on all federal lands between 1994 and 2011. OGSI is an index of stand structure based on live and dead tree characteristics that can be used to map the degree of old-growth GHYHORSPHQWDFURVVDODQGVFDSHDVDQDOWHUQDWLYHWRFODVVL¿FDWLRQVWKDWVLPSO\GH¿QHIRUHVWVDVROGJURZWKRUQRW2*6,DQG2*6, 200 represent the index at 80 and 200 years, respectively. Low = 0 to 33 percent loss of vegetation cover (all life forms); moderate = 33 to SHUFHQWORVVKLJK !SHUFHQWORVV1RWHGLIIHUHQFHLQVFDOHEHWZHHQDFUHVKDUYHVWHGLQ2*6,DQG2*6,%DVHGRQDQDO\VLV of annual thematic mapper satellite imagery. Data are from Davis et al. 2015b. See Davis et al. 2015b for more information about OSGI.

NWFP. Fishers, marten, and lynx (Lynx canadensis) were LQFUHDVHGVLJQL¿FDQWO\LQWKHSDVW\HDUVDQGUHFHQW addressed in the Forest Ecosystem Management Assess- ¿QGLQJVKDYHLGHQWL¿HGQHZSRSXODWLRQVQHZWKUHDWVDQG ment Team report (FEMAT 1993) to a limited degree, with even new taxonomic species (see chapter 6). The Forest suggestions for conservation actions including closure to Service has increased measures to conserve habitat for trapping of marten on federal land, evaluation of the effects these species, particularly in northwest California, where of poisoning porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum), completion DQH[WDQWSRSXODWLRQRI¿VKHUUHPDLQVDWULVN,QFUHDVHVLQ DQGLPSOHPHQWDWLRQRIKDELWDWFDSDELOLW\PRGHOVIRU¿VKHUV SRSXODWLRQVRIFDUQLYRUHVZRXOGSRWHQWLDOO\KDYHEHQH¿WV and martens in California, and conducting more thorough to these ecosystems that cascade through trophic levels VXUYH\VIRUERWKPDUWHQDQG¿VKHU&RQFHUQIRUWKHVWDWXV (Beschta and Ripple 2009), but the broader ecological of these species and for the wolverine (Gulo gulo) (which effects of the further reduction or loss of these carnivores or uses higher elevation, alpine, and subalpine habitats) has their return in the NWFP area are not well understood.

951 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Old-growth forest ecosystems— DFURVVWKH1:)3DUHDRZLQJWRZLOG¿UHDQGORJJLQJ LQ The goal of the NWFP was to create “a functional, interac- WKH¿UVWIHZ\HDUVRIWKH1:)3 WUHQGVDUHLQOLQHZLWKWKH tive, late-successional and old-growth ecosystem” (USDA Plan’s expectation of losses (Davis et al. 2015b, 2016), but and USDI 1994b: 6). As mentioned above, the congruence QHZFRQFHUQVKDYHHPHUJHGDERXW¿UHDQGFOLPDWHFKDQJH of the old-growth forest with the other conservation goals Similarly, clearcutting of riparian forests on federal lands varies by location within the NWFP region, and by the has also come to a halt, contributing to improvements in GH¿QLWLRQVRIROGJURZWKDQGREMHFWLYHV,QJHQHUDOWKH watershed health (chapter 7). NWFP goals, which are yet to be fully achieved (e.g., in Although trends in the amount of dense old growth terms of area) (chapter 3) (Davis et al. 2015b), will provide are in line with expectations at a regional scale, there are a foundation for reaching many of the biodiversity goals reasons for concern (chapter 3). First, as mentioned above, of moist forests. But these goals are not consistent with maintaining or increasing current amounts of dense older managing for native biodiversity of dry forests and will not forests in the dry forest zone is not consistent with manag- OHDGWRORQJWHUPUHVLOLHQFHRIWKRVHHFRV\VWHPVWRZLOG¿UHV LQJIRUHFRORJLFDOLQWHJULW\DVGH¿QHGXQGHUWKHSODQ- and drought, or the broad diversity of successional and fuel ning rule. Second, the Plan did not consider climate change SDWWHUQVWKDWVXSSRUWWKHQDWXUDO¿UHUHJLPH FKDSWHU  ¿J HIIHFWVWKDWDUHDOUHDG\VLJQL¿FDQWLQGU\IRUHVWV FKDSWHUV 12-7). Moreover, meeting NWFP goals has consequences and 3). Managing for large areas of dense older forest (e.g., for other components of forest biodiversity (e.g., early-seral FXUUHQW/65GHVLJQ ZLOOQRWSURPRWHUHVLOLHQFHWR¿UHDQG species) not considered in the original NWFP (chapter 3) drought, both of which are increasing under climate change. +HVVEXUJHWDO HVSHFLDOO\WKRVHGHSHQGHQWRQ¿UHRI We explore these concerns in more depth below. different frequencies and severities, including aquatic eco- The standards and guidelines for the reserves systems (chapter 7). In addition, new studies and increased VSHFL¿FDOO\FDOOHGRXWDQHHGIRUDFWLYHPDQDJHPHQWWR UHFRJQLWLRQRIWKHKLVWRULFDOUROHRIPRGHUDWHO\IUHTXHQW¿UH restore ecological diversity to plantations in both moist in drier parts of the moist forest zone, suggest that the Plan and dry forest types. Restoration activity has occurred goal of conserving biodiversity associated with older forests in plantations in LSRs in moist forests, where innovative may need to be revisited even in these relatively moist for- approaches to thinning have been developed and widely ests (chapter 3). Management for ecological integrity in this applied (chapter 3). The standards and guidelines for ¿UHUHJLPHOLNHO\ZRXOGVHHNWRKDYHDUDQJHRIROGIRUHVW GU\¿UHIUHTXHQWIRUHVWV HDVWRIWKH&DVFDGHVDQGLQWKH structural types (e.g., with and without tree age cohorts Oregon and California Klamath provinces) were different FUHDWHGE\SDUWLDOVWDQGUHSODFHPHQW¿UHV DQGRWKHUVXFFHV- (USDA and USDI 1994b). There, the focus of management sional conditions across landscapes. Fire in the moist forest was on accelerating older forest development in younger zone sustains old forests and other successional stages, and IRUHVWVDQGUHGXFLQJULVNRIORVVWRKLJKVHYHULW\¿UHLQ contributes to hillslope processes (e.g., landslides and debris older forests. This concern was the impetus for designating ÀRZV WKDWDUHIXQGDPHQWDOWRFUHDWLQJGLYHUVHDQGHVVHQWLDO some LSRs under the NWFP as “managed LSRs,” in which ¿VKKDELWDWV VHHEHORZ  silvicultural treatments were permitted to reduce risk of loss of stands around some northern spotted owl activity Reserves— centers. However, the area of this type of LSR was small Late-successional forest and riparian reserves were major (about 102,000 ac) compared to the millions of acres of and controversial components of the NWFP. Based on the LSRs in dry forests (USDA and USDI 1994a). It is not clear monitoring results and the original goals of the NWFP, the how much restoration activity has actually occurred in reserve strategy can be considered a success from the stand- ROGHUIRUHVWVLQ/65¶VRULQULSDULDQUHVHUYHVLQ¿UHSURQH point of halting old-growth logging (Davis et al. 2015b, forests because the implementation monitoring program 2016; Raphael et al. 2015). In addition, although late-suc- was not continued. However, indications are that between cessional and old-growth forests have continued to decline

952 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

1993 and 2012 (20 years) less than 2 percent of older forest in LSRs mentioned above may be lack of social license (OGSI 80) in the dry forest zone had treatments (Davis et including the threat of litigation (Charnley et al. 2015), al. 2015b) that would reduce total canopy cover, and surface which occurs much more frequently in the Forest Service’s and ladder fuels and risk of loss of older forest to large 3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW5HJLRQ 2UHJRQDQG:DVKLQJWRQ WKDQ KLJKVHYHULW\¿UHV any other region in the country (Miner et al. 2014). Other The issue of the need for restoration management also reasons may include valuing multistoried forests, the bur- applies to riparian reserves, where relatively few restoration den of protocols under the Survey and Manage Program, treatments have occurred (chapter 7). Primary reasons for lack of trust in managers (Olsen et al. 2012), the perception the limited amount of restoration activity include (1) dif- of some that mixed-conifer forests do not need restoration fering perspectives about the characterization of reference (Urgenson et al. 2017), or that reserves mean no-touch conditions, conservation, and management; (2) concerns areas. Nevertheless, a review of the literature conducted for about the potential effects of mechanical treatments on the 10-year socioeconomic monitoring report, combined stream temperature and wood recruitment; (3) concerns with interviews held with forest managers and community about rare and little-known organisms (Reeves 2006); and members in four case-study locations across the NWFP (4) lack of trust in managers to undertake actions primarily area, found that most people (84 percent) believe that active IRUHFRORJLFDOEHQH¿WV FKDSWHU  forest management is needed to maintain forest health, The LSR strategy of the NWFP was not designed or as long as it does not include harvesting old-growth or implemented in a way that promotes or restores ecological clearcutting (Charnley and Donoghue 2006). Most inter- integrity or resilience in frequent or moderately frequent viewees did not believe that enough active management ¿UHUHJLPHV 6SLHVHWDO 7KHLQLWLDOLGHQWL¿FD- KDGRFFXUUHGGXULQJWKH¿UVWGHFDGHRIWKH3ODQH[SUHVVLQJ tion of LSRs used a triage-based methodology that identi- FRQFHUQVDERXW¿UHLQVHFWVDQGGLVHDVH ¿HGUHPDLQLQJFRQFHQWUDWLRQVRIGHQVHROGHUIRUHVWVDIWHUD If the broader goal of managers is to build resilience KLVWRU\RI¿UHVXSSUHVVLRQDQGDJJUHVVLYHKDUYHVWLQJ7KHVH WR¿UHDQGFOLPDWHFKDQJHDFURVV¿UHSURQHODQGVFDSHV areas were intended to provide habitat for northern spotted our evaluation of recent science indicates that the current owls with adequate size and spacing of late-successional NWFP conservation strategy (e.g., LSRs, matrix, survey and old-growth forests to support the owl’s recolonization. DQGPDQDJHVSHFLHV LQ¿UHSURQHIRUHVWVZRXOGQRW But this delineation was done without consideration for increase ecological integrity or resilience of terrestrial and WRSRJUDSKLFDQGHQYLURQPHQWDOVHWWLQJDQGKLVWRULFDO¿UH aquatic ecosystems in these landscapes (chapter 3). This regimes of the forests. The standards and guidelines for is because the current approaches focus on maintaining VLOYLFXOWXUHLQ¿UHSURQHIRUHVWV 86'$DQG86',E  current levels or even increasing the amount of dense older place many restrictions on restoration in dry forests in forest. Although some treatments are permitted in older LSRs, and emphasize stand-level treatments to accelerate forests to reduce risk of loss of northern spotted owl habitat development of late-successional (i.e., dense multilayered) WRZLOG¿UHLQVHFWVDQGGLVHDVHWKHFXUUHQWVWUDWHJ\GRHV forests in younger forests that do not “degenerate suitable not appear to have a goal of landscape-level resilience [northern spotted] owl habitat.” They also suggest that WR¿UHDQGFOLPDWHFKDQJHDVLQGLFDWHGXQGHUWKH treatment in older forests “may be considered” where they SODQQLQJUXOH/DQGVFDSHOHYHOVWUDWHJLHVWKDWUHVWRUH¿UH “will clearly result” in reduced risks. The standards and as an ecological process based on topography, vegetation JXLGHOLQHVDOVRODFNDODQGVFDSHSHUVSHFWLYHIRU¿UHDQGGU\ KHWHURJHQHLW\VXFFHVVLRQDOG\QDPLFV¿UHEHKDYLRUDQG forest dynamics (e.g., see Hessburg et al. 2015, 2016; Stine RWKHUIDFWRUVZRXOGEHPRUHLQOLQHZLWKWKHODWHVWVFLHQWL¿F et al. 2014) that is now understood to be critical to achiev- thinking (Cissel et al. 1999, Hessburg et al. 2015). Such an LQJDPL[RIHFRORJLFDOJRDOVLQ¿UHSURQHODQGVFDSHV7KH approach would also be more in line with the most recent main reason for the low level of restoration in older forests northern spotted owl recovery plan (USFWS 2011, 2012),

953 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

which provides broad guidelines for navigating diverse KLJKHUHOHYDWLRQIRUHVWVVKRZHGVLJQL¿FDQWGHFOLQHVDQG/65V ecological goals in these regions and states: showed a small net decline in old, closed-canopy forests. These studies suggests that landscape-scale assessments of …we recommend that dynamic, disturbance-prone QRUWKHUQVSRWWHGRZOKDELWDWG\QDPLFVDQG¿UHQHHGWRWDNH forests of the eastern Cascades, California Cascades into account the age and structure distribution of all forests and Klamath Provinces should be actively managed in a landscape and account for potential increases in northern in a way that reconciles the overlapping goals of owl habitat from succession. These trends may not hold in spotted owl conservation, responding to climate the future, however. Ager et al. (2017) found that if the rate of change and restoring dry forest ecological structure, ZLOG¿UHZHUHWRLQFUHDVHWRWLPHVRYHUFXUUHQWUDWHV HJ FRPSRVLWLRQDQGSURFHVVHVLQFOXGLQJZLOG¿UHDQG PRYLQJIURP¿UHUHWXUQLQWHUYDOVRI\HDUVWRDQG other disturbances… . Vegetation management of years, respectively), as some climate change studies suggest ¿UHSURQHIRUHVWVFDQUHWDLQVSRWWHGRZOKDELWDWRQ could happen (chapter 2), then the amount of northern WKHODQGVFDSHE\DOWHULQJ¿UHEHKDYLRUDQGVHYHULW\ spotted owl nesting and roosting habitat across the Deschutes and, if carefully and strategically applied, it could National Forest could decrease by 25 to 40 percent in 30 be part of a larger disturbance management regime years. Climate change projections also suggest decreased tree for landscapes that attempts to reintegrate the growth in the future (Restaino et al. 2016), which may affect relationship between forest vegetation and distur- WKHUDWHDWZKLFKIRUHVWVWUXFWXUHFDQUHJURZIROORZLQJ¿UH bance regimes, while also anticipating likely shifts The only explicit strategy that implements this vision in future ecosystem processes due to climate… . IRUKLJKIUHTXHQF\¿UHIRUHVWVLVWKH2NDQRJDQ:HQDWFKHH Modeling studies suggest that landscape approaches National Forest Restoration Strategy (USDA FS 2012b). FRXOGUHGXFHFRQÀLFWVEHWZHHQUHVWRUDWLRQRI¿UHH[FOXGHG 7KLVVWUDWHJ\SODFHVDSULRULW\RQUHVWRULQJ¿UHDVDQ ponderosa pine forests and conservation of the Mexican ecological process while maintaining adequate areas of spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) in Arizona (Prather spotted owl habitat that will shift across the landscape as et al. 2008); meanwhile, for the Sierra Nevada of California, ¿UHDQGVXFFHVVLRQDOSURFHVVHVRSHUDWH'\QDPLFODQGVFDSH Stephens et al. (2017) suggested that more comprehensive approaches to reserves (as described above) or habitat UHVWRUDWLRQWUHDWPHQWVZHUHQHHGHGWRUHGXFHZLOG¿UHULVNWR conservation would have some similarities with recovery California spotted owls. Within the NWFP area, Spies et al. SODQVXVHGIRURWKHUOLVWHGELUGVSHFLHVWKDW¿QGKDELWDWLQ (2017) and Ager et al. (2017) modeled landscape scenarios in G\QDPLF¿UHSURQHODQGVFDSHV HJ.LUNODQG¶VZDUEOHU the eastern Cascade Range of Oregon and found that most of and red-cockaded woodpecker). However, the habitats of the existing area of spotted owl habitat could be maintained WKHVHVSHFLHVDUHWKUHDWHQHGE\¿UHVXSSUHVVLRQUDWKHUWKDQ IRU\HDUVGHVSLWHWKHRFFXUUHQFHRIZLOG¿UH DWUHFHQW being promoted by it in the case of the northern spotted owl. rates) and restoration activities designed to create open, more The literature indicates that a dynamic landscape approach UHVLOLHQWIRUHVWV3URMHFWHGORVVHVRIRZOKDELWDWIURPZLOG¿UH FRXOGVWLOO¿WWKHEURDGHUGH¿QLWLRQRID³UHVHUYH´ HJ ZHUHVLJQL¿FDQWO\PRUHWKDQIURPUHODWLYHO\OLPLWHGUHVWR- exclusion of industrial level logging). ration activities, but these losses were made up for by gains The current LSR-Matrix approach for dry zone forests in habitat from growth and succession of small-diameter or does not appear to have or meet goals related to ecosystem relatively open forests. The value of examining both losses integrity and management for resilience to climate change WR¿UHDQGVXFFHVVLRQWRJHWKHUKDVDOVREHHQKLJKOLJKWHGLQD DQG¿UH0DQDJHUVPD\ZDQWWRFRQVLGHUUHHYDOXDWLQJ study by Reilly et al. (2017b), who found that in the eastern and redesigning the NWFP conservation strategy for Cascades of Washington, Oregon, and California, losses of GU\IRUHVWVEDVHGRQQHZVFLHQWL¿FNQRZOHGJHRIFOLPDWH FORVHGFDQRS\IRUHVWVWRKLJKVHYHULW\¿UHEHWZHHQDQG change effects, knowledge of restoration strategies for dry 2010 were mostly balanced by gains from succession, though forest landscapes (Hessburg et al. 2016), and the new 2012

954 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

planning rule, which emphasizes ecosystem approaches to dards and guidelines are developed for reserves and other conserving biodiversity. The science and experience with ODQGDOORFDWLRQV¿QGLQJVIURPFRQVHUYDWLRQDQGHFRV\VWHP proposed changes to the NWFP conservation strategies sciences suggest that these should not be seen as immutable. indicate that design and implementation of such approaches Ecological and social science research, adaptive manage- would be facilitated by a transparent and inclusive decision- ment experiments at landscape scales, and monitoring are making processes (Olsen et al. 2012). critical to learning and meeting the conservation goals of 7KHUHPD\DOVREHHFRORJLFDOEHQH¿WVIRUDOWHUQDWLYH the NWFP. These tools are also critical to addressing other approaches for terrestrial and aquatic goals in dry parts species and habitat concerns, along with other human values of the moist zone forests (Cissel et al. 1999, Reeves et al. across the wide range of forest environments within the 1995). Management based on the historical disturbance range of the northern spotted owl. UHJLPHVFDQEHQH¿WDTXDWLFKDELWDWV 5HHYHVHWDO LQ Socioeconomic goals— WKHVH¿UHUHJLPHV)RUH[DPSOH&LVVHOHWDO  IRXQG The NWFP had four main socioeconomic goals (Charnley HFRORJLFDOEHQH¿WVIURPFKDQJLQJWKHVSDWLDOGLVWULEXWLRQ 2006b): (1) produce a predictable and sustainable level of of reserves and standards and guidelines for LSRs and the timber and nontimber resources, (2) maintain the stability PDWUL[WREHWWHUDSSUR[LPDWHWKHPL[HGVHYHULW\¿UHUHJLPH of local and regional economies on a predictable, long-term dynamics of the western Cascades of Oregon. Experiments basis, (3) assist with long-term economic development and were started in older stands to evaluate the management GLYHUVL¿FDWLRQLQFRPPXQLWLHVPRVWDIIHFWHGE\FXWEDFNVLQ alternatives that included using timber harvest and pre- timber harvesting to minimize the adverse impacts associ- VFULEHG¿UHDVVXUURJDWHVIRUSDUWLDOVWDQGUHSODFHPHQW¿UH ated with job loss (USDA and USDI 1994b), and (4) promote However, the effort was abandoned because stakeholders interagency collaboration and agency and citizen collabora- were skeptical of cutting older trees in the matrix lands, tion in forest management (Tuchmann et al. 1996). Regarding and they lacked trust in the agency to implement such WKH¿UVWJRDO\HDUVRIPRQLWRULQJGDWDLQGLFDWHWKDWWKH approaches to achieve restoration goals (Olsen et al. 2012). SUREDEOHVDOHTXDQWLW\RIWLPEHULGHQWL¿HGE\WKH3ODQZDV Thomas et al. (2006) suggested changing the NWFP allo- never met, meaning that timber sales have not been predict- cations to protect all remaining older forest, whether located able or at the level envisioned (chapter 8). The probable sale in reserves or the matrix. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service quantity established by the Plan was based on a number of critical habitat designation recommends conserving spotted assumptions: (1) harvesting unreserved older forest in the owl sites (recovery action 10) and protecting high-quality hab- matrix with novel would contribute roughly 90 itat (recovery action 32) whether it occurred in LSRs or the SHUFHQWRIWKHYROXPHGXULQJWKH¿UVWWKUHHWR¿YHGHFDGHVRI matrix (USFWS 2011, 2012). The science suggests that these WKH3ODQ  DERXWKDOIRIWKHKDUYHVWGXULQJWKH¿UVWGHFDGH DFWLRQVZLOOKDYHHFRORJLFDODQGVRFLDOEHQH¿WVEXWWKHUHZLOO would come from forests more than 200 years old, and (3) the be tradeoffs associated with timber production and needs of main harvest method would be regeneration harvest, using species that use other successional stages, although none of retention harvesting approaches (chapter 3) rather than clear- WKRVHVSHFLHVKDVEHHQLGHQWL¿HGDVWKUHDWHQHGHQGDQJHUHG cutting (Charnley 2006a). The area of regeneration harvest or at risk because of conversion of their habitat to late-succes- LQ2*6,DQG2*6, ¿J ZDVWRDF sional or old-growth forest conditions. DQQXDOO\LQWKH¿UVW\HDUVRIWKH3ODQEXWLWGHFOLQHGWRQHDU The NWFP was intended to adapt to new knowledge zero by 2000 and has stayed very low since then. Most of the and changes in the environment (USDA and USDI 1994b), harvest since 2000 has been in the form of thinning and par- which is consistent with the idea that conservation should WLDOFDQRS\UHPRYDO ¿JV&DQG' ZKLFKJHQHUDWH be adaptive and iterative (Carroll et. al. 2010, Walters 1986), less volume than intensive (regeneration) harvest. The early but this goal has not been fully achieved for various reasons levels of regeneration harvest may have also included sales (see below). Although lines are drawn on maps, and stan- awarded before the Plan was implemented. 955 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Appeals and litigation over timber sales that included (see chapter 3). Fire exclusion means that diverse early-seral large, older trees, and lack of public support for clearcutting FRQGLWLRQVZLOOGHYHORSIURP¿UHDWORZHUUDWHVWKDQZRXOG and old-growth harvesting, were major factors preventing have occurred historically. Restoration treatments (mechan- the agencies from cutting OGSI 80 and OGSI 200 to meet LFDODQGSUHVFULEHG¿UH FRXOGEHXVHGWRFUHDWHGLYHUVH probable sale quantity (Charnley 2006a, Thomas et al. early-seral vegetation to help achieve biodiversity goals in 2006). The need to protect more habitat for the northern FRQWH[WVLQZKLFKWKH\GRQRWFRQÀLFWZLWKJRDOVIRUROGHU spotted owl (given the threat from the barred owl), and the forests. Such actions would typically remove some larger need to protect late-seral habitat for other species associated trees and could thereby provide timber for local economies, with older forest also limited harvest in mature and old- while helping to fund removal of small trees and biomass. growth forests (chapter 6). Franklin and Johnson (2012) suggested that such actions Thus, the main source of timber supply shifted from be focused on existing plantations, outside of LSRs and in the intended ecological retention harvesting from older places where other late-successional goals are not compro- XQUHVHUYHGIRUHVWVLQWKHPDWUL[LQWKH¿UVWIHZ\HDUV mised. This type of management could provide a niche for of the Plan to restoration thinning of smaller trees from federal timber production that is something of a win-win plantations and forests less than 80 years old in LSRs and for a diverse set of ecological and socioeconomic goals. In the matrix. Timber as a byproduct of thinning in plantations addition, the fact that federal timber cannot be exported and restoration in dry older forests is compatible with could also provide a supply of timber for local mills that several conservation goals as discussed above, and it is less would not have to compete with export markets that are controversial. However, such thinning in LSRs cannot be currently strong. sustained, because in 10 to 20 years most of the plantations Ecological principles could also be used in will have been thinned once, and most of them in the moist riparian forests to restore the diverse forest structure and provinces will become too old (80 years) to be treated composition that occurred under historical disturbance again according to the record of decision (USDA and USDI regimes. Since development of the ACS, there has been 1994b) (chapter 8). Likewise, the thinning and restoration VXSSRUWLQWKHVFLHQWL¿FOLWHUDWXUHIRUGLVFUHWLRQLQVHWWLQJ RIUHVLOLHQFHLQ¿UHSURQHROGHUIRUHVWVPD\QRWSURGXFHD VLWHVSHFL¿FDFWLYLWLHV .XJOHURYiHWDO/HHHWDO sustainable supply of wood as restoration eventually shifts 2004, Richardson et al. 2012), which can be economi- from mechanical removal of understory trees to using FDOO\EHQH¿FLDO 7LZDULHWDO *UHDWHUÀH[LELOLW\ ZLOG¿UHDQGSUHVFULEHG¿UHWRPDLQWDLQUHVLOLHQFH 6SLHV in the management of riparian areas would depend et al. 2007). The sale of wood products generated may not on the “context” of the area of interest (Kondolf et al. offset the costs of treatments. 2006, Montgomery 2004) and the primary management One way that restoration might provide for more REMHFWLYHIRUWKHVSHFL¿FDUHD %XUQHWWDQG0LOOHU  economically viable and longer term production of wood However, development of such an approach has been from federal lands is through the use of ecological forestry8 limited because of the reliance on “off-the-shelf” and approaches (Franklin and Johnson 2012) to create diverse RQHVL]H¿WVDOOFRQFHSWVDQGGHVLJQVUDWKHUWKDQRQDQ early-successional habitats (chapter 3). Such habitats are XQGHUVWDQGLQJRIVSHFL¿FIHDWXUHVDQGFDSDELOLWLHVRIWKH FUHDWHGQDWXUDOO\E\ZLOG¿UHVDQGRWKHUQDWXUDOGLVWXUEDQFH location of interest (Kondolf et al. 2003, Naiman et al. DJHQWVEXWLQPRVWDUHDVLQWKH1:)3UHJLRQWKHVH¿UHVDUH 2012). A mix of approaches could be undertaken, recog- suppressed to protect a variety of human and forest values nizing ecological and other goals such as timber harvest, especially if applied over larger spatial scales (Burnett and Miller 2007, Miller and Burnett 2008, Olson and Rugger 8 Ecological forestry uses silviculture based on knowledge of 2007), and if consideration is given to the distribution natural disturbance regimes and succession to manage forests for ecological goals or a mixture of ecological and socioeconomic of populations of concern and connectivity among them goals. See chapter 3 for more information.

956 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

(Olson and Burnett 2009, Olson and Kluber 2014, Olson et Adjustment Initiative and Jobs in the programs had al. 2007). Reeves et al. (2016) provided an example of such mixed results (see chapters 8 and 11). However, alternate an approach and showed that small adjustments in the formulas for payments to counties embedded in the Secure amount of area in which active management may occur Rural Schools Act have made important economic contri- results in substantial increases in wood production while butions to NWFP-area counties and communities, although still meeting ecological goals. the future of these payments remains uncertain because the We now have a new understanding of the relations Secure Rural Schools Act expired in 2017. between federal forest management and community As to the fourth goal—increased collaboration in socioeconomic well-being (chapter 8) that helps us under- forest management—the NWFP was perceived by many stand the ability of the NWFP to achieve goal 2 (maintain people who were interviewed as part of the socioeconomic stability of local and regional economies). For example, PRQLWRULQJSURJUDPGXULQJWKH¿UVWGHFDGHRIWKH3ODQDV private forests currently contribute the vast majority of moving forest management decisionmaking from the local logs processed by mills in the Plan area. Greater timber to the regional level (Charnley 2006b). Since that time, harvest on federal forests would increase the number however, the number of forest collaborative groups has of logs available to mills and likely create additional grown in the Plan area (from 8 to 25), and the agencies have work opportunities for loggers, at least in the short term. emphasized the importance of local-level collaboration as a Generally, increased federal harvest would reduce the way of doing business (chapter 9). prices paid for logs by mills, which in turn would make One way of reducing tradeoffs between the social wood products producers better off, while making private and biodiversity goals of the NWFP would be to increase landowners worse off because their logs will be worth activities that contribute to community well-being less. However, there are exceptions where mills need to while fostering the engagement of local communities in maintain capacity for processing but timber resources are conservation. One clear example is to continue attempts in limited supply, including in forest regions with few to create quality jobs that employ local community mills. In these cases, increased federal harvests can help residents in ecosystem restoration, research, monitoring, NHHSPLOOVIURPFORVLQJEHQH¿WLQJERWKZRRGSURGXFWV ¿UHVXSSUHVVLRQDQGRWKHUDFWLYLWLHVWKDWFRQWULEXWHWR producers and private landowners. forest stewardship (Charnley 2006a. Although such jobs Federal forest management can contribute to commu- are unlikely to replace the number of jobs lost over the nity well-being in other ways, through the production of past few decades in the wood products industry, and may a variety of commodities, natural amenity values, other QRWSD\DVZHOOWKH\QHYHUWKHOHVVFDQPDNHDVLJQL¿FDQW ecosystem services, and employment opportunities, but economic contribution in local communities and be a it cannot ensure the stability of local communities and VRXUFHRIHFRQRPLFGLYHUVL¿FDWLRQ economies (chapter 8). Not only is community well-being Adaptive management and monitoring— DSURGXFWRIPXOWLSOHLQÀXHQFHVDWPXOWLSOHVFDOHVVRFLDO The NWFP was founded on the concept of adaptive systems, like ecological systems, are dynamic. Today a management and learning, based on monitoring, adaptive more relevant question for managers is how federal forest management areas (AMAs), and other forms of reactive, management can contribute to community sustainability active, and passive adaptive management. Adaptive man- and increase community resilience in the face of social and agement, social learning, and landscape-level experiments environmental change. Social, economic, and ecological are key components of increasing social-ecological resil- sustainability are linked, and community resilience contrib- ience (Tompkins and Adger 2004). Strategies to promote utes to resilient social-ecological systems. this type of resilience would include engagement of collab- Regarding long-term economic development and diver- orative groups in management experiments, demonstration VL¿FDWLRQ VRFLRHFRQRPLFJRDO WKH1RUWKZHVW(FRQRPLF projects, and landscape restoration projects. Social networks 957 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

may be able to help spread adaptive forest management social, economic, and administrative constraints. The LGHDVDQGSUDFWLFHVWRGHDOZLWK¿UHDQGFOLPDWHFKDQJHLQ implementation of the Plan has occurred through a more the area of the NWFP (Fischer and Jasny 2017, Jacobs and reactive or passive adaptive management approach based Cramer 2017). RQUHVRXUFHOLPLWDWLRQVVRFLDOLQÀXHQFHVDQGGLIIHUHQW Bormann et al. (2006) provided an indepth evaluation interpretations at the ground level. The changes made in of the adaptive management and regional monitoring pro- implementation of the NWFP include avoiding timber pro- JUDPIRUWKH1:)3KHUHZHKLJKOLJKWDIHZNH\¿QGLQJV duction from older forests in the matrix, ending of survey- First, the adaptive management program as embodied in ing for rare species, limited restoration activities in LSRs the AMAs was generally not successful, as funding for LQ¿UHSURQHIRUHVWVDQGULSDULDQ]RQHVDQGRIFRXUVH the AMAs declined after 1998, and adaptive management adaptive management itself. Because the NWFP has not protocols were not widely integrated into agency mis- been formally changed, it can be confusing to discuss the sions at local scales. However, some successes in active “Plan” without qualifying whether one is referring to the adaptive management did occur. For example, the Central NWFP as written or as applied. Cascades AMA was the location of efforts to develop Obstacles to learning and adaptive management and and implement alternative landscape-scale approaches to maintaining an effective monitoring program are not easily PHHWLQJ1:)3JRDOVEDVHGRQPL[HGVHYHULW\¿UHUHJLPHV overcome (Bormann et al. 2006). Some key principles (Cissel et al. 1999). Other AMAs may have implemented for more effective adaptive management and monitoring YDOXDEOHH[SHULPHQWVEXWZHFRXOGQRW¿QGSXEOLVKHGRU include (1) engaging multi-agency regional executives in unpublished reports that document these actions. Four guiding learning, (2) involving regulatory agencies, (3) obstacles to adaptive management in the NWFP area accommodating reasonable disagreement among stake- ZHUHLGHQWL¿HGE\%RUPDQQHWDO  SHUFHLYHGRU holders, (4) committing to quality, standardized record real latitude to try different approaches on AMAs was keeping by managers, (5) developing long-term funding too limited; (2) adaptive management was perceived strategies and maintaining a critical mass of agency as only a public participation process and there was a expertise, (6) reinterpreting the burden of proof and the lack of consensus on implementing ideas on the ground; precautionary principle so that passive management is not (3) precautionary, risk-averse approaches dominated the default and different management approaches can be and eventually overshadowed efforts to learn by doing, DSSOLHGDQG  DOORZLQJIRUVFLHQWL¿FDOO\FUHGLEOHDQG limiting the ability to increase understanding of systems; relevant management experiments to take place even if DQG  VXI¿FLHQWUHVRXUFHVIRUPDQDJHPHQWDFWLYLWLHVDQG they do not have total social license. the attending followup monitoring and research were not Although the adaptive management component of available. The lack of adaptive management activity and the NWFP fell quite short of expectations, the effective- restoration activity in general may be a consequence of ness monitoring program has been a relative success as the fact that federal forest management increasingly takes evidenced by the valuable and insightful information place in a “vetocratic” setting in which non-Forest Service obtained by 20 years of monitoring of old-growth forest, stakeholders reduce the decision space of managers and northern spotted owls, marbled murrelets, aquatic systems, make the agency less autonomous than it was previously socioeconomic conditions, and tribal relations. Monitoring (Maier and Abrams 2018). According to Maier and Abrams moved the implementation of the Plan from opinion to (2018), this situation developed as a way for managers to evidence-based decisionmaking, helped institutionalize reduce likelihood of litigation and to provide funding for some adaptive management at regional scales, provided nontimber objectives that is tied to collaboration. evidence of measurement error and variance in key Plan It also should be noted that the Plan was not imple- indicators, and demonstrated that agencies can work mented as written, as managers responded to various together effectively.

