A Restoration Framework for Federal Forests in the Pacific Northwest

Home , Forest restoration

J. For. 110(8):429–439 PRACTICE OF FORESTRY http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/jof.10-006 Copyright © 2012 Society of American Foresters policy A Restoration Framework for Federal Forests in the Paciﬁc Northwest

Jerry F. Franklin and K. Norman Johnson

We outline elements of a forest restoration strategy designed to produce ecological and economic benefits on rule (USDA 2012). Furthermore, activities federal forests in Oregon and Washington, along with some of their policy and management implications. to sustain habitat and restore ecosystem Implementation of this restoration strategy has begun on 11 projects (at scales from hundreds to thousands of health are emphasized in the new northern acres) on federal lands. On Moist Forest sites (MF), the strategy calls for reserving older forest stands, thinning spotted owl (NSO; Strix occidentalis cau- plantations to accelerate development of structural complexity, and implementing variable retention harvests in rina) recovery plan, which describes the res- younger forests to help provide diverse early seral ecosystems. On Dry Forest (DF) sites, the strategy calls for toration of ecosystem structures and pro- silvicultural treatments that retain and release older trees, reduce stand densities, shift composition toward fire- cesses as being good for NSO (USDI Fish and drought-tolerant tree species, and incorporate spatial heterogeneity at multiple spatial scales. Immediate and Wildlife Service 2011). In early 2012, goals of this restoration framework include increased ecological integrity and resilience in DFs, increased diversity the Secretary of Interior proposed expansion and complexity of successional stages in MFs, and provision of wood products to local communities. Over the of ecological forestry projects in western long run, we believe this program can provide an acceptable pathway to sustained yield on federal forestlands Oregon to provide sustainable timber and in the Pacific Northwest. healthier habitat (US Bureau of Land Man- agement [BLM] 2012). These new projects Keywords: Dry Forest, forest restoration, Moist Forest, northern spotted owl, old-growth, retention harvest will cover more than 5,000 ac and explore compatibility between forest restoration and protection of NSO. n the last few years, we have reported the wildland-urban interface by the USDA to members of the US Congress and Forest Service in eastern parts of those states But can restoration needs of federal for- the US Department of the Interior have helped to build public trust (Thomas et ests in the PNW be fulfilled while also meet- I ing other societal needs? Ecological restora- Secretary of Interior on the potential of al. 2007, Toman et al. 2011) and we seek to developing management strategies in the build on those successes. tion is grounded in principles of ecosystem Pacific Northwest (PNW) that integrate Ecological restoration on public lands, science, including ecosystem dynamics, dis- old-growth protection with other ecological as suggested here, represents more than an turbance ecology, and landscape ecology. and economic benefits on federal lands.1 As academic exercise—it has become a socio- However, restoration activities will have to with much of the western United States, ex- political reality. In fact, comprehensive eco- provide economic returns if they are to be tensive forestlands in the PNW are con- logical restoration is becoming the founda- widely implemented, with such benefits typ- trolled by the federal government (Figure 1), tion of federal land management across the ically coming from commercial timber har- and their use and management has long nation (e.g., Bosworth 2006). In 2009, the vest. Indeed, shrinking federal budgets will fueled conflicts between different groups USDA Secretary of Agriculture announced a require that restoration activities be at least and agencies. Recent successes with the thin- restoration vision for the national forests partially self-supporting, if large-scale resto- ning of plantations in western Oregon and (Vilsack 2009), ultimately reinforced in the ration is going to occur. Furthermore, sig- Washington and fuel reduction projects in recently adopted US Forest Service planning nificant skepticism about the effectiveness of

Received January 17, 2010; accepted August 23, 2012; published online October 18, 2012. Afﬁliations: Jerry F. Franklin ([email protected]) is professor, School of Environmental and Forest Science, College of the Environment, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195. K. Norman Johnson ([email protected]) is professor, Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, College of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331. Acknowledgments: The authors thank the scores of Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service professionals who turned these ideas into projects and the many graduate students that provided them with comments on previous drafts.

Journal of Forestry • December 2012 429 holder interests. Second, restoration should center on restoring resilience and function- ality in the context of desired future conditions, even while learning from the past. Attempting to return landscapes to a given historical state is unlikely to create either resilience under current and future conditions or socially desirable outcomes (Hobbs et al. 2011). Third, restoration efforts should prioritize the most degraded environments. By “degraded” we mean, e.g., ecosystems where human activities have increased the risk of catastrophic disturbances or created extensive landscapes deficient in important successional stages, such as early seral and old-growth ecosystems. Finally, any comprehensive restoration effort must recognize differences among ecosystems and set treatment goals accordingly—a one-size-fits-all approach will almost certainly fail. Hence, we divide PNW federal forestlands into “moist forests” (MF) and “dry forests” (DF) because these contrasting environments require fundamentally different policies and practices, including approaches to old- growth conservation. Defining MFs and DFs The DF and MF classification of feder- ally controlled forests with which we begin is a more appropriate ecological stratification than the traditional categorization of PNW forests as “westside” and “eastside.” Rather than using geography, we used scientifically defined plant associations to assign forest sites to their respective DF and MF categories (Table 1), with both conditions occur- ring on both sides of the Cascade Range. These plant associations reflect distinctive compositions, growth conditions, and historical disturbance regimes (e.g., Atzet et al. Figure 1. Distribution of federal forestlands in the PNW showing locations of projects 1992), such as broad gradients in fire behav- demonstrating the restoration principles discussed in this article. (D. Johnson, Applegate ior in PNW forests that reflect variability in Forestry, provided this figure.) both site and landscape conditions. Another advantage to plant associations is that they ecosystem restoration must be overcome, logical processes necessary to facilitate ter- are readily identifiable in the field by trained even though the general concept enjoys wide restrial and aquatic ecosystems sustainabil- resource professionals. ity, resilience, and health under current and MF and DF sites have contrasting his- public support (Shindler and Mallon 2009). future conditions. toric disturbance regimes. Historically, MFs A Strategic Restoration In applying this definition we emphasize generally experienced large infrequent (in- Framework several elements. First, restoration should tervals of one to several centuries) wildfires, focus on entire ecosystems rather than indi- which included extensive areas where fire se- We begin with the following definition vidual attributes, such as fuels. Programs verity resulted in stand-replacement condi- provided by the US Forest Service (USDA with singular resource objectives generally tions (Agee 1993). DF sites experienced pre- 2012, p. 21272) in its new planning rule: marginalize other important values (e.g., dominantly low- and mixed-severity fire [Restoration is] the process of assisting the Gunderson et al. 1995), resulting in less re- behaviors at frequent (e.g., 5–35 year) inter- recovery of an ecosystem that has been de- silient ecosystems and communities. Focus- vals (Agee 1993, Perry et al. 2011). Some graded, damaged, or destroyed. Ecological restoration focuses on reestablishing the ing broadly on restoring ecosystems serves a plant associations currently straddle the composition, structure, pattern, and eco- wider range of natural resource and stake- boundary between MF and DF stratifica-

430 Journal of Forestry • December 2012 Table 1. Assignment of plant association to result in significant changes in MF ecosys- al. 2011). Functional early seral habitat can series and groups to MF and DF tems (Agee 1993). be created using regeneration harvest pre- categories. Moist grand and white fir Restoration may be needed in MF scriptions that retain biological legacies and associations are intermediate and may be landscapes in which old-growth stands are use less intensive approaches to reestablish- appropriately considered as either MF or embedded, however. Many MF landscapes ment of closed forest canopies, as discussed DF, depending on circumstances. are currently dominated by dense young later. plantations, which are low in biodiversity MF and deficient in the early (preforest) and Characteristics and Current State Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) series of DFs Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) series late (mature and old-growth) successional Western redcedar (Thuja plicata) series stages, which are richest in biodiversity. Historical forest conditions on DF sites Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis) series Late-successional MFs provide habitat for have been extensively summarized (e.g., Mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) series thousands of species including the NSO Noss et al. 2006, Courtney et al. 2008, and Subalpine fir-Engelmann spruce (Abies lasiocarpa- Picea englemanni) series and other habitat specialists (Forest Ecosys- Johnson et al. 2008). Low tree densities and Tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus) series tem Management Assessment Team 1993); dominance by larger, older trees of fire- and past timber harvests have greatly reduced drought-resistant species, such as ponderosa Moist grand fir (Abies grandis) Plant Association pine (Pinus ponderosa) and western larch Group their extent and continuity (e.g., Wimberly Moist white fir (Abies concolor) Plant Association 2002, Spies et al. 2007). Continued decline (Larix occidentalis), characterized many DF Group in NSO populations across much of its sites (Munger 1917, Youngblood et al. DF 2004, Spies et al. 2006, Kolb et al. 2007, Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) series range have heightened the importance of re- Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana) series taining the remaining late-successional for- Johnson et al. 2008; Figure 3). Spatial het- Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) series ests (Forsman et al. 2011). erogeneity, including fine-scale low-contrast Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) series structural patchworks, was also characteris- Dry grand fir Plant Association Group Early successional or seral MF sites are Dry white fir Plant Association Group highly diverse, trophic- and function-rich tic (Franklin and Van Pelt 2004, Larson and ecosystems that occur after a severe distur- Churchill 2012) (Figure 3). Denser, more bance but before the reestablishment of a even-structured stands, consisting of mix- tion, but climate change is expected to in- closed forest canopy (Greenberg et al. 2011, tures of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), creasingly shift these associations toward DF Swanson et al. 2011). Theoretically, distur- grand fir (Abies grandis), western larch, and status with projected increases in wildfire bances of either natural (e.g., wildfire) or hu- ponderosa pine, occurred and even domi- frequency (e.g., Dello and Mote 2010, Spies man (e.g., timber harvest) origin are capable nated some DF landscapes as a result of et al. 2010). of generating this stage. Large natural dis- more severe fires and insect epidemics (e.g., turbances often produce high-quality early Hessburg et al. 2005, 2007). Characteristics and Current State seral ecosystems provided they are not inten- Composition and structure of existing of MFs sively salvaged and replanted (Swanson et al. DF landscapes have been dramatically al- MF ecosystems undergo many cen- 2011), but such disturbances are poorly dis- tered by decades of fire suppression, grazing turies of stand development and change af- tributed in time and space. For example, less by domestic livestock, timber harvesting, ter major disturbances, such as severe wild- than 1% of suitable NSO habitat (complex and plantation establishment (Noss et al. fire or windstorm, before achieving the forest) was transformed by wildfire into early 2006) resulting in (1) many fewer old trees massiveness and structural complexity of successional habitat between 1996 and 2006 of fire-resistant species, (2) denser forests old-growth forests (Franklin et al. 2002). in MF-dominated provinces of the North- with multiple canopy layers, (3) more Ecosystem development is relatively well un- west Forest Plan (NWFP; USDI Fish and densely forested landscapes with continuous derstood, with distinctive early seral, young, Wildlife Service 2011). Areas devoted to in- high fuel levels, and, consequently, (4) more mature, and old stages (Franklin et al. 2002; tensive timber production generally provide stands and landscapes highly susceptible to Figure 2); intermediate disturbances can little high-quality early seral habitat for sev- stand-replacement wildfire and insect epi- alter developmental patterns (Franklin and eral reasons. First, few or no structures from demics (e.g., Hessberg et al. 2005, Noss et al. Spies 1991, Spies 2009). the preharvest stand (e.g., live trees, snags, 2006). Outbreaks of western spruce bud- Composition, structure, and function and logs) are retained on intensively man- worm (Choristoneura occidentalis) and other of existing unmanaged old-growth MFs gen- aged sites but are abundant after severe nat- defoliators are currently widespread in ma- erally are relatively unaffected by human ural disturbances (Swanson et al. 2011). Ad- ture stands of grand fir and Douglas-fir and activities, except at stand edges (Forest Eco- ditionally, intensive site preparation and have been for over 30 years. In southwestern system Management Assessment Team reforestation efforts limit both the diversity Oregon, DF sites that have not been pre- 1993). Management activities in these exist- and the duration of early seral organisms, viously harvested are largely occupied by ing old-growth MFs, such as thinning, are which may also be actively eliminated by use dense maturing Douglas-fir stands, which not needed to sustain conditions in these of herbicides or other treatments (Swanson appear to be the first generation of closed forests and can actually cause old-growth et al. 2011). Consequently, many MF land- conifer forests on many of these sites. His- MFs to diverge widely from natural forests scapes currently lack sufficient representa- torically, these DF landscapes were occupied in structure and function or become desta- tion of high-quality early seral ecosystems by diverse communities including open bilized (Franklin et al. 2002). Wildfire sup- because of harvest, reforestation, and fire grasslands, shrub fields, oak savannas, and pression is typically consistent with efforts suppression policies on both private and mixed hardwood and conifer woodlands to retain such forests—i.e., it is not known public lands (Spies et al. 2007, Swanson et (McKinley and Frank 1996).