958 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Plan Goals and Strategies in Relation to et al. 2014, Franklin and Johnson 2012, Hessburg et al. New Concerns 2016, Reilly and Spies 2015, Swanson et al. 2011). Many Since the development of the NWFP in the early 1990s, several plant and animal species, including state-listed species, new conservation concerns and issues have emerged that are specialize in these early-successional conditions (Swanson directly related to meeting its original goals. Perhaps the most et al. 2011, 2014). Some components of these ecosystems VLJQL¿FDQWQHZFRQFHUQLVWKHVSUHDGRIWKHLQYDVLYHEDUUHG can persist for many decades (e.g., snags, dead wood, and owl and its strong effect on populations of northern spotted open canopies) (Reilly and Spies 2015), but certain con- owls, as noted above. Here we highlight two other major ditions within them (snag decay stages and environments FRQFHUQV  WKHH[FOXVLRQRIZLOG¿UHDVDNH\VWRQHHFRORJLFDO for establishment of annual plants) are ephemeral, lasting process in many NWFP-area forest ecosystems and (2) the role just a few years. Whereas older forests can take centuries RIFOLPDWHFKDQJHLQSURIRXQGO\DIIHFWLQJVSHFLHVZLOG¿UHVL]H to develop, early-seral vegetation may be initiated in a few and severity, and reducing the resilience of dense forests that hours from a disturbance event and then further develop KDYHDFFXPXODWHGLQGU\IRUHVW]RQHVLQWKHDEVHQFHRI¿UH over many decades before tree canopy closure (chapter 3) (Raphael et al., in press). Maintaining occurrence of Fire exclusion and successional diversity— these episodic and dynamic ecosystems depends upon :HKDYHDOUHDG\GLVFXVVHGDWOHQJWKWKHHIIHFWVRI¿UH relatively frequent disturbance (of either natural or human exclusion on forest structure and composition and resilience of origin) distributed across large landscapes (Reilly and GU\IRUHVWVWR¿UHDQGGURXJKW+HUHZHIRFXVRQDVRPHZKDW Spies 2015). Clearcutting on private lands can produce different aspect of that problem, the loss of other successional open-canopy conditions that support some early-seral stages (which contribute to resilience) that are dependent on plant and animals species but lack dead and down wood, ERWKORZDQGKLJKVHYHULW\¿UH$OWKRXJKQRWSDUWRIWKHRULJ- and active control of herbs, grasses, and shrubs to favor LQDOIRFXVRIFRQVHUYDWLRQLQWKH1:)3DUHD¿UHGHSHQGHQW tree establishment and growth greatly limit the ecolog- vegetation states are ecologically interdependent with dense ical diversity and function of clearcuts as surrogates for old-growth forest in the sense that policies that promote these early-seral ecosystems (Spies et al. 2007, Swanson et al. FRQGLWLRQV HJ¿UHVXSSUHVVLRQ ZLOOUHGXFHRWKHUYHJHWDWLRQ 2011. Thus, early-successional stages, especially struc- types (Spies et al. 2006). Chapter 3 highlights the ecological turally and compositionally diverse ones, are important VLJQL¿FDQFHRIRSHQ¿UHGHSHQGHQWROGJURZWKIRUHVWV sources of biological diversity in the NWFP area, but their including providing habitat for species such as the white- biodiversity has not been monitored or studied as well as headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus), a species that is later successional stages. on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service 'HVSLWHLQFUHDVLQJZLOG¿UHDFWLYLW\RYHUWKHSDVW sensitive species lists for Oregon and Washington as a result \HDUVWKHRFFXUUHQFHRIKLJKVHYHULW\¿UHDFURVVDOO1:)3 RIORVVRIRSHQSRQGHURVDSLQHIRUHVWVWRORJJLQJDQG¿UH ¿UHUHJLPHVKDVEHHQORZURWDWLRQVRIWR\HDUV exclusion (Buchanan et al. 2003, Mellen-McLean et al. 2013). LQPRLVWIRUHVW¿UHUHJLPHVDQGWR\HDUVLQGU\IRUHVW $QRWKHU¿UHGHSHQGHQWVWDWHLVHDUO\VXFFHVVLRQDO ¿UHUHJLPHV FKDSWHU $OWKRXJKDUHDEXUQHGKDVLQFUHDVHG vegetation (which can also arise from other disturbance with drought in the past 25 years in the area of the NWFP 9 agents). The lack of diverse early-successional ecosystems (chapter 2) (Reilly et al. 2017a), the amount of high-severity has also become a major conservation concern (DellaSala ¿UHLQPRLVWIRUHVWPD\VWLOOEHZLWKLQWKHIXOOKLVWRULFDO range (over the past few thousand years) given the large DPRXQWRIKLVWRULFDOFOLPDWHDQG¿UHYDULDELOLW\LQWKHUHJLRQ 9 These are ecosystems dominated by shrubs, herbs, and grasses that have little or no tree canopy. They develop after stand-replac- (chapter 3) (Reilly et al. 2017a, Walsh et al. 2015). However, ing disturbances (see chapter 3) and often contain dead legacies when climate is taken into account, the recent (past 25 of the previous forest. Site conditions are such that they have the potential to develop into closed-canopy forests that can eventually \HDUV DPRXQWRIKLJKVHYHULW\¿UHDQGHDUO\VHUDOYHJHWDWLRQ develop into old-growth forests.

959 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

in moist forest regimes is probably low given that we are dense, multilayer forest habitat at stand or patch scales (e.g., currently experiencing a warming climate. In addition, we OHVVWKDQDF (DUO\VHUDOYHJHWDWLRQFUHDWHGE\ZLOG¿UH NQRZWKDWPRUHWKDQOLJKWQLQJFDXVHG¿UHVKDYHEHHQ or through restoration management could provide opportu- suppressed in moist forests during the past 20 years (chapter nity to plant or naturally establish more drought-resistant 3) within the Plan area. Thus, it is likely that the amount genotypes of native tree species (Spies et al. 2010a). RIHDUO\VHUDOSRVWZLOG¿UHYHJHWDWLRQZLWKLQPRLVWIRUHVW $GGUHVVLQJ¿VKUHVSRQVHVWRFOLPDWHFKDQJHZLOOEH UHJLPHVLVGH¿FLHQWUHODWLYHWRWKHKLVWRULFDOUDQJHRIYDULD- especially challenging because of the prominent role of tion, especially for the drier parts of the moist forests. In the ocean conditions and the importance of nonfederal lands KLVWRULFDOYHU\IUHTXHQW¿UHUHJLPHVRIWKHGU\IRUHVWVODUJH IRU¿VKWKDWPRYHWKURXJKODUJHZDWHUVKHGV FKDSWHU  SDWFKHVRIKLJKVHYHULW\¿UHWKDWFUHDWHHDUO\VXFFHVVLRQDO The conservation and restoration strategies of the NWFP vegetation would not have been common, and early-seral FDQEHQH¿WQDWLYH¿VKEXWWKHUHDUHLQKHUHQWOLPLWVJLYHQ FRQGLWLRQVZRXOGKDYHRFFXUUHGDVD¿QHJUDLQHGPRVDLF WKHFRPSOH[OLIHKLVWRULHVRIDQDGURPRXV¿VKDQGRZQHU- ZLWKLQDPDWUL[RIRSHQROGHUIRUHVW ¿J  ship patterns. Populations of introduced or reintroduced $OWKRXJKHDUO\VHUDOSRVWZLOG¿UHYHJHWDWLRQRQVLWHV ¿VKVSHFLHVPD\H[SDQGXQGHUDZDUPLQJFOLPDWHDQG capable of growing forests appeared to be historically affect native species. Terrestrial and aquatic species uncommon in most areas of high-frequency, low-severity responses to climate change will be variable, as men- ¿UH FKDSWHU ODUJHSDWFKHVRIQRQIRUHVWDUHDVVXFKDV tioned above, or essentially unknown, as with most of the savannas, grasslands, shrublands, and even some wetlands OLFKHQVEU\RSK\WHVDQGLQYHUWHEUDWHV:HODFNVFLHQWL¿F ZRXOGKDYHEHHQUHODWLYHO\FRPPRQDQGPDLQWDLQHGE\¿UH assessments of which and how many species may respond (chapter 3). These nonforest environments, which have been negatively to climate change and how management strat- decreasing in many dry forest landscapes (Hessburg et al. egies, including protection of climate refugia, silviculture 2007, Skinner 1995), are known to support unique biodiver- to promote forest resilience, and possibly even managed sity based on global-scale studies (Veldman et al. 2015) and UHORFDWLRQRIRUJDQLVPVPLJKWEHQH¿WDWULVNVSHFLHV may be more reduced than dense old-growth forests in the (Schwartz et. al. 2012). 3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVWUHJLRQ+RZHYHUUHODWLYHO\OLWWOHDWWHQWLRQ Mitigation efforts to limit releases of greenhouse gases has been paid to the conservation needs of these nonforest and increase carbon storage can be compatible with many and low-tree-density vegetation types in the literature from NWFP goals. For example, protecting and developing the NWFP region. old-growth forests will contribute toward carbon seques- tration in forest stands and landscapes (chapter 2). On the Climate change— other hand, maximizing carbon sequestration will not be The effects of climate change have become a major concern compatible with habitat creation for early-successional and focus of research since the NWFP was developed and species (Kline et al. 2016), and may not be consistent with implemented (chapter 2). The effects and magnitude of reducing stand density in dry forests to increase resilience climate change are still uncertain and will differ among WRGURXJKW¿UHDQGLQVHFWV7KHWUDGHRIIVEHWZHHQFDUERQ species, ecosystem processes, and geographic area. In emissions related to thinning and the carbon emissions that general, climate change adaptation goals can be congruent DUHDYRLGHGEHFDXVHIRUHVWVDUHPRUHUHVLOLHQWWR¿UHRUFOL- or compatible with many of the original goals and strategies mate-induced mortality (after thinning) will vary with scale of the NWFP, including large reserves in which commodity RIREVHUYDWLRQRI¿UHDQGIRUHVWW\SH 0F.LQOH\HWDO management and roads are excluded or minimized (Spies et Ryan et al. 2010) (chapter 2). Carbon calculators are now al. 2010a). However, the degree of congruence varies with available for exploring how different forest management geography and spatial and temporal scale. For example, DQG¿UHUHJLPHVPLJKWDIIHFWFDUERQVHTXHVWUDWLRQLQWKH efforts to reduce tree density within forest stands and to forest ecosystem and in forest products (Zald et al. 2016). LQFUHDVHUHVLOLHQFHWRGURXJKWFRQÀLFWZLWKGHYHORSPHQWRI

960 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Fire and climate change will also have an impact on (Raphael et al. 2016). Habitat for six salmonid species is some of the NWFP socioeconomic goals. For example, not well provided solely on federal lands because these the ability of federal agencies to produce a predictable VSHFLHV¿QGKLJKTXDOLW\KDELWDWLQORZHUUHDFKHVZKHUH and sustainable supply of timber, recreation opportunities, most habitat is on private lands (chapter 7). With divergence QRQWLPEHUUHVRXUFHVVXFKDVPXVKURRPVDQG¿VKDQG of forest management intensity between federal and private game will be challenged as climate change alters weather, forest lands, the landscapes may become more “black and ecosystem productivity, and species distributions. Winter white” with old forest on public lands and plantation forests recreation associated with snow is already being affected on private lands (Spies et al. 2007). The implications of by warmer winters, particularly at lower elevations. And, this landscape change in terms of edge effects and lack of KLJKVHYHULW\¿UHDIIHFWVWLPEHUVWRFNVDQGDYDLODELOLW\ diverse early- and mid-successional stages in the landscape of nontimber forest products. As mentioned above, local as a whole are not well understood but may result in a job creation associated with forest restoration to increase reduction in regional biodiversity. UHVLOLHQFHWRZLOG¿UHDQGIRU¿UHVXSSUHVVLRQFDQVXSSRUW The need for coordination among management the Plan goal of contributing to economic development and units (e.g., national forests, districts) for conservation GLYHUVL¿FDWLRQLQFRPPXQLWLHV FKDSWHU  of populations of listed species and recognition of variability in ecosystems and disturbance regimes was Regional-Scale Issues and Challenges recognized in the development of the NWFP (USDA and The regional-scale concerns related to the NWFP goals USDI 1994b). The need for a regional-scale strategy still include (1) the limited ability of federal forest lands to exists for the listed species (chapters 5, 4, and 7) (USFWS meet some conservation objectives, (2) the need for coor- 2008). Recent science indicates that the regional-scale dination among management units (e.g., national forests) VWUDWL¿FDWLRQRIGLVWXUEDQFHUHJLPHVLQWRMXVWWZRUHJLPHV to provide for population conservation goals and develop (wet and dry) for purposes of standards and guidelines standards and guidelines that take regional ecological vari- for management under the NWFP (USDA and USDI ability into account, (3) the connectivity and distribution 1994b) was too simplistic because it lumped drier, more of federal lands as they relate to the capacity of organisms ¿UHIUHTXHQWHFRV\VWHPVLQSDUWVRIZHVWHUQ2UHJRQDQG to respond to changing climate and vegetation dynamics, :DVKLQJWRQLQWRRQHLQIUHTXHQW¿UHUHJLPHDQGGULHU and (4) coordination among ownerships to deal with types into a single frequent regime with low- to moder- FURVVERXQGDU\DQGUHJLRQDOVFDOHLVVXHVVXFKDVZLOG¿UH DWHVHYHULW\¿UH FKDSWHU  and smoke, watershed processes, populations of sensitive Another limitation of the regional perspective that species, and road systems. underlies the strategy and implementation of the NWFP The limits of federal lands to meet conservation goals is the lack of characterization of regional variability in for species and ecosystems were recognized at the time the socioeconomic conditions and aggregation of local-level NWFP was developed. These limits are particularly relevant variability at the human community scale, including to the marbled murrelet and the ACS. The marbled mur- community types and their contexts (e.g., proximity to and relet (as well as the northern spotted owl) occur in coastal dependence on federal lands). For example, it might be forests in southwestern Washington, Oregon, and northern possible to map regional or local variation in the availabil- California, where the proportion of nonfederal forest land ity of ecosystem services and well-being of communities is relatively high (chapter 5). In these areas, continuing loss (chapter 8) and community dependence on ecosystem of marbled murrelet nesting habitat may eventually lead services from federal lands. That information could be to a large gap in distribution of nesting habitat and thus a used to set priorities for meeting socioeconomic objectives potential gap in the marbled murrelet distribution, leading DQG¿QGLQJDUHDVZKHUHUHVWRUDWLRQQHHGVDQGVRFLRHFR- to genetic isolation of northern and southern populations nomic needs line up.

961 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

The importance of regional connectivity of federal for- est lands to provide for movements of plants and animals in response to climate change has been recognized (chapter 3) (Carroll et al. 2010, McRae et al. 2016, Spies et al. 2010a). The distribution of federal lands and reserves appears generally favorable for species that will likely need to move upslope and northward (DellaSala et al. 2016, Spies et al. 2010a). In general, areas occupied by federal lands have a WASHINGTONWASHIINGTO N relatively high topo-climatic diversity. Their permeability to movement of vagile vertebrates may be relatively high EDVHGRQJHQHUDOODQGFRYHUDQGXVHW\SHV ¿J EXWLW is not known how the distribution and condition of federal ODQGVDIIHFWVPRUHVHVVLOHWHUUHVWULDORUJDQLVPVRUEHQH¿WV aquatic organisms. Quantitative analysis of the effectiveness of the NWFP reserves and federal lands in providing for most species ecological processes, and other aspects of bio- OREGONORR EGON diversity under climate change, has been very limited. Carroll et al. (2010) found that “the current reserve system will face challenges conserving its current suite of species under future climates.” They suggested that to address climate change for all species revisions to reserve networks designs may be needed. More research is needed CALIFORNIACAL to address this issue using updated models of climate, IFORNIR A vegetation dynamics, species habitats, population dynam- ics, and landscape genetics. The NWFP had a federal lands focus, but it is increas- ingly acknowledged that an all-lands or a multi-ownership Moderate, diffuse connectivity SHUVSHFWLYHZRXOGEHEHQH¿FLDOLQGHDOLQJZLWKLVVXHV High resilience density VXFKDV¿UHFOLPDWHFKDQJHZDWHUVKHGVDQGUHFRYHU\ Northwest Forest Plan boundary of listed and at-risk species (chapters 4 and 7) (Bone et al. 2016; Charnley et al. 2017; Spies et al. 2007, 2010b). Miles All-lands approaches can be promoted in several ways o 0 50 100 150 including prioritizing actions on federal lands based on conditions (context) in nearby nonfederal lands; providing funding mechanisms to support restoration on public, Figure 12-10—Regional connectivity and terrestrial resilience to climate change effects based on land cover types (connectivity) private, and tribal lands within shared landscapes; and and topoclimatic conditions (resilience). Illustration adapted from coordinating management actions within watersheds and McRae et al. 2016. Blue represents moderate levels of diffuse con- nectivity (movement is largely unrestricted); dark green represents landscapes, where social and administrative processes areas of high resilience density (topoclimatic diversity). enable such actions (Charnley et al. 2017, Knight and Landres 1998).

962 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Tradeoffs Associated With Restoration   ¿J 7KLQQLQJLQSODQWDWLRQVLQULSDULDQDUHDV Because the ecological goals of the NWFP are not neces- can also increase spatial heterogeneity of trees and shrubs sarily consistent with addressing new conservation issues and increase overall biotic community diversity, but reduce (e.g., the tension between managing for dense old-forest shading, which can increase stream temperatures (chapter species versus open old-forest or early-seral species), it 7). The role of thinning in increasing resilience of forests should not be a surprise that forest management activities climate change has received only limited empirical study IRUVSHFL¿FUHVWRUDWLRQJRDOVZRXOGKDYHYDULDEOHHIIHFWV globally (chapter 2) (D’Amato et al. 2013, Elkin et al. 2015, across a spectrum of ecological and socioeconomic goals. Seidl et al. 2017). We have touched on some of these in the previous sec- 5HVWRUDWLRQRI¿UHH[FOXGHGIRUHVWV² tion; here we summarize these in more detail in terms of 7KLQQLQJDQGSUHVFULEHG¿UHWRUHVWRUHVWUXFWXUHFRP- VSHFL¿FPDQDJHPHQWDFWLRQVDQGKRZWKH\PLJKWDIIHFW position, and resilience to older forests that historically different management goals (table 12-1). Most of these H[SHULHQFHGIUHTXHQW¿UHFDQKDYHQXPHURXVVLWHDQG effects are discussed in greater detail in other chapters of ODQGVFDSHOHYHOEHQH¿WV FKDSWHUWDEOH  +HVVEXUJ this report. et al. 2016) that are both ecological and social. Restoration Variable-density thinning in plantations in moist and for ecological integrity and conservation of listed species dry forests— FDQLPSURYHUHVLOLHQFHWRFOLPDWHFKDQJHDQG¿UHDQG Variable-density thinning in plantations in uplands and habitat for open old-growth species. Reducing fuel loads riparian areas to immediately increase vegetation diversity and increasing the heterogeneity of amounts and types of and accelerate future development of large tree boles and fuel can also reduce the potential extent of large patches FURZQVKDVDYDULHW\RIHIIHFWVDFURVVDOO¿UHUHJLPHVDV RIKLJKVHYHULW\¿UHWKDWUHVXOWLQORVVHVRIGHQVHUIRUHVW noted elsewhere in this document (chapters 3, 4, 5, and 7). habitat. This practice can have adverse effects on northern Thinning can have immediate positive effects on several spotted owls (but see North et al. [2017] for a different species; e.g., some lichens and bryophytes (chapter 6), and SHUVSHFWLYH DQGVRPHVSHFLHVVXFKDV¿VKHUDQGPDUWHQWKDW can accelerate growth of larger trees, but it reduces dead use dead wood as sites for foraging, resting, and denning. wood amounts compared to the unthinned state unless Little published science exists about blending the goals of some thinned trees are left on the site. Studies of effects conservation of northern spotted owl habitat and restoration of variable-density thinning on invertebrates in western RI¿UHGHSHQGHQWIRUHVWHFRV\VWHPVDWODQGVFDSHVFDOHV Washington indicate that the effects can be positive, espe- As experience with the Blue River plan (Cissel et al. 1999) cially in the short term, or negative depending on time since indicates, this is both an ecological and socioeconomic thinning, forest structure, and environment (Schowalter et problem that requires more research and evaluation through al. 2003). Increasing spatial heterogeneity of the tree layer adaptive management and collaborative landscape efforts in plantations creates discontinuous fuel beds, increases that try new approaches to the problem. structural and compositional diversity, and restores some 5HVWRUDWLRQRI¿UHH[FOXGHGIRUHVWVDOVRKDVVRFLDODQG of the heterogeneity that would have occurred in young HFRQRPLFEHQH¿WVSDUWLFXODUO\E\UHGXFLQJWKHULVNRIORVV SRVWZLOG¿UHVWDQGV6LPLODUO\WKLQQLQJLQULSDULDQSODQWD- RISURSHUW\VWUXFWXUHVDQGOLYHVWRKLJKVHYHULW\ZLOG¿UHLQ tions can accelerate growth of large trees that occurred in the wildland-urban interface; by producing wood products variable densities near streams. Dense, uniform plantations and biomass that can be utilized; and by creating jobs. are an altered ecosystem that may not serve as a good 7UDGHRIIVLQFOXGHWKHLPSDFWVRIVPRNHIURPSUHVFULEHG¿UH reference for management in riparian zones, many of which WUHDWPHQWVWKHULVNRIHVFDSHGSUHVFULEHG¿UHDQGWKHFRVW were historically a mosaic of older conifers, hardwoods, RIUHVWRUDWLRQWUHDWPHQWVLQDUHDVZKHUHWKHUHDUHLQVXI¿FLHQW and shrub patches, especially near larger streams (chapter larger trees to provide revenue to offset restoration costs

963 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Early-seral vegetation in moist forests— sity and socioeconomic values. It should be noted, however, *LYHQWKDW¿UHVXSSUHVVLRQKDVUHGXFHGWKHRFFXUUHQFHRI that there is little research and management experience early-seral vegetation, innovative silviculture including in this type of restoration. In addition, using mechanical SUHVFULEHG¿UH VXFKDVHFRORJLFDOIRUHVWU\  )UDQNOLQHW treatments to create early-successional habitat in younger al. 2007), could be used to create large enough patches of forests and plantations will not provide large dead trees HDUO\VHUDOFRQGLWLRQVWKDWDUHPLQLPDOO\LQÀXHQFHG HJ and other vegetation structures of late-successional and by shade and belowground effects) from adjacent forest ROGJURZWKIRUHVWVQRUVRPHRIWKH¿UHHIIHFWVRIQDWXUDOO\ areas. To reduce impacts on existing older forests, such created early-successional vegetation (e.g., very large actions would be best focused on existing plantations, patches of early-seral ecosystems). especially in matrix areas. Such activities would allow for 3RVWZLOG¿UHPDQDJHPHQW² establishment and persistence of early-successional species, 3RVWZLOG¿UHPDQDJHPHQWW\SLFDOO\LQFOXGHVERWKVDOYDJH including shrubs, and would contain large-diameter logging and planting of trees, which may or may not dead and some live trees that would be characteristic of occur together in management. The ecological effects of KLJKHUVHYHULW\SRVWZLOG¿UHHQYLURQPHQWV )UDQNOLQDQG SRVW¿UHVDOYDJHORJJLQJFDQGLIIHUGHSHQGLQJRQWUHDW- Johnson 2012, Franklin et al. 2007) and that would serve PHQW¿UHVHYHULW\DQGELRSK\VLFDOVHWWLQJ 3HWHUVRQHWDO as “legacy” elements of the previous stand conditions. 2009), but, in general, much existing research indicates The amount of retention of live trees would be variable to WKDWVDOYDJHORJJLQJGRHVQRWKDYHEHQH¿FLDOHFRORJLFDO PDWFKYDULDWLRQLQ¿UHHIIHFWVDQGVLWHFDSDFLW\DWSDWFK effects on terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems (chapter 3) DQGODQGVFDSHVFDOHV3UHVFULEHG¿UHFRXOGEHXVHGLQ (table 12-3). However, there may be some exceptions to conjunction with this action to approximate some of effects this rule. Peterson et al. (2015) and Hessburg et al. (2016) RIZLOG¿UHHVSHFLDOO\RQVRLOVXUIDFHOD\HUVDQGXQGHUVWRU\ LGHQWL¿HGVLWXDWLRQVHJFRQFHUQVDERXWODFNRIVHHG plant and animal communities. This type of silviculture VRXUFHVRUUHEXUQVWKDWPDLQWDLQXQGHVLUDEOHVKUXE¿HOGV could meet diverse ecological and socioeconomic goals in LQZKLFKSRVW¿UHZRRGUHPRYDOPLJKWPHHWHFRORJLFDO both regimes of the moist forests and could target stands of goals. These include (1) fuel reduction treatments that DQ\DJHEHFDXVHZLOG¿UHZRXOGRFFXUDFURVVWKHIXOOUDQJH reducs levels of large woody fuels derived from shade-tol- of successional stages. However, when applied in older HUDQWVSHFLHVWKDWPD\KDYHDFFXPXODWHGXQGHU¿UH forests in the matrix, there are some tradeoffs (table 12-1). suppression and may pose a risk to soil fertility were the Large early-seral and nonforest patches do not provide area to reburn; and (2) fuel treatments to reduce potential habitat for late-successional species unless those species for high-severity reburns, and planting of trees to speed use early-successional and edge environments for some rate of forest succession where the potential for large facet of their life history requirements. Cutting larger or semistable patches of shrubs is high and regeneration is older trees to create early-seral patches can provide larger lacking (Coppoletta et al. 2016, Dodson and Root 2013, volumes of wood for local mills, but it may not be socially Lauvaux et al. 2016, Meng et al. 2015); and (3) to reduce acceptable because the focus and expectations of the Plan surface fuels that may impede establishment of trees. are currently to protect all remaining older forests from Sudden oak death also is likely contributing to ecolog- ORJJLQJDQGVXFKKDUYHVWPD\FRQÀLFWZLWKWKHQHHGWR LFDOO\QRYHOFRQ¿JXUDWLRQVRIGHDGWUHHVDQGKLJKIXHOV protect owl habitat given the threat of the barred owl. that may warrant interventions to reduce the potential for Recognizing these concerns, Franklin and Johnson (2012) undesirable effects of reburn on soils. have proposed that this type of habitat creation focus on Where timber salvage is conducted, reserving dense stands less than 80 years old in the matrix. When applied patches of snags adjacent to salvaged stands, rather than LQROGHUSODQWDWLRQVWKLVDFWLYLW\FRXOGSURGXFHVLJQL¿FDQW uniformly retaining small numbers of snags across a amounts of wood and be a potential win-win for biodiver- landscape, may be essential for sustaining populations of

964 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

7DEOH²6XPPDU\RIVRFLRHFRORJLFDOLPSDFWVRISRVW¿UHPDQDJHPHQW VDOYDJHRUSODQWLQJ

Issue Cons Pros Carbon Carbon in dead trees may be slowly released Burned trees can be used as harvested wood as wood decays, and some may enter long- products or can offset energy from more term pools in soils or in streams carbon-intensive energy sources when burned in biomass facilities; replanting of trees has potential to accelerate long-term carbon storage in areas where natural regeneration is poor Wildlife habitat Negative impacts on wildlife communities Planting of trees can accelerate forest of removing biological “legacies” such development and reestablishment of late- as standing and down wood, particularly successional habitat “early-successional” species that depend on standing snags Erosion Mechanical activity can pose risks of Residual materials can be used as source of increased erosion and runoff ground cover Wood loading to Removal can interrupt important process for Reducing excessive wood loading could lessen streams storing sediments and reforming aquatic ULVNRIGHEULVMDPVDQGGRZQVWUHDPFXOYHUW habitats bridge failures )XHOORDGLQJ¿UH 6DOYDJHFDQLQFUHDVHORDGLQJRI¿QHIXHOV Removal of excessive fuel load can moderate hazard OHDGLQJWRLQFUHDVHG¿UHVHYHULW\XSRQ IXWXUH¿UHVHYHULW\DQG¿UHEHKDYLRULQVRPH reburn; planted stands are highly vulnerable FRQWH[WVFDQUHGXFHULVNWR¿UH¿JKWHUV WR¿UHIRUGHFDGHV Forest development Salvage has potential to affect natural Salvage plus replanting can accelerate return to revegetation by trees and shrubs forest conditions in areas Economic returns Investments in planted stands may be lost, Timber from burned areas has high economic especially as climatic conditions become value, and returns can be used to offset less favorable to tree establishment and more costs of hazard reduction and long-term favorable to frequent reburns, and they may restoration; replanting can accelerate DOVRFRPSOLFDWHXVHRI¿UHDWODQGVFDSHVFDOHV regrowth of timber-producing forests

early-successional species such as black-backed wood- Roads— pecker (Picoides arcticus) (White et al. 2016b). Within The ecological effects of roads have been extensively riparian areas, more research is needed to understand reviewed in the literature (chapter 7) (Fahrig and Rytwinski variation in wood loading and whether there are loads that 2009, Jones et al. 2000, Trombulak and Frissell 2000). The are detrimental to stream function, as well as the effects of ecological effects of roads affect both terrestrial and aquatic riparian snag patches of different densities and sizes. As ecosystems but are especially pronounced for aquatic eco- with terrestrial systems, retaining large snags that are likely systems and species as the following list of impacts (chapter to remain standing longer, and which are more likely to 7) indicates: form persistent elements of aquatic ecosystems, could help 1. Accelerating erosion and increasing sediment loading. to extend and moderate the input of large wood. Fuel hazard 2. Imposing barriers to the migration of aquatic reduction might be achieved in part by removing smaller RUJDQLVPVLQFOXGLQJDFFHVVWRÀRRGSODLQVDQG dead trees for biomass utilization or masticating them into off-channel habitats. ground cover where soils are severely burned and lack 3. Increasing stream temperatures. protective cover. 4. Causing changes in channel morphology.

965 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

5. Introducing exotic species. to consider ways of dealing with uncertainty, risk, and 6. Increasing harvest and poaching pressure. tradeoffs (Spies et al. 2010a). In addition, the threats from 7. &KDQJLQJKLOOVORSHK\GURORJ\DQGUHVXOWLQJSHDNÀRZV FOLPDWHFKDQJHXQGHVLUDEOH¿UHHIIHFWVLQYDVLYHVSHFLHV and social change introduce new drivers of forest ecosys- In the case of hydrological processes, the majority of WHPVDQGPDQDJHPHQWJRDOVWKDWDUHGLI¿FXOWWRSUHGLFW roads have negligible effects, suggesting the need for a control, and have variable effects on ecosystems and forest landscape approach to identity problem roads and prioritize YDOXHV8QFHUWDLQW\LVGH¿QHGDVODFNRILQIRUPDWLRQWKDW road decommissioning. Hydrologically problematic roads falls on a continuum between absolute determinism and FRQVWUDLQÀRRGSODLQVRUKDYHGLUHFWK\GURORJLFFRQQHFWLYLW\ WRWDOLJQRUDQFH :DONHUHWDO 5LVNFDQEHGH¿QHG ZLWK¿VKEHDULQJVWUHDPVEXWPRVWVWUHDPVLQDQHWZRUN as the probability (often not well known) of some, often DUHQRW¿VKEHDULQJ undesirable, occurrence. On the other hand, roads are needed for forest resto- Uncertainty and risk pervade our understanding of the ration management, recreation, access to tribal resources species, ecosystems, and social systems of the NWFP area. DQGQRQWLPEHUIRUHVWSURGXFWVWLPEHUKDUYHVWLQJDQG¿UH We know a great deal, of course, as the chapters of this syn- suppression. Roads are the primary way for people to access thesis demonstrate, but we also know that our knowledge public lands, including private inholdings and historical in some key areas (e.g., persistence of the northern spotted tribal use areas. Decommissioning roads can help both owl and climate change effects, suitability of conditions reduce ecological impacts and reduce maintenance costs, RWKHUWKDQROGJURZWKEHLQJIDYRUDEOHIRU¿VKDQGRWKHU ZKLFKFDQEHVLJQL¿FDQWEXWVRPHURDGV\VWHPVDUHDVWLOO aquatic organisms) is uncertain, and that the ability of needed to meet other objectives. For example, roads provide management to achieve particular outcomes can be quite access to forests and wilderness areas and are the pathways unsure. We also know that many forest values are at risk to special places to which people form strong attachments IURPLQÀXHQFHVWKDWDUHERWKLQWHUQDODQGH[WHUQDOWRWKH through repeated use. Roads also provide access to areas of NWFP area and outside the control of forest managers (e.g., the forest that generate incomes and provide jobs, as well as climate change and markets for wood products). Although access to food and forage used by the public for everyday concepts of uncertainty and risk are well known from the sustenance and survival. The costs associated with road forest planning literature, the practical applications of this decommissioning, which involves regrading, removing theory in decision support models and management are culverts, and revegetation, often make this option impracti- rare (Pasalodos-Tato et al. 2013). Managers and scientists cal. Roads that may be decommissioned by default through may not be comfortable in admitting to the public that they neglect may become safety hazards and sources of public are unsure of outcomes of proposed actions, but ignoring FRQÀLFW5RDGVDQGURDGGHFRPPLVVLRQLQJDUHDSULPH or not acknowledging uncertainties, risks, and tradeoffs example of tradeoffs associated with meeting competing can lead to poor decisions and bad planning alternatives goals for federal forests, including ecological restoration. (Pasalodos-Tato (2013). Although uncertainty is pervasive, Uncertainty and Risk in Forest Planning it should not necessarily be seen as a reason for inaction and Management (Dessai and Hulme 2004). Several strategies exist for incorporating uncertainty Uncertainty and risk have long been a part of forest and risk in forest management or biodiversity conserva- management and planning. However, as management tion. For example, Lindenmayer et al. (2000) suggested objectives have shifted from commodity production to a four approaches: (1) establish biodiversity priority areas broader range of ecological and social values from complex (e.g., reserves) managed primarily for the conservation of ecological and social systems (Moore and Conroy 2006, biological diversity; (2) within production forests, apply Rose and Chapman 2003), it has become even more crucial

966 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

structure-based indicators including structural complexity, complexity and stochasticity preclude prediction and connectivity, and heterogeneity; (3) use multiple conser- certainty about management effects. Scenario analysis was vation strategies at multiple spatial scales, spreading out used to inform forest management and policy across 13 risk in wood-production forests; and (4) adopt an adaptive states in the Southeastern United States (Wear and Greis management approach to test the validity of structure-based 2012). In scenario analysis, a range of plausible futures is indices of biological diversity by treating management prac- LGHQWL¿HGDQGWKHFRQVHTXHQFHVRIGLIIHUHQWPDQDJHPHQW tices as experiments. Lindenmayer et al. (2000) also noted VWUDWHJLHVDUHHYDOXDWHGZLWKPRGHOV HJGLVFXVVLRQ that “a biodiversity priority area should not imply a lack of decision support tools) or expert opinion. This approach need for active management regimes inside that area…such can help identify management alternatives that are likely as the restoration of burning regimes that may be required to fail under certain futures and other alternatives that by taxa dependent on particular seral stages or vegetation may provide some level of desired outcomes across a range mosaics.” Others have also called for risk spreading by of possible futures. Such efforts may help communicate creating heterogeneous systems at stand and landscape sources of uncertainty and the idea that plans need to scales (Hessburg et al. 2016, O’Hara and Ramage 2013). In EHÀH[LEOHDQGDGDSWLYHWRUHVSRQGWRXQH[SHFWHGDQG general, adaptive management (including monitoring) is undesirable future outcomes and tradeoffs. However, considered one of the most important strategies for dealing this approach is also very labor intensive, involving with uncertainty (e.g., acknowledging it and reducing it) much up-front work before engaging with stakeholders in forest planning and management (Keenan 2015, Moore to develop and evaluate scenarios (Bizikova and Krcmar and Conroy 2006, USDA FS 2012). Although more passive 2015). The challenges are many, including designing the learning approaches can be successful, active and inten- social process of stakeholder engagement and interactions tional adaptive management is much more likely to reduce of stakeholders with data and models. uncertainty (McCarthy and Possingham 2007). It should be Policy research indicates that in our current biophysical reiterated that active adaptive management is expensive and and socioeconomic environment, forest plans must not only time consuming, however, how often have scientists and meet ecological and socioeconomic goals but also be robust managers looked back 10 years and lamented lack of action and adaptable over time (Walker et al. 2013). Walker et al. to pursue such work? (2013) listed three key principles to guide development of Other approaches for dealing with uncertainty, risk robust forest plans: and tradeoffs involve governance systems and interactions • Explore a wide variety of relevant uncertainties with stakeholders in plan development and implementation. including natural variability, external changes, and The goals here are not so much to reduce uncertainty but policy responses. to incorporate it into decisionmaking and communications • Connect short-term targets with long-term goals. ZLWKWKHSXEOLFWRSURYLGHPRUHÀH[LELOLW\WRFKDQJHSODQV • Commit to short-term actions that keep options open and management approaches to meet new challenges. Strat- for the future. egies include communication by managers with communi- The NWFP was designed to be adaptable (e.g., through WLHV LQWKHFDVHRIQDWXUDOKD]DUGVOLNH¿UH FROODERUDWLYHV research, monitoring, and adaptive management), but as we partnerships with nongovernmental organizations and described above, the adaptive management component of planning boards (Calkin et al. 2011), and engaging stake- the Plan and some of the monitoring components did not holders to improve plans and decisionmaking (Bizikova and survive for various social and economic reasons. Never- Krcmar 2015, Keenan 2015). theless, the idea that forest plans should be adaptable and Scenario analysis can help deal with and communicate underpinned by adaptive management is still considered the to stakeholders the reality that social-ecological system best way forward in a dynamic and uncertain world.

967 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Information Gaps, Research Needs, and DOVRWHPSHUVRXUFRQ¿GHQFHLQFOLPDWHFKDQJHDGDSWDWLRQ Limitations strategies for human communities. Landscape-scale models Monitoring— and tools are needed to analyze scenarios and the effects We lack information about the amount, pattern, and type of alternative landscape designs on species, ecosystems, of restoration activities that have occurred in upland DQGKXPDQFRPPXQLWLHV1HZPRQLWRULQJ¿HOGVWXGLHVDQG and riparian forests. Implementation monitoring has not assessment tools are needed to evaluate stress and mortality occurred to a degree that we can know the rate, pattern, in forests at landscape scales and to test hypotheses from and type of restoration actions across the NWFP area. landscape simulation models that are a major source of Effectiveness monitoring has provided useful information information about possible future climate change effects. (e.g., about the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet), Species and ecosystems— but disinvestment in some aspects of NWFP monitoring We have virtually no published information about how north- over time (e.g., socioeconomic, implementation, Survey HUQVSRWWHGRZOVUHVSRQGWRZLOG¿UHVLQFOXGLQJLQFUHDVHG and Manage species) has limited the amount and useful- IUHTXHQF\DQGVHYHULW\RI¿UH:HDOVRQHHGWRLPSURYHRXU ness of the monitoring information produced. Research is understanding about interactions between northern spotted needed to determine how well the current set of monitoring owls and barred owls and their niche separations to help PHWULFV HJROGJURZWKLQGH[ DGGUHVVLVVXHVUHODWHGWR¿UH identify key areas for northern spotted owl conservation. exclusion (e.g., metrics for open canopy, old-growth forests) (IIHFWVRI¿UHVXSSUHVVLRQ HJLQFUHDVHGIRUHVW and climate change, and how effectiveness monitoring can density and increased proportion of shade-tolerant trees) be better linked with validation monitoring and research. on ecosystem processes and population responses of plants Research is also needed to better understand what is causing and animals are not well understood in the area of the the monitoring trends observed and how to address undesir- NWFP. More research has been conducted on how changes able trends. LQVWDQGVWUXFWXUHDQGFRPSRVLWLRQDIIHFW¿UHEHKDYLRUWKDQ Climate change— on how those altered forest conditions affect resilience to Uncertainties about the effects of climate change on drought, biodiversity and ecosystem function, and succes- HFRV\VWHPVLQFOXGLQJ¿UHDFWLYLW\UHPDLQODUJHRZLQJWR sional trajectories. regional variability, complex interactions, and the coarse Conservation and restoration strategies— spatial scale of projections. Having large areas dedicated to The limits (ecological and social) to restoring forest eco- promoting biodiversity and resilience to climate change is logical integrity (per the 2012 planning rule) and resilience a foundational strategy, but we lack quantitative analyses ZLWK¿UH ERWKSUHVFULEHGDQGZLOG¿UHPDQDJHGWRDFKLHYH of how different management approaches to biodiversity resource objectives) across diverse landscapes are not well conservation affect vulnerability to climate change. understood. More fundamentally, we need research to help Silviculture, including innovative strategies, GHYHORSGH¿QLWLRQVDQGPHWULFVRILQWHJULW\DQGUHVLOLHQFH may help improve resilience of forests to climate change so that managers can operationalize them at different scales. LPSDFWV HJODUJHSDWFKHVRIKLJKVHYHULW\¿UH +RZHYHU It is unclear if we have passed tipping points (e.g., crossed we lack information on how future vegetation communities ecological and socioecological thresholds that make it might form and adapt to different climate scenarios to GLI¿FXOWWRUHVWRUHGHVLUHGFRQGLWLRQV LQVRPHODQGVFDSHV fully understand the interactions and tradeoffs. We also are that have been transformed by the cumulative effects of challenged to estimate how vegetation might change across altered disturbance regimes and climate change. In addition, time and landscapes under different climate scenarios and the ecological and social impacts of using surrogates (e.g., the degree to which various measures of and objectives for PHFKDQLFDOIXHOVWUHDWPHQWV IRU¿UHDUHDOVRQRWZHOOXQGHU- “forest resilience” may be met. This lack of information VWRRGDFURVVWKH¿UHUHJLPHVRIWKH1:)3DUHDHVSHFLDOO\

968 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

for biodiversity (most work has focused on forest structure However, we lack information on the long-term effects DQGFRPSRVLWLRQFKDQJHDQG¿UHEHKDYLRU SUHYLRXV of salvage logging in burned forests whose density and work suggested that such surrogates may not serve well if FRPSRVLWLRQKDYHEHHQKHDYLO\DOWHUHGE\¿UHH[FOXVLRQ they do not pay attention to biological legacies (Franklin EHIRUHWKH¿UH$VWKHOLNHOLKRRGRIUHEXUQLQLPPDWXUH et al. 2000). For example, research is needed to help us forests increases with climate change, the rationale for such understand how well mechanical methods and prescribed interventions may grow. In addition, we lack information on ¿UHFUHDWHGLYHUVHHDUO\VXFFHVVLRQDOKDELWDWDQGIXQFWLRQV when and where planting might be needed and what kind of especially when applied to forest plantations. Although the- salvage might be appropriate, if at all, to facilitate recovery ory supports the hypothesis that biodiversity and ecosystem of desired forest conditions following large high-severity function associated with post-clearcutting environments and ZLOG¿UHHYHQWV)LQDOO\ZKHUHVDOYDJHORJJLQJLVFRQGXFWHG young plantations (e.g., on private lands) are different from for economic objectives, we lack studies that quantify the SRVWZLOG¿UHRUSRVWZLQGWKURZHQYLURQPHQWVQRHPSLULFDO ecological effects of salvage logging when managers seek to research has been conducted. meet both ecological and economic goals through carefully Relatively little published research has focused on how SODQQHGDSSURDFKHVWRSRVWZLOG¿UHPDQDJHPHQW well the regional NWFP strategy of reserves and associated Social-ecological interactions and collaboration— management guidelines will meet biodiversity goals under Although ecosystem services are now widely recognized FKDQJLQJFOLPDWHDQG¿UHUHJLPHV5HVHDUFKLVQHHGHGWR as a framework for characterizing the range of values on understand the ecological tradeoffs associated with alter- IHGHUDOIRUHVWVUHODWLYHO\OLWWOHTXDQWL¿FDWLRQDQGDSSOLFDWLRQ native conservation land allocations and designs based on have occurred on federal lands. Some ecosystem services, different ecological priorities (e.g., single species versus particularly cultural services such as support for spirituality multiple species and processes). RUVROLWXGHDUHLPSRUWDQWWRPDQ\EXWGLI¿FXOWWRTXDQWLI\ Tradeoffs associated with alternative management or monetize. In addition, the potential for tradeoffs among strategies— ecosystem services (e.g., carbon sequestration, habitat for Although we have some knowledge of the tradeoffs asso- some species of wildlife, water supply, and regulation of ciated with restoration and conservation strategies to meet ¿UH SDUWLFXODUO\DFURVVORQJSHULRGVDQGODUJHDUHDVLVQRW ecological and socioeconomic goals, we generally lack well understood. Research is needed to determine the best knowledge of how those tradeoffs and interactions differ methods for quantifying ecosystem services, understanding across the region, with scale, and over time. Reliance on tradeoffs, and using qualitative approaches in planning and precautionary approaches that avoid interventions may PDQDJHPHQWZKHQTXDQWL¿FDWLRQRIHFRV\VWHPVHUYLFHV produce unintended outcomes because no action (e.g., not does not exist. In addition, research is needed to determine WKLQQLQJDSODQWDWLRQRUQRWXVLQJ¿UH PD\KDYHXQGHVLUDEOH WKHFRVWVDQGEHQH¿WV HJSURYLGLQJPRUHSXEOLFVXSSRUW effects (e.g., less biotic community diversity). In such cases, for investment in public lands) of using an ecosystem man- rigorous adaptive management approaches (e.g., learning by agement framework compared to alternative ways of valuing doing) are considered the best way to address uncertainty DQGFRPPXQLFDWLQJWKHEHQH¿WVWKDWSXEOLFODQGVSURYLGH and complexity (Walters 1986). Research is needed for Low income and minority populations protected understanding the long-term and landscape-scale effects of by the 1994 Executive Order on Environmental Justice restoration on terrestrial and aquatic species, biodiversity have increased throughout the NWFP area over the past elements, and ecosystems and how these actions interact two decades. This trend increases the need for ongoing with social systems. research into how these populations relate to federal forests 6FLHQWL¿FOLWHUDWXUHKDVEHHQIDLUO\FOHDULQLQGLFDWLQJ and are affected by their management. There is a fairly WKDWWKHEHQH¿WVIURPVDOYDJHORJJLQJDUHJHQHUDOO\HFR- substantive literature about how minority populations nomic, in the form of wood products, rather than ecological. relate to national forests in terms of work (e.g., forestry 969 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

services work, commercial NTFP harvesting). However, affects public understanding of and support for various apart from recreation, little information is available types of active forest management strategies. Finally, about noneconomic relations between federal forests and although research suggests that the efforts required for low-income or minority populations (other than American collaboration can be taxing on both agency staff and ,QGLDQV )XUWKHUPRUHUHVHDUFKLVRQO\EHJLQQLQJWR¿OOWKH community stakeholders (Urgenson et al. 2017), we lack gap in knowledge about the environmental justice implica- information on appropriate forms and levels of support to tions of Forest Service management actions. For example, bolster the capacity of both for long-term engagement in WKHUHUHPDLQVDODFNRILQIRUPDWLRQDERXWKRZ¿UH²PDQ- collaborative processes. aged, prescribed, or wild—and associated smoke affect low income and minority populations in the Plan area. Conclusions and Management Considerations There is also little information about how management The goals of the NWFP for federal forests occur within a DFWLYLWLHVWKDWLQÀXHQFHIRUHVWVWUXFWXUHDQGFRPSRVLWLRQ diverse, dynamic, and complex social-ecological system affect uses and values of associated species that are valued WKDWKDVFKDQJHGLQVLJQL¿FDQWZD\VVLQFHWKH3ODQZDV by these populations. implemented. For example, the capacity of the agency and The ability to undertake active management to achieve of the forest industry to conduct restoration efforts across diverse ecological and socioeconomic goals is constrained ODQGVFDSHVKDVGHFOLQHGVLJQL¿FDQWO\EXGJHWVIRUPDQDJLQJ by many factors, but limited public trust in federal manag- UHVRXUFHVDUHJUHDWO\GLPLQLVKHGDQGZLOG¿UHVXSSUHVVLRQ ers is among the most critical, especially when it comes to programs and budgets overshadow most other work. The working in forests with larger or older trees in frequent and contributions of public forest lands to ecosystem services PRGHUDWHO\IUHTXHQW¿UHUHJLPHV)RUHVWODQGVFDSHFROODE- (e.g., carbon sequestration and water supply) are now more oratives provide socioecological laboratories for studying widely recognized than ever, but the ecosystem services how interactions among stakeholders and federal managers framework has only just begun to be implemented at forest affect the ability to achieve restoration and resilience to and project scales and not been applied yet in assessments ¿UHDQGFOLPDWHFKDQJH7KHVHFROODERUDWLYHVDUHUHODWLYHO\ and forest plan revision (Deal et al. 2017b). A major change QHZDQGVWXG\UHVXOWVDUHVWLOOXQIROGLQJ+RZHYHU¿QGLQJV in biodiversity conservation policy has also occurred for the thus far suggest that collaboratives have not been a cure-all Forest Service in the form of the 2012 planning rule, which IRUUHVROYLQJFRQÀLFWVDERXWSXEOLFYDOXHVDQGPLQLPL]LQJ emphasizes whole ecosystem approaches to conservation litigation, but in some cases participants have suggested that in contrast to previous planning rules, which emphasized progress has been made on those measures (Schultz et al. population viability of individual species, and which the 2012, Urgenson et al. 2017). A contributing factor to those agency considered “procedurally burdensome to imple- trends has been social learning by agency staff in managing ment” (Schultz et al. 2013). NWFP monitoring indicates their roles (Butler 2013), adopting new approaches such as that progress is being made toward meeting several of the multiparty monitoring and use of stewardship contracts, original long-term goals, namely maintenance of vegetation as well as picking collaborative projects that have a high conditions that support northern spotted owls and marbled likelihood of success. More information is needed about murrelets, protecting dense old-growth forests, providing public responses to restoration management efforts, habitat for aquatic and riparian-associated organisms, and HVSHFLDOO\LQFRPSOH[FRQWH[WVVXFKDVPL[HGVHYHULW\¿UH reducing the loss of mature and old forests to logging, regimes (Urgenson et al. 2017), and addressing socioecolog- (Bormann et al. 2006, DellaSala et al. 2015). Other goals, ical objectives including timber production while applying such as providing for a predictable timber harvest to support nonindustrial, ecological forestry methods. rural communities, road decommissioning, adaptation, We lack understanding of how trust at different learning through adaptive management (Bormann et al. organizational scales (individual, district, forest, national) 2006, Burns et al. 2011) (chapter 8), and effectiveness and

970 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

validation monitoring of old-forest species and biodiversity Strategies are available to move these ecosystems, (chapter 6) have not been realized. Finally, Congressional forests, landscapes, and species toward conditions that legislation that provided alternative formulas for payments appear better aligned with policy direction (e.g., ecological WRFRXQWLHVPRVWDIIHFWHGE\WKH3ODQWRPLWLJDWHWKH¿QDQ- integrity under the 2012 planning rule) and with current cial impacts of reduced timber harvesting were realized in social values, both utilitarian (e.g., clean water, sustainable the short to mid term, but their long-term viability remains production of wood and special forest products, recreation) uncertain (Phillips 2006). In addition, new concerns have and intrinsic (nature for its own sake). The challenge will be emerged that were not part of the original Plan, including a to determine how to prioritize restoration goals and distri- major threat to populations of the northern spotted owl from bution actions across landscapes. Ecological history can WKHQDWLYHLQYDVLYHEDUUHGRZOZLGHVSUHDGORVVRI¿UHGH- be a valuable guide for restoration, but land managers, in pendent ecosystems including open old-growth, early-seral reality, cannot restore ecosystems to any particular histori- IRUHVWVQRQIRUHVWFRPPXQLWLHVLQFUHDVHGLQÀXHQFHRI cal period or condition, or meet all management objectives exotic invasive species, and climate change. in one area of land. However, they can learn from the 2YHUWKHSDVW\HDUVWLPEHUKDUYHVW¿UHH[FOXVLRQ historical conditions about the kinds of patterns and patch and the loss of American Indian burning have profoundly size distributions that offered the best hedging strategies changed both moist and dry forests of the NWFP area. DJDLQVWODUJHZLOG¿UHVDQGFOLPDWHZDUPLQJ0DQDJHUVFDQ Although the motivation for the Plan arose from halting take actions that increase the likelihood of retaining desired 20th century clearcutting of old growth, moist forests and ecosystem services, species, intrinsic values of forests, and the associated loss of habitat for the spotted owl habitat resilience to climate change and disturbances, even if their and other old-growth forest species, the dry forests, which actions produce forest conditions that are altered relative occupy about 43 percent of the Plan area, probably have to the pre-Euro-American period. Ecological and social experienced much more pervasive ecological changes as history demonstrates that change is inherent in these forests, a result of human activity (chapter 3). Key changes in dry and we appear to be entering a new period of rapid change IRUHVWVDUHORVVRIODUJHW\SLFDOO\RSHQJURZQ¿UHUHVLVWDQW with uncertain outcomes. trees to logging; large increases in surface and canopy fuels Species and ecosystems— and their connectivity; widespread shifts in seral-stage The current outlook for widespread persistence of the dominance; and changes in the patch size distributions of northern spotted owls is not good. It appears unlikely that those seral stages. These changes have affected all species WKHQRUWKHUQVSRWWHGRZOFDQSHUVLVWZLWKRXWVLJQL¿FDQW and processes; some in favorable ways (e.g., more habitat reduction in barred owl populations. However, without the for dense, young multistory forest associates) and others implementation of the NWFP (e.g., if the pace of old-growth in unfavorable ways (e.g., loss of open old-growth and logging from the 1970s and 1980s had continued for 23 HDUO\VHUDOIRUHVWVDQGDVVRFLDWHGUHVLOLHQFHWR¿UHDQG years), northern spotted owl populations would likely have GURXJKW &KDQJHVLQPRLVWIRUHVWVDUHDOVRVLJQL¿FDQW already become moribund. Forests capable of supporting but they have been affected differently by logging and interconnected populations of northern spotted owls have ¿UHH[FOXVLRQ+HUHLQWHQVLYHWLPEHUKDUYHVWKDVEHHQWKH increased or stayed relatively stable at the Plan scale. primary impact on biodiversity by dramatically fragment- +RZHYHUWKHUDSLGSDFHRIFOLPDWHDQG¿UHUHJLPHFKDQJH ing and reducing the amount of closed-canopy old-growth suggests that recent trends may not continue. Continued forests, and habitats for the associated species. Fire exclu- success at conservation of northern spotted owls under the sion in moist forests has also had important effects as well; NWFP rests on understanding how to minimize the impacts KLVWRULFDO¿UHVFUHDWHGDKLJKO\GLYHUVHVHUDOVWDJHSDWFK- of barred owls and on how to manage dry and moist zone work with many patches of early- and mid-seral-aged forest. forests in ways that increase rather than reduce future This patchwork is now highly altered. UHVLOLHQFHWRZLOG¿UHDQGFOLPDWHFKDQJHHIIHFWV 971 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Under the original NWFP goals, an emphasis on vation on nonfederal lands, but further research to evaluate multilayered old-growth forest conservation was critical the impact of particular approaches within the NWFP given its relationship to owl habitat occurrence and its context is needed. reduced abundance through harvesting. However, the 2012 Under current goals, a restoration strategy would likely planning rule emphasizes ecological integrity and resilience combine efforts to ameliorate anthropogenic impacts, such (ecosystem goals that were not part of the NWFP goals), as culverts that are likely to fail in priority watershed areas, and deemphasizes species viability approaches, a policy as well as some dams and diversions used for irrigation FKDQJHWKDWFRXOGVLJQL¿FDQWO\DIIHFWWKHFRQVHUYDWLRQJRDOV water withdrawal, while also directing active management for biodiversity in the NWFP area. Managing to maintain LQWHUYHQWLRQVVXFKDVLQWHQVLYHWKLQQLQJDQGXVHRI¿UHWR current levels and patterns of multilayered old forests in dry restore degraded systems or at least increase their resilience forest zones (the NWFP goal) will not promote resilience of WRFOLPDWHFKDQJHDQG¿UH6XFKDFWLYHPDQDJHPHQWPD\EH WKRVHGU\IRUHVWVWRFOLPDWHFKDQJH¿UHDQGRWKHUVWUHVVRUV SDUWLFXODUO\YDOXDEOHLQDUHDVZKHUHERWK¿UHUHJLPHVDQG and it will not restore more natural ecosystem dynamics. forest structure have been dramatically altered, because it The new rule also has implications for supporting human FDQLQFUHDVHWKHOLNHOLKRRGWKDWZLOG¿UHVZLOOKHOSSURPRWH communities, including tribes with protected treaty rights. rather than erode resilience. Finally, the using ecological integrity as a guide means With congressional reserves, LSRs and riparian that conserving biodiversity in this region is more than reserves, and administratively withdrawn areas occupying just conserving dense old-growth forests—other stages more than 80 percent of the Forest Service and BLM land are valuable, including open old growth, diverse early- base in the NWFP area, rates of additional fragmentation of DQGPLGVXFFHVVLRQDOSRVWZLOG¿UHYHJHWDWLRQZHWODQGV older forests outside of reserves from management activities oak-dominated forest patches and woodlands, and shrub- on federal lands will be very low. Landscape-level change lands and grasslands. will be dominated by succession of young and mid-seral IRUHVWVZLWKLQFUHDVLQJDUHDRIGLVWXUEDQFHIURPZLOG¿UH Conservation and restoration— Concerns over connectivity among old-growth forests and The contribution of federal lands to the conservation and LSRs have shifted to climate change effects and access UHFRYHU\RI(6$OLVWHG¿VKQRUWKHUQVSRWWHGRZODQG to climate refugia, although the effects of past logging on marbled murrelet populations continues to be essential, but connectivity remain. The widespread effects of roads on LWLVOLNHO\LQVXI¿FLHQWWRUHDFKWKHFRPSUHKHQVLYHJRDOVRI species and ecosystem processes also remain a conservation the NWFP, or the newer goals of the 2012 planning rule. FRQFHUQHVSHFLDOO\WKRVHWKDWFRQVWUDLQIXOOÀRRGSODLQ Contributions from streams and forests on nonfederal functioning or contribute high sediment loads. lands are important to achieving NWFP conservation The small amount of logging within nonreserved goals, especially under climate change, which may shift northern spotted owl habitat or mature and old-growth species distributions. Transboundary collaborative efforts forests over the past 15 years of NWFP implementation does FDQKHOSWRDGGUHVVFKDOOHQJHVVXFKDVUHVWRUDWLRQRI¿UH QRWUHÀHFWWKHRULJLQDOSURYLVLRQVRIWKH3ODQDVZULWWHQEXW regimes, and can enhance conservation efforts, especially it does mean that the major historical threat to biodiversity when supported with innovative arrangements to share (commercial logging of old-growth forests) has been greatly funding, resources, information, or liability, such as the Fire reduced on federal lands. This outcome may have been Learning Network and Training Exchange (TREX) program largely a result of the Survey and Manage program and WRVXSSRUWSUHVFULEHGEXUQLQJ ¿J  *ROGVWHLQDQG changes in the social acceptability of cutting old growth in Butler 2010). These efforts have supported collaborations the matrix. The lack of harvesting of older forests outside that have engaged tribes, including the Western Klamath the reserves means that a major motivation for adding hun- Restoration Partnership (see chapter 11). Such approaches dreds of species to the Survey and Manage lists no longer combined with other incentives can help to increase conser-

972 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area Adam Shumaker ©

)LJXUH².ODPDWK5LYHU7UDLQLQJ([FKDQJHSUHVFULEHG¿UHDWQLJKW exists (i.e., the older forest habitat needs of the northern agement studies. Possible win-win (wood production and spotted owl do not necessarily cover the needs of other biodiversity) alternatives are to create early-seral vegetation late-successional species). The Survey and Manage program in plantations in the matrix or to do more active manage- was abolished under its economic weight and because fewer ment in plantations in riparian reserves using principles of older forests were being logged than originally projected. ecological forestry or restoration silviculture. Fire suppression in some parts of the moist forest region $PDMRUFKDOOHQJHWRPDQDJHPHQWIRUUHVLOLHQFHWR¿UH has reduced the amount of structurally diverse early-seral and climate change exists in landscapes that historically vegetation over the past several decades. It also has likely H[SHULHQFHGIUHTXHQW¿UHLQQRUWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLDVRXWKHUQ reduced the diversity of older forest structural and composi- Oregon, and the eastern Cascade Range of Oregon and tion conditions and landscape diversity in the drier parts of Washington. Fires in these areas have been much less the moist forest zone. Managers could explore opportunities frequent in recent decades than historically. However, some WRUHVWRUH¿UHHIIHFWVLQWKHVHV\VWHPVWKURXJKFRPELQDWLRQV UHFHQW¿UHVKDYHFUHDWHGODUJHUSDWFKHVRIKLJKVHYHULW\¿UH RIWKLQQLQJSUHVFULEHGEXUQLQJDQGPDQDJLQJZLOG¿UHV,Q compared to the historical regime, likely as a result of fuel theory, such restoration actions could occur in the matrix continuity. The denser forests and more shade-tolerant tree in forests with old trees (e.g., greater than 80 years old), species have increased the area of northern spotted owl hab- but the ecological and social acceptability of this activity LWDWGHVSLWHORVVHVWR¿UHLQUHFHQW\HDUV FKDSWHU /DQG- are unknown. The issue is well suited for adaptive man- scapes that include northern spotted owl habitat reserves, in

973 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

ZKLFKOLWWOHRUQRUHVWRUDWLRQRUPDQDJHPHQWWRUHVWRUH¿UH Social-ecological interactions— and successional dynamics occurs, likely will not provide For much of the 20th century, timber production was the for resilient forest ecosystems in the face of climate change central way in which federal forests in the NWFP area DQGLQFUHDVLQJ¿UH3ULRULWL]LQJFRQVHUYDWLRQRIGHQVHIRUHVW contributed to community socioeconomic well-being. KDELWDWVWKDWKDYHLQFUHDVHGLQDUHDZLWK¿UHH[FOXVLRQLV Although timber production remains important today not congruent with managing forests for ecological integ- in some Plan-area communities, the economies of many ULW\RUUHVLOLHQFHWR¿UHDQGFOLPDWHFKDQJH0DQDJHPHQW FRPPXQLWLHVKDYHVKLIWHGRUGLYHUVL¿HGWKHLUIRFXVRYHU VWUDWHJLHVWKDWSURPRWHUHVLOLHQFHLQ¿UHSURQHIRUHVW the past two decades. Rural communities are not all alike, ODQGVFDSHVLQFOXGHUHVWRULQJ¿UHDQGWKHSDWFKZRUNRIRSHQ forest management policies affect different communities and closed-canopy forests, and tailoring these conditions differently, and the social and economic bases of many to topography. Landscape-level strategies are needed to pro- traditionally forest-dependent communities have changed. vide for dense forest conditions, where they would typically Better understanding and consideration of the economic occur, and would be more likely to persist in the face of development trajectories of different communities will FRPLQJZLOG¿UHVDQGDVWHDGLO\ZDUPLQJFOLPDWH)LQGLQJ help to identify forest management activities that best and implementing these strategies is both a technical and contribute to their well-being. Providing for a diverse set VRFLDOSUREOHPWKDWLVSHUKDSVWKHPRVWGLI¿FXOWFKDOOHQJH RIFRPPXQLW\EHQH¿WVIURPSXEOLFODQGVPD\EHWKHEHVW that land managers will face in the near term. way to support communities in their efforts to diversify Scientists are becoming more aware that active man- economically, and contribute to building community agement within reserves or redesign of reserves may be resilience to future changes in federal forest management QHHGHGWRFRQVHUYHELRGLYHUVLW\LQ¿UHIUHTXHQWODQGVFDSHV and policy. ZKHUHKXPDQDFWLYLWLHVKDYHH[FOXGHG¿UHDQGGHFUHDVHG The forests of the NWFP area provide many ecosystems UHVLOLHQFHRIIRUHVWVWR¿UHLQVHFWVGLVHDVHDQGGURXJKW services to people of the region, in addition to wood. Carbon Invasive species such as the barred owl and the sudden oak sequestration, water supply, and recreation are among some death pathogen are also motivators for interventions within of the most valuable of these services. Several policies reserves. Many studies suggest that conservation strategies (table 12-2) direct the agency to use ecosystem management (and reserve design) should periodically be reevaluated to frameworks in planning. However, efforts to quantify and determine how well they are meeting original and any new communicate ecosystem services and characterize the asso- goals, and to make possible changes to standards and guide- ciated tradeoffs have yet to be applied in forest plan revision, lines and reserve or habitat conservation area boundaries. and there is much to be learned about the most effective This may include expanding reserves, increasing connectiv- ways to use ecosystem services at project and forest scales, ity of reserves, shifting locations of reserves (e.g., for small though some examples are beginning to appear. reserves), or using dynamic landscape approaches based on The ability to sustain ecosystem services, conserve historical disturbance regimes to guide management. Ideally, species, and promote ecosystem resilience to climate change meeting ecosystem goals for reserves would require areas DQG¿UHLVKLJKO\GHSHQGHQWRQVRFLRHFRQRPLFIDFWRUV WKDWDUHODUJHHQRXJKWRVXSSRUW¿UHDQGRWKHUNH\QDWXUDO Declines in wood processing infrastructure throughout the GLVWXUEDQFHSURFHVVHV0HHWLQJERWK¿QHDQGFRDUVH¿OWHU Plan area have made vegetation management less econom- objectives in these dry forests requires landscape-scale LFDODQGWKXVFUHDWHGD¿QDQFLDOEDUULHUWRIXOO\DFFRP- approaches that can integrate potentially competing eco- plishing forest restoration. With declining agency capacity, logical goals over large areas and long time frames. Using LWZLOOEHGLI¿FXOWWRLPSRVVLEOHWRPD[LPL]HDOORIWKHVH disturbance-based management approaches to conservation objectives, and prioritization likely would be necessary for is likely to require robust social engagement to increase making progress or goals. Nongovernmental organizations transparency, public understanding, and trust in managers. (NGOs) and other government agencies may help manag-