Journal of Forestry • December 2012 431 Figure 2. Major stages in MF development after a stand-replacement event. (A) Early seral or preforest ecosystem dominated by diversity of plant life forms. (B) Young forest ecosystem dominated by Douglas-fir with high stem densities and a closed forest canopy. (C) Mature forest ecosystem dominated by Douglas-fir, which is undergoing reestablishment of the understory community, including regeneration of shade-tolerant tree associates. (D) Old forest ecosystem dominated by mixture of tree species, including Douglas-fir and western hemlock, with a diverse and spatially variable understory of cryptogams, ferns, herbs, shrubs, and small trees.

Ecological Forestry as a Basis cultural activities consistent with recovery these sites, the focus is on individual old for Restoration Prescriptions of desired structures and processes; and trees rather than stands because active man- Our silvicultural proposals are based on (4) planning management activities at land- agement is often necessary to restore DF “ecological forestry” concepts, which incor- scape scales, using knowledge of spatial pat- stands to more resilient conditions, includ- porate principles of natural forest develop- tern, and ecological function in natural ing enhancement of the survival of old trees. ment, including the role of natural dis- landscapes. In the PNW, the occurrence of older turbances in the initiation, development, trees and forests currently is far below the and maintenance of stands and landscape Protection of Older Stands and Trees historic range of variability, despite their mosaics (Seymour and Hunter 1999, North Elements of ecological forestry differ in ecological importance (Spies 2009). De- and Keeton 2008, Bunnell and Dunsworth their application, even though they share a cades of legal battles over older stands and 2009, Long 2009). Key elements of eco- common theme. For example, management trees are clear evidence of societal interest in logical forestry include (Lindenmayer and of old trees and stands would vary as a func- them; these conflicts have perpetuated stake- Franklin 2002, Franklin et al. 2007) (1) re- tion of forest type. On MF sites, older forest holder distrust of foresters and diverted at- taining structural and compositional ele- stands on federal lands are retained under tention from restoration (Thomas et al. ments of the preharvest stand during re- our restoration strategy because of their eco- 2007, Spies et al. 2009). Although it seems generation harvests (Franklin et al. 1997, logical and social significance, whether they straightforward, classifying trees or stands as Gustafsson et al. 2012); (2) using natural are located inside or outside of current re- old is not a simple task. The age at which stand development principles and processes serves. In addition, older trees in any treated forests are deemed “older” is a social deci- in manipulating established stands to restore younger MF stands are also retained. On DF sion, influenced but not defined by scientific or maintain desired structure and compo- sites, older trees are retained under our res- input, with age a commonly used surrogate sition; (3) using return intervals for silvi- toration strategy, regardless of their size. On in determining which forests are going to be

432 Journal of Forestry • December 2012 Table 2. Some distinguishing characteristics of old conifers of ecological signiﬁcance.

Heartwood accumulations and development of thick ﬁre-resistant bark (Van Pelt 2008) Abundant microhabitats important for maintaining biodiversity (Michel and Winter 2009) Highly individualistic canopies including large branches, epicormic branch systems, and multiple tops (Van Pelt 2008, Van Pelt and Sillett 2008) Presence of cavities, pockets of decayed wood, and brooms (Van Pelt 2008)

Table 3. Elements of MF restoration strategy.

Retain existing older stands and individual older trees found within younger stands proposed for management, using a selected threshold age Accelerate development of structural complexity in younger stands, using diverse silvicultural Figure 3. Dry Forest dominated by ponderosa pine illustrating the fine-scale mosaic that approaches (Bailey and Tappeiner 1998, Garman et al. 2003, Carey 2003, Wilson and Puettmann includes openings and patches dominated by tree reproduction and by mature and old 2007) trees; such conditions were historically characteristic of many, but not all, DF landscapes Implement variable retention regeneration harvests (Yakima Indian Reservation, Washington). (Franklin et al. 1997, Beese et al. 2003, Franklin et al. 2007, Gustafsson et al. 2012) in some younger MFs, retaining such structures as individual trees, snags, and logs and intact forest preserved from timber harvest. Age limits versions of young trees. Trees acquire dis- patches can also vary based on ecological thresholds, tinctive physiological and structural features Accommodate development of diverse early seral ecosystems following harvest, by using less intense management objectives, and ease of imple- from the aging process and responses to approaches to site preparation and tree regeneration mentation. For example, in a prior analysis physical and biotic damage (e.g., wind, dis- Embed preceding objectives in a silvicultural system we have used 80, 120, and 160 years to iden- ease, parasites, and insects; Table 2). Such that includes creation and management of multiaged, mixed-species stands on long rotations tify “older” in MFs (Johnson and Franklin characteristic features of old trees (often in- (e.g., 100–160 yr) 2009), an age range that goes from retaining cluding their larger size) make them struc- all late-successional forests (80), to retaining tural cornerstones in forests, contributing to most mature and all old-growth forests ecosystem services, such as wildlife habitat, scriptions (Figure 4). One specific objective (120) or (at a threshold age of 160) retaining resistance to fire and drought, and genetic of these harvests is to provide for continued the oldest mature and all old-growth forests. reservoirs, and require centuries to replace. creation of diverse early seral ecosystems in Given the importance of age, the initial MF landscapes, as a part of a silvicultural selection of individual trees for retention in MF Restoration Strategy system that includes management of mixed- treated DFs is based on age rather than Our MF strategy focuses on increasing age, mixed-species forests over long (e.g., size—i.e., we use an age limit rather than a the underrepresented late-successional for- 100–160 years) rotations. Very few regener- diameter limit.2 Diameter limits can result ests and early seral ecosystems (Table 3). ation harvests are currently planned in fed- in undesirable outcomes in DF restoration, Demonstration projects using these MF re- eral MFs in the PNW, outside of the projects such as by allowing removal of small older generation harvest principles are underway described in this article, primarily because trees important to stand complexity and on the Roseburg and Coos Bay Districts of past proposed harvests in mature and old- function. Diameter limits also can prohibit the BLM and at least two more projects are growth stands have been litigated consis- removal of large young trees that provide being planned (Figure 1; Wheeler 2012). As tently. Existing timber harvests are currently ladder and crown fuels and competition, mentioned earlier, older forest stands on confined to thinning younger stands (Baker thereby increasing the potential for wild- MF sites on federal lands will be retained et al. 2006, Thomas et al. 2007). fire or drought to kill old trees (McDowell (both inside and outside of current reserves) We expect the resumption of regen- et al. 2003, Johnson et al. 2008). We also do to protect their ecological and social sig- eration harvests on federal lands to be con- incorporate retention of younger, larger- nificance. The MF strategy also includes the troversial partly because stakeholders usu- diameter trees for wildlife and other pur- thinning of younger forests to accelerate de- ally equate it with the unpopular practice poses in our prescriptions, especially when velopment of structural complexity charac- of clearcutting (Bliss 2000). However, we they offer no threat to older trees. teristic of older forest stands. propose using variable retention harvesting Our focus on older trees rather than The most potentially controversial ele- and not clearcutting; these are very different simply larger ones is because older trees have ment of our MF restoration strategy is re- approaches. Unlike conventional clearcuts, distinctive ecological characteristics and sumption of regeneration harvesting in variable retention harvests incorporate sig- functions. Older trees are not simply larger younger stands using variable retention pre- nificant elements of the preharvest stand

Journal of Forestry • December 2012 433 areas created by the harvesting, variable retention harvests provide optimal conditions for (1) development of diverse early seral ecosystems needed by signiﬁcant elements of regional biodiversity (Swanson et al. 2011), (2) regenerating new cohorts of desirable shade-intolerant tree species, and (3) providing substantial ﬂows of wood products. We view younger, previously harvested stands as the obvious candidates for regeneration harvests, given current levels of older forests are far below historic levels and policy direction calls for their retention as NSO habitat (USDI Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice 2011).

DF Restoration Strategy Elements of this DF restoration strategy, including stand-level treatments and retention of dense forest habitat patches at the landscape level, have been or are currently being incorporated into projects on federal lands (e.g., Ager et al. 2007, Gaines et al. 2010, Brown 2012). Projects (Figure 1) using our DF principles are underway on BLM lands in southwestern Oregon, where the NSO is featured (Reilly 2012), the Malheur National Forest in central Oregon (Brown 2012), and the Fremont-Winema National Forest in south-central Oregon. DF restoration has a number of important stand- and landscape-level elements (Table 4; also see North et al. 2009 and Larson and Churchill 2012). Many DFs need silvicultural treatments to restore more resistant and resilient conditions, although details of prescriptions will vary with specific management objectives, plant associations, stand conditions, and landscape contexts. The retention and nurturing of older trees and other significant structural elements of the DF stand is the starting point for this restoration strategy. Although many DFs include older trees, almost all such for- Figure 4. Ground and aerial views of variable retention regeneration harvest units. (A) Re- ests are highly modified structurally and tention harvest unit with approximately 15% of the preharvest forest left in undisturbed compositionally by past management, which patches or “aggregates,” which include a diversity of structures (e.g., live trees, snags, and has greatly reduced older tree populations down logs). (B) Retention harvest unit with approximately 15% of the preharvest forest left in undisturbed patches of varying size, including some associated with protection of ripar- and increased stand densities. Currently, ian and stream habitat. (Photo courtesy of Washington State Department of Natural both remaining old trees and the forests in Resources.) which they are embedded are at risk from intense wildfires, epidemics of defoliating insects, and competition, the latter resulting through the next rotation, including un- for MF regeneration harvest calls for reten- in accelerated mortality due to bark beetles disturbed forest patches and individual live tion of approximately 30% of the preharvest (Noss et al. 2006, Courtney et al. 2008, and dead trees, to enrich the biodiversity, stand as patches, plus some additional reten- Franklin et al. 2008). Selection of the ecological processes, and structural diversity tion (typically of green trees that are in- threshold age for older trees is particularly of the postharvest stand (Franklin et al. tended to become snags and logs) on har- important for DFs, because it is applied to 1997, Gustafsson et al. 2012, Lindenmayer vested portions of the units. With these all DF stands. In our work we usually use et al. 2012; Figure 4). Our current proposal biological legacies and the significant open 150 years as the threshold age for older trees