974 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

ers meet their social and ecological goals. As outlined in PRQHWDU\UHVRXUFHVKLIWVWRZDUG¿JKWLQJZLOG¿UHVUDWKHU chapter 11, an emphasis on engaging with tribes to promote than restoring forests. Currently, nearly 55 to 60 percent of tribal ecocultural resources, in part as a means of upholding WKHWRWDO)RUHVW6HUYLFHEXGJHWHDFK\HDUJRHVWR¿JKWLQJ the federal trust responsibility, would likely also align ¿UHVXSIURPSHUFHQW\HDUVDJR with other objectives for ecological restoration, while also The challenges ahead for public lands may well require providing additional tools and resources for accomplishing QHZVWDI¿QJDQGSDUWQHUVKLSVWRJHWZRUNGRQHDQGQHZ those objectives. Approaches such as disturbance-based approaches to the problem of restoration. For example, management or “ecological forestry” may provide a way PDQDJLQJQDWXUDOLJQLWLRQVIRUUHVRXUFHEHQH¿WPD\EHD for federal forests to contribute to local timber-based particularly cost-effective means of treating landscapes, but economies, while providing early-successional habitat and SULRUODUJHVFDOHDQGZLGHVSUHDG¿UHXVHSODQQLQJLVOLNHO\ YHJHWDWLRQGHSHQGHQWRQ¿UHWKDWKDVEHHQH[FOXGHGE\¿UH needed to make these methods effective. suppression to meet other management objectives. Nevertheless, these opportunities for managing wild- Collaborative groups may be part of the solution to ¿UHIRUUHVRXUFHEHQH¿WZLOOSRVHGLI¿FXOWFKDOOHQJHVIRU increasing trust and social license for forest management. managers. Careful assessment of risk to life and property However, collaborative processes are a relatively recent is paramount. phenomenon and continued learning and adaptive man- Tradeoffs associated with management— agement will be needed to determine the best way forward All management choices involve some social and ecological into an uncertain future. In addition, efforts to collaborate tradeoffs among the goals of the NWFP. For example, with neighboring landowners in planning and implement- 1. Variable-density thinning can accelerate the devel- ing management activities for landscape-level treatments opment of large live trees and habitat diversity can contribute to increasing forest resilience to climate WKDWZLOOEHQH¿WQRUWKHUQVSRWWHGRZOVDQGRWKHU FKDQJHLQYDVLYHVSHFLHVDQGZLOG¿UHDQGWRSURYLGH species in the future, and produce wood products GHVLUHGHFRV\VWHPVHUYLFHV HJRZODQG¿VKKDELWDW LQ for the market. However, within the range of the mixed-ownership landscapes. Any strategies to promote murrelet, these actions may have a short-term neg- resilience will need to recognize complex ecological and ative impact on habitat quality, by creating diverse social system dynamics operating across land ownerships, XQGHUVWRU\VSHFLHVWKDWEHQH¿WPXUUHOHWSUHGDWRUV as well as tensions that arise among competing goals, by and can reduce amounts of dead wood that are hab- adopting long-term and landscape-scale perspectives that itat of other species. include transparent accountability for all involved. 2. 7KLQQLQJDQGUHVWRULQJ¿UHWR¿UHGHSHQGHQWIRU- 0DMRUGLVWXUEDQFHVVXFKDVODUJHZLOG¿UHVFDQSURPRWH ests will increase habitat for species that use more desired conditions and reestablish key ecosystem processes open older forests and increase forest resilience to and species over larger areas of land than can be accom- ¿UHDQGGURXJKWZKLOHFUHDWLQJUHVWRUDWLRQMREVDQG SOLVKHGWKURXJKSUHVFULEHG¿UHRUPHFKDQLFDOWUHDWPHQWV UHGXFLQJZLOG¿UHULVNLQWKHZLOGODQGXUEDQLQWHU- Institutional and social systems may need to evolve to take face, but these actions can reduce habitat quality advantage of such opportunities; for example, by designing for species that use dense older forests. SRVW¿UHPDQDJHPHQWLQWHUYHQWLRQVEDVHGXSRQORQJWHUP 3. Maintaining road systems to conduct land- restoration goals as well as more short-term considerations scape-scale restoration and support recreation will such as safety and timber salvage. Institutional capacity to negatively affect some species and ecosystem pro- take advantage of these opportunities is severely limited by cesses. Many of the potential negative impacts can DQDJHQF\ZLGHGHFOLQHLQVWDI¿QJDGHFDGHVORQJKLVWRU\ be ameliorated through landscape-scale planning RIEXGJHWFXWVLQQRQZLOG¿UHDUHDVOLPLWHGRUDEVHQW and using best practices for decisionmaking. infrastructure for wood processing of forest products, and

975 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

In the long run, thinning in plantations less than 80 ability to set and meet attainable goals for forests and aquatic years old in LSRs to promote old-growth forest develop- DQGULSDULDQHFRV\VWHPV)XUWKHUDUHDVRIVFLHQWL¿FXQFHU- ment will not sustain wood production for local commu- tainty, highlighted by risk analysis, can be clearly articulated nities (chapter 8). Future wood production depends on to managers and decisionmakers who engage in risk manage- management in the matrix, where the NWFP allows timber ment. Development, evaluation, and testing of new, highly harvest even from older forests. There is no new science integrated conservation strategies are encouraged to deal WKDWVSHFL¿FDOO\LQGLFDWHVWKDWWLPEHUPDQDJHPHQWXVLQJ ZLWKFKDQJLQJNQRZOHGJHQHZSHUVSHFWLYHVRQ¿UHUHJLPHV retention silviculture in forests over 80 years old in the climate change, invasive species, and recognition of tradeoffs matrix is inconsistent with the original goals of the NWFP. LQSXUVXLQJELRGLYHUVLW\JRDOV HJFRDUVH¿OWHUDQG¿QH ,QDGGLWLRQSDUWLDOVWDQGUHSODFHPHQW¿UHVZHUHSDUWRI ¿OWHU DQGRWKHUHFRORJLFDODQGVRFLDOGLPHQVLRQVRIIRUHVW the historical dynamics of some older forests of the moist ecosystem management. These forest and social systems zone, and the ecological effects of excluding this type of will undoubtedly change in the next 23 years. Continuation disturbance are not well understood but might convey some of monitoring, research, public engagement, and adaptive UHVLOLHQFHWRFOLPDWHDQGIXWXUH¿UH*LYHQWKHVRFLDOSUHV- management will help managers and society adapt to these sure to avoid logging of older trees, management in existing changes and to meet old and new goals. plantations for wood in the matrix would appear to be the most socially acceptable way to provide economic returns Literature Cited to support local communities while promoting biodiversity Adams, W.M. 2004. Biodiversity conservation and the associated with early-seral ecosystems. In addition, it will eradication of poverty. Science. 306(5699): 1146–1149. be valuable to demonstrate how other ecosystems services GRLVFLHQFH (e.g., water, recreation) contribute to the mix of values of Agee, J.K. 1998. The landscape ecology of western forest federal forests, and how effectively active management can ¿UHUHJLPHV1RUWKZHVW6FLHQFH± meet ecological and social goals. Agee, J.K.; Edmonds, R.L. 1992. Monitoring and adaptive management— guidelines for the northern spotted owl. In: U.S. The long-term NWFP monitoring program and complemen- Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. tary research efforts of countless agency, university, tribal, 5HFRYHU\SODQIRUWKHQRUWKHUQVSRWWHGRZO²¿QDOGUDIW and NGO scientists have provided managers, researchers, :DVKLQJWRQ'&86*RYHUQPHQW3ULQWLQJ2I¿FH and stakeholders with an enormous amount of information on 181–244. how species, ecosystems, and social systems in the NWFP area interact, and have changed over the past 23 years. There Agee, J.K.; Wakimoto, R.H.; Biswell, H.H. 1977. Fire ZLOOEHDQHHGIRUVXVWDLQHGWHFKQLFDODQGVFLHQWL¿FFDSDF- and fuel dynamics of Sierra Nevada conifers. Forest ity in the management agencies to keep up with and help (FRORJ\DQG0DQDJHPHQW±GRL WUDQVODWHWKHODUJHYROXPHVRIUDSLGO\H[SDQGLQJVFLHQWL¿F 0378-1127(76)90030-x. knowledge and tools into guidance for planning and man- Ager, A.A.; Barros, A.M.; Preisler, H.K.; Day, M.A.; agement. However, the capacity of agencies to generate new Spies, T.A.; Bailey, J.D.; Bolte, J.P. 2017. Effects knowledge has precipitously declined, threatening their abil- RIDFFHOHUDWHGZLOG¿UHRQIXWXUH¿UHUHJLPHVDQG LW\WRVXVWDLQWKHÀRZRILQIRUPDWLRQWKDWFDQOHDGWRPRUH LPSOLFDWLRQVIRU8QLWHG6WDWHVIHGHUDO¿UHSROLF\(FRORJ\ HIIHFWLYHPDQDJHPHQWDQGSROLFLHV6FLHQWL¿FXQFHUWDLQWLHV DQG6RFLHW\  KWWSVGRLRUJ(6 and debates will continue. Although they may be frustrating 220412. to managers, scientists, and the public, the debates also spur research that can lead to new understanding and discovery of knowledge that challenges assumptions, and improve our

976 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Alagador, D.; Cerdeira, J.O.; Araújo, M.B. 2014. Shifting Bengtsson, J.; Angelstam, P.; Elmqvist, T.; Emanuelsson, protected areas: scheduling spatial priorities under 8)RONH&,KVH00REHUJ)1\VWU|P0 climate change. Journal of Applied Ecology. 51(3): 2003. Reserves, resilience and dynamic landscapes. ±GRL AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment. 32(6): ±GRL $OH[DQGHU6-2VZDOW61(PHU\05 Nontimber forest products in the United States: Montreal Bernard, T. 2010. Hope and hard times: communities, Process indicators as measures of current conditions and collaboration and sustainability. Gabriola Island, BC: sustainability. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-851. Portland, New Society Publishers. 336 p. OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Beschta, R.L.; Ripple, W.J. 2008. Wolves, trophic 3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW5HVHDUFK6WDWLRQSGRL cascades, and rivers in the Olympic National Park, USA. pnw-gtr-851. (FRK\GURORJ\  ±GRLHFR Archie, K.M.; Dilling, L.; Milford, J.B.; Pampel, F.C. Beschta, R.L.; Ripple, W.J. 2009. Large predators and 2012. Climate change and western public lands: a survey trophic cascades in terrestrial ecosystems of the western of U.S. federal land managers on the status of adaptation United States. Biological Conservation. 142(11): 2401– HIIRUWV(FRORJ\DQG6RFLHW\  GRL GRLMELRFRQ es-05187-170420. Biggs, R.; Westley, F.R.; Carpenter, S.R. Aronson, J.; Murcia, C.; Kattan, G.H.; Moreno-Mateos, 2010. Navigating the back loop: fostering social D.; Dixon, K.; Simberloff, D. 2014. The road to innovation and transformation in ecosystem confusion is paved with novel ecosystem labels: a reply PDQDJHPHQW(FRORJ\DQG6RFLHW\  GRL to Hobbs et al. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 29(12): es-03411-150209. ±GRLMWUHH Bisson, P.A.; Dunham, J.B.; Reeves, G.H. 2009. Aycrigg, J.L.; Davidson, A.; Svancara, L.K.; Gergely, )UHVKZDWHUHFRV\VWHPVDQGUHVLOLHQFHRI3DFL¿FVDOPRQ K.J.; McKerrow, A.; Scott, J.M. 2013. Representation habitat management based on natural variability. of ecological systems within the protected areas network (FRORJ\DQG6RFLHW\  GRLHV of the continental United States. PLoS ONE. 8(1): HGRLMRXUQDOSRQH Bisson, P.A.; Rieman, B.E.; Luce, C.; Hessburg, P.F.; Lee, D.C.; Kershner, J.L.; Reeves, G.H.; Gresswell, Baker, M. 2003. Against the odds: (re-) building R.E. 2003. Fire and aquatic ecosystems of the western community through forestry on the Hoopa Reservation. USA: current knowledge and key questions. Forest In: Kusel, J.; Adler, E., eds. Forest communities, (FRORJ\DQG0DQDJHPHQW ± ±KWWSV FRPPXQLW\IRUHVWV/DQKDP0'5RZPDQ /LWWOH¿HOG GRLRUJ6  ; Publishers, Inc.: 27–54. Bizikova, L.; Krcmar, E. 2015. Integrated scenario %DWDYLD&1HOVRQ03For goodness sake! planning and multi-criteria decision analysis framework What is intrinsic value and why should we care? with application to forest planning. Open Journal of %LRORJLFDO&RQVHUYDWLRQ±GRL )RUHVWU\  ±GRLRMI j.biocon.2017.03.003. Bone, C.; Moseley, C.; Vinyeta, K.; Bixler, R.P. 2016. Employing resilience in the United States Forest 6HUYLFH/DQG8VH3ROLF\±GRLM landusepol.2016.01.003.

977 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Bormann, B.T.; Lee, D.C.; Kiester, A.R.; Spies, T.A.; %UXLQV5-)&DQ¿HOG7-'XNH&.DSXVWND/ Haynes, R.W.; Reeves, G.H.; Raphael, M.G.; Martin, 1DKOLN$06FKlIHU5%Using ecological J.R. 2006. Synthesis:interpreting the Northwest Forest production functions to link ecological processes Plan as more than the sum of its parts. In: Haynes, to ecosystem services. Integrated Environmental R.W.; Bormann, B.T.; Lee, D.C.; Martin, J.R., tech. eds. $VVHVVPHQWDQG0DQDJHPHQW  ±GRL 1RUWKZHVW)RUHVW3ODQ²WKH¿UVW\HDUV ±  ieam.1842. synthesis of monitoring and research results. Gen. Tech. Buchanan, J.B.; Irwin, L.L.; McCutchen, E.L. 1995. Rep. PNW-GTR-651. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Within-stand nest site selection by spotted owls in the $JULFXOWXUH)RUHVW6HUYLFH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW5HVHDUFK eastern Washington Cascades. The Journal of Wildlife 6WDWLRQ±GRLSQZJWU 0DQDJHPHQW±GRL Brandt, P.; Abson, D.J.; Dellasala, D.A.; Feller, R.; Von Buchanan, J.B.; Rogers, R.E.; Pierce, D.J.; Jacobson, Wehrden, H. 2014. Multifunctionality and biodiversity: J.E. 2003. Nest-site habitat use by white-headed HFRV\VWHPVHUYLFHVLQWHPSHUDWHUDLQIRUHVWVRIWKH3DFL¿F woodpeckers in the eastern Cascade Mountains, Northwest, USA. Biological Conservation. 169: 362–371. Washington. Northwestern Naturalist. 84(3): 119. GRLMELRFRQ GRL Brockington, D.; Duffy, R.; Igoe, J. 2008. Nature Buddle, C.M.; Langor, D.W.; Pohl, G.R.; Spence, J.R. unbound: conservation, capitalism and the future of 2006. $UWKURSRGUHVSRQVHVWRKDUYHVWLQJDQGZLOG¿UH protected areas. London: Earthscan. 249 p. implications for emulation of natural disturbance in Brockington, D.; Wilkie, D. 2015. Protected areas and forest management. Biological Conservation. 128(3): poverty. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society ±GRLMELRFRQ %%LRORJLFDO6FLHQFHV  GRL Bunnell, F.L. 1995. Forest-dwelling vertebrate faunas and rstb.2014.0271. QDWXUDO¿UHUHJLPHVLQ%ULWLVK&ROXPELDSDWWHUQVDQG Brown, R. 2009. Getting from “no” to “yes”: a implications for conservation. Conservation Biology. conservationist’s perspective. In: Spies, T.A.; Duncan, 9(3): 636–644. 6/HGV2OGJURZWKLQDQHZZRUOGD3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW Burnett, K.M.; Miller, D.J. 2007. Streamside policies icon reexamined. Washington, DC: Island Press: 149–157. for headwater channels: an example considering debris Brown, T.C.; Froemke, P. 2010. Risk of impaired condition ÀRZVLQWKH2UHJRQ&RDVWDO3URYLQFH)RUHVW6FLHQFH of watersheds containing National Forest lands. Gen. 53: 239–253. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-251. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department Burnett, K.M.; Reeves, G.H.; Miller, D.J.; Clarke, of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research S.; Vance-Borland, K.; Christiansen, K. 2007. 6WDWLRQSGRLUPUVJWU Distribution of salmon-habitat potential relative Brown, T.C.; Froemke, P. 2012. Nationwide assessment to landscape characteristics and implications for of nonpoint source threats to water quality. BioScience. conservation. Ecological Applications. 17(1): 66–80.   GRLELR GRL  >GRVSUW@FR

Burnett, R.D.; Roberts, L.J. 2015. A quantitative evaluation of the conservation umbrella of spotted owl management areas in the Sierra Nevada. PLoS ONE.   HGRLMRXUQDOSRQH

978 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Burns, A.F.; Horngren, S.; Mickey, R.; Partin, T. 2011. Carey, M.P.; Sanderson, B.L.; Barnas, K.A.; Judging the effectiveness of the Northwest Forest Plan: Olden, J.D. 2012. Native invaders—challenges for year eighteen. Northwest Science. 85(3): 504–505. science, management, policy, and society. Frontiers GRL in Ecology and the Environment. 10(7): 373–381. GRL Butler, W.H. 2013. Collaboration at arm’s length: navigating agency engagement in landscape-scale &DUSHQWHU6:DONHU%$QGHULHV-0$EHO1 ecological restoration collaboratives. Journal of Forestry. From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to   ±GRLMRI ZKDW"(FRV\VWHPV  ±GRLV 001-0045-9. Butler, W.H.; Goldstein, B.E. 2010. The US Fire Learning Network: springing a rigidity trap through multiscalar Carroll, C. 2010. Role of climatic niche models in focal- collaborative networks. Ecology and Society. 15(3). species-based conservation planning: assessing potential GRLHV effects of climate change on northern spotted owl in the 3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW86$%LRORJLFDO&RQVHUYDWLRQ   Butler, W.H.; Monroe, A.; McCaffrey, S. 2015. ±GRLMELRFRQ Collaborative implementation for ecological restoration on US public lands: implications for legal Carroll, C.; Dunk, J.R.; Moilanen, A. 2010. Optimizing context, accountability, and adaptive management. resiliency of reserve networks to climate change: Environmental Management. 55(3): 564–577. PXOWLVSHFLHVFRQVHUYDWLRQSODQQLQJLQWKH3DFL¿F GRLV Northwest, USA. Global Change Biology. 16(3): 891– GRLM[ Butman, J. 2016. Opinion: against ‘sustainability’. 1HZ

979 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Charnley, S.; Donoghue, E.M. 2006. Volume V: public Coppoletta, M.; Merriam, K.E.; Collins, B.M. 2016. values and forest management. In: Charnley, S., ed. 3RVW¿UHYHJHWDWLRQDQGIXHOGHYHORSPHQWLQÀXHQFHV¿UH 1RUWKZHVW)RUHVW3ODQ²WKH¿UVW\HDUV ±  severity patterns in reburns. Ecological Applications. socioeconomic monitoring results. Gen. Tech. Rep. GRL PNW-GTR-649. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Corlett, R.T. 2015. The Anthropocene concept in ecology $JULFXOWXUH)RUHVW6HUYLFH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW5HVHDUFK and conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 30(1): 6WDWLRQSGRLSQZJWU ±GRLMWUHH Charnley, S.; Fischer, A.P.; Jones, E.T. 2007. Integrating Corrao, M.V.; Andringa, S. 2017. Anchor forests and tribal traditional and local ecological knowledge into forest lifeways to improve ecosystem resilience and maintain ELRGLYHUVLW\FRQVHUYDWLRQLQWKH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW)RUHVW working forests. Journal of Forestry. 115(5): 341–342. (FRORJ\DQG0DQDJHPHQW  ±GRLM GRLMRI foreco.2007.03.047. Craig, R.K. 2010. ‘Stationarity is dead’—long live Charnley, S.; Kelly, E.C.; Wendel, K.L. 2017. All lands WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ¿YHSULQFLSOHVIRUFOLPDWHFKDQJH DSSURDFKHVWR¿UHPDQDJHPHQWLQWKH3DFL¿FZHVWD adaptation law. Harvard Environmental Law Review. W\SRORJ\-RXUQDORI)RUHVWU\  ±GRL 34(1): 9–75. jof.15-092. Creed, I.; Weber, M.; Accatino, F.; Kreutzweiser, D. Charnley, S.; Poe, M.R.; Ager, A.A.; Spies, T.A.; Platt, 2016. Managing forests for water in the Anthropocene- E.K.; Olsen, K.A. 2015. A burning problem: social the best kept secret services of forest ecosystems. G\QDPLFVRIGLVDVWHUULVNUHGXFWLRQWKURXJKZLOG¿UH )RUHVWV  GRLI mitigation. Human Organization. 74(4): 329–340. GRL Cronon, W. 1996. The trouble with wilderness: or, getting back to the wrong nature. Environmental History. 1(1): 7. &KDUQOH\66KHULGDQ7(1DEKDQ*3 GRL 2014. Stitching the West back together: conservation of working landscapes. Chicago, IL: Crotteau, J.S.; Morgan Varner, J.; Ritchie, M.W. 2013. 8QLYHUVLW\RI&KLFDJR3UHVVSGRL 3RVW¿UHUHJHQHUDWLRQDFURVVD¿UHVHYHULW\JUDGLHQWLQ FKLFDJR the southern Cascades. and Management. ±GRLMIRUHFR Cissel, J.H.; Swanson, F.J.; Weisberg, P.J. 1999. /DQGVFDSHPDQDJHPHQWXVLQJKLVWRULFDO¿UHUHJLPHV%OXH Crutzen, P.J. 2006. The “Anthropocene.” In: Ehlers, River, Oregon. Ecological Applications. 9: 1217–1231. E.; Krafft, T., eds. Earth system science in the GRL  >OPXKIU@FR Anthropocene: emerging issues and problems. Berlin: 6SULQJHU9HUODJ±GRLB Collins, B.M.; Stephens, S.L.; Moghaddas, J.J.; Battles, J. 2010. Challenges and approaches in planning fuel &XPPLQJ*6$OOHQ&5%DQ1&%LJJV' WUHDWPHQWVDFURVV¿UHH[FOXGHGIRUHVWODQGVFDSHV Biggs, H.C.; Cumming, D.H.M.; De Vos, A.; Epstein, Journal of Forestry. 108(1): 24–31. G.; Etienne, M.; Maciejewski, K.; Mathevet, 50RRUH&1HQDGRYLF06FKRRQ0 &RRSHU1%UDG\(6WHHQ+%U\FH5 Understanding protected area resilience: a multi-scale, Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: recognising social-ecological approach. Ecological Applications. the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural   ±GRL ecosystem ‘services’. Ecosystem Services. 21: 218–229. GRLMHFRVHU

980 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

'DOH9+-R\FH/$0F1XOW\61HLOVRQ Davis, E.J.; White, E.M.; Cerveny, L.K.; Seesholtz, R.P.; Ayres, M.P.; Flannigan, M.D.; Hanson, '1XVV0/8OULFK'5Comparison of P.J.; Irland, L.C.; Lugo, A.E.; Peterson, C.J.; USDA Forest Service and stakeholder motivations and Simberloff, D.; Swanson, F.J.; Stocks, B.J.; experiences in collaborative federal forest governance in Michael Wotton, B. 2001. Climate change and forest the western United States. Environmental Management. GLVWXUEDQFHV%LR6FLHQFH  GRL   ±GRLV 3568(2001)051[0723:ccafd]2.0.co;2. Davis, R.J.; Hollen, B.; Hobson, J.; Gower, J.E.; Dale, V.H.; Swanson, F.J.; Crisafulli, C.M. 2005. Keenum, D. 2016. 1RUWKZHVW)RUHVW3ODQ²WKH¿UVW Disturbance, survival, and succession: understanding years (1994–2013): status and trends of northern spotted ecological responses to the 1980 eruption of Mount St. owl habitats. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-929. Portland, Helens. In: Dale, V.H.; Swanson, F.J.; Crisafulli, C.M., OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, eds. Ecological responses to the 1980 eruption of Mount 3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW5HVHDUFK6WDWLRQS 6W+HOHQV1HZ

Daniels, S.E.; Walker, G.B. 1995. Managing local Deal, R.L.; Fong, L.; Phelps, E., eds. 2017a. Integrating HQYLURQPHQWDOFRQÀLFWDPLGVWQDWLRQDOFRQWURYHUV\ ecosystem services into national Forest Service policy ,QWHUQDWLRQDO-RXUQDORI&RQÀLFW0DQDJHPHQW   and operations. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-943. ±GRLHE Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 6HUYLFH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW5HVHDUFK6WDWLRQS Davenport, M.A.; Leahy, J.E.; Anderson, D.H.; Jakes, P.J. 2007. Building trust in natural resource management 'HDO5/6PLWK1*DWHV-EEcosystem within local communities: a case study of the Midewin services to enhance sustainable forest management in National Tallgrass Prairie. Environmental Management. the US: moving from forest service national programmes   ±GRLV WRORFDOSURMHFWVLQWKH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW)RUHVWU\$Q International Journal of Forest Research. 90(5): 632–639. 'DYLV(-&HUYHQ\/1XVV06HHVKROW]'D GRLIRUHVWU\FS[ Oregon’s forest collaboratives: a rapid assessment. Research Contribution Summaries—RCS 1. Corvallis, DellaSala, D.; Baker, R.; Heiken, D.; Frissell, C.; Karr, OR: Oregon State University, College of Forestry, -1HOVRQ61RRQ%2OVRQ'6WULWWKROW- 2UHJRQ)RUHVW5HVHDUFK/DERUDWRU\SKWWSVLUOLEUDU\ Building on two decades of ecosystem management RUHJRQVWDWHHGXFRQFHUQWHFKQLFDOBUHSRUWVWKY and biodiversity conservation under the Northwest )RUHVW3ODQ86$)RUHVWV  ±GRL f6093326.

981 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

DellaSala, D.A.; Anthony, R.G.; Bond, M.L.; Fernandez, Elkin, C.; Giuggiola, A.; Rigling, A.; Bugmann, H. E.S.; Frissell, C.A.; Hanson, C.T.; Spivak, R. 2013. 2015. 6KRUWDQGORQJWHUPHI¿FDF\RIIRUHVWWKLQQLQJ Alternative views of a restoration framework for federal to mitigate drought impacts in mountain forests in the IRUHVWVLQWKH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW-RXUQDORI)RUHVWU\ European Alps. Ecological Applications. 25(4): 1083–   ±GRLMRI GRL

DellaSala, D.A.; Bond, M.L.; Hanson, C.T.; Hutto, Everett, Y.; Fuller, M. 2011. Fire safe councils in the R.L.; Odion, D.C. 2014. Complex early seral forests of interface. Society & Natural Resources. 24(4): 319–333. the Sierra Nevada: what are they and how can they be GRL managed for ecological integrity? Natural Areas Journal. Fahrig, L.; Rytwinski, T. 2009. Effects of roads on animal   ±GRL abundance: an empirical review and synthesis. Ecology Dessai, S.; Hulme, M. 2004. Does climate adaptation DQG6RFLHW\  GRLHV policy need probabilities? Climate Policy. 4(2): 107–128. Fischer, A.P.; Jasny, L. 2017. Capacity to adapt to GRL environmental change: evidence from a network of Doak, D.F.; Bakker, V.J.; Goldstein, B.E.; Hale, B. 2014. RUJDQL]DWLRQVFRQFHUQHGZLWKLQFUHDVLQJZLOG¿UHULVN What is the future of conservation? Trends in Ecology & (FRORJ\DQG6RFLHW\  GRLHV (YROXWLRQ  ±GRLMWUHH 220123.

Dodson, E.K.; Peterson, D.W.; Harrod, R.J. 2008. Fischer, A.P.; Spies, T.A.; Steelman, T.A.; Moseley, C.; Understory vegetation response to thinning and Johnson, B.R.; Bailey, J.D.; Ager, A.A.; Bourgeron, burning restoration treatments in dry conifer forests P.; Charnley, S.; Collins, B.M. 2016. :LOG¿UHULVNDVD of the eastern Cascades, USA. Forest Ecology and socioecological pathology. Frontiers in Ecology and the 0DQDJHPHQW ± ±GRLM Environment. 14(5): 276–284. foreco.2008.01.026. Flitcroft, R.L.; Falke, J.A.; Reeves, G.H.; Hessburg, Dodson, E.K.; Root, H.T. 2013. Conifer regeneration 3)0F1\VHW.0%HQGD/(:LOG¿UHPD\ IROORZLQJVWDQGUHSODFLQJZLOG¿UHYDULHVDORQJDQ increase habitat quality for spring Chinook salmon elevation gradient in a ponderosa pine forest, Oregon, in the Wenatchee River subbasin, WA, USA. Forest USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 302: 163–170. (FRORJ\DQG0DQDJHPHQW±GRLM GRLJFE foreco.2015.09.049.

'XQFDQ6/0F&RPE%&-RKQVRQ.1 Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective Integrating ecological and social ranges of variability in for social-ecological systems analyses. Global conservation of biodiversity: past, present, and future. (QYLURQPHQWDO&KDQJH  ±GRLM (FRORJ\DQG6RFLHW\  GRLHV gloenvcha.2006.04.002.