434 Journal of Forestry • December 2012 Table 4. Elements of the DF restoration ern goshawk (Accipitor gentilis; Crocker- establishment after intensive harvesting prescriptions. Bedford 1990). Maintaining approximately have significantly affected both aquatic and one-third of a DF landscape in denser forest ecosystems on both DF and MF land- Retain and improve survivability of older conifers patches of multilayered forest has been pro- scapes (e.g., Franklin and Forman 1987, by reducing adjacent fuels and competing posed for the NSO (Courtney et al. 2008). Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment vegetation—old trees can respond positively (e.g., McDowell et al. 2003) In general, landscape amounts and distribu- Team 1993). Restoring aquatic and semi- Retain and protect other important structures such as tions will be a function of topographic and aquatic ecosystems is a high-priority restora- large hardwoods, snags, and logs; some protective vegetative factors along with wildlife goals. tion concern throughout federal forests, but cover may be needed for cavity-bearing structures that are currently being used (e.g., North et al. Untreated patches in the hundreds of acres one that we cannot adequately address in 2009) could be preferentially located in less fire- this short article. Reducing the impacts of Reduce overall stand densities by thinning so as to prone areas, such as steep north-facing permanent roads on aquatic ecosystems is an (1) reduce basal areas to desired levels, (2) increase slopes, riparian habitats, and sites protected important objective, but it must be weighed mean stand diameter, (3) shift composition toward fire- and drought-tolerant species, and (4) provide by natural barriers, such as lakes and lava against needed access for restoration projects candidates for replacement old trees flows. The longevity of the dense forest and long-term management. Restore spatial heterogeneity by varying the treatment patches should be increased by restoring DF of the stand, such as by leaving untreated patches, creating openings, and providing for widely spaced conditions in the surrounding landscape Harvest Potential single trees and tree clumps (Larson and Churchill matrix (Agar et al. 2007, Gains et al. 2010). We have estimated (Johnson and 2012) Losses of denser forest patches are inevitable, Franklin 2009) that our restoration strategy Establish new tree cohorts of shade-intolerant species in openings but—because the surrounding restored could increase timber harvest from the fed- Treat activity fuels and begin restoring historic levels matrix still is populated with older, larger eral forests of the PNW over the next 15 of ground fuels and understory vegetation using trees—suitable dense replacement habitat years, primarily by resuming regeneration prescribed fire harvests in MFs and expanding the extent of Plan and implement activities at landscape levels, can be regrown within a few decades. incorporating spatial heterogeneity (e.g., provision restoration treatments (i.e., partial cutting) for denser forest patches) and restoration needs in Ecological Forestry in DFs. nonforest ecosystems (e.g., meadows and riparian and Adaptive Management Our MF strategy adds regeneration har- habitats). Credible adaptive management will be vests in younger stands to current thinning. essential to implementing our proposed res- The economic viability of such sales in nor- because (1) trees in DFs generally begin ex- toration approach on federal forests in the mal markets is unquestionable, because re- hibiting some old-growth characteristics by PNW, because it includes significant new generation harvests remove larger volumes this age and (2) significant Euro-American elements and affects the entire region. This per acre and include larger trees than are influences were underway by 1860, e.g., in- is challenging because successful adaptive produced in the currently thriving thinning troduction of large domestic livestock herds management has been limited in the PNW programs. However, a critically important (Franklin et al. 2008, Robbins 2009). (Stankey et al. 2003, Bormann et al. 2007). undetermined variable is the MF land base Other threshold ages for older trees Key elements include comprehensive re- available for regeneration harvests for several could be considered in DFs, such as 100 and gional analysis and planning, integrated reasons, including some related to the strat- 200 years, but these introduce other prob- monitoring and research activities, and sys- egy itself. For example, initial estimates us- lems. When 100 years is used as the thresh- tematic assessments of ecological and social ing unmanaged stands as models suggest old, many trees lacking old-growth attri- outcomes by independent parties. Two ele- that our proposed silvicultural system might butes are retained, making it difficult to ments requiring particular attention are provide one-half of the per acre yields ex- reduce stand densities to the desired levels. (1) interactions between DF restoration and pected under intensive timber production Additionally, this age threshold limits the NSO populations and (2) effectiveness in (Johnson and Franklin 2012). On the other removal of higher-valued trees and thus af- creation of diverse early seral ecosystems us- hand, the significantly greater wildlife and fects economic viability of treatments. Using ing variable retention regeneration harvests. environmental benefits from the variable re- 200 years, many trees that have old-growth Regional targets for total amount and tention approach may result in greater social cohort attributes will likely be removed, af- spatial distribution of early seral ecosystems acceptability of this approach and, conse- fecting the ecological value of the treatment. need to be scientifically assessed for the MFs quently, significantly broaden the land base However, this age threshold would also al- on federal lands in the PNW. Determina- on which it could be applied. low harvest of more high-value trees, at least tions of natural range of variability of such Our DF strategy calls for shifting from initially. habitat, such as has been done in the Oregon fuel treatments, a current focus of DF fed- Retaining some denser forest areas in an Coast Ranges (Wimberly 2002, Spies et al. eral actions, to broad-scale ecosystem resto- untreated or lightly treated condition is a 2007), is a good starting point. Additional ration. Stand-level harvest implications are challenging landscape-level planning com- focused research on early seral ecosystems is difficult to clarify. Basically, we call for cre- ponent of our DF restoration strategy. Most needed to (1) expand current knowledge of ating a more heterogeneous spatial pattern DF landscapes include species and processes biodiversity and functions in early seral eco- than in current practice, while conserving that require denser forest as habitat, such as systems of both natural and human origin old trees and removing diameter limits on preferred nesting, roosting, and foraging and (2) explore different approaches (e.g., harvest. However, some DF stands clearly habitat for NSO (USDI Fish and Wildlife silvicultural prescriptions) for creating di- are economically marginal with viability de- Service 2011). Another more widely dis- verse early seral ecosystems. pending on market conditions and mill tributed example in PNW DFs is the north- Finally, road networks and plantation proximity (e.g., Adams and Latta 2005,

Journal of Forestry • December 2012 435 Johnson and Franklin 2009). Mill closures 1. The revised NFMA planning rule calls ing, and location of allowed activities. In a east of the Cascades have accentuated this for national forestland to be identified as Presidential Memorandum (Obama 2012) problem, making comprehensive restora- not suitable for timber production if released with proposed critical habitat, the tion dependent on new infrastructure in- “There is no reasonable assurance that Secretary of Interior is directed to “...de- vestments. Accurate assessments of feasibil- such lands can be adequately restocked velop clear direction, as part of the final rule, ity and timber yields from DF restoration within 5 years after final regeneration for evaluating logging activity in areas of await empirical data from field trials, such as harvest” (USDA 2012, p. 21266).3 The critical habitat, in accordance with the sci- the projects in Oregon using our restoration definition of “adequate restocking” ad- entific principles of active forest manage- strategy (e.g., Brown 2012). opted in the Forest Service Handbook and ment and to the extent permitted by law.” Regional Direction would need to accept This direction will be critical to determining Integrating Restoration the concept of relating adequacy of the extent to which regeneration harvests Strategies with Existing and stocking to prescription goals, such as will be allowed within critical habitat. Emerging Forest Policies creation of diverse early seral ecosystems, Dry Forests How well do our proposals for conserv- to allow the restoration strategy de- Interfacing our proposal for restoration ing old-growth and restoring MFs and DFs scribed here. of DFs with existing policy is complex, be- interface with existing PNW federal poli- 2. The planning rule incorporates a sus- cause candidate DFs are located both inside cies? Where are they consistent with existing tained yield requirement: “The quantity and outside the NWFP area. Within the policies and where are adjustments needed? of timber that may be sold from the na- NWFP areas, LSRs included DF landscapes Three important current policies are (1) the tional forest is limited to an amount in eastern and southern portions of the NSO NWFP, which was adopted in 1994 for all equal to or less than that which can be range. The NWFP allowed for harvest in DF federal forests within the NSO range; (2) in- removed from such forest annually in terim management guides developed in the perpetuity on a sustained yield basis” LSRs to restore and maintain natural ecolog- mid-1990s for eastside national forests be- (USDA 2012, p. 21267). The plan may ical conditions (Forest Ecosystem Manage- yond the NSO range (USDA Forest Service depart from this limit under certain con- ment Assessment Team 1993), although 1995); and (3) new policies proposed in the ditions and after allowing public com- such activity rarely has been undertaken in NSO Recovery Plan (USDI Fish and Wild- ment, but calculation of the long-term the past (Thomas et al. 2007). Hence, our life Service 2011) and proposed critical hab- sustained yield remains a foundational DF restoration strategy is consistent with the itat for the NSO (USDI Fish and Wildlife element in national forest planning. Re- NWFP. DF restoration is explicitly encour- Service 2012). generation harvests are one major com- aged in the NSO Recovery Plan (USDI Fish ponent of long-term sustained yield. and Wildlife Service 2011), in part because Moist Forests Thus, it appears that this sustained yield potential for large wildfires and outbreaks of Retaining older forests on MF sites is provision will require the national for- western spruce budworm greatly increase generally consistent with existing and emerg- ests to develop a long-term strategy that risks to large contiguous blocks of multi- ing policy. Much late-successional forest includes regeneration harvests on MFs. layered DFs (e.g., Courtney et al. 2008, (more than 80 years) was protected in the We do not know whether our proposed Dello and Mote 2010). Still, it is not clear NWFP as late-successional reserves (LSR) approach to regeneration harvest will be how this stated intent will be implemented and riparian reserves (Thomas et al. 2007), considered in this strategy. and some owl biologists and environmental- and most of the remaining older forests on 3. The planning rule stipulates that “The ists currently oppose any modification of MF sites was recently recommended for re- regeneration harvest of even-aged stands suitable NSO habitat; litigation of this as- tention in the NSO Recovery Plan (USDI of trees is limited to stands that generally pect of the NSO Recovery Plan is likely. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012). Commer- have reached the culmination of mean Outside the NWFP area, our proposals cial thinning in plantations to increase struc- annual increment of growth” (USDA for restoration of DF are largely consistent tural complexity is generally consistent with 2012, p. 21267), but exceptions are al- with existing policy. We do substitute reten- the NWFP (USDA Forest Service and US lowed where the primary purpose of the tion of older trees for the current interim BLM 1994) and the NSO Recovery Plan harvest is something other than timber upper diameter limit of 21 inches (see and draft critical habitat rules allow for these production. These exceptions are impor- Brown 2012). However, increasingly, na- actions (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service tant because some stands, which otherwise tional forests have been granted exceptions 2011, 2012), although recent findings on would be candidates for a regeneration to the “21 inch” policy to remove large, the negative impact of such thinning on harvest, have not reached culmination. young white firs that have invaded historic some prey species of the NSO may create ponderosa pine–dominated stands. new limitations on harvest activities (Man- Implementation of the regeneration Still, as with MF, several policy issues ning et al. 2012). harvest component on MF sites will also be remain regarding implementation of our DF However, there are numerous policy is- affected by the recent NSO Recovery Plan restoration strategy: sues that surround implementation of the (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011) and regeneration harvest component of our res- proposed critical habitat for the NSO 1. We call for accelerated rates of treatment toration strategy on MF sites. Three provi- (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012). Ac- on a much broader DF land base than is sions from the planning regulations imple- tive management using ecological forestry currently proposed under fuel treatment menting the National Forest Management principles is endorsed in both documents programs. Simulations of fuel treatment Act (NFMA) are especially important: but there is uncertainty about the type, tim- effects show that thinning as little as 1%