Duncan, S.L.; Spies, T.A. 2009. Old growth in a new Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team world: a synthesis. In: Spies, T.A.; Duncan, S.L., eds. [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an 2OGJURZWKLQDQHZZRUOGD3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVWLFRQ ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, reexamined. Washington, DC: Island Press: 303–312. OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior [and others]. [Irregular pagination]

982 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Franklin, A.B.; Anderson, D.R.; Gutiérrez, R.J.; Franklin, J.F.; Spies, T.A. 1991. Composition, function, Burnham, K.P. 2000. Climate, habitat quality, DQGVWUXFWXUHRIROGJURZWK'RXJODV¿UIRUHVWV,Q DQG¿WQHVVLQQRUWKHUQVSRWWHGRZOSRSXODWLRQVLQ Ruggiero, L.F.; Aubry, K.B.; Carey, A.B.; Huff, M.H., northwestern California. Ecological Monographs. 70: HGV:LOGOLIHDQGYHJHWDWLRQRIXQPDQDJHG'RXJODV¿U ±GRL  >FKTD¿@ forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-285. Portland, OR: 2.0.co;2. 86'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH)RUHVW6HUYLFH3DFL¿F 1RUWKZHVW5HVHDUFK6WDWLRQ±GRLSQZ Franklin, J.F. 1995. Scientists in wonderland. BioScience. gtr-285. 6±6GRL Fremier, A.K.; Kiparsky, M.; Gmur, S.; Aycrigg, Franklin, J.F.; Hagmann, R.K.; Urgenson, L.S. 2014. J.; Craig, R.K.; Svancara, L.K.; Goble, D.D.; Interactions between societal goals and restoration of dry Cosens, B.; Davis, F.W.; Scott, J.M. 2015. A riparian forest landscapes in western North America. Landscape conservation network for ecological resilience. (FRORJ\  ±GRLV %LRORJLFDO&RQVHUYDWLRQ±GRLM 0077-0. biocon.2015.06.029. )UDQNOLQ-)-RKQVRQ.1A restoration Frey, S.J.K.; Hadley, A.S.; Betts, M.G. 2016a. IUDPHZRUNIRUIHGHUDOIRUHVWVLQWKH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW Microclimate predicts within-season distribution -RXUQDORI)RUHVWU\  ±GRL dynamics of montane forest birds. Diversity and jof.10-006. 'LVWULEXWLRQV  ±GRLGGL Franklin, J.F.; Lindenmayer, D.B. 2009. Importance Frey, S.J.K.; Hadley, A.S.; Johnson, S.L.; Schulze, M.; of matrix habitats in maintaining biological diversity. Jones, J.A.; Betts, M.G. 2016b. Spatial models reveal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the the microclimatic buffering capacity of old-growth 8QLWHG6WDWHVRI$PHULFD  ±GRL forests. Science Advances. 2(4): e1501392–e1501392. pnas.0812016105. GRLVFLDGY Franklin, J.F.; Lindenmayer, D.; MacMahon, J.A.; Gabriel, M.W.; Wengert, G.M.; Higley, J.M.; Krogan, McKee, A.; Magnuson, J.; Perry, D.A.; Waide, R.; S.; Sargent, W.; Clifford, D.L. 2013. Silent forests: Foster, D. 2000. Threads of continuity. There are rodenticides on illegal marijuana crops harm wildlife. immense differences between even-aged silvicultural Wildlife Professional. 7(1): 46–50. disturbances (especially clearcutting) and natural GLVWXUEDQFHVVXFKDVZLQGWKURZZLOG¿UHDQGHYHQ Gabriel, M.W.; Woods, L.W.; Poppenga, R.; Sweitzer, volcanic eruptions. Conservation in Practice. 1(1): 8–17. R.A.; Thompson, C.; Matthews, S.M.; Higley, J.M.; GRLMWE[ Keller, S.M.; Purcell, K.; Barrett, R.H.; Wengert, *06DFNV%1&OLIIRUG'/Anticoagulant Franklin, J.F.; Mitchell, R.J.; Palik, B.J. 2007. Natural rodenticides on our public and community lands: spatial disturbance and stand development principles distribution of exposure and poisoning of a rare forest for ecological forestry. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS- FDUQLYRUH3/R621(  HGRLMRXUQDO GTR-19. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of pone.0040163. Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. SGRLQUVJWU

983 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Garcia, R.A.; Cabeza, M.; Rahbek, C.; Araujo, M.B. Hammer, R.B.; Radeloff, V.C.; Fried, J.S.; Stewart, 2014. Multiple dimensions of climate change and S.I. 2007. Wildland-urban interface housing growth their implications for biodiversity. Science. 344(6183): during the 1990s in California, Oregon, and Washington. ±GRLVFLHQFH International Journal of Wildland Fire. 16(3): 255. GRLZI Glicksman, R.L. 2009. Ecosystem resilience to disruptions linked to global climate change: an adaptive approach +DUULVRQ36SULQJ'0DF.HQ]LH00DF1DOO\ to federal land management. Nebraska Law Review. 87: R. 2008. '\QDPLFUHVHUYHGHVLJQZLWKWKHXQLRQ¿QG 833–892. algorithm. Ecological Modelling. 215(4): 369–376. GRLMHFROPRGHO Goldenberg, W.P.; George, T.L.; Black, J.M. 2016. Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri) space use and behavior Hatcher, W.; Rondeau, S.; Johnson, D.L.; Johnson, in campground and non-campground sites in coastal .1)UDQNOLQ-)Klamath Tribes: managing UHGZRRGIRUHVWV&RQGRU  ±GRL their homeland forests in partnership with the USDA condor-15-187.1. Forest Service. Journal of Forestry. 115(5): 447–455. GRLMRI Goldstein, B.E.; Butler, W.H. 2010. Expanding the scope and impact of collaborative planning: combining Haugo, R.; Zanger, C.; DeMeo, T.; Ringo, C.; Shlisky, multi-stakeholder collaboration and communities A.; Blankenship, K.; Simpson, M.; Mellen-McLean, of practice in a learning network. Journal of the K.; Kertis, J.; Stern, M. 2015. A new approach to American Planning Association. 76(2): 238–249. evaluate forest structure restoration needs across Oregon GRL and Washington, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. ±GRLMIRUHFR *|WPDUN)Habitat management alternatives for conservation forests in the temperate zone: Haynes, R.W. 2009. Contribution of old-growth timber to review, synthesis, and implications. Forest Ecology UHJLRQDOHFRQRPLHVLQWKH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW,Q6SLHV DQG0DQDJHPHQW±GRLM T.A.; Duncan, S.L., eds. Old growth in a new world: a foreco.2013.06.014. 3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVWLFRQUHH[DPLQHG:DVKLQJWRQ'& Island Press: 83–94. Grantham, T.E.; Fesenmyer, K.A.; Peek, R.; Holmes, (4XLxRQHV50%HOO$6DQWRV1+RZDUG Haynes, R.W.; Bormann, B.T.; Lee, D.C.; Martin, J.K.; Viers, J.H.; Moyle, P.B. 2017. Missing the boat on J.R. 2006. 1RUWKZHVW)RUHVW3ODQ²WKH¿UVW\HDUV IUHVKZDWHU¿VKFRQVHUYDWLRQLQ&DOLIRUQLD&RQVHUYDWLRQ (1994–2003): synthesis of monitoring and research /HWWHUV  ±GRLFRQO results. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-651. Portland, OR: 86'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH)RUHVW6HUYLFH3DFL¿F Gray, A. 2008. Monitoring and assessment of regional Northwest Research Station. 292 p. impacts from nonnative invasive plants in forests of the 3DFL¿FFRDVW8QLWHG6WDWHV,Q-RVH66LQJK+3 Hessburg, P.F.; Churchill, D.J.; Larson, A.J.; Haugo, Batish, D.R.; Kohli, R.K., eds. Invasive plants and forest 5'0LOOHU&6SLHV7$1RUWK033RYDN ecosystems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press: 217–235. 1$%HORWH576LQJOHWRQ3+*DLQHV:/ GRLFK Keane, R.E.; Aplet, G.H.; Stephens, S.L.; Morgan, P.; Bisson, P.A.; Rieman, B.E.; Salter, R.B.; Reeves, G.H. 2015. 5HVWRULQJ¿UHSURQHLQODQG3DFL¿FODQGVFDSHV seven core principles. Landscape Ecology. 30(10): 1805– GRLV

984 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

+HVVEXUJ3)3RYDN1$Book review: applying Hobbs, R.J.; Higgs, E.; Hall, C.M.; Bridgewater, P.; historical range of variability concepts. Landscape Chapin, F.S.; Ellis, E.C.; Ewel, J.J.; Hallett, L.M.; Ecology. 30: 753–755. Harris, J.; Hulvey, K.B.; Jackson, S.T.; Kennedy, P.L.; Kueffer, C.; Lach, L.; Lantz, T.C.; Lugo, A.E.; Hessburg, P.F.; Salter, R.B.; James, K.M. 2007. Re- 0DVFDUR-0XUSK\6'1HOVRQ&53HUULQJ H[DPLQLQJ¿UHVHYHULW\UHODWLRQVLQSUHPDQDJHPHQW M.P.; Richardson, D.M.; Seastedt, T.R.; Standish, era mixed conifer forests: inferences from landscape 5-6WDU]RPVNL%06XGLQJ.17RJQHWWL patterns of forest structure. Landscape Ecology. 22: P.M.; Yakob, L.; Yung, L. 2014. Managing the whole ±GRLV landscape: historical, hybrid, and novel ecosystems. +HVVEXUJ3)6SLHV7$3HUU\'$6NLQQHU&1 Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 12(10): Taylor, A.H.; Brown, P.M.; Stephens, S.L.; Larson, ±GRL $-&KXUFKLOO'-3RYDN1$6LQJOHWRQ3+ Hobbs, R.J.; Higgs, E.; Harris, J.A. 2009. Novel McComb, B.; Zielinski, W.J.; Collins, B.M.; Salter, ecosystems: implications for conservation and R.B.; Keane, J.J.; Franklin, J.F.; Riegel, G. 2016. restoration. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 24(11): 7DPPUHYLHZPDQDJHPHQWRIPL[HGVHYHULW\¿UH ±GRLMWUHH regime forests in Oregon, Washington, and Northern California. Forest Ecology and Management. 366: Hobbs, R.J.; Lindenmayer, D.B. 2008. From perspectives ±GRLMIRUHFR to principles: where to from here? In: Lindenmayer, D.B.; Hobbs, R.J., eds. Managing and designing landscapes Hiers, J.K.; Jackson, S.T.; Hobbs, R.J.; Bernhardt, for conservation. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell E.S.; Valentine, L.E. 2016. The precision problem 3XEOLVKLQJ±GRLFK in conservation and restoration. Trends in Ecology & (YROXWLRQ  ±GRLMWUHH Holling, C.S. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems. Higgs, E.; Falk, D.A.; Guerrini, A.; Hall, M.; Harris, J.;   ±GRLV Hobbs, R.J.; Jackson, S.T.; Rhemtulla, J.M.; Throop, W. 2014. The changing role of history in restoration Holmes, T.P.; Bowker, J.M.; Englin, J.; Hjerpe, E.; ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. Loomis, J.B.; Phillips, S.; Richardson, R. 2016. A   ±GRL synthesis of the economic values of wilderness. Journal RI)RUHVWU\  ±GRLMRI Hjerpe, E.; Holmes, T.; White, E. 2017. National and community market contributions of wilderness. Society Houtman, R.M.; Montgomery, C.A.; Gagnon, A.R.; 1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHV  ±GRL Calkin, D.E.; Dietterich, T.G.; McGregor, S.; 920.2016.1196280. Crowley, M. 2013. $OORZLQJDZLOG¿UHWREXUQ HVWLPDWLQJWKHHIIHFWRQIXWXUH¿UHVXSSUHVVLRQFRVWV International Journal of Wildland Fire. 22(7): 871–882. GRLZI

Hudiburg, T.; Law, B.; Turner, D.P.; Campbell, J.; Donato, D.; Duane, M. 2009. Carbon dynamics of Oregon and Northern California forests and potential land-based carbon storage. Ecological Applications.   ±GRL

985 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Hunter, M.L. 2005. $PHVR¿OWHUFRQVHUYDWLRQVWUDWHJ\ Keane, R.E.; Hessburg, P.F.; Landres, P.B.; Swanson, WRFRPSOHPHQW¿QHDQGFRDUVH¿OWHUV&RQVHUYDWLRQ F.J. 2009. The use of historical range and variability Biology. 19(4): 1025–1029. (HRV) in landscape management. Forest Ecology DQG0DQDJHPHQW±GRLM Hunter, M.L.; Redford, K.H.; Lindenmayer, D.B. 2014. foreco.2009.05.035. The complementary niches of anthropocentric and biocentric conservationists. Conservation Biology. 28(3): Keane, R.E.; Ryan, K.C.; Veblen, T.T.; Allen, C.D.; 641–645. Logan, J.; Hawkes, B. 2002. &DVFDGLQJHIIHFWVRI¿UH exclusion in the Rocky Mountain ecosystems: a literature Jacobs, D.B.; Cramer, L.A. 2017. Applying information review. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-91. Ogden, UT: QHWZRUNDQDO\VLVWR¿UHSURQHODQGVFDSHVLPSOLFDWLRQV U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky for community resilience. Ecology and Society. 22(1) 0RXQWDLQ5HVHDUFK6WDWLRQSGRLUPUV GRLHV gtr-91. -RKQVRQ.1)UDQNOLQ--RKQVRQ'A plan Keenan, R.J. 2015. Climate change impacts and adaptation for the Klamath Tribes’ management of the Klamath in forest management: a review. Annals of Forest 5HVHUYDWLRQ)RUHVWKWWSNODPDWKWULEHVRUJGRFXPHQWV 6FLHQFH  ±GRLV Klamathtribes_forestmanagement_plan.pdf. (18 January 2018). .HOOHUW650HKWD-1(EELQ6$/LFKWHQIHOG L.L. 2000. Community natural resource -RKQVRQ.16ZDQVRQ)-Historical context management: promise, rhetoric, and reality. RIROGJURZWKIRUHVWVLQWKH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW²SROLF\ Society & Natural Resources. 13(8): 705–715. practices, and competing world views. In: Spies, T.A.; GRL 'XQFDQ6/HGV2OGJURZWKLQDQHZZRUOGD3DFL¿F Northwest icon reexamined. Washington, DC: Island Kline, J.D.; Harmon, M.E.; Spies, T.A.; Morzillo, A.T.; Press: 12–28. Pabst, R.J.; McComb, B.C.; Schnekenburger, F.; Olsen, K.A.; Csuti, B.; Vogeler, J.C. 2016. Evaluating Jones, G.M.; Gutiérrez, R.J.; Tempel, D.J.; Whitmore, carbon storage, timber harvest, and habitat possibilities S.A.; Berigan, W.J.; Peery, M.Z. 2016. 0HJD¿UHV for a western Cascades (USA) forest landscape. an emerging threat to old-forest species. Frontiers in (FRORJLFDO$SSOLFDWLRQV  ±GRL Ecology and Evolution. 14(6): 300–306. eap.1358. Jones, J.A.; Swanson, F.J.; Wemple, B.C.; Snyder, K.U. Kline, J.D.; Mazzotta, M.J.; Spies, T.A.; Harmon, M.E. 2000. Effects of roads on hydrology, geomorphology, 2013. Applying the ecosystem services concept to public and disturbance patches in stream networks. land management. Agricultural and Resource Economics &RQVHUYDWLRQ%LRORJ\  ±GRLM Review. 42(1): 139–158. 1739.2000.99083.x. Klyza, C.M.; Sousa, D. 2010. Beyond gridlock: green Kareiva, P. 2014. New conservation: setting the record drift in American environmental policymaking. Political VWUDLJKWDQG¿QGLQJFRPPRQJURXQG&RQVHUYDWLRQ 6FLHQFH4XDUWHUO\  ±GRLM %LRORJ\  ±GRLFREL 165x.2010.tb00681.x. Kareiva, P.; Marvier, M. 2012. What is conservation Knight, R.L.; Landres, P., eds. 1998. Stewardship across VFLHQFH"%LR6FLHQFH  ±GRL boundaries. Washington, DC: Island Press. 382 p. bio.2012.62.11.5.

986 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Kondolf, G.M.; Boulton, A.J.; O’Daniel, S.; Poole, Lee, P.; Smyth, C.; Boutin, S. 2004. Quantitative review G.C.; Rahel, F.J.; Stanley, E.H.; Wohl, E.; Bång, A.; of riparian buffer width guidelines from Canada and the Carlstrom, J.; Cristoni, C.; Huber, H.; Koljonen, United States. Journal of Environmental Management. 6/RXKL31DNDPXUD.Process-based   ±GRLMMHQYPDQ ecological river restoration: visualizing three- Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Kennedy, M.; Ford, E.D.; Singleton, dimensional connectivity and dynamic vectors to recover P.H.; Gaines, W.L.; Lind, R.L. 2007. Seeing the forest ORVWOLQNDJHV(FRORJ\DQG6RFLHW\  GRL for the fuel: integrating ecological values and fuels es-01747-110205. management. Forest Ecology and Management. 246(1): Kondolf, G.M.; Montgomery, D.R.; Piégay, H.; Schmitt, ±GRLMIRUHFR L. 2003. *HRPRUSKLFFODVVL¿FDWLRQRIULYHUVDQG Lemieux, C.J.; Beechey, T.J.; Gray, P.A. 2011. Prospects streams. In: Kondolf, G.M.; Piégay, H., eds. Tools in for Canada’s protected areas in an era of rapid climate ÀXYLDOJHRPRUSKRORJ\+RERNHQ1-:LOH\%ODFNZHOO FKDQJH/DQG8VH3ROLF\  ±GRLM ±GRLFK landusepol.2011.03.008. Kuglerová, L.; Ågren, A.; Jansson, R.; Laudon, H. 2014. Lewicki, R.J.; McAllister, D.J.; Bies, R.J. 1998. Trust Towards optimizing riparian buffer zones: ecological and distrust: new relationships and realities. Academy and biogeochemical implications for forest management. RI0DQDJHPHQW5HYLHZ  ±GRL Forest Ecology and Management. 334: 74–84. amr.1998.926620. GRLMIRUHFR Lewis, S.L.; Maslin, M.A. 2015. 'H¿QLQJWKH Lange, S.E. 2016. Policy-oriented learning among $QWKURSRFHQH1DWXUH  ±GRL QDWLRQDOIRUHVWVWDNHKROGHUVLQWKH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW nature14258. changes in policy beliefs since adoption of the Northwest Forest Plan. Seattle, WA: University of Lindenmayer, D.B.; Laurance, W.F.; Franklin, J.F.; Washington. 97 p. M.S. thesis. Likens, G.E.; Banks, S.C.; Blanchard, W.; Gibbons, P.; Ikin, K.; Blair, D.; McBurney, L.; Manning, A.D.; Lausche, B.J.; Burhenne-Guilmin, F. 2011. Guidelines for Stein, J.A.R. 2014. New policies for old trees: averting protected areas legislation. IUCN Environmental Policy a global crisis in a keystone ecological structure. and Law Paper. No. 81. Gland, Switzerland: International &RQVHUYDWLRQ/HWWHUV  ±GRLFRQO 8QLRQIRU&RQVHUYDWLRQRI1DWXUHKWWSVSRUWDOVLXFQ RUJOLEUDU\QRGH )HEUXDU\  Lindenmayer, D.B.; Margules, C.R.; Botkin, D.B. 2000. Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable /DXYDX[&$6NLQQHU&17D\ORU$+High forest management. Conservation Biology. 14(4): 941– VHYHULW\¿UHDQGPL[HGFRQLIHUIRUHVWFKDSDUUDO GRLM[ dynamics in the southern Cascade Range, USA. Forest (FRORJ\DQG0DQDJHPHQW±GRLM Lint, J. 2005. 1RUWKZHVW)RUHVW3ODQ²WKH¿UVW foreco.2015.12.016. years (1994–2003): status and trends of northern spotted owl populations and habitat. Gen. Tech. Rep. Leach, W.D. 2006. Public involvement in USDA Forest PNW-GTR-648. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Service policymaking: a literature review. Journal of $JULFXOWXUH)RUHVW6HUYLFH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW5HVHDUFK Forestry. 104(1): 43–49. 6WDWLRQSGRLSQZJWU

987 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Liu, J.; Dietz, T.; Carpenter, S.R.; Alberti, M.; Folke, Luginbuhl, J.M.; Marzluff, J.M.; Bradley, J.E.; &0RUDQ(3HOO$1'HDGPDQ3.UDW]7 Raphael, M.G.; Varland, D.E. 2001. Corvid survey Lubchenco, J.; Ostrom, E.; Ouyang, Z.; Provencher, techniques and the relationship between corvid W.; Redman, C.L.; Schneider, S.H.; Taylor, W.W. relative abundance and nest predation. Journal of Field 2007. Complexity of coupled human and natural 2UQLWKRORJ\  ±GRL V\VWHPV6FLHQFH  ±GRL 72.4.556. science.1144004. Lugo, A.E. 2015. Forestry in the Anthropocene. Science. Liu, J.C.; Mickley, L.J.; Sulprizio, M.P.; Dominici, F.;   ±GRLVFLHQFHDDG Yue, X.; Ebisu, K.; Anderson, G.B.; Khan, R.F.A.; Lunetta, R.S.; Cosentino, B.L.; Montgomery, D.R.; Bravo, M.A.; Bell, M.L. 2016. Particulate air pollution Beamer, E.M.; Beechie, T.J. 1997. GIS-based IURPZLOG¿UHVLQWKH:HVWHUQ86XQGHUFOLPDWHFKDQJH HYDOXDWLRQRIVDOPRQKDELWDWLQWKH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW &OLPDWLF&KDQJH ± ±GRL Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing. s10584-016-1762-6. 63: 1219–1229. Livezey, K.B. 2010. Killing barred owls to help spotted Maier, C.; Abrams, J.B. 2018. Navigating social owls I: a global perspective. Northwestern Naturalist. forestry—a street-level perspective on national forest   ±GRLQZQ PDQDJHPHQWLQWKH863DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW/DQG8VH /RQJ-:4XLQQ'DYLGVRQ/6NLQQHU&1 3ROLF\±GRLMODQGXVHSRO Science synthesis to support socioecological resilience Margules, C.R.; Pressey, R.L. 2000. Systematic in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range. Gen. conservation planning. Nature. 405(6783): 243–253. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. Department GRL RI$JULFXOWXUH)RUHVW6HUYLFH3DFL¿F6RXWKZHVW 5HVHDUFK6WDWLRQSGRLSVZJWU 0DU]DQR0'DQG\1Recreationist behaviour in forests and the disturbance of wildlife. Biodiversity and Loudermilk, E.L.; Scheller, R.M.; Weisberg, P.J.; Yang, &RQVHUYDWLRQ  ±GRLV J.; Dilts, T.E.; Karam, S.L.; Skinner, C. 2013. Carbon 0350-y. dynamics in the future forest: the importance of long- WHUPVXFFHVVLRQDOOHJDF\DQGFOLPDWH¿UHLQWHUDFWLRQV 0DU]OXII-01HDWKHUOLQ(Corvid response *OREDO&KDQJH%LRORJ\±GRL to human settlements and campgrounds: causes, gcb.12310. consequences, and challenges for conservation. %LRORJLFDO&RQVHUYDWLRQ  ±GRLM Luce, C.H.; Lute, A.C.; Kormos, P.; Livneh, B. 2017. biocon.2005.12.026. 0RGHOHGKLVWRULFDOVWUHDPÀRZPHWULFVIRUWKHFRQWLJXRXV United States and national forest lands. Fort Collins, McCarthy, M.A.; Possingham, H.P. 2007. Active adaptive CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, management for conservation. Conservation Biology. 5HVHDUFK'DWD$UFKLYHKWWSG[GRLRUJUGV   ±GRLM[ 2017-0046. (7 February 2018).

988 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

McKinley, D.C.; Ryan, M.G.; Birdsey, R.A.; Giardina, Meyer, M.D. 2015. )RUHVW¿UHVHYHULW\SDWWHUQVRIUHVRXUFH C.P.; Harmon, M.E.; Heath, L.S.; Houghton, R.A.; REMHFWLYHZLOG¿UHVLQWKHVRXWKHUQ6LHUUD1HYDGD Jackson, R.B.; Morrison, J.F.; Murray, B.C.; -RXUQDORI)RUHVWU\  ±GRLMRI Pataki, D.E.; Skog, K.E. 2011. A synthesis of current 084. knowledge on forests and carbon storage in the United 0LOODU&,6WHSKHQVRQ1/6WHSKHQV6/ States. Ecological Applications. 21(6): 1902–1924. Climate change and forests of the future: managing in GRL the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications. 17(8): McKinney, M.L. 2002. Urbanization, biodiversity, and ±GRL conservation: the impacts of urbanization on native Millar, C.I.; Westfall, R.D.; Delany, D.L.; Bokach, M.J.; species are poorly studied, but educating a highly Flint, A.L.; Flint, L.E. 2012. Forest mortality in high- urbanized human population about these impacts can elevation whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) forests of greatly improve species conservation in all ecosystems. HDVWHUQ&DOLIRUQLD86$LQÀXHQFHRIHQYLURQPHQWDO %LR6FLHQFH  ±GRL FRQWH[WEDUNEHHWOHVFOLPDWLFZDWHUGH¿FLWDQG 3568(2002)052[0883:ubac]2.0.co;2. warming. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 42(4): McRae, B.H.; Popper, K.; Jones, A.; Schindel, M.; ±GRL[ Buttrick, S.; Hall, K.; Unnasch, R.S.; Platt, J. 2016. Miller, B.; Soulé, M.E.; Terborgh, J. 2014. ‘New Conserving nature’s stage: mapping omnidirectional conservation’ or surrender to development? Animal connectivity for resilient terrestrial landscapes in &RQVHUYDWLRQ  ±GRLDFY WKH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW3RUWODQG257KH1DWXUH Conservancy. 47 p. Miller, D.J.; Burnett, K.M. 2008. A probabilistic model RIGHEULVÀRZGHOLYHU\WRVWUHDPFKDQQHOVGHPRQVWUDWHG Mellen-McLean, K.; Wales, B.; Bresson, B. 2013. A for the Coast Range of Oregon, USA. Geomorphology. conservation assessment of the white-headed woodpecker  ± ±GRLMJHRPRUSK (Picoides albolarvatus). Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. Department of Miner, A.M.A.; Malmsheimer, R.W.; Keele, D.M. the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 41 p. 2014. Twenty years of Forest Service land management OLWLJDWLRQ-RXUQDORI)RUHVWU\  ±GRL Meng, R.; Dennison, P.E.; Huang, C.; Moritz, M.A.; jof.12-094. D’Antonio, C. 2015. (IIHFWVRI¿UHVHYHULW\DQG SRVW¿UHFOLPDWHRQVKRUWWHUPYHJHWDWLRQUHFRYHU\ Molina, R.; Marcot, B.G.; Lesher, R. 2006. Protecting RIPL[HGFRQLIHUDQGUHG¿UIRUHVWVLQWKH6LHUUD rare, old-growth, forest-associated species under the Nevada Mountains of California. Remote Sensing of survey and manage program guidelines of the Northwest (QYLURQPHQW±GRLMUVH Forest Plan. Conservation Biology. 20(2): 306–318. GRLM[ Meslow, E.C. 1993. Spotted owl protection: unintentional evolution toward ecosystem management. Endangered Montgomery, D.R. 2004. Geology, geomorphology, and Species Update. 3(4): 34–38. the restoration ecology of salmon. GSA Today. 14(11): 4. GRL   JJDWUH!FR Metz, M.R.; Frangioso, K.M.; Meentemeyer, R.K.; Rizzo, D.M. 2011. ,QWHUDFWLQJGLVWXUEDQFHVZLOG¿UH Moore, C.T.; Conroy, M.J. 2006. Optimal regeneration severity affected by stage of forest disease invasion. SODQQLQJIRUROGJURZWKIRUHVWDGGUHVVLQJVFLHQWL¿F (FRORJLFDO$SSOLFDWLRQV  ±GRL uncertainty in endangered species recovery through 10-0419.1. adaptive management. Forest Science. 52(2): 155–172.

989 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Moore, D.W.; Booth, P.; Alix, A.; Apitz, S.E.; Forrow, 1RUWK03.DQH-7.DQH95$VQHU*3 '+XEHU6DQQZDOG(-D\DVXQGDUD1 Berigan, W.; Churchill, D.J.; Conway, S.; Gutiérrez, Application of ecosystem services in natural resource R.J.; Jeronimo, S.; Keane, J.; Koltunov, A.; Mark, management decision making. Integrated Environmental T.; Moskal, M.; Munton, T.; Peery, Z.; Ramirez, C.; $VVHVVPHQWDQG0DQDJHPHQW  ±GRL Sollmann, R.; White, A.; Whitmore, S. 2017. Cover ieam.1838. of tall trees best predicts California spotted owl habitat. Forest Ecology and Management. 405: 166–178. 1DLPDQ5-$OOGUHGJH-5%HDXFKDPS'$ GRLMIRUHFR %LVVRQ3$&RQJOHWRQ-+HQQ\&-+XQWO\1 /DPEHUVRQ5/HYLQJV&0HUULOO(13HDUF\ 1RUWK036WHSKHQV6/&ROOLQV%0$JHH-. W.G.; Rieman, B.E.; Ruggerone, G.T.; Scarnecchia, Aplet, G.; Franklin, J.F.; Fulé, P.Z. 2015. Reform D.; Smouse, P.E.; Wood, C.C. 2012. Developing a IRUHVW¿UHPDQDJHPHQW6FLHQFH  ± EURDGHUVFLHQWL¿FIRXQGDWLRQIRUULYHUUHVWRUDWLRQ 1RVV5)From plant communities to landscapes Columbia River food webs. Proceedings of the National in conservation inventories: a look at The Nature Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Conservancy (USA). Biological Conservation. 41: 11–37.   ±GRLSQDV 1RVV5)2¶&RQQHOO0$0XUSK\''The 1HOVRQ039XFHWLFK-$Environmental ethics science of conservation planning: habitat conservation and wildlife management. In: Decker, D.J.; Riley, under the Endangered Species Act. Washington, DC: S.J.; Siemer, W.F., eds. Human dimensions of wildlife Island Press. 263 p. management. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press: 223–237. Odion, D.C.; Frost, E.J.; Strittholt, J.R.; Jiang, H.; Dellasala, D.A.; Moritz, M.A. 2004. 3DWWHUQVRI¿UH 1LH0Drivers of natural resource-based political severity and forest conditions in the western Klamath FRQÀLFW3ROLF\6FLHQFHV  ±GRL mountains, California. Conservation Biology. 18: 927– b:olic.0000017484.35981.b6. GRLM[ 1RQDND(6SLHV7$Historical range of O’Hara, K.L.; Ramage, B.S. 2013. Silviculture in an variability in landscape structure: a simulation study in uncertain world: utilizing multi-aged management Oregon, USA. Ecological Applications. 15: 1727–1746. systems to integrate disturbance. Forestry. 86(4): GRL ±GRLIRUHVWU\FSW 1RRQ%50F.HOYH\.6'LFNVRQ%* Olsen, C.S.; Mallon, A.L.; Shindler, B.A. 2012. Public Multispecies conservation planning on U.S. federal acceptance of disturbance-based forest management: lands. In: Millspaugh, J.J.; Thompson, F.R., III. Models IDFWRUVLQÀXHQFLQJVXSSRUW,651)RUHVWU\± for planning wildlife conservation in large landscapes. GRL 6DQ'LHJR&$$FDGHPLF3UHVV±GRL b978-0-12-373631-4.00003-4. Olson, D.H.; Anderson, P.D.; Frissell, C.A.; Welsh, H.H.; Bradford, D.F. 2007. Biodiversity management 1RUWK0&ROOLQV%06WHSKHQV68VLQJ¿UH approaches for stream–riparian areas: perspectives for WRLQFUHDVHWKHVFDOHEHQH¿WVDQGIXWXUHPDLQWHQDQFH 3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVWKHDGZDWHUIRUHVWVPLFURFOLPDWHVDQG of fuels treatments. Journal of Forestry. 110: 392–401. amphibians. Forest Ecology and Management. 246(1): GRLMRI ±GRLMIRUHFR

990 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Olson, D.H.; Burnett, K.M. 2009. Design and management Penaluna, B.E.; Olson, D.H.; Flitcroft, R.L.; Weber, of linkage areas across headwater drainages to conserve M.A.; Bellmore, J.R.; Wondzell, S.M.; Dunham, J.B.; biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology Johnson, S.L.; Reeves, G.H. 2017. Aquatic biodiversity DQG0DQDJHPHQW6±6GRLM in forests: a weak link in ecosystem services resilience. foreco.2009.04.018. Biodiversity and Conservation. 26(13): 3125–3155. GRLV Olson, D.H.; Kluber, M.R. 2014. Plethodontid salamander distributions in managed forest headwaters in western Perry, T.D.; Jones, J.A. 2017. 6XPPHUVWUHDPÀRZ Oregon, USA. Herpetological Conservation and Biology. GH¿FLWVIURPUHJHQHUDWLQJ'RXJODV¿UIRUHVWLQWKH 9(1): 76–96. 3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW86$(FRK\GURORJ\  H GRLHFR Olson, D.H.; Rugger, C. 2007. Preliminary study of the effects of headwater riparian reserves with upslope Peterson, A.T.; Robins, C.R. 2003. Using ecological- thinning on stream habitats and amphibians in western niche modeling to predict barred owl invasions with Oregon. Forest Science. 53(2): 331–342. implications for spotted owl conservation. Conservation %LRORJ\  ±GRLM Papworth, S.K.; Rist, J.; Coad, L.; Milner-Gulland, 1739.2003.02206.x. E.J. 2009. Evidence for shifting baseline syndrome in FRQVHUYDWLRQ&RQVHUYDWLRQ/HWWHUVGRLM Peterson, D.L.; Agee, J.K.; Aplet, G.H.; Dykstra, D.P.; 263x.2009.00049.x. Graham, R.T.; Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Pilliod, D.S.; Potts, D.F.; Powers, R.F.; Stuart, J.D. 2009. Effects of timber Parks, S.A.; Miller, C.; Parisien, M.A.; Dobrowski, S.Z. KDUYHVWIROORZLQJZLOG¿UHLQZHVWHUQ1RUWK$PHULFD 2015. :LOGODQG¿UHGH¿FLWDQGVXUSOXVLQWKHZHVWHUQ Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-776. Portland, OR: US United States, 1984–2012. Ecosphere. 6(12): 1–13. 'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH)RUHVW6HUYLFH3DFL¿F 3DVDORGRV7DWR00lNLQHQ$*DUFLD*RQ]DOR Northwest Research Station. 51 p. -%RUJHV-*/lPnV7(ULNVVRQ/2 Peterson, D.W.; Dodson, E.K.; Harrod, R.J. 2015. Post- Assessing uncertainty and risk in forest planning and ¿UHORJJLQJUHGXFHVVXUIDFHZRRG\IXHOVXSWRIRXU decision support systems: review of classical methods GHFDGHVIROORZLQJZLOG¿UH)RUHVW(FRORJ\DQG and introduction of new approaches. Forest Systems. 0DQDJHPHQW±KWWSVGRLRUJM   GRLIV foreco.2014.11.016. Paveglio, T.B.; Jakes, P.J.; Carroll, M.S.; Williams, Peterson, S.A.; Colwell, M.A. 2014. Experimental D.R. 2009. Understanding social complexity within HYLGHQFHWKDWVFDUHWDFWLFVDQGHI¿JLHVUHGXFHFRUYLG the wildland-urban interface: a new species of human occurrence. Northwestern Naturalist. 95(2): 103–112. habitation? Environmental Management. 43(6): 1085– GRLQZQ GRLV]

Peine, J.D., ed. 1998. Ecosystem management for sustainability: principles and practices illustrated by a regional biosphere reserve cooperative. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Press. 500 p.

991 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Phillips, R. 2006. Payments to county governments. In: Raphael, M.G.; Airola, D.A.; Harris, R.; Stine, P.A. Donoghue, E.M.; Stuart, C.; Dillingham, C.; Buttolph, [In press]. Breeding bird changes during 50 years of L.P.; Kay, W.; McLain, R.J.; Moseley, C.; Phillips, R.H.; SRVW¿UHVXFFHVVLRQLQWKH6LHUUD1HYDGD,Q6KXIRUG 7REH/HGV1RUWKZHVW)RUHVW3ODQ²WKH¿UVW\HDUV W.D.; Gill, R., eds. Avifaunal change in western North (1994–2003): socioeconomic monitoring results. Volume America: studies of western birds 2. Camarillo, CA: III: rural communities and economies. Gen. Tech. Rep. Western Field Ornithologists. PNW-GTR-649. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Raphael, M.G.; Mack, D.E.; Cooper, B.A. 2002. $JULFXOWXUH)RUHVW6HUYLFH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW5HVHDUFK Landscape-scale relationships between abundance 6WDWLRQ±GRLSQZJWU&KDSWHU of marbled murrelets and distribution of nesting 3LFNHWW677KRPSVRQ-1Patch dynamics and the KDELWDW&RQGRU  GRL design of nature reserves. Biological Conservation. 13(1): 5422(2002)104[0331:lsrbao]2.0.co;2. ±KWWSVGRLRUJ   Raphael, M.G.; Marcot, B.G. 1994. Species and Pielke, R.A., Jr. 2007. The honest broker: making ecosystem viability: key questions and issues. Journal sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge, of Forestry. 92(4): 45–47. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 198 p. Raphael, M.G.; Shirk, A.J.; Falxa, G.A.; Pearson, GRLFER S.F. 2015. Habitat associations of marbled murrelets 3UDWKHU-:1RVV5)6LVN7'Real versus during the nesting season in nearshore waters along SHUFHLYHGFRQÀLFWVEHWZHHQUHVWRUDWLRQRISRQGHURVD the Washington to California coast. Journal of Marine pine forests and conservation of the Mexican spotted 6\VWHPV±GRLMMPDUV\V owl. Forest Policy and Economics. 10(3): 140–150. 5D\¿HOG%-DPHV30$)DOO$)RUWLQ0- Pressey, R.L.; Cabeza, M.; Watts, M.E.; Cowling, Comparing static versus dynamic protected areas in the R.M.; Wilson, K.A. 2007. Conservation planning in a Québec boreal forest. Biological Conservation. 141(2): changing world. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 22(11): ²GRLMELRFRQ ±GRLMWUHH Rayner, L.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; Wood, J.T.; Gibbons, P.; Pretty, J.; Ward, H. 2001. Social capital and the Manning, A.D. 2014. Are protected areas maintaining environment. World Development. 29(2): 209–227. ELUGGLYHUVLW\"(FRJUDSK\  ±GRL GRLV[  [ j.1600-0587.2013.00388.x.