436 Journal of Forestry • December 2012 of the forest per year can significantly ing federal lands for intensive wood produc- on external characteristics of trees have been alter fire behavior (Finney et al. 2007). tion, on the one hand, or effectively preserv- developed (Van Pelt 2008) and used (e.g., Consequently, goals of thinning 20– ing all of it for owls, on the other. This does Brown 2012). Furthermore, questions typically arise regarding only the subsample of 30% of DFs over the next 20 years re- not mean that we do not anticipate other trees that appear near the threshold age. Two flect budget and personnel shortages and challenges will arise that need to be ad- caveats are relevant in the use of age as the a singular focus on fire. Unfortunately, dressed—several key issues must still be re- first screen in selecting trees for retention: fuel treatments alone leave most DFs solved, and we make the following recom- (1) stakeholders and agency personnel must and included old trees vulnerable to fire, mendations to address these issues. agree on some allowance for errors in age drought, and insects, hence, our call for First, the lack of public trust in agency estimation and (2) as noted, size is important for many wildlife species, such as cavity nest- both an altered and an accelerated pro- proposals probably has been the largest ers, and will be considered in developing sil- gram. single obstruction in moving active man- vicultural prescriptions. 2. Our strategy calls for a network of dense agement forward on federal forestlands. 3. National forests operate under the 1982 patches in treated landscapes, tailored to The general absence of credible third-party planning rule until they develop new forest the situation and wildlife species of in- assessments has contributed significantly plans (USDA 1982). The wording on these terest, a feature often not recognized in to this problem. We view such third-party provisions is slightly different in that rule, DF project implementation. However, review and public reporting as essential for but the intent is similar. there is a framework for such a network successfully undertaking a major new Literature Cited in the new NSO Recovery Plan and pro- innovative management program on federal ADAMS, D.M., AND G.S. LATTA. 2005. Costs and posed critical habitat designation. Be- lands. regional impacts of restoration thinning pro- cause many DF stands provide suitable Second, given the high potential for grams on the national forests in eastern Ore- habitat for NSO, it is essential to com- catastrophic resource losses in federal DFs, gon. Can. J. For. Res. 35(6):1319–1330. prehensively plan the amount and spa- we advocate a comprehensive 20-year pro- AGEE, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest tial distribution of reserved dense forest gram for restoring one-half to two-thirds of forests. Island Press, Washington, DC. 493 p. GER, A., B. FINEY,B.KERNS, AND H. MAFFEI. patches and, conversely, identify areas PNW DF landscapes outside of wilderness A 2007. Modeling wildfire risk to northern spot- for restoration treatment. and roadless areas through a combination of ted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) habitat in 3. Although commercial treatments are commercial and precommercial treatments. Central Oregon, USA. For. Ecol. Manage. 246: central to our DF strategy, comprehen- This will require a significant increase in the 45–56. sive restoration of DF landscapes will re- amount of commercial thinning undertaken ATZET, T., D.L. WHEELER,B.SMITH,J.FRANK- quire investments from either timber (Johnson and Franklin 2009). The need to LIN,G.RIEGEL, AND D. THORNBURGH. 1992. sale revenues or appropriated funds increase the pace of restoration was recently Vegetation. P. 92–113 in Reforestation practices in southwestern Oregon and northern Califor- (Adams and Latta 2005, Johnson et al. acknowledged by the US Forest Service nia, Hobbs, S.D., S.D. Tesch, P.W. Owston, 2008). Such investments are problem- (USDA Forest Service 2012). R.E. Stewart, J.C. Tappeiner II, and G.E. atic in a time of shrinking federal bud- Finally, resolving the MF land base on Wells (eds.). Oregon State Univ. Forest Re- gets. federal lands that will ultimately be available search Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. 4. Maintenance of restored DF conditions for reinstituting regeneration harvests is BAILEY, J.D., AND J.C. TAPPEINER. 1998. Effects after initial mechanical treatments could highly problematic both legally and socially. of thinning on structural development in 40-to 100-year-old Douglas-fir stands in west- be done with prescribed fire, possibly There are even questions about whether pre- ern Oregon. For. Ecol. Manage. 108:99–113. eliminating the potential for future tim- viously harvested stands will be available for BAKER, D., G. FERGUSON,C.PALMER, AND ber production. We envision the contin- such harvests. Some of them have been iden- T. TOLLE. 2006. The Northwest Forest Plan— ued use of harvesting to maintain de- tified as NSO critical habitat; others provide The first ten years (1994–2003). Implementa- sired conditions in many DF stands. habitat for other species requiring special tion monitoring: Summary of regional inter- Resolution of this question—controlled treatment (Johnson and Franklin 2012). agency monitoring results. USDA For. Serv., Pac. Northw. Res. Stn., Portland, OR. 18 p. burns or harvest or both—is also related Three conclusions emerge: (1) our MF strat- BEESE, W., B.G. DUNSWORTH,K.ZIELKE, AND to addressing the sustained yield clause egy provides a pathway to a long-term sus- B. BANCROFT. 2003. Maintaining attributes of the NFMA planning rule. tained timber yield from MFs that does not of old-growth forests in coastal B.C. through currently exist, (2) reversing the trend of the variable retention. For. Chron. 79:570–578. Conclusions and Implications shrinking land base for timber production is BLISS, J. 2000. Public perceptions of clearcutting. Our experiences thus far with projects a key element in determining sustainable J. For. 98(12):4–9. implementing our restoration strategies, in- timber harvests, and (3) developing public BORMANN, B.T., R.W. HAYNES, AND J.R. MAR- TIN. 2007. Adaptive management of forest cluding extensive interactions with stake- understanding and acceptance of the ecolog- ecosystems: Did some rubber hit the road. holder groups, have been very useful in re- ical need for creating diverse early seral eco- Bioscience 57(2):186–191. fining our strategy. Agency personnel have systems in MF will require significant effort. BOSWORTH, D. 2006. Investing in the future: proved to be very capable of developing sil- Ecological restoration and the US Forest Ser- vicultural prescriptions based on ecological Endnotes vice. J. For. 105(4):208–211. forestry principles and implementing the re- 1. This article is largely based on two more BUNNELL, F.L., AND G.B. DUNSWORTH. 2009. Forestry and biodiversity: Learning how to sus- sulting projects. We view our restoration comprehensive reports (Johnson and Frank- lin 2009, 2012). tain biodiversity in managed forests. UBC Press, strategy as a credible alternative to the ex- 2. Age limits can be criticized as being more Vancouver, Canada. 349 p. treme choices with which stakeholders are difficult to apply than diameter limits. How- BROWN, S.J. 2012. The Soda Bear Project and the currently being presented of either manag- ever, effective visual guides to tree age based Blue Mountain Forest Partners: US Forest Ser-