Radeloff, V.C.; Williams, J.W.; Bateman, B.L.; Burke, Reeves, G.H. 2006. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy of K.D.; Carter, S.K.; Childress, E.S.; Cromwell, K.J.; the Northwest Forest Plan: an assessment after ten years. Gratton, C.; Hasley, A.O.; Kraemer, B.M.; Latzka, In: Haynes, R.W.; Bormann, B.T.; Lee, D.C.; Martin, J.R. A.W.; Marin-Spiotta, E.; Meine, C.D.; Munoz, S.E.; 1RUWKZHVW)RUHVW3ODQ²WKH¿UVW\HDUV ±  1HHVRQ703LGJHRQ$05LVVPDQ$55LYHUD synthesis of monitoring and research results. Gen. Tech. R.J.; Szymanski, L.M.; Usinowicz, J. 2015. The rise Rep. PNW-GTR-651. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of of novelty in ecosystems. Ecological Applications. 25(8): $JULFXOWXUH)RUHVW6HUYLFH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW5HVHDUFK ±GRL 6WDWLRQ±GRLSQZJWU

992 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Reeves, G.H.; Benda, L.E.; Burnett, K.M.; Bisson, 5LFKDUGVRQ-61DLPDQ5-%LVVRQ3$How P.A.; Sedell, J.R. 1995. A disturbance-based ecosystem GLG¿[HGZLGWKEXIIHUVEHFRPHVWDQGDUGSUDFWLFHIRU approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater protecting freshwaters and their riparian areas from KDELWDWVRIHYROXWLRQDULO\VLJQL¿FDQWXQLWVRIDQDGURPRXV forest harvest practices? Freshwater Science. 31(1): VDOPRQLGVLQWKH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW$PHULFDQ)LVKHULHV ±GRL Society Symposium. 17: 334–349. Rizzo, D.M.; Garbelotto, M. 2003. Sudden oak death: Reeves, G.H.; Bisson, P.A. 2009. Fish and old-growth endangering California and Oregon forest ecosystems. forests. In: Spies, T.A.; Duncan, S.L., eds. Old growth Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 1(4): 197–204. LQDQHZZRUOGD3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVWLFRQUHH[DPLQHG GRL  >VRGHFD@FR Washington, DC: Island Press: 70–82. Robbins, W.G. 1999. Landscapes of promise: the Oregon 5HHYHV*+3LFNDUG%5-RKQVRQ.1An story, 1800–1940. Seattle, WA: University of Washington initial evaluation of potential options for managing Press. 416 p. riparian reserves of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Romme, W.H.; Hayward, G.D.; Regan, C. 2012. A of the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW- framework for applying the historical range of variation GTR-937. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, concept to ecosystem management. In: Wiens, J.A.; )RUHVW6HUYLFH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW5HVHDUFK6WDWLRQS Hayward, G.D.; Safford, H.D.; Giffen, C.M., eds. Reilly, M.J.; Dunn, C.J.; Meigs, G.W.; Spies, T.A.; Historical environmental variation in conservation Kennedy, R.E.; Bailey, J.D.; Briggs, K. 2017a. and natural resource management. Chichester, &RQWHPSRUDU\SDWWHUQVRI¿UHH[WHQWDQGVHYHULW\LQ United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons: 246–261. IRUHVWVRIWKH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW86$ ±  GRLFK (FRVSKHUH  HGRLHFV Romme, W.H.; Wiens, J.A.; Safford, H.D. 2012. Setting Reilly, M.J.; Elia, M.; Spies, T.A.; Gregory, M.J.; the stage: theoretical and conceptual background of Sanesi, G.; Lafortezza, R. 2017b. Cumulative effects historical range of variation. In: Wiens, J.A.; Hayward, RIZLOG¿UHVRQIRUHVWG\QDPLFVLQWKHHDVWHUQ&DVFDGH G.D.; Safford, H.D.; Giffen, C.M., eds. Historical 0RXQWDLQV86$(FRORJLFDO$SSOLFDWLRQVGRL environmental variation in conservation and natural eap.1644. resource management. Chichester, United Kingdom: John :LOH\ 6RQV±GRLFK Reilly, M.J.; Spies, T.A. 2015. Regional variation in stand structure and development in forests of Oregon, Rose, S.K.; Chapman, D. 2003. Timber harvest adjacency Washington, and inland northern California. Ecosphere. economies, hunting, species protection, and old growth   DUWGRLHV value: seeking the dynamic optimum. Ecological (FRQRPLFV ± ±GRLV Restaino, C.M.; Peterson, D.L.; Littell, J. 2016. Increased 8009(02)00268-9. ZDWHUGH¿FLWGHFUHDVHV'RXJODV¿UJURZWKWKURXJKRXW western US forests. Proceedings of the National Ryan, M.G.; Harmon, M.E.; Birdsey, R.A.; Giardina, Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. C.P.; Heath, L.S.; Houghton, R.A.; Jackson, R.B.;   ±GRLSQDV McKinley, D.C.; Morrison, J.F.; Murray, B.C.; Pataki, D.E. 2010. A synthesis of the science on forests and carbon for US forests. Issues in Ecology. 13(1): 16.

993 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Safford, H.D.; Betancourt, J.L.; Hayward, G.D.; Wiens, Schwartz, M.W.; Hellmann, J.J.; McLachlan, J.M.; Sax, J.A.; Regan, C.M. 2008. Land management in the D.F.; Borevitz, J.O.; Brennan, J.; Camacho, A.E.; Anthropocene: Is history still relevant? Incorporating Ceballos, G.; Clark, J.R.; Doremus, H.; Early, R.; historical ecology and climate change into land Etterson, J.R.; Fielder, D.; Gill, J.L.; Gonzalez, P.; management. Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical *UHHQ1+DQQDK/-DPLHVRQ':-DYHOLQH 8QLRQ  GRLHR D.; Minteer, B.A.; Odenbaugh, J.; Polasky, S.; Richardson, D.M.; Root, T.L.; Safford, H.D.; Sala, Safford, H.D.; Wiens, J.A.; Hayward, G.D.; Heller, O.; Schneider, S.H.; Thompson, A.R.; Williams, 1:LHQV-$Climate change and historical J.W.; Vellend, M.; Vitt, P.; Zellmer, S. 2012. Managed ecology: can the past still inform the future? In: UHORFDWLRQLQWHJUDWLQJWKHVFLHQWL¿FUHJXODWRU\ Wiens, J.A.; Hayward, G.D.; Hugh, D.; Giffen, C., eds. and ethical challenges. BioScience. 62(8): 732–743. Historical environmental variation in conservation GRLELR and natural resource management. Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell: 46–62. 6HLGO59LJO)5|VVOHU*1HXPDQQ05DPPHU GRLFK W. 2017. Assessing the resilience of Norway spruce forests through a model-based reanalysis of thinning Sayer, J.; Sunderland, T.; Ghazoul, J.; Pfund, J.L.; trials. Forest Ecology and Management. 388: 3–12. Sheil, D.; Meijaard, E.; Venter, M.; Boedhihartono, GRLMIRUHFR A.K.; Day, M.; Garcia, C.; van Oosten, C.; Buck, L.E. 2013. Ten principles for a landscape approach Shindler, B.; Cramer, L.A. 1999. Shifting public values for to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other forest management: making sense of wicked problems. competing land uses. Proceedings of the National Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 14(1): 18–34. Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Silvertown, J. 2015. Have ecosystem services been   ±GRLSQDV oversold? Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 30(11): 641– Schowalter, T.D.; Zhang, Y.L.; Rykken, J.J. 2003. Litter GRLMWUHH invertebrate responses to variable density thinning in Simberloff, D. 1998. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: western Washington forest. Ecological Applications. is single-species management passé in the landscape era? 13(5): 1204–1211. %LRORJLFDO&RQVHUYDWLRQ  ±GRL 6FKU|WHU0YDQ2XGHQKRYHQ$3(Ecosystem s0006-3207(97)00081-5. services go beyond money and markets: reply to Simberloff, D. 2011. Native invaders. In: Simberloff, D.; Silvertown. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 31(5): 5HMPiQHN0HGV(QF\FORSHGLDRIELRORJLFDOLQYDVLRQV ±GRLMWUHH Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 792 p. 6FKXOW]&$6LVN7'1RRQ%51LH0$ Simberloff, D.; Murcia, C.; Aronson, J. 2015. “Novel Wildlife conservation planning under the United States ecosystems” are a Trojan horse for conservation. Ensia. Forest Service’s 2012 planning rule. Journal of Wildlife KWWSHQVLDFRPYRLFHVQRYHOHFRV\VWHPVDUHDWURMDQ 0DQDJHPHQW±GRLMZPJ horse-for-conservation. (19 January 2018).

994 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

6LPRQþLþ76SLHV7$'HDO5/%RQFLQD$ Spies, T.A. 2006. Maintaining old-growth forests. In: 2015. A conceptual framework for characterizing Haynes, R.W.; Bormann, B.T.; Lee, D.C.; Martin, J.R., forest areas with high societal values: experiences HGV1RUWKZHVW)RUHVW3ODQ²WKH¿UVWWHQ\HDUV ± IURPWKH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVWRI86$DQGFHQWUDO(XURSH 2003): synthesis of monitoring and research results. (QYLURQPHQWDO0DQDJHPHQW  ±GRL Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-651. Portland, OR: U.S. s00267-015-0482-4. 'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH)RUHVW6HUYLFH3DFL¿F Northwest Research Station: 83–116. 6NLQQHU&1Change in spatial characteristics of forest openings in the Klamath Mountains of Spies, T.A.; Duncan, S.L. 2009. Old growth in a northwestern California, USA. Landscape Ecology. QHZZRUOGD3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVWLFRQUHH[DPLQHG 10(4): 219–228. Washington, DC: Island Press 344 p.

Skillen, J.R. 2015. Federal ecosystem management: its rise, Spies, T.A.; Giesen, T.W.; Swanson, F.J.; Franklin, fall, and afterlife. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas -)/DFK'-RKQVRQ.1DClimate change Press. 348 p. DGDSWDWLRQVWUDWHJLHVIRUIHGHUDOIRUHVWVRIWKH3DFL¿F Northwest, USA: ecological, policy, and socio-economic Smit, B.; Wandel, J. 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity perspectives. Landscape Ecology. 25(8): 1185–1199. and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change. 16(3): GRLV ±GRLMJORHQYFKD 6SLHV7$-RKQVRQ.1%XUQHWW.02KPDQQ Smith, J.E.; Heath, L.S.; Hoover, C.M. 2013. Carbon J.L.; McComb, B.C.; Reeves, G.H.; Bettinger, P.; factors and models for forest carbon estimates for the Kline, J.D.; Garber-Yonts, B. 2007. Cumulative 2005-2011 national greenhouse gas inventories of the ecological and socioeconomic effects of forest policies United States. Forest Ecology and Management. 307: in coastal Oregon. Ecological Applications. 17(1): 5–17. ±GRLMIRUHFR GRL  >FHDVHR@FR 6PLWK1'HDO5.OLQH-%ODKQD'3DWWHUVRQ Spies, T.A.; Hemstrom, M.A.; Youngblood, A.; Hummel, T.; Spies, T.A.; Bennett, K. 2011. Ecosystem services S. 2006. Conserving old-growth forest diversity in as a framework for forest stewardship: Deschutes disturbance-prone landscapes. Conservation Biology. National Forest overview. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-   ±GRLM[ GTR-852. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, )RUHVW6HUYLFH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW5HVHDUFK6WDWLRQS Spies, T.A.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; Gill, A.M.; Stephens, GRLSQZJWU S.L.; Agee, J.K. 2012. Challenges and a checklist IRUELRGLYHUVLW\FRQVHUYDWLRQLQ¿UHSURQHIRUHVWV Soulé, M.E. 1985. What is conservation biology? A SHUVSHFWLYHVIURPWKH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVWRI86$DQG new synthetic discipline addresses the dynamics and southeastern Australia. Biological Conservation. problems of perturbed species, communities, and   ±GRLMELRFRQ ecosystems. BioScience. 35(11): 727–734.

Spaulding, S.E.; Rothstein, D.E. 2009. How well does Kirtland’s warbler management emulate the effects of natural disturbance on stand structure in Michigan jack pine forests? Forest Ecology and Management. 258(11): ±GRLMIRUHFR

995 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Spies, T.A.; Miller, J.D.; Buchanan, J.B.; Lehmkuhl, Stern, M.J.; Coleman, K.J. 2015. The multidimensionality J.F.; Franklin, J.F.; Healey, S.P.; Hessburg, P.F.; of trust: applications in collaborative natural resource Safford, H.D.; Cohen, W.B.; Kennedy, R.S.H.; management. Society & Natural Resources. 28(2): Knapp, E.E.; Agee, J.K.; Moeur, M. 2010b. 117–132. 8QGHUHVWLPDWLQJULVNVWRWKHQRUWKHUQVSRWWHGRZOLQ¿UH Stine, P.; Hessburg, P.; Spies, T.; Kramer, M.; Fettig, prone forests: response to Hanson et al. Conservation C.J.; Hansen, A.; Lehmkuhl, J.; O’Hara, K.; Polivka, %LRORJ\   ±GRL K.; Singleton, P.; Charnley, S.; Merschel, A.; White, j.1523-1739.2009.01414.x. R. 2014. The ecology and management of moist mixed- Spies, T.A.; White, E.; Ager, A.; Kline, J.D.; Bolte, J.P.; conifer forests in eastern Oregon and Washington: Platt, E.K.; Olsen, K.A.; Pabst, R.J.; Barros, A.M.G.; a synthesis of the relevant biophysical science and Bailey, J.D.; Charnley, S.; Morzillo, A.T.; Koch, J.; implications for future land management. Gen. Tech. Steen-Adams, M.M.; Singleton, P.H.; Sulzman, J.; Rep. PNW-GTR-897. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Schwartz, C.; Csuti, B. 2017. Using an agent-based $JULFXOWXUH)RUHVW6HUYLFH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW5HVHDUFK PRGHOWRH[DPLQHIRUHVWPDQDJHPHQWRXWFRPHVLQD¿UH 6WDWLRQSGRLSQZJWU prone landscape in Oregon, USA. Ecology and Society. Strittholt, J.R.; DellaSala, D.A. 2001. Importance of   GRLHV roadless areas in biodiversity conservation in forested Spies, T.A.; White, E.M.; Kline, J.D.; Fischer, A.P.; ecosystems: case study of the Klamath-Siskiyou Ager, A.; Bailey, J.; Bolte, J.; Koch, J.; Platt, E.; ecoregion of the United States. Conservation Biology. Olsen, C.S.; Jacobs, D.; Shindler, B.; Steen-Adams,   ±GRLM[ M.M.; Hammer, R. 2014. ([DPLQLQJ¿UHSURQHIRUHVW Sun, G.; Vose, J. 2016. Forest management challenges for landscapes as coupled human and natural systems. sustaining water resources in the Anthropocene. Forests. (FRORJ\DQG6RFLHW\  GRLHV   GRLI 190309. Swanson, M.E.; Franklin, J.F.; Beschta, R.L.; Crisafulli, Stanley, T.R. 1995. Ecosystem management and the C.M.; Dellasala, D.A.; Hutto, R.L.; Lindenmayer, arrogance of humanism. Conservation Biology. 9(2): D.B.; Swanson, F.J. 2011. The forgotten stage of forest 255–262. succession: early-successional ecosystems on forest sites. Steel, B.S.; List, P.; Shindler, B. 1994. &RQÀLFWLQJYDOXHV Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 9(2): 117–125. about federal forests: a comparison of national and GRL Oregon publics. Society & Natural Resources. 7(2): 6ZDQVRQ0(6WXGHYDQW10&DPSEHOO-/ ±GRL Donato, D.C. 2014. Biological associates of early- 6WHIIHQ:&UXW]HQ3-0F1HLOO-5The VHUDOSUHIRUHVWLQWKH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW)RUHVW Anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the (FRORJ\DQG0DQDJHPHQW±GRLM great forces of nature. AMBIO: A Journal of the foreco.2014.03.046. +XPDQ(QYLURQPHQW  ±GRL 6ZHHQH\%:1HZEROG-'Streamside forest 7447(2007)36[614:taahno]2.0.co;2. buffer width needed to protect stream water quality, 6WHSKHQV6/$JHH-.)XOH3=1RUWK03 habitat, and organisms: a literature review. JAWRA Romme, W.H.; Swetnam, T.W.; Turner, M.G. 2013. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 0DQDJLQJIRUHVWVDQG¿UHLQFKDQJLQJFOLPDWHV6FLHQFH    ±GRLMDZU   ±GRLVFLHQFH

996 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Taylor, P. 2004. Resilience and biosphere reserves. Tuchmann, E.T.; Brookes, M.H.; Daterman, M. 1996. Environments. 32(3): 79–90. The Northwest Forest Plan: a report to the President and Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department Tepley, A.J.; Swanson, F.J.; Spies, T.A. 2013. Fire- RI$JULFXOWXUH2I¿FHRI)RUHVWU\DQG(FRQRPLF PHGLDWHGSDWKZD\VRIVWDQGGHYHORSPHQWLQ'RXJODV¿U Assistance. 253 p. ZHVWHUQKHPORFNIRUHVWVRIWKH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW86$ (FRORJ\  ±GRL U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2012a. National forest system land management 7KRPDV-:)UDQNOLQ-)*RUGRQ--RKQVRQ.1 planning. 36 C.F.R. Part 219. Federal Register. 77: 2006. The Northwest Forest Plan: origins, components, ±KWWSZZZIVXVGDJRYSODQQLQJUXOH implementation experience, and suggestions for change. (17 September 2015). &RQVHUYDWLRQ%LRORJ\  ±GRLM 1739.2006.00385.x. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2012b. The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Thompson, J.R.; Spies, T.A. 2010. Factors associated restoration strategy: adaptive ecosystem management with crown damage following recurring mixed-severity WRUHVWRUHODQGVFDSHUHVLOLHQF\3RUWODQG253DFL¿F ZLOG¿UHVDQGSRVW¿UHPDQDJHPHQWLQVRXWKZHVWHUQ 1RUWKZHVW5HJLRQSKWWSZZZIVXVGDJRY 2UHJRQ/DQGVFDSH(FRORJ\  ±GRL ,QWHUQHW)6(B'2&80(176VWHOSUGESGI s10980-010-9456-3. (17 February 2016). Thompson, J.R.; Spies, T.A.; Ganio, L.M. 2007. Reburn U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; severity in managed and unmanaged vegetation in a U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land ODUJHZLOG¿UH3URFHHGLQJVRIWKH1DWLRQDO$FDGHP\RI Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994a. Final Sciences of the United States of America. 104: 10743– supplemental environmental impact statement on GRLSQDV management of habitat for late-successional and old- Tingley, M.W.; Darling, E.S.; Wilcove, D.S. 2014. Fine- growth forest related species within the range of the DQGFRDUVH¿OWHUFRQVHUYDWLRQVWUDWHJLHVLQDWLPHRI northern spotted owl. [Place of publication unknown]. climate change. Annals of the New York Academy of [Irregular pagination]. 6FLHQFHV  ±GRLQ\DV U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; 7LZDUL7/XQGVWU|P-.XJOHURYi//DXGRQ U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land H.; Öhman, K.; Ågren, A.M. 2016. Cost of riparian Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994b. Record of buffer zones: a comparison of hydrologically adapted decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau VLWHVSHFL¿FULSDULDQEXIIHUVZLWKWUDGLWLRQDO¿[HG of Land Management planning documents within the widths. Water Resources Research. 52(2): 1056–1069. range of the northern spotted owl. [Place of publication GRLZU unknown]. 74 p. [plus attachment A: standards and 7RPSNLQV(/$GJHU:1Does adaptive guidelines]. management of natural resources enhance resilience U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and to climate change? Ecology and Society. 9(2): 10. Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 2011. Revised GRLHV recovery plan for the northern spotted owl (Strix Trombulak, S.C.; Frissell, C.A. 2000. Review of occidentalis caurina 3RUWODQG25SKWWS ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic ZZZIZVJRYDUFDWDHVELUGVQVRGRFXPHQWV communities. Conservation Biology. 14: 18–30. USFWS2011RevisedRecoveryPlanNorthernSpottedOwl. GRLM[ pdf. (12 November 2014).

997 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Walker, B.; Holling, C.S.; Carpenter, S.; Kinzig, A. Service [USFWS]. 2012. Revised critical habitat for 2004. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in the northern spotted owl: proposed rule. 50 C.F.R. Part social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society. 9(2): 5. 17. Federal Register. 77: 14062–14165. doi: (6

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Walker, W.; Haasnoot, M.; Kwakkel, J. 2013. Adapt or Service [USFWS]. 2013. Experimental removal of perish: a review of planning approaches for adaptation EDUUHGRZOVWREHQH¿WWKUHDWHQHGQRUWKHUQVSRWWHGRZOV under deep uncertainty. Sustainability. 5(3): 955–979. ¿QDOHQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWVWDWHPHQW3RUWODQG25 GRLVX 2UHJRQ6WDWH2I¿FH Walker, W.E.; Harremoës, P.; Rotmans, J.; van der 862I¿FHRI0DQDJHPHQWDQG%XGJHW>20%@ Sluijs, J.P.; van Asselt, M.B.A.; Janssen, P.; Krayer Incorporating ecosystem services into federal decision von Krauss, M.P. 2003. 'H¿QLQJXQFHUWDLQW\D making. Memorandum. M-16-01. Washington, DC. conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model- KWWSVZZZZKLWHKRXVHJRYVLWHVZKLWHKRXVHJRY¿OHV based decision support. Integrated Assessment. 4(1): RPEPHPRUDQGDPSGI -DQXDU\  ±GRLLDLM

Urban, M.C. 2015. Accelerating extinction risk from Wallace, K.J. 2007. &ODVVL¿FDWLRQRIHFRV\VWHPVHUYLFHV FOLPDWHFKDQJH6FLHQFH  ±GRL problems and solutions. Biological Conservation. 139(3– science.aaa4984.  ±GRLMELRFRQ

Urgenson, L.S.; Ryan, C.M.; Halpern, C.B.; Bakker, Wallach, A.D.; Ripple, W.J.; Carroll, S.P. 2015. Novel J.D.; Belote, R.T.; Franklin, J.F.; Haugo, R.D.; trophic cascades: apex predators enable coexistence. 1HOVRQ&5:DOW]$(0Visions of Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 30(3): 146–153. UHVWRUDWLRQLQ¿UHDGDSWHGIRUHVWODQGVFDSHVOHVVRQV GRLMWUHH from the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Walsh, M.K.; Marlon, J.R.; Goring, S.J.; Brown, Program. Environmental Management. 59(2): 338–353. K.J.; Gavin, D.G. 2015. A regional perspective on GRLV +RORFHQH¿UH±FOLPDWH±KXPDQLQWHUDFWLRQVLQWKH3DFL¿F 9DLOODQW105HLQKDUGW('An evaluation of Northwest of North America. Annals of the Association the forest service hazardous fuels treatment program- of American Geographers. 105(6): 1135–1157. doi:10.108 are we treating enough to promote resiliency or  reduce hazard? Journal of Forestry. 115(4): 300–308. Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable GRLMRI resources. New York: Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 374 p. Veldman, J.W.; Buisson, E.; Durigan, G.; Fernandes, :DWVRQ-(0'XGOH\16HJDQ'%+RFNLQJV0 *:/H6WUDGLF60DK\*1HJUHLURV' 2014. The performance and potential of protected areas. 2YHUEHFN*(9HOGPDQ5*=DORXPLV13 1DWXUH  ±GRLQDWXUH Putz, F.E.; Bond, W.J. 2015. Toward an old-growth concept for grasslands, savannas, and woodlands. Watts, A.; Grant, G.E.; Safeeq, M. 2016. Flows of the Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 13(3): 154– IXWXUH²+RZZLOOFOLPDWHFKDQJHDIIHFWVWUHDPÀRZVLQ GRL WKH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW"6FLHQFH)LQGLQJV3RUWODQG OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW5HVHDUFK6WDWLRQS

998 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

:HDU'1*UHLV-*The Southern Forest :KLWH$0=LSNLQ()0DQOH\316FKOHVLQJHU Futures project: summary report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS- M.D. 2013. Conservation of avian diversity in the Sierra GTR-168. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Nevada: moving beyond a single-species management Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 54 p. IRFXV3/R621(  HGRLMRXUQDO pone.0063088. Weatherspoon, C.P.; Husari, S.J.; van Wagtendonk, J.W. 1992. Fire and fuels management in relation to White, E.; Bowker, J.M.; Askew, A.E.; Langner, L.L.; owl habitat in forests of the Sierra Nevada and southern Arnold, J.R.; English, D.B.K. 2016a. Federal outdoor California. In: Verner, J.; McKelvey, K.S.; Noon, B.R.; recreation trends: effects on economic opportunities. Gutierrez, R.J.; Gould, G.I., Jr.; Beck, T.W., eds. The Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-945. Portland, OR: U.S. California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its 'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH)RUHVW6HUYLFH3DFL¿F current status. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-133. Albany, Northwest Research Station. 46 p. CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, White, R. 1993. It’s your misfortune and none of my own: 3DFL¿F6RXWKZHVW5HVHDUFK6WDWLRQ± a new history of the American West. Norman, OK: Weiss, F.; Brummer, T.J.; Pufal, G. 2016. Mountain bikes University of Oklahoma Press. 644 p. as seed dispersers and their potential socio-ecological Wiens, J.A. 2016. Ecological challenges and conservation consequences. Journal of Environmental Management. conundrums. Oxford, United Kingdom: Wiley- ±GRLMMHQYPDQ Blackwell. 344 p. Wemple, B.C.; Swanson, F.J.; Jones, J.A. 2001. Forest Wiens, J.D.; Anthony, R.G.; Forsman, E.D. 2014. roads and geomorphic process interactions, Competitive interactions and resource partitioning Cascade Range, Oregon. Earth Surface Processes between northern spotted owls and barred owls in DQG/DQGIRUPV  ±GRL western Oregon. Wildlife Monographs. 185(1): 1–50.    DLGHVS!FRX Wiens, J.D.; Dugger, K.M.; Lewicki, K.E.; Simon, D.C. West, P.; Igoe, J.; Brockington, D. 2006. Parks and 2016. Effects of experimental removal of barred owls peoples: the social impact of protected areas. Annual on population demography of northern spotted owls in 5HYLHZRI$QWKURSRORJ\  ±GRL Washington and Oregon—2015 progress report. Open- annurev.anthro.35.081705.123308. File Report 2016-1041. Reston, VA: U.S. Department of Westerling, A.L.; Hildago, H.G.; Cayan, D.R.; Swetnam, WKH,QWHULRU*HRORJLFDO6XUYH\GRLRIU T.W. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase western Williams, M. 1992. Americans and their forests: a 86IRUHVWZLOG¿UHDFWLYLW\6FLHQFH  ± historical geography. New York: Cambridge University GRLVFLHQFH Press. 624 p. :KLWH$00DQOH\317DUELOO*/5LFKDUGVRQ Wilsey, C.B.; Lawler, J.J.; Cimprich, D.; Schumaker, T.W.; Russell, R.E.; Safford, H.D.; Dobrowski, S.Z. 1+Dependence of the endangered black-capped 2016b. $YLDQFRPPXQLW\UHVSRQVHVWRSRVW¿UHIRUHVW vireo on sustained cowbird management. Conservation VWUXFWXUHLPSOLFDWLRQVIRU¿UHPDQDJHPHQWLQPL[HG %LRORJ\  ±GRLFREL conifer forests. Animal Conservation. 19(3): 256–264. GRLDFY

999 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

:LOVRQ%7:RRGDOO&:*ULI¿WK'0 Wohl, E. 2013. Wilderness is dead: whither critical zone Imputing forest carbon stock estimates from inventory studies and geomorphology in the Anthropocene? plots to a nationally continuous coverage. Carbon $QWKURSRFHQH±GRLMDQFHQH %DODQFHDQG0DQDJHPHQW  GRL Wondolleck, J.J. 2009. Old growth in a new world: a 0680-8-1. synthesis. In: Spies, T.A.; Duncan, S.L., eds. Old growth Wilson, E.O. 2016. +DOI(DUWKRXUSODQHW¶V¿JKWIRUOLIH LQDQHZZRUOGD3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVWLFRQUHH[DPLQHG New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 272 p. Washington, DC: Island Press: 303–312.

Wilson, K.A.; Law, E.A. 2016. How to avoid underselling Wondolleck, J.M.; Yaffee, S.L. 2000. Making biodiversity with ecosystem services: a response to collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural Silvertown. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 31(5): resource management. Washington, DC: Island Press. ±GRLMWUHH 280 p.

Wilson, T.M.; Forsman, E.D. 2013. Thinning effects Wurtzebach, Z.; Schultz, C. 2016. Measuring ecological on spotted owl prey and other forest-dwelling small integrity: history, practical applications, and research mammals. In: Anderson, P.D.; Ronnenberg, K.L., eds. RSSRUWXQLWLHV%LR6FLHQFH  ±GRL Density management for the 21st century: west side ELRVFLELZ story. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-880. Portland, OR: Zald, H.S.J.; Spies, T.A.; Harmon, M.E.; Twery, M.J. 86'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH)RUHVW6HUYLFH3DFL¿F 2016. Forest carbon calculators: a review for managers, Northwest Research Station: 79–90. policymakers, and educators. Journal of Forestry. Winthrop, R.H. 2014. The strange case of cultural   ±GRLMRI services: limits of the ecosystem services paradigm. (FRORJLFDO(FRQRPLFV±GRLM ecolecon.2014.10.005.

1000 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

6FLHQWL¿FDQGFRPPRQQDPHVRISODQWVSHFLHVLGHQWL¿HGLQWKLVUHSRUW 6FLHQWL¿FQDPH Common name Abies amabilis (Douglas ex Loudon) Douglas ex Forbes 3DFL¿FVLOYHU¿U Abies concolor (Gord. & Glend.) Lindl. ex Hildebr. :KLWH¿U Abies grandis (Douglas ex D. Don) Lindl. *UDQG¿U Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt. Subalpine pine Abies PDJQL¿FD A. Murray bis &DOLIRUQLDUHG¿U Abies procera Rehder 1REOH¿U Acer circinatum Pursh Vine maple Acer macrophyllum Pursh Bigleaf maple Achlys triphylla (Sm.) DC. Sweet after death Adenocaulon bicolor Hook. American trailplant Alliaria petiolata (M. Bieb.) Cavara & Grande Garlic mustard Alnus rubra Bong. Red alder Amelanchier alnifolia (Nutt.) Nutt. ex M. Roem. Saskatoon serviceberry Anemone oregana A. Gray %OXHZLQGÀRZHU Apocynum cannabinum L. Dogbane Arbutus menziesii Pursh) Madrone Arceuthobium M. Bieb. Dwarf mistletoe Arceuthobium occidentale Engelm. Gray pine dwarf mistletoe Arceuthobium tsugense Rosendahl Hemlock dwarf mistletoe Arctostaphylos nevadensis A. Gray Pinemat manzanita Brachypodium sylvaticum (Huds.) P. Beauv. False brome Brodiaea coronaria (Salisb.) Engl. Cluster-lilies Callitropsis nootkatensis (D. Don) Oerst. ex D.P. Little Alaska yellow-cedar Calocedrus decurrens (Torr.) Florin Incense cedar Cannabis L. Marijuana Carex barbarae Dewey and C. obnupta L.H. Bailey Sedges Centaurea solstitialis L. Yellow star thistle Chamaecyparis lawsoniana (A. Murray bis) Parl. Port Orford cedar Chimaphila menziesii (R. Br. ex D. Don) Spreng. Little prince’s pine Chimaphila umbellata (L.) W.P.C. Barton Pipsissewa Clematis vitalba L. Old man’s beard &OLQWRQLDXQLÀRUD Menzies ex Schult. & Schult. f.) Kunth Bride’s bonnet Coptis laciniata A. Gray Oregon goldthread Corylus cornuta Marshall var. californica (A. DC.) Sharp California hazel Cornus canadensis L. Bunchberry dogwood Cytisus scoparius (L.) Link Scotch broom Disporum hookeri (Torr.) G. Nicholson var. hookeri Drops-of-gold Fallopia japonica (Houtt.) Ronse Decr. var. japonica Japanese knotweed Gaultheria ovatifolia A. Gray Western teaberry Gaultheria shallon Pursh Salal

1001 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

6FLHQWL¿FQDPH Common name Gentiana douglasiana Bong. Swamp gentian Geranium lucidum L. Shining geranium Geranium robertianum L. Robert geranium Goodyera oblongifolia Raf. Western rattlesnake plantain Hedera helix L. English ivy Heracleum mantegazzianum Sommier & Levier Giant hogweed Hesperocyparis sargentii (Jeps.) Bartel Sargent’s cypress Hieracium aurantiacum L. Orange hawkweed Ilex aquifolium L. English holly Iris pseudacorus L. Paleyellow iris Juniperus occidentalis Hook. Western juniper Lamiastrum galeobdolon (L.) Ehrend. & Polatschek Yellow archangel Lilium occidentale Purdy Western lily Linnaea borealis L. 7ZLQÀRZHU /LWKRFDUSXVGHQVLÀRUXV (Hook. & Arn.) Rehder Tanoak Lonicera hispidula Pursh Honeysuckle Lupinus albicaulis Douglas Sickle-keeled lupine Lycopodium clavatum L. Running clubmoss Lythrum salicaria L. Purple loosestrife Mahonia nervosa (Pursh) Nutt. Cascade barberry Malus fusca (Raf.) C.K. Schneid. 3DFL¿FFUDEDSSOH 1RWKROLWKRFDUSXVGHQVLÀRUXV (Hook. & Arn.) P.S. Manos, C.H. Cannon, & S.H. Oh Tanoak 1RWKROLWKRFDUSXVGHQVLÀRUXV (Hook. & Arn.) P.S. Manos, C.H. Cannon, & S.H. Oh Shrub form of tanoak var. echinoides (R.Br. ter) P.S. Manos, C.H. Cannon & S.H. Oh Nuphar polysepala (Engelm.) Yellow pond lily Nymphoides peltata (S.G. Gmel.) Kuntze

1002 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

6FLHQWL¿FQDPH Common name Prunus emarginata (Douglas ex Hook. D. Dietr.) Bitter cherry Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco 'RXJODV¿U Pteridium aquilinum (L. Kuhn) Brackenfern Pueraria montana (Lour.) Merr. var. lobata (Willd.) Maesen & S.M. Almeida ex Kudzu Sanjappa & Predeep Pyrola asarifolia Sweet American wintergreen Quercus agrifolia Née var. oxyadenia (Torr.) J.T. Howell Coastal live oak Quercus berberidifolia Liebm. Scrub oak Quercus chrysolepis Liebm. Canyon live oak Quercus douglasii Hook. & Arn. Blue oak Quercus garryana Douglas ex hook. Oregon white oak Quercus kelloggi Newberry California black oak Quercus lobata Née Valley oak Rhamnus purshiana (DC.) A. Gray Cascara Rhododendron groenlandicum Oeder Bog Labrador tea Rhododendron macrophyllum D. Don ex G. Don 3DFL¿FUKRGRGHQGURQ Ribes lacustre (Pers.) Poir. Prickly currant Rubus armeniacus Focke Himalayan blackberry Salix exigua Nutt. Sandbar willow Senecio bolanderi A. Gray Bolander’s ragwort Sequoia sempervirens (Lamb. ex D. Don) Endl. Redwood Smilacina stellata (L.) Desf. Starry false Solomon’s seal Synthyris reniformis (Douglas ex Benth.) Benth. Snowqueen Taxus brevifolia Nutt. 3DFL¿F\HZ Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don Western redcedar Tiarella trifoliate L. 7KUHHOHDIIRDPÀRZHU Trapa natans L. Water chestnut Trillium ovatum Pursh 3DFL¿FWULOOLXP Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg. Western hemlock Tsuga mertensiana (Bong.) Carrière Mountain hemlock Typha latifolia L. Cattails Umbellularia californica (Hook. & Arn.) Nutt. California bay laurel Vaccinium alaskaense Howell Alaska blueberry Vaccinium membranaceum Douglas ex Torr. Thinleaf huckleberry, big huckleberry Vaccinium ovatum Pursh Evergreen huckleberry Vaccinium oxycoccos L. Small cranberry Vaccinium parvifolium Sm. Red huckleberry Vancouveria hexandra (Hook.) C. Morren & Decne. :KLWHLQVLGHRXWÀRZHU Xerophyllum tenax (Pursh) Nutt. Beargrass

1003 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Glossary (Executive Order 13112). The term is synonymous with ex- This glossary is provided to help readers understand otic species, nonindigenous, and nonnative species (see also various terms used in the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) “invasive species”). science synthesis. Sources include the Forest Service allochthonous inputs²0DWHULDOVSHFL¿FDOO\IRRGUHVRXUF- Handbook (FSH), the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), es, that originates from outside a stream, typically in the executive orders, the Federal Register (FR), and various form of leaf litter. VFLHQWL¿FSXEOLFDWLRQV VHH³*ORVVDU\/LWHUDWXUH&LWHG´  7KHDXWKRUVKDYHDGGHGZRUNLQJGH¿QLWLRQVRIWHUPVXVHG amenity communities—Communities located near lands in the synthesis and its source materials, especially when with high amenity values. IRUPDOGH¿QLWLRQVPD\EHODFNLQJRUZKHQWKH\GLIIHU amenity migration—Movement of people based on across sources. the draw of natural or cultural amenities (Gosnell and active management—Direct interventions to achieve de- Abrams 2011). sired outcomes, which may include harvesting and planting amenity value—A noncommodity or “unpriced” value of RIYHJHWDWLRQDQGWKHLQWHQWLRQDOXVHRI¿UHDPRQJRWKHU a place or environment, typically encompassing aesthetic, activities (Carey 2003). social, cultural, and recreational values. adaptive capacity—The ability of ecosystems and social ancestral lands (of American Indian tribes)—Lands that systems to respond to, cope with, or adapt to disturbances historically were inhabited by the ancestors of American and stressors, including environmental change, to maintain Indian tribes. options for future generations (FSH 1909.12.5). annual species review—A procedure established under the adaptive management—A structured, cyclical process for NWFP in which panels of managers and biologists evalu- planning and decisionmaking in the face of uncertainty and DWHQHZVFLHQWL¿FDQGPRQLWRULQJLQIRUPDWLRQRQVSHFLHVWR changing conditions with feedback from monitoring, which potentially support the recommendation of changes in their includes using the planning process to actively test assump- conservation status. tions, track relevant conditions over time, and measure management effectiveness (FSH 1909.12.5). Additionally, Anthropocene—The current period (or geological epoch) adaptive management includes iterative decisionmaking, LQZKLFKKXPDQVKDYHEHFRPHDGRPLQDQWLQÀXHQFHRQWKH through which results are evaluated and actions are adjusted Earth’s climate and environment, generally dating from the based on what has been learned. period of rapid growth in industrialization, population, and global trade and transportation in the early 1800s (Steffen et adaptive management area (AMA)—A portion of the fed- al. 2007). HUDOODQGDUHDZLWKLQWKH1:)3DUHDWKDWZDVVSHFL¿FDOO\ DOORFDWHGIRUVFLHQWL¿FPRQLWRULQJDQGUHVHDUFKWRH[SORUH Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) —A regional strat- new forestry methods and other activities related to meet- egy applied to aquatic and riparian ecosystems across the ing the goals and objectives of the Plan. Ten AMAs were area covered by the NWFP) (Espy and Babbit 1994) (see established in the NWFP area, covering about 1.5 million chapter 7 for more details). ac (600 000 ha), or 6 percent of the planning area (Stankey at-risk species—Federally recognized threatened, endan- et al. 2003). gered, proposed, and candidate species and species of con- alien species—Any species, including its seeds, eggs, servation concern. These species are considered at risk of spores, or other biological material capable of propagating low viability as a result of changing environmental condi- that species, that is not native to a particular ecosystem tions or human-caused stressors.

1004 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

best management practices (BMPs) (for water quali- co-management—Two or more entities, each having legally ty)—Methods, measures, or practices used to reduce or established management responsibilities, working collabo- eliminate the introduction of pollutants and other detrimen- ratively to achieve mutually agreed upon, compatible objec- tal impacts to water quality, including but not limited to tives to protect, conserve, use, enhance, or restore natural structural and nonstructural controls and to operation and and cultural resources (81 FR 4638). maintenance procedures. collaborative management—Two or more entities work- biodiversity—In general, the variety of life forms and their ing together to actively protect, conserve, use, enhance, or processes and ecological functions, at all levels of biological restore natural and cultural resources (81 FR 4638). organization from genes to populations, species, assemblag- collaboration or collaborative process—A structured es, communities, and ecosystems. manner in which a collection of people with diverse inter- breeding inhibition—Prevention of reproduction in ests share knowledge, ideas, and resources, while working healthy adult individuals. together in an inclusive and cooperative manner toward a common purpose (FSH 1909.12.05). bryophytes—Mosses and liverworts. community (plant and animal)—A naturally occurring canopy cover—The downward vertical projection from the assemblage of plant and animal species living within a de- RXWVLGHSUR¿OHRIWKHFDQRS\ FURZQ RIDSODQWPHDVXUHGLQ ¿QHGDUHDRUKDELWDW &)5  percentage of land area covered. community forest²$JHQHUDOGH¿QLWLRQLVIRUHVWODQGWKDW carrying capacity—The maximum population size a spe- LVPDQDJHGE\ORFDOFRPPXQLWLHVWRSURYLGHORFDOEHQH¿WV FL¿FHQYLURQPHQWFDQVXVWDLQ (Teitelbaum et al. 2006). The federal government has spe- ceded areas—Lands that particular tribes ceded to the FL¿FDOO\GH¿QHGFRPPXQLW\IRUHVWDV³IRUHVWODQGRZQHGLQ United States government by treaties, which have been cata- IHHVLPSOHE\DQHOLJLEOHHQWLW\>ORFDOJRYHUQPHQWQRQSUR¿W logued in the Library of Congress. organization, or federally recognized tribe] that provides public access and is managed to provide community bene- climate adaptation—Management actions to reduce vul- ¿WVSXUVXDQWWRDFRPPXQLW\IRUHVWSODQ´ &)5  nerabilities to climate change and related disturbances. community of place or place-based community—A group climate change—Changes in average weather conditions of people who are bound together because of where they (including temperature, precipitation, and risk of certain reside, work, visit, or otherwise spend a continuous portion types of severe weather events) that persist over multiple of their time. decades or longer, and that result from both natural factors and human activities such as increased emissions of green- community resilience—The capacity of a community to house gases (U.S. Global Change Research Program 2017). return to its initial function and structure when initially altered under disturbance. FRDUVH¿OWHU—A conservation approach that focuses on FRQVHUYLQJHFRV\VWHPVLQFRQWUDVWWRD³¿QH¿OWHU´DS- community resistance—The capacity of a community to SURDFKWKDWIRFXVHVRQFRQVHUYLQJVSHFL¿FVSHFLHV7KHVH withstand a disturbance without changing its function and two approaches are generally viewed as complementary, structure. ZLWK¿QH¿OWHUHGVWUDWHJLHVWDLORUHGWR¿WSDUWLFXODUVSHFLHV composition—The biological elements within the various WKDW³IDOOWKURXJKWKHSRUHV´RIWKHFRDUVH¿OWHU +XQWHU levels of biological organization, from genes and species to  6HHDOVR³PHVR¿OWHU´ communities and ecosystems (FSM 2020).

1005 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

congeneric—Organisms that belong to the same taxonomic disturbance—Any relatively discrete event in time that genus, usually belonging to different species. disrupts ecosystem, watershed, community, or species population structure or function, and that changes resourc- connectivity (of habitats)—Environmental conditions es, substrate availability, or the physical environment (36 that exist at several spatial and temporal scales that pro- CFR 219.19). vide landscape linkages that permit (a) the exchange of ÀRZVHGLPHQWVDQGQXWULHQWV E JHQHWLFLQWHUFKDQJHRI dynamic reserves—A conservation approach in which pro- genes among individuals between populations; and (c) the tected areas are relocated following changes in environmen- long-distance range shifts of species, such as in response to tal conditions, especially owing to disturbance. climate change (36 CFR 219.19). early-seral vegetation—Vegetation conditions in the early consultation (tribal)—A formal government-to-govern- stages of succession following an event that removes the ment process that enables American Indian tribes and IRUHVWFDQRS\ HJWLPEHUKDUYHVWZLOG¿UHZLQGVWRUP  Alaska Native Corporations to provide meaningful, timely on sites that are capable of developing a closed canopy input, and, as appropriate, exchange views, information, (Swanson et al. 2014). A nonforest or “pre-forest” condition and recommendations on proposed policies or actions RFFXUV¿UVWIROORZHGE\DQ³HDUO\VHUDOIRUHVW´DV\RXQJ that may affect their rights or interests prior to a decision. shade-intolerant trees form a closed canopy. Consultation is a unique form of communication character- ecocultural resources—Valued elements of the biophysical ized by trust and respect (FSM 1509.05). environment, including plants, fungi, wildlife, water, and corticosterone—A steroid hormone produced by many spe- places, and the social and cultural relationships of people cies of animals, often as the result of stress. with those elements. cryptogam—An organism that reproduces by spores and ecological conditions—The biological and physical envi- WKDWGRHVQRWSURGXFHWUXHÀRZHUVDQGVHHGVLQFOXGHVIXQJL ronment that can affect the diversity of plant and animal algae, lichens, mosses, liverworts, and ferns. communities, the persistence of native species, invasibility, and productive capacity of ecological systems. Ecological cultural keystone species²$VSHFLHVWKDWVLJQL¿FDQWO\ FRQGLWLRQVLQFOXGHKDELWDWDQGRWKHULQÀXHQFHVRQVSHFLHV VKDSHVWKHFXOWXUDOLGHQWLW\RIDSHRSOHDVUHÀHFWHGLQGLHW and the environment. Examples of ecological conditions materials, medicine, or spiritual practice (Garibaldi and include the abundance and distribution of aquatic and ter- Turner 2004). restrial habitats, connectivity, roads and other structural cultural services—A type of ecosystem service that in- developments, human uses, and occurrence of other species FOXGHVWKHQRQPDWHULDOEHQH¿WVWKDWSHRSOHREWDLQIURP (36 CFR 219.19). ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive devel- ecological forestry—A ecosystem management approach RSPHQWUHÀHFWLRQUHFUHDWLRQDQGDHVWKHWLFH[SHULHQFHV designed to achieve multiple objectives that may include 6DUXNKiQDQG:K\WH  conservation goals and sustainable forest management and desired conditions²$GHVFULSWLRQRIVSHFL¿FVRFLDOHFR- which emphasizes disturbance-based management and nomic, or ecological characteristics toward which manage- retention of “legacy” elements such as old trees and dead ment of the land and resources should be directed. wood (Franklin et al. 2007). disturbance regime—A description of the characteristic ecological integrity—The quality or condition of an eco- types of disturbance on a given landscape; the frequency, system when its dominant ecological characteristics (e.g., severity, and size distribution of these characteristic distur- composition, structure, function, connectivity, and species bance types and their interactions (36 CFR 219.19). composition and diversity) occur within the natural range of

1006 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

variation and can withstand and recover from most per- GHHPHGLQGDQJHURIH[WLQFWLRQWKURXJKRXWDOORUDVLJQL¿- turbations imposed by natural environmental dynamics or cant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. Section 1532). KXPDQLQÀXHQFH &)5  endemic²1DWLYHDQGUHVWULFWHGWRDVSHFL¿FJHRJUDSKLFDO ecological keystone species—A species whose ecological area. functions have extensive and disproportionately large effects (O1LñR6RXWKHUQ2VFLOODWLRQ (162 —A band of anom- on ecosystems relative to its abundance (Power et al. 1996). alously warm ocean water temperatures that occasionally ecological sustainability—The capability of ecosystems to develops off the western coast of South America and can maintain ecological integrity (36 CFR 219.19). FDXVHFOLPDWLFFKDQJHVDFURVVWKH3DFL¿F2FHDQ7KHH[- tremes of this climate pattern’s oscillations cause extreme economic sustainability—The capability of society to ZHDWKHU VXFKDVÀRRGVDQGGURXJKWV LQPDQ\UHJLRQVRI SURGXFHDQGFRQVXPHRURWKHUZLVHEHQH¿WIURPJRRGVDQG the world. services, including contributions to jobs and market and QRQPDUNHWEHQH¿WV &)5  HQYLURQPHQWDO'1$ H'1$ —Genetic material (DNA) contained within small biological and tissue fragments that ecoregion—A geographic area containing distinctive eco- can be collected from aquatic, terrestrial, and even atmo- logical assemblages, topographic and climatic gradients, spheric environments, linked to an individual species, and and historical land uses. used to indicate the presence of that species. ecosystem—A spatially explicit, relatively homogeneous environmental justice populations—Groups of peo- unit of the Earth that includes all interacting organisms and ple who have low incomes or who identify themselves as elements of the abiotic environment within its boundaries $IULFDQ$PHULFDQ$VLDQRU3DFL¿F,VODQGHU$PHULFDQ (36 CFR 219.19). Indian or Alaskan Native, or of Hispanic origin. ecosystem diversity—The variety and relative extent of ephemeral stream²$VWUHDPWKDWÀRZVRQO\LQGLUHFWUH- ecosystems (36 CFR 219.19). sponse to precipitation in the immediate locality (watershed ecosystem integrity—See “ecological integrity.” or catchment basin), and whose channel is at all other times above the zone of saturation. ecosystem management—Management across broad spatial and long temporal scales for a suite of goals, in- epicormic—Literally, “of a shoot or branch,” this term im- cluding maintaining populations of multiple species and plies growth from a previously dormant bud on the trunk or ecosystem services. a limb of a tree. ecosystem services²%HQH¿WVWKDWSHRSOHREWDLQIURP epiphyte—A plant or plant ally (including mosses and ecosystems (see also “provisioning services,” “regulating lichens) that grows on the surface of another plant such as a services,” “supporting services,” and “cultural services”). tree, but is not a parasite. ectomycorrhizal fungi—Fungal species that form symbiot- even-aged stand—A stand of trees composed of a single ic relationships with vascular plants through roots, typically age class (36 CFR 219.19). aiding their uptake of nutrients. Although other mycorrhi- fecundity—The reproductive rate of an organism or zal fungi penetrate their host’s cell walls, ectomycorrhizal population. fungi do not. federally recognized Indian tribe—An Indian tribe or endangered species—Any species or subspecies that the Alaska Native Corporation, band, nation, pueblo, village, or Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce has community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges

1007 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

to exist as an Indian tribe under the Federally Recognized VXUIDFH¿UHVWKDWUHVXOWLQORZOHYHOVRIYHJHWDWLRQPRUWDOLW\ Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a (36 CFR HJ SHUFHQWEDVDODUHDPRUWDOLW\LQIRUHVWHGHFRV\V- 219.19). WHPV ZLWKKLJKVHYHULW\¿UHJHQHUDOO\OLPLWHGWRVPDOO SDWFKHV DF>KD@  VHHFKDSWHUIRUPRUHGHWDLOV  ¿QH¿OWHU—A conservation approach that focuses on con- VHUYLQJLQGLYLGXDOVSHFLHVLQFRQWUDVWWRD³FRDUVH¿OWHU´ ¿UHUHJLPHIUHTXHQWPL[HGVHYHULW\²$¿UHUHJLPHZLWK approach that focuses on conserving ecosystems; these return intervals between 15 and 50 years that burns with a approaches are generally viewed as complementary with mosaic of low-, moderate-, and high-severity patches (Perry ¿QH¿OWHUHGVWUDWHJLHVWDLORUHGWR¿WSDUWLFXODUVSHFLHVWKDW et al. 2011) (see chapter 3 for more details). ³IDOOWKURXJKWKHSRUHV´RIWKHFRDUVH¿OWHU +XQWHU  ¿UHURWDWLRQ²/HQJWKRIWLPHH[SHFWHGIRUDVSHFL¿F 6HHDOVR³PHVR¿OWHU´ amount of land to burn (some parts might burn more than ¿UHGHSHQGHQWYHJHWDWLRQW\SHV—A vegetative commu- RQFHRUVRPHQRWDWDOO EDVHGXSRQWKHVWXG\RISDVW¿UH QLW\WKDWHYROYHGZLWK¿UHDVDQHFHVVDU\FRQWULEXWRUWRLWV records in a large landscape (Turner and Romme 1994). vitality and to the renewal of habitat for its member species. ¿UHVHYHULW\²7KHPDJQLWXGHRIWKHHIIHFWVRI¿UHRQHFR- ¿UHH[FOXVLRQ²&XUWDLOPHQWRIZLOGODQG¿UHEHFDXVHRI system components, including vegetation or soils. deliberate suppression of ignitions, as well as unintention- ¿UHVXSSUHVVLRQ—The human act of extinguishing wild- al effects of human activities such as intensive grazing ¿UHV .HDQHHWDO  WKDWUHPRYHVJUDVVHVDQGRWKHUIXHOVWKDWFDUU\¿UH .HDQH et al. 2002). ÀRRGSODLQUHVWRUDWLRQ—Ecological restoration of a stream RUULYHU¶VÀRRGSODLQZKLFKPD\LQYROYHVHWEDFNRUUHPRYDO ¿UHLQWHQVLW\—The amount of energy or heat release of levees or other structural constraints. GXULQJ¿UH focal species—A small set of species whose status is as- ¿UHUHJLPH—A characterization of long-term patterns of sumed to infer the integrity of the larger ecological system ¿UHLQDJLYHQHFRV\VWHPRYHUDVSHFL¿HGDQGUHODWLYHO\ORQJ to which it belongs, and thus to provide meaningful infor- period of time, based on multiple attributes, including fre- mation regarding the effectiveness of a resource manage- quency, severity, extent, spatial complexity, and seasonality ment plan in maintaining or restoring the ecological condi- RI¿UHRFFXUUHQFH tions to maintain the broader diversity of plant and animal ¿UHUHJLPHORZIUHTXHQF\KLJKVHYHULW\²$¿UHUHJLPH communities in the NWPF area. Focal species would be ZLWKORQJUHWXUQLQWHUYDOV !\HDUV DQGKLJKOHYHOVRI commonly selected on the basis of their functional role in vegetation mortality (e.g., ~70 percent basal area mortality ecosystems (36 CFR 219.19). in forested ecosystems), often occurring in large patches food web—Interconnecting chains between organisms in !DF>KD@  VHHFKDSWHUIRUPRUHGHWDLOV  an ecological community based upon what they consume. ¿UHUHJLPHPRGHUDWHIUHTXHQF\PL[HGVHYHULW\—A Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team ¿UHUHJLPHZLWKPRGHUDWHUHWXUQLQWHUYDOVEHWZHHQDQG (FEMAT)—An interdisciplinary team that included expert 200 years and mixtures of low, moderate, and high sever- ecological and social scientists, analysts, and managers ity; high-severity patches would have been common and assembled in 1993 by President Bill Clinton to develop IUHTXHQWO\ODUJH !DF>!KD@  VHHFKDSWHUIRU options for ecosystem management of federal forests within more details). the range of the northern spotted owl (FEMAT 1993). ¿UHUHJLPHYHU\IUHTXHQWORZVHYHULW\²$¿UHUHJLPH with short return intervals (5 to 25 years) dominated by

1008 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

forest fragmentation—The patterns of dispersion and the purpose of the guideline is met (36 CFR section 219.15(d) connectivity of nonhomogeneous forest cover (Riitters et (3)). Guidelines are established to help achieve or maintain a al. 2002). See also “landscape fragmentation” and “habitat desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate undesir- IUDJPHQWDWLRQ´IRUVSHFL¿FPHDQLQJVUHODWHGWRKDELWDWORVV able effects, or to meet applicable legal requirements. and isolation. habitat—An area with the environmental conditions and frequency distribution—A depiction, often appearing in resources that are necessary for occupancy by a species and the form of a curve or graph, of the abundance of possible for individuals of that species to survive and reproduce. values of a variable. In this synthesis report, we speak of the —Discontinuity in the spatial dis- IUHTXHQF\RIZLOG¿UHSDWFKHVRIYDULRXVVL]HV tribution of resources and conditions present in an area at a fuels (wildland)—Combustible material in wildland areas, given scale that affects occupancy, reproduction, and surviv- including live and dead plant biomass such as trees, shrub, al in a particular species (see “landscape fragmentation”). grass, leaves, litter, snags, and logs. heterogeneity (forest)—Diversity, often applied to vari- fuels management—Manipulation of wildland fuels ation in forest structure within stands in two dimensions: through mechanical, chemical, biological, or manual means, horizontal (e.g., single trees, clumps of trees, and gaps of no RUE\¿UHLQVXSSRUWRIODQGPDQDJHPHQWREMHFWLYHVWRFRQ- trees), and vertical (e.g., vegetation at different heights from WURORUPLWLJDWHWKHHIIHFWVRIIXWXUHZLOGODQG¿UH WKHIRUHVWÀRRUWRWKHWRSRIWKHIRUHVWFDQRS\ RUDFURVV large landscapes (North et al. 2009). function (ecological)—Ecological processes, such as ener- J\ÀRZQXWULHQWF\FOLQJDQGUHWHQWLRQVRLOGHYHORSPHQWDQG hierarchy theory—A theory that describes ecosystems at retention; predation and herbivory; and natural disturbances multiple levels of organization (e.g., organisms, populations, VXFKDVZLQG¿UHDQGÀRRGVWKDWVXVWDLQFRPSRVLWLRQDQG and communities) in a nested hierarchy. structure (FSM 2020). See also “key ecological function.” high-severity burn patch—A contiguous area of high- future range of variation (FRV)²7KHQDWXUDOÀXFWXDWLRQ VHYHULW\RUVWDQGUHSODFLQJ¿UH of pattern components of healthy ecosystems that might historical range of variation (HRV)²3DVWÀXFWXDWLRQRU occur in the future, primarily affected by climate change, range of conditions in the pattern of components of ecosys- human infrastructure, invasive species, and other anticipat- WHPVRYHUDVSHFL¿HGSHULRGRIWLPH ed disturbances. hybrid ecosystem—An ecosystem that has been mod- gaps (forest)—Small openings in a forest canopy that L¿HGIURPDKLVWRULFDOVWDWHVXFKWKDWLWKDVQRYHODWWUL- are naturally formed when one or a few canopy trees die butes while retaining some original characteristics (see (Yamamoto 2000). “novel ecosystem”). genotype—The genetic makeup of an individual organism. hybrid—Offspring resulting from the breeding of two glucocorticoid—A class of steroid hormones produced by different species. many species of animals, often as the result of stress. inbreeding depression²5HGXFHG¿WQHVVLQDSRSXODWLRQ goals (in land management plans)—Broad statements of that occurs as the result of breeding between related indi- intent, other than desired conditions, that do not include ex- YLGXDOVOHDGLQJWRLQFUHDVHGKRPRJHQHLW\DQGVLPSOL¿FD- pected completion dates (36 CFR part 219.7(e)(2)). tion of the gene pool. guideline—A constraint on project and activity decision- making that allows for departure from its terms, so long as

1009 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

in-channel restoration—Ecological restoration of the direction for an administrative unit of the National Forest channel of a stream or river, often through placement of ma- System (FSH 1909.12.5). WHULDOV URFNVDQGZRRG RURWKHUVWUXFWXUDOPRGL¿FDWLRQV landform²$VSHFL¿FJHRPRUSKLFIHDWXUHRQWKHVXUIDFHRI individuals, clumps, and openings (ICO) method—A the Earth, such as a mountain, plateau, canyon, or valley. method that incorporates reference spatial pattern targets landscape²$GH¿QHGDUHDLUUHVSHFWLYHRIRZQHUVKLS based upon individual trees, clumps of trees, and canopy RURWKHUDUWL¿FLDOERXQGDULHVVXFKDVDVSDWLDOPRVDLFRI openings into silvicultural prescriptions and tree-marking terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, landforms, and plant guidelines (Churchill et al. 2013). communities, repeated in similar form throughout such a Interagency Special Status and Sensitive Species GH¿QHGDUHD &)5  Program (ISSSSP)—A federal agency program, estab- landscape fragmentation—Breaking up of continuous OLVKHGXQGHUWKH86)RUHVW6HUYLFH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW habitats into patches as a result of human land use and 5HJLRQDQG%XUHDXRI/DQG0DQDJHPHQW2UHJRQ thereby generating habitat loss, isolation, and edge effects :DVKLQJWRQVWDWHRI¿FH7KH,66663VXSHUVHGHGWKH6XUYH\ (see “habitat fragmentation”). and Manage standards and guidelines under the NWFP and also addresses other species of conservation focus, coordi- landscape genetics²$QLQWHUGLVFLSOLQDU\¿HOGRIVWXG\ nates development and revision of management recommen- that combines population genetics and landscape ecolo- dations and survey protocols, coordinates data management gy to explore how genetic relatedness among individuals between the agencies, develops summaries of species biolo- DQGVXESRSXODWLRQVRIDVSHFLHVLVLQÀXHQFHGE\ODQG- gy, and conducts other tasks. scape-level conditions. intermittent stream—A stream or reach of stream channel landscape hierarchy—Organization of land areas based WKDWÀRZVLQLWVQDWXUDOFRQGLWLRQRQO\GXULQJFHUWDLQWLPHV upon a hierarchy of nested geographic (i.e., different-sized) of the year or in several years, and is characterized by inter- XQLWVZKLFKSURYLGHVDJXLGHIRUGH¿QLQJWKHIXQFWLRQDO spersed, permanent surface water areas containing aquatic components of a system and how components at different ÀRUDDQGIDXQDDGDSWHGWRWKHUHODWLYHO\KDUVKHQYLURQPHQ- scales are related to one another. tal conditions found in these types of environments. late-successional forest—Forests that have developed after invasive species—An alien species (or subspecies) whose long periods of time (typically at least 100 to 200 years) fol- deliberate, accidental, or self-introduction is likely to cause lowing major disturbances, and that contain a major com- economic or environmental harm or harm to human health ponent of shade-tolerant tree species that can regenerate be- (Executive Order 13112). neath a canopy and eventually grow into the canopy in which small canopy gaps occur (see chapter 3 for more details). key ecological function—The main behaviors performed Note that FEMAT (1993) and the NWFP also applied this E\DQRUJDQLVPWKDWFDQLQÀXHQFHHQYLURQPHQWDOFRQGLWLRQV term to older (at least 80 years) forest types, including both or habitats of other species. old-growth and mature forests, regardless of the shade tol- key watersheds—Watersheds that are expected to serve as erance of the dominant tree species (e.g., 90-year-old forests refugia for aquatic organisms, particularly in the short term, GRPLQDWHGE\'RXJODV¿UZHUHWHUPHGODWHVXFFHVVLRQDO  IRUDWULVN¿VKSRSXODWLRQVWKDWKDYHWKHJUHDWHVWSRWHQWLDO leading edge—The boundary of a species’ range at which for restoration, or to provide sources of high-quality water. the population is geographically expanding through coloni- land and resource management plan (Forest Service)—A zation of new sites. document or set of documents that provides management

1010 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

legacy trees—Individual trees that survive a major dis- reserves under the NWFP, that are managed for timber pro- turbance and persist as components of early-seral stands duction and other objectives. (Franklin 1990). mature forest²$QROGHUIRUHVWVWDJH !\HDUV SULRUWR legacies (biological)—Live trees, seed and seedling banks, old-growth in which trees begin attaining maximum heights remnant populations and individuals, snags, large soil ag- and developing some characteristic, for example, 80 to 200 gregates, hyphal mats, logs, uprooted trees, and other biotic \HDUVLQWKHFDVHRIROGJURZWK'RXJODV¿UZHVWHUQKHP- features that survive a major disturbance and persist as ORFNIRUHVWVRIWHQ EXWQRWDOZD\V LQFOXGLQJELJWUHHV ! components of early-seral stands (Franklin 1990, Franklin cm diameter at breast height), establishment of late-seral et al. 2002). species (i.e., shade-tolerant trees), and initiation of deca- dence in early species (i.e., shade-intolerant trees). lentic—Still-water environments, including lakes, ponds, and wet meadows. PHVR¿OWHU—A conservation approach that “focuses on con- serving critical elements of ecosystems that are important longitudinal studies—Studies that include repeated obser- to many species, especially those likely to be overlooked vations on the same response variable over time. E\¿QH¿OWHUDSSURDFKHVVXFKDVLQYHUWHEUDWHVIXQJLDQG lotic—Freshwater environments with running water, in- nonvascular plants” (Hunter 2005). cluding rivers, streams, and springs. meta-analysis—A study that combines the results of multi- low-income population—A community or a group of in- ple studies. dividuals living in geographic proximity to one another, or minority population²$UHDGLO\LGHQWL¿DEOHJURXSRISHR- a set of individuals, such as migrant workers or American ple living in geographic proximity with a population that is Indians, who meet the standards for low income and expe- DWOHDVWSHUFHQWPLQRULW\RUDQLGHQWL¿DEOHJURXSWKDW rience common conditions of environmental exposure or has a meaningfully greater minority population than the effect (CEQ 1997). adjacent geographic areas, or may also be a geographically PDQDJLQJZLOG¿UHIRUUHVRXUFHREMHFWLYHV—Managing GLVSHUVHGWUDQVLHQWVHWRILQGLYLGXDOVVXFKDVPLJUDQWZRUN- ZLOG¿UHVWRSURPRWHPXOWLSOHREMHFWLYHVVXFKDVUHGXFLQJ ers or Americans Indians (CEQ 1997). ¿UHGDQJHURUUHVWRULQJIRUHVWKHDOWKDQGHFRORJLFDOSUR- mitigation (climate change)—Efforts to reduce anthro- cesses rather than attempting full suppression. The terms pogenic alteration of climate, in particular by increasing ³PDQDJHGZLOG¿UH´RU³UHVRXUFHREMHFWLYHZLOG¿UH´KDYH carbon sequestration. also been used to describe such events (Long et al. 2017). +RZHYHU¿UHPDQDJHUVQRWHWKDWPDQ\XQSODQQHGLJQL- monitoring—A systematic process of collecting informa- tions are managed using a combination of tactics, including tion to track implementation (implementation monitoring), GLUHFWVXSSUHVVLRQLQGLUHFWFRQWDLQPHQWPRQLWRULQJRI¿UH to evaluate effects of actions or changes in conditions or re- VSUHDGDQGHYHQDFFHOHUDWLQJ¿UHVSUHDGDFURVVWKHLUSH- lationships (effectiveness monitoring), or to test underlying rimeters and over their full duration. Therefore, terms that assumptions (validation monitoring) (see 36 CFR 219.19). VHSDUDWH³PDQDJHG´ZLOG¿UHVIURPIXOO\³VXSSUHVVHG´ZLOG- mosaic—The contiguous spatial arrangement of elements ¿UHVGRQRWFRQYH\WKDWFRPSOH[LW\ 6HH³8VHRIZLOGODQG within an area. In regions, this is typically the upland vege- ¿UH´ZKLFKDOVRLQFOXGHVSUHVFULEHGEXUQLQJ  tation patches, large urban areas, large bodies of water, and matrix²)HGHUDODQGRWKHUODQGVRXWVLGHRIVSHFL¿FDOO\ large areas of barren ground or rock. However, regional mo- designated reserve areas, particularly the late-successional saics can also be described in terms of land ownership, habitat

1011 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

patches, land use patches, or other elements. For landscapes, time and space that are appropriate for a given management this is typically the spatial arrangement of landscape elements. application (FSH 1909.12.5). multiaged stands—Forest stands having two or more nested hierarchy—The name given to the hierarchical age classes of trees; this includes stands resulting from structure of groups within groups used to classify organisms. variable-retention silvicultural systems or other tradi- nontimber forest products (also known as “special for- tionally even-aged systems that leave residual or reserve est products”)—Various products from forests that do not (legacy) trees. include logs from trees but do include bark, berries, boughs, multiple use—The management of all the various renew- EU\RSK\WHVEXOEVEXUOV&KULVWPDVWUHHVFRQHVIHUQV¿UH- able surface resources of the National Forest System so that wood, forbs, fungi (including mushrooms), grasses, mosses, they are used in the combination that will best meet the nuts, pine straw, roots, sedges, seeds, transplants, tree sap, needs of the American people; making the most judicious ZLOGÀRZHUVIHQFHPDWHULDOPLQHSURSVSRVWVDQGSROHVVKLQ- use of the land for some or all of these resources or related gle and shake bolts, and rails (36 CFR part 223 Subpart G). VHUYLFHVRYHUDUHDVODUJHHQRXJKWRSURYLGHVXI¿FLHQWODWL- novel ecosystem—An ecosystem that has experienced large tude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing DQGSRWHQWLDOO\LUUHYHUVLEO\PRGL¿FDWLRQVWRDELRWLFFRQGLWLRQV needs and conditions; that some land will be used for less or biotic composition in ways that result in a composition than all of the resources; and harmonious and coordinated of species, ecological communities, and functions that have management of the various resources, each with the other, never before existed, and that depart from historical analogs without impairment of the productivity of the land, with (Hobbs et al. 2009). See “hybrid ecosystem” for comparison. consideration being given to the relative values of the vari- ous resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses old-growth forest—A forest distinguished by old trees that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit !\HDUV DQGUHODWHGVWUXFWXUDODWWULEXWHVWKDWRIWHQ EXW output, consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield not always) include large trees, high biomass of dead wood Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528–531) (36 CFR 219.19). (i.e., snags, down coarse wood), multiple canopy layers, distinctive species composition and functions, and vertical natal site—Location of birth. and horizontal diversity in the tree canopy (see chapter 3). native knowledge—A way of knowing or understanding the ,QGU\¿UHIUHTXHQWIRUHVWVROGJURZWKLVFKDUDFWHUL]HGE\ world, including traditional ecological, and social knowledge ODUJHROG¿UHUHVLVWDQWWUHHVDQGUHODWLYHO\RSHQVWDQGVZLWK- of the environment derived from multiple generations of in- out canopy layering. digenous peoples’ interactions, observations, and experienc- palustrine—Inland, nontidal wetlands that may be perma- es with their ecological systems. This knowledge is accumu- QHQWO\RUWHPSRUDULO\ÀRRGHGDQGDUHFKDUDFWHUL]HGE\WKH lated over successive generations and is expressed through presence of emergent vegetation such as swamps, marshes, oral traditions, ceremonies, stories, dances, songs, art, and vernal pools, and lakeshores. other means within a cultural context (36 CFR 219.19). passive management—A management approach in which native species—A species historically or currently present natural processes are allowed to occur without human inter- in a particular ecosystem as a result of natural migratory or vention to reach desired outcomes. evolutionary processes and not as a result of an accidental or deliberate introduction or invasion into that ecosystem patch—A relatively small area with similar environmen- (see 36 CFR 219.19). tal conditions, such as vegetative structure and composi- tion. Sometimes used interchangeably with vegetation or QDWXUDOUDQJHRIYDULDWLRQ 159 —The variation of eco- forest stand. ORJLFDOFKDUDFWHULVWLFVDQGSURFHVVHVRYHUVSHFL¿HGVFDOHVRI

1012 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

3DFL¿F'HFDGDO2VFLOODWLRQ (PDO)—A recurring (ap- climate, and dominant plant species that would occur on a proximately decadal-scale) pattern of ocean-atmosphere VLWHLQDEVHQFHRIGLVWXUEDQFHV 3¿VWHUDQG$UQR  ²DVWUHDPRUUHDFKRIDFKDQQHOWKDWÀRZVFRQWLQXRXVO\ poverty rate²$PHDVXUHRI¿QDQFLDOLQFRPHEHORZD or nearly so throughout the year and whose upper surface threshold that differs by family size and composition. is generally lower than the top of the zone of saturation in areas adjacent to the stream. precautionary principle—A principle that if an action, policy, or decision has a suspected risk of causing harm perennial stream—A stream or reach of a channel that to the public or to the environment, and there is no sci- ÀRZVFRQWLQXRXVO\RUQHDUO\VRWKURXJKRXWWKH\HDUDQG HQWL¿FFRQVHQVXVWKDWLWLVQRWKDUPIXOWKHQWKHEXUGHQ whose upper surface is generally lower than the top of the of proof that it is not harmful falls on those making that zone of saturation in areas adjacent to the stream. GHFLVLRQ3DUWLFXODUGH¿QLWLRQVRIWKHSULQFLSOHGLIIHUDQG phenotype—Physical manifestation of the genetic makeup some applications use the less formal term, “precaution- of an individual and its interaction with the environment. DU\DSSURDFK´,PSRUWDQWTXDOL¿FDWLRQVDVVRFLDWHGZLWK PDQ\GH¿QLWLRQVLQFOXGH  WKHSHUFHLYHGKDUPLVOLNHO\ place attachment—The “positive bond that develops WREHVHULRXV  VRPHVFLHQWL¿FDQDO\VLVVXJJHVWVDVLJ- between groups or individuals and their environment” QL¿FDQWEXWXQFHUWDLQSRWHQWLDOIRUKDUPDQG  DSSOLFD- (Jorgensen and Stedman 2001: 234). tions of the principle emphasize generally constraining place dependence— “The strength of an individual’s an activity to mitigate it rather than “resisting” it entirely VXEMHFWLYHDWWDFKPHQWWRVSHFL¿FSODFHV´ 6WRNROVDQG (Doremus 2007). Shumaker 1982: 157). SUHVFULEHG¿UH²$ZLOGODQG¿UHRULJLQDWLQJIURPD place identity²'LPHQVLRQVRIVHOIWKDWGH¿QHDQLQGL- SODQQHGLJQLWLRQWRPHHWVSHFL¿FREMHFWLYHVLGHQWL¿HG vidual’s [or group’s] identity in relation to the physical LQDZULWWHQDQGDSSURYHGSUHVFULEHG¿UHSODQIRUZKLFK environment through ideas, beliefs, preferences, feel- National Environmental Policy Act requirements (where ap- ings, values, goals, and behavioral tendencies and skills plicable) have been met prior to ignition (synonymous with (Proshansky 1978). ). place-based planning—“A process used to involve stake- primary recreation activity—A single activity that caused holders by encouraging them to come together to collec- a recreation visit to a national forest. WLYHO\GH¿QHSODFHPHDQLQJVDQGDWWDFKPHQWV´ /RZHU\DQG probable sale quantity—An estimate of the average Morse 2013: 1423). amount of timber likely to be awarded for sale for a given plant association²$¿QHOHYHORIFODVVL¿FDWLRQLQDKLHUDU- DUHD VXFKDVWKH1:)3DUHD GXULQJDVSHFL¿HGSHULRG FK\RISRWHQWLDOYHJHWDWLRQWKDWLVGH¿QHGLQWHUPVRIDFOL- provisioning services—A type of ecosystem service that max-dominant overstory tree species and typical understory includes clean air and fresh water, energy, food, fuel, for- herb or shrub species. DJHZRRGSURGXFWVRU¿EHUDQGPLQHUDOV population bottleneck—An abrupt decline in the size of public participation geographic information system a population from an event, which often results in deleteri- (PPGIS)—Using spatial decisionmaking and mapping tools ous effects such as reduced genetic diversity and increased to produce local knowledge with the goal of including and em- probability of local or global extirpation. powering marginalized populations (Brown and Reed 2009). potential vegetation type (PVT)—Native, late-succession- public values—Amenity values (scenery, quality of life); DO RU³FOLPD[´ SODQWFRPPXQLW\WKDWUHÀHFWVWKHUHJLRQDO environmental quality (clean air, soil, and water); ecological

1013 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

values (biodiversity); public use values (outdoor recreation, resilience—The capacity of a system to absorb disturbance education, subsistence use); and spiritual or religious values and reorganize (or return to its previous organization) so as (cultural ties, tribal history). to still retain essentially the same function, structure, iden- tity, and feedbacks (see FSM Chapter 2020 and see also “so- record of decision (ROD)²7KH¿QDOGHFLVLRQGRFXPHQW FLRHFRORJLFDOUHVLOLHQFH´ 'H¿QLWLRQVHPSKDVL]HWKHFDSDFLW\ that amended the planning documents of 19 national forests of a system or its constituent entities to respond or regrow af- and seven Bureau of Land Management districts within the ter mortality induced by a disturbance event, although broad range of the northern spotted owl (the NWFP area) in April GH¿QLWLRQVRIUHVLOLHQFHPD\DOVRHQFRPSDVV³UHVLVWDQFH´ 1994 (Espy and Babbit 1994). (see below), under which such mortality may be averted. recreation opportunity—An opportunity to participate resistance—The capacity of a system or an entity to with- LQDVSHFL¿FUHFUHDWLRQDFWLYLW\LQDSDUWLFXODUUHFUHDWLRQ stand a disturbance event without much change. setting to enjoy desired recreation experiences and other EHQH¿WVWKDWDFFUXH5HFUHDWLRQRSSRUWXQLWLHVLQFOXGHQRQ- restoration economy—Diverse economic activities associ- motorized, motorized, developed, and dispersed recreation ated with the restoration of structure or function to terrestrial on land, water, and in the air (36 CFR 219.19). and aquatic ecosystems (Nielsen-Pincus and Moseley 2013). redundancy—The presence of multiple occurrences of restoration, ecological—The process of assisting the recov- ecological conditions, including key ecological functions ery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or (functional redundancy), such that not all occurrences may destroyed. Ecological restoration focuses on reestablishing be eliminated by a catastrophic event. the composition, structure, pattern, and ecological process- es necessary to facilitate terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems refugia—An area that remains less altered by climatic and sustainability, resilience, and health under current and fu- environmental change (including disturbances such as wind ture conditions (36 CFR 219.19). DQG¿UH DIIHFWLQJVXUURXQGLQJUHJLRQVDQGWKDWWKHUHIRUH IRUPVDKDYHQIRUUHOLFWIDXQDDQGÀRUD restoration, functional—Restoration of dynamic abiotic and biotic processes in degraded ecosystems, without neces- regalia—Dress and special elements made from a variety sarily a focus on structural condition and composition. of items, including various plant and animal materials, and worn for tribal dances and ceremonies. riparian areas—Three-dimensional ecotones (the tran- sition zone between two adjoining communities) of inter- regulating services—A type of ecosystem service that action that include terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that includes long-term storage of carbon; climate regulation; extend down into the groundwater, up above the canopy, ZDWHU¿OWUDWLRQSXUL¿FDWLRQDQGVWRUDJHVRLOVWDELOL]DWLRQ RXWZDUGDFURVVWKHÀRRGSODLQXSWKHQHDUVORSHVWKDWGUDLQ ÀRRGDQGGURXJKWFRQWURODQGGLVHDVHUHJXODWLRQ to the water, laterally into the terrestrial ecosystem, and representativeness—The presence of a full array of eco- along the water course at variable widths (36 CFR 219.19). system types and successional states, based on the physical riparian management zone—Portions of a watershed environment and characteristic disturbance processes. in which riparian-dependent resources receive primary reserve—An area of land designated and managed for a spe- emphasis, and for which plans include Plan components to cial purpose, often to conserve or protect ecosystems, species, maintain or restore riparian functions and ecological func- or other natural and cultural resources from particular human tions (36 CFR 219.19). activities that are detrimental to achieving the goals of the area. riparian reserves—Reserves established along streams and rivers to protect riparian ecological functions and processes

1014 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

necessary to create and maintain habitat for aquatic and ripar- sink population—A population in which reproductive rates ian-dependent organisms over time and ensure connectivity are lower than mortality rates but that is maintained by im- within and between watersheds. The Aquatic Conservation migration of individuals from outside of that population (see Strategy in the NWFP record of decision included standards also “source population”). and guidelines that delineated riparian reserves. social sustainability—“The capability of society to support risk—A combination of the probability that a negative out- the network of relationships, traditions, culture, and activi- come will occur and the severity of the subsequent negative ties that connect people to the land and to one another, and consequences (36 CFR 219.19). support vibrant communities” (36 CFR 219.19). The term is commonly invoked as one of the three parts of a “triple-bot- rural restructuring—Changes in demographic and eco- tom line” alongside environmental and economic consider- nomic conditions owing to declines in natural resource ations. The concept is an umbrella term for various topics production and agriculture (Nelson 2001). such as quality of life, security, social capital, rights, sense scale—In ecological terms, the extent and resolution in spatial of place, environmental justice, and community resilience, and temporal terms of a phenomenon or analysis, which differs among others discussed in this synthesis. IURPWKHGH¿QLWLRQLQFDUWRJUDSK\UHJDUGLQJWKHUDWLRRIPDS socioecological resilience—The capacity of socioecological distance to Earth surface distance (Jenerette and Wu 2000). systems (see “socioecological system”) to cope with, adapt scenic character—A combination of the physical, biological, WRDQGLQÀXHQFHFKDQJHWRSHUVLVWDQGGHYHORSLQWKHIDFH and cultural images that gives an area its scenic identity and of change; and to innovate and transform into new, more contributes to its sense of place. Scenic character provides a GHVLUDEOHFRQ¿JXUDWLRQVLQUHVSRQVHWRGLVWXUEDQFH frame of reference from which to determine scenic attractive- socioecological system (or social-ecological system)—A ness and to measure scenic integrity (36 CFR 219.19). FRKHUHQWV\VWHPRIELRSK\VLFDODQGVRFLDOIDFWRUVGH¿QHG science synthesis²$QDUUDWLYHUHYLHZRIVFLHQWL¿FLQIRU- at several spatial, temporal, and organizational scales that PDWLRQIURPDGH¿QHGSRRORIVRXUFHVWKDWFRPSLOHVDQG regularly interact, continuously adapt, and regulate critical LQWHJUDWHVDQGLQWHUSUHWV¿QGLQJVDQGGHVFULEHVXQFHU- natural, socioeconomic, and cultural resources (Redman et tainty, including the boundaries of what is known and al. 2004); also described as a coupled-human and natural what is not known. system (Liu et al. 2007). sense of place—The collection of meanings, beliefs, sym- source population—A population in which reproductive bols, values, and feelings that individuals or groups associ- rates exceed those of mortality rates so that the population ate with a particular locality (Williams and Stewart 1998). has the capacity to increase in size. The term is also often used to denote when such a population contributes emi- sensitive species—Plant or animal species that receive grants (dispersing individuals) that move outside the popula- special conservation attention because of threats to their tion, particularly when feeding a sink population. populations or habitats, but which do not have special status as listed or candidates for listing under the Endangered special forest products—See “nontimber forest products.” Species Act. special status species—Species that have been listed or sensitivity—In ecological contexts, the propensity of proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the communities or populations to change when subject to Endangered Species Act. disturbance, or the opposite of resistance (see “communi- species of conservation concern—A species, other than ty resistance”). federally recognized as a threatened, endangered, proposed,

1015 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966 or candidate species, that is known to occur in the NWFP Survey and Manage program—A formal part of the area and for which the regional has determined that NWFP that established protocols for conducting various WKHEHVWDYDLODEOHVFLHQWL¿FLQIRUPDWLRQLQGLFDWHVVXEVWDQWLDO W\SHVRIVSHFLHVVXUYH\VLGHQWL¿HGROGIRUHVWDVVRFLDWHG concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long species warranting additional consideration for monitor- term in the Plan area (36 CFR 219.9(c)). ing and protection (see “Survey and Manage species”), and instituted an annual species review procedure that evaluated stand—A descriptor of a land management unit consisting of QHZVFLHQWL¿FDQGPRQLWRULQJLQIRUPDWLRQRQVSHFLHVIRU DFRQWLJXRXVJURXSRIWUHHVVXI¿FLHQWO\XQLIRUPLQDJHFODVV potentially recommending changes in their conservation distribution, composition, and structure, and growing on a site status, including potential removal from the Survey and RIVXI¿FLHQWO\XQLIRUPTXDOLW\WREHDGLVWLQJXLVKDEOHXQLW Manage species list. standard—A mandatory constraint on project and activity Survey and Manage species—A list of species, compiled decisionmaking, established to help achieve or maintain the under the Survey and Manage program of the NWFP, that desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate unde- were deemed to warrant particular attention for monitor- sirable effects, or to meet applicable legal requirements. ing and protection beyond the guidelines for establishing stationarity—In statistics, a process that, while randomly late-successional forest reserves. determined, is not experiencing a change in the probability sustainability—The capability to meet the needs of the of outcomes. present generation without compromising the ability of fu- stewardship contract—A contract designed to achieve ture generations to meet their needs (36 CFR 219.19). land management goals while meeting local and rural com- sustainable recreation—The set of recreation settings and munity needs, including contributing to the sustainability opportunities in the National Forest System that is ecologi- of rural communities and providing a continuing source of cally, economically, and socially sustainable for present and local income and employment. future generations (36 CFR 219.19). strategic surveys²2QHW\SHRI¿HOGVXUYH\VSHFL¿HG sympatric—Two species or populations that share a com- XQGHUWKH1:)3GHVLJQHGWR¿OONH\LQIRUPDWLRQJDSVRQ mon geographic range and coexist. species distributions and ecologies by which to determine if species should be included under the Plan’s Survey and threatened species—Any species that the Secretary of the Manage species list. Interior or the Secretary of Commerce has determined is likely to become an endangered species within the fore- stressors—Factors that may directly or indirectly degrade VHHDEOHIXWXUHWKURXJKRXWDOORUDVLJQL¿FDQWSRUWLRQRILWV or impair ecosystem composition, structure, or ecological range. Threatened species are listed at 50 CFR sections process in a manner that may impair its ecological integrity, 17.11, 17.12, and 223.102. such as an invasive species, loss of connectivity, or the dis- ruption of a natural disturbance regime (36 CFR 219.19). timber harvest²7KHUHPRYDORIWUHHVIRUZRRG¿EHUXVH and other multiple-use purposes (36 CFR 219.19). structure (ecosystem)—The organization and physical arrangement of biological elements such as snags and down timber production—The purposeful growing, tending, woody debris, vertical and horizontal distribution of veg- harvesting, and regeneration of regulated crops of trees to etation, stream habitat complexity, landscape pattern, and be cut into logs, bolts, or other round sections for industrial connectivity (FSM 2020). or consumer use (36 CFR 219.19). supporting services—A type of ecosystem service that topo-edaphic—Related to or caused by particular soil includes pollination, seed dispersal, soil formation, and nu- conditions, as of texture or drainage, rather than by physio- trient cycling. JUDSKLFRUFOLPDWLFIDFWRUVZLWKLQDGH¿QHGUHJLRQRUDUHD

1016 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area traditional ecological knowledge—“A cumulative body watershed—A region or land area drained by a single of knowledge, practice, and belief, evolving by adaptive stream, river, or drainage network; a drainage basin (36 processes and handed down through generations by cultural CFR 219.19). transmission, about the relationship of living beings (includ- watershed analysis—An analytical process that character- ing humans) with one another and with their environment” L]HVZDWHUVKHGVDQGLGHQWL¿HVSRWHQWLDODFWLRQVIRUDGGUHVV- (Berkes et al. 2000: 1252). See also “native knowledge.” ing problems and concerns, along with possible management trailing edge—When describing the range of a species, the options. It assembles information necessary to determine the boundary at which the species’ population is geographically ecological characteristics and behavior of the watershed and contracting through local extinction at occupied sites. to develop options to guide management in the watershed, including adjusting riparian reserve boundaries. trophic cascade—Changes in the relative populations of producers, herbivores, and carnivores following the addition watershed condition assessment—A national approach or removal of top predators and the resulting disruption of used by the U.S. Forest Service to evaluate condition of the food web. hydrologic units based on 12 indicators, each composed of various attributes (USDA FS 2011). uncertainty²$PRXQWRUGHJUHHRIFRQ¿GHQFHDVDUHVXOW of imperfect or incomplete information. watershed condition—The state of a watershed based on physical and biogeochemical characteristics and processes understory—Vegetation growing below the tree canopy in a (36 CFR 219.19). IRUHVWLQFOXGLQJVKUXEVDQGKHUEVWKDWJURZRQWKHIRUHVWÀRRU watershed restoration—Restoration activities that focus XVHRIZLOGODQG¿UH²0DQDJHPHQWRIHLWKHUZLOG¿UHRU on restoring the key ecological processes required to create SUHVFULEHG¿UHWRPHHWUHVRXUFHREMHFWLYHVVSHFL¿HGLQODQG and maintain favorable environmental conditions for aquat- RUUHVRXUFHPDQDJHPHQWSODQV VHH³0DQDJLQJZLOG¿UHIRU ic and riparian-dependent organisms. UHVRXUFHREMHFWLYHV´DQG³3UHVFULEHG¿UH´  well-being—The condition of an individual or group in so- variable-density thinning—The method of thinning some cial, economic, psychological, spiritual, or medical terms. areas within a stand to a different density (including leaving dense, unthinned areas) than other parts of the stand, which wilderness—Any area of land designated by Congress as is typically done to promote ecological diversity in a rela- part of the National Wilderness Preservation System that tively uniform stand. was established by the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131–1136) (36 CFR 219.19). vegetation series (plant community)—The highest level RIWKH¿QHVFDOHFRPSRQHQW SODQWDVVRFLDWLRQV RISRWHQWLDO wildlife—Undomesticated animal species, including am- vegetation hierarchy based on the dominant plant species SKLELDQVUHSWLOHVELUGVPDPPDOV¿VKDQGLQYHUWHEUDWHV that would occur in late-successional conditions in the ab- or even all biota, that live wild in an area without being sence of disturbance. introduced by humans. vegetation type—A general term for a combination or ZLOG¿UH²8QSODQQHGLJQLWLRQRIDZLOGODQG¿UH VXFKDVD community of plants (including grasses, forbs, shrubs, or ¿UHFDXVHGE\OLJKWQLQJYROFDQRHVXQDXWKRUL]HGDQGDFFL- trees), typically applied to existing vegetation rather than GHQWDOKXPDQFDXVHG¿UHV DQGHVFDSHGSUHVFULEHG¿UHV potential vegetation. wildland-urban interface (WUI)—The line, area, or zone viable population—A group of breeding individuals of a where structures and other human development meet or in- species capable of perpetuating itself over a given time scale. termingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetation fuels. vital rates—Statistics describing population dynamics such as reproduction, mortality, survival, and recruitment.

1017 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Glossary Literature Cited Franklin, J.F. 1990. Biological legacies: a critical Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Folke, C. 2000. Rediscovery management concept from Mount St. Helens. In: Sabol, th of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive K.J., ed. Transactions of the 55 North American management. Ecological Applications. 10(5): 1251–1262. wildlands natural resource conference. Wildlife Management Institute: 216–219. Brown, G.G.; Reed, P. 2009. Public participation GIS: a new method for use in national forest planning. Forest Franklin, J.F.; Mitchell, R.J.; Palik, B.J. 2007. Natural Science. 55(2): 166–182. disturbance and stand development principles for ecological forestry. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR- Carey, A.B. 2003. Restoration of landscape function: NRS-19. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department reserves or active management? Forestry. 76(2): 221–230. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Churchill, D.J.; Larson, A.J.; Dahlgreen, M.C.; Station. 44 p. Franklin, J.F.; Hessburg, P.F.; Lutz, J.A. 2013. Franklin, J.F.; Spies, T.A.; Pelt, R.V.; Carey, A.B.; Restoring forest resilience: from reference spatial Thornburgh, D.A.; Berg, D.R.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; patterns to silvicultural prescriptions and monitoring. Harmon, M.E.; Keeton, W.S.; Shaw, D.C.; Bible, K.; Forest Ecology and Management. 291: 442–457. Chen, J. 2002. Disturbances and structural development Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ]. 1997. of natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural Environmental justice guidance under the National LPSOLFDWLRQVXVLQJ'RXJODV¿UIRUHVWVDVDQH[DPSOH (QYLURQPHQWDO3ROLF\$FW>8SGDWHG@KWWSVZZZ Forest Ecology and Management. 155(1–3): 399–423. HSDJRYVLWHVSURGXFWLRQ¿OHVGRFXPHQWVHMB *DULEDOGL$7XUQHU1Cultural keystone species: guidance_nepa_ceq1297.pdf. (21 December 2017). implications for ecological conservation and restoration. Doremus, H. 2007. Precaution, science, and learning while Ecology and Society. 9(3): art1. doing in natural resource management. Washington Law Gosnell, H.; Abrams, J. 2011. Amenity migration: Review. 82: 547–580. diverse conceptualizations of drivers, socioeconomic Espy, M.; Babbit, B. 1994. Record of decision: dimensions, and emerging challenges. GeoJournal. amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land 76(4): 303–322. Management planning documents within the range of the Hobbs, R.J.; Higgs, E.; Harris, J.A. 2009. Novel northern spotted owl. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ecosystems: implications for conservation and of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. Department of restoration. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 24(11): the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 74 p. 599–605.

([HFXWLYH2UGHU1R64 FR 6183, February 8, Hunter, M.L. 2005. $PHVR¿OWHUFRQVHUYDWLRQVWUDWHJ\ ,QYDVLYHVSHFLHVKWWSVZZZJSRJRYIGV\VSNJ WRFRPSOHPHQW¿QHDQGFRDUVH¿OWHUV&RQVHUYDWLRQ )5SGISGI -XQH  Biology. 19(4): 1025–1029.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team Jenerette, G.D.; Wu, J. 2000. 2QWKHGH¿QLWLRQVRIVFDOH [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. 81(1): an ecological, economic, and social assessment. 104–105. :DVKLQJWRQ'&86*RYHUQPHQW3ULQWLQJ2I¿FH Jorgensen, B.S.; Stedman, R.C. 2001. Sense of place as an attitude: lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 21(3): 233–-248.

1018 Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Keane, R.E.; Ryan, K.C.; Veblen, T.T.; Allen, C.D.; 3¿VWHU5'$UQR6)Classifying forest habitat Logan, J.A.; Hawkes, B. 2002. The cascading effects types based on potential climax vegetation. Forest RI¿UHH[FOXVLRQLQ5RFN\0RXQWDLQHFRV\VWHPVD Science. 26(1): 52–70. literature review. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-91. Fort Power, M.E.; Tilman, D.; Estes, J.A.; Menge, B.A.; Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Bond, W.J.; Mills, L.S.; Daily, G.; Castilla, J.C.; Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 24 p. Lubchenco, J.; Paine, R.T. 1996. Challenges in the Liu, J.G.; Dietz, T.; Carpenter, S.R.; Alberti, M.; Folke, quest for keystones. BioScience. 46(8): 609–620. &0RUDQ(3HOO$1'HDGPDQ3.UDW]7 Proshansky, H.M. 1978. The city and self-identity. Lubchenco, J.; Ostrom, E.; Ouyang, Z.; Provencher, Environment and Behavior. 10(2): 147–169. W.; Redman, C.L.; Schneider, S.H.; Taylor, W.W. 2007. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Redman, C.L.; Grove, J.M.; Kuby, L.H. 2004. Integrating Science. 317(5844): 1513–1516. social science into the long-term ecological research (LTER) network: social dimensions of ecological change /RQJ-:7DUQD\/:1RUWK03Aligning and ecological dimensions of social change. Ecosystems. smoke management with ecological and public health 7(2): 161–171. JRDOV-RXUQDORI)RUHVWU\KWWSVGRLRUJMRI 042. (22 December 2017). 5LLWWHUV+.:LFNKDP'-2¶1HLOO95-RQHV B.K.; Smith, R.E.; Coulston, W.J.; Wade, G.T.; Lowery, D.R.; Morse, W.C. 2013. A qualitative method for Smith, H.J. 2002. Fragmentation of continental United collecting spatial data on important places for recreation, States forests. Ecosystems. 5(8): 815–822. livelihoods, and ecological meanings: integrating focus groups with public participation geographic information Sarukhán, J.; Whyte, A. 2005. Ecosystems and systems. Society & Natural Resources. 26(12): 1422– human well-being: synthesis. Millennium Ecosystem 1437. Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press, World Resources Institute. 137 p. 1HOVRQ3%Rural restructuring in the American West: land use, family and class discourses. Journal of Stankey, G.H.; Bormann, B.T.; Ryan, C.; Shindler, Rural Studies. 17(4): 395–407. %6WXUWHYDQW9&ODUN513KLOSRW& Adaptive management and the Northwest Forest Plan: 1RUWK06WLQH3$2¶+DUD./=LHOLQVNL:- rhetoric and reality. Journal of Forestry. 101(1): 40–46. Stephens, S.L. 2009. An ecosystems management strategy for Sierra mixed-conifer forests, with 6WHIIHQ:&UXW]HQ3-0F1HLOO-5The addendum. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-220. Albany, CA: Anthropocene: Are humans now overwhelming the 86'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH)RUHVW6HUYLFH3DFL¿F great forces of nature? AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Southwest Research Station. 49 p. Environment. 36(8): 614–621.

3HUU\'$+HVVEXUJ3)6NLQQHU&16SLHV Stokols, D.; Shumaker, S.A. 1982. The psychological T.A.; Stephens, S.L.; Taylor, A.H.; Franklin, J.F.; context of residential mobility and well-being. Journal of McComb, B.; Riegel, G. 2011. The ecology of mixed Social Issues. 38(3): 149–171. VHYHULW\¿UHUHJLPHVLQ:DVKLQJWRQ2UHJRQDQG 6ZDQVRQ0(6WXGHYDQW10&DPSEHOO-/ northern California. Forest Ecology and Management. Donato, D.C. 2014. Biological associates of early-seral 262(5): 703–717. SUHIRUHVWLQWKH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW)RUHVW(FRORJ\DQG Management. 324: 160–171.

1019 GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

7HLWHOEDXP6%HFNOH\71DGHDX6A national U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2017. Glossary. portrait of on public land in Canada. >8SGDWHG@KWWSZZZJOREDOFKDQJHJRYFOLPDWHFKDQJH The Forestry Chronicle. 82(3): 416–428. glossary. (11 October 2017).

Turner, M.G.; Romme, W.H. 1994. Landscape dynamics Williams, D.R.; Stewart, S.I. 1998. Sense of place: an LQFURZQ¿UHHFRV\VWHPV/DQGVFDSH(FRORJ\   HOXVLYHFRQFHSWWKDWLV¿QGLQJDKRPHLQHFRV\VWHP 59–77. management. Journal of Forestry. 96(5): 18–23.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA Yamamoto, S.-I. 2000. Forest gap dynamics and tree FS]. 2011. Watershed condition framework. FS-977. regeneration. Journal of Forest Research. 5(4): 223–229. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 34 p.

Acknowledgments We thank reviewers from U.S. Forest Service Regions 5 and for formatting all the citations in the chapters, which was a 6, who provided valuable input on earlier drafts of these very large task. We really appreciate the efforts of Rhonda chapters. We thank the many anonymous reviewers for Mazza, who worked with the authors to write the executive their constructive comments. We also thank members of summary. We appreciate the heroic efforts of the entire the public, Tribes, and other agencies who provided peer-re- 3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW5HVHDUFK6WDWLRQFRPPXQLFDWLRQVWHDP viewed literature for consideration, attended the public to get the science synthesis edited and published to meet forums, or provided review comments for peer reviewers to tight deadlines, especially editors Keith Routman, Carolyn consider. We thank Cliff Duke with the Ecological Society Wilson, and Oscar Johnson and visual information special- of America for organizing and coordinating the peer review ist Jason Blake. Borys Tkacz and Jane Hayes are acknowl- process. We thank Lisa McKenzie and Ty Montgomery edged for their diligent policy reviews of all chapters. We with McKenzie Marketing Group for coordinating and want to acknowledge the leadership of Paul Anderson and summarizing the extensive public input we received and for Cindy Miner and Yasmeen Sands for their communications organizing and facilitating the public forums. We also thank coordination. Finally, the team wishes to thank Region 5, .DWKU\Q5RQQHQEHUJIRUDVVLVWLQJZLWK¿JXUHVDQGHGLWLQJ 5HJLRQDQGWKH3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVWDQG3DFL¿F6RXWKZHVW for some chapters, as well as Keith Olsen for his work 5HVHDUFK6WDWLRQVIRUVLJQL¿FDQWIXQGLQJDQGRWKHUVXSSRUW RQ¿JXUHV6HDQ*RUGRQLVWKDQNHGIRUKLVFUHDWLRQDQG for this effort. management of the NWFP literature reference database and

1020 3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW5HVHDUFK6WDWLRQ Website http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/ Telephone (503) 808–2592 Publication requests (503) 808–2138 FAX (503) 808–2130 E-mail [email protected] Mailing address Publications Distribution   3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW5HVHDUFK6WDWLRQ P.O. Box 3890 Portland, OR 97208–3890 U.S. Department of Agriculture 3DFL¿F1RUWKZHVW5HVHDUFK6WDWLRQ 1220 SW 3rd Ave. P.O. Box 3890 Portland, OR 97208–3890 2I¿FLDO%XVLQHVV Penalty for Private Use, $300