Journal of Forestry • December 2012 437 vice collaboration. J. For. DOI: 10.5849/jof. Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, LINDENMAYER, D.B., AND J.F. FRANKLIN. 2002. 12-078. WA. 97 p. Conserving forest biodiversity. Island Press, CAREY, A.B. 2003. Biocomplexity and restora- GAINES, W.L., R.J. HARROD,J.DICKINSON, A.L. Washington, DC. 351 p. tion of biodiversity in temperate coniferous LYONS, AND K. HALPUKA. 2010. Integration of LINDENMAYER, D.B., J.F. FRANKLIN, ET AL. 2012. forest: Inducing spatial heterogeneity with northern spotted owl habitat and fuels treat- A major shift to the retention approach for variable density thinning. Forestry 76:127– ments in the eastern Cascades, Washington, forestry can help resolve some global forest 136. USA. For. Ecol. Manage. 260:2045–2052. sustainability issues. Conserv. Lett. DOI: COURTNEY, S.P., A.B. CAREY, M.L. CODY, ET AL. GARMAN, S.L., J.H. CISSEL, AND J.H. MAYO. 10.1111/j.1755-263X. 2012.00257. 2008. Scientific review of the draft northern 2003. Accelerating development of late-succes- LONG, J.N. 2009. Emulating natural disturbance spotted owl recovery plan. Sustainable Ecosys- sional conditions in young managed Douglas-fir regimes as a basis for forest management: A tems Institute, Portland, OR. 157 p. stands: A simulation study. USDA For. Serv. North American view. For. Ecol. Manage. 257: CROCKER-BEDFORD, D.C. 1990. Goshawk repro- Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-557. 57 p. 1868–1873. duction and forest management. Wildl. Soc. GREENBERG, C.H., B.S. COLLINS, AND F.R. THOMP- MANNING, T., J.C. HAGAR, AND B.C. MCCOMB. Bull. 18:262–269. SON III (EDS.). 2011. Sustaining young forest 2012. Thinning of young Douglas-fir forests DELLO, K.D., AND P.W. MOTE (EDS.). 2010. communities: Ecology and management of early decreases density of northern flying squirrels in Oregon climate assessment report. Oregon Cli- successional habitats in the central hardwood re- the Oregon Cascades. For. Ecol. Manage. 264: mate Change Research Institute, Corvallis, gion of the USA. Springer, New York. 310 p. 115–124. OR. 414 p. GUNDERSON, L.H., C.S. HOLLING, AND S.S. LIGHT. MCDOWELL, N., J.R. BROOKS, S.A. FITZGERALD, FINNEY, M., R. SELI,C.MCHUGH,A.AGER, 1995. Barriers and bridges to the renewal of AND B.J. BOND. 2003. Carbon isotope dis- B. BAHRO, AND J. AGEE. 2007. Simulation of ecosystems and institutions. Columbia Univer- crimination and growth response of old Pinus long-term landscape-level fuel treatment ef- sity Press, New York. 593 p. ponderosa trees to stand density reductions. fects on large wildfires. Int. J. Wildl. Fire. 16: GUSTAFSSON, L., S.C. BAKER,J.BAUHUS, Plan, Cell Environ. 26:631–644. C INLEY AND RANK 712–727. ET AL. 2012. Retention forestry to maintain M K , G., D. F . 1996. Stories on FOREST ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT multifunctional forests: A world perspective. the land: An environmental history of the Apple- gate and Illinois Valleys. USDI Bureau of Land TEAM. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: BioScience 62:633–645. Management, Medford District Office, Med- An ecological, economic, and social assessment. HESSBURG, P., J. AGEE, AND J.F. FRANKLIN. 2005. USDA For. Serv. Reg. 6, Portland, OR. Dry forests and wildland fire of the inland ford, OR. 247 p. MICHEL, A.K., AND S. WINTER. 2009. Tree mi- FORSMAN, E.D., R.G. ANTHONY, K.M. DUGGER, Northwest USA: Contrasting the landscape crohabitat structures as indicators of biodiver- ET AL. 2011. Population demography of northern ecology of the presettlement and modern era. spotted owls: 1985–2008. Studies in Avian For. Ecol. Manage. 211:117–139. sity in Douglas-fir forests of different stand ages and management histories in the Pacific Biology, No. 40, Cooper Ornithological Soci- HESSBURG, P.F., K.M. JAMES, AND R.B. SALTER. Northwest, USA. For. Ecol. Manage. 257: ety, University of California Press, Berkeley, 2007. Re-examining fire severity relations in 1453–1464. CA. 106 p. pre-management era mixed conifer forests: MUNGER, T.T. 1917. Western yellow pine in Ore- FRANKLIN, J.F., AND R.T. FORMAN. 1987. Creat- Inferences from landscape patterns of forest gon. USDA Bull. 418, Washington, DC. 48 p. ing landscape patterns by forest cutting: Eco- structure. Landsc. Ecol. 22(1):5–24. NORTH, M.P., AND W.S. KEETON. 2008. Emu- logical consequences and principles. Landsc. HOBBS, R.J., L.M. HALLETT, P.R. EHRLICH, AND lating natural disturbance regimes: an emerg- Ecol. 1(1):5–18. H.J. MOONEY. 2011. Intervention ecology: ing approach for sustainable forest manage- FRANKLIN, J.F., AND T.A. SPIES. 1991. Ecological Applying ecological science in the twenty-first ment. P. 341–372 in Patterns and processes definitions of old-growth Douglas-fir forests. century. Bioscience 61:442–450. in forest landscapes—Multiple use and sustain- P. 61–69 in Wildlife and vegetation of un- JOHNSON, K.N., J.F. FRANKLIN, AND D.L. JOHN- able management, Lafortezza, R., J. Chen, managed Douglas-fir forests, Ruggiero, L.F., SON. 2008. A plan for the Klamath Tribes’ man- G. Sanesi, and T.R. Crow (eds.). Springer, K.B. Aubry, A.B. Carey, and M.H. Huff agement of the Klamath Reservation Forest. The Netherlands. (eds.). USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech Rep. Rep. to the Klamath Tribes. Available on- NORTH, M., P. STINE,K.O’HARA, ET AL. 2009. PNW-GTR-285. 533 p. line at www.klamathtribes.org/information/ An ecosystem management strategy for Sierran FRANKLIN, J.F., D.R. BERG, D.A. THORNBURGH, background/documents/Klamath_Plan_Final mixed-conifer forests. USDA For. Serv. Gen. AND J.C. TAPPEINER. 1997. Alternative silvi- _May_2008.pdf; last accessed Apr. 21, 2011. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-220, Pac. Southw. cultural approaches to timber harvesting: Vari- JOHNSON, K.N., AND J.F. FRANKLIN. 2009. Resto- Res. Stn., Albany, CA. 49 p. able retention harvest systems. P. 111–139 in ration of the federal forests of the Pacific North- NOSS, R., J. FRANKLIN,W.BAKER, AND T. SCHOEN- Creating a forestry for the 21st century, Kohm, west. Available online at www.cof.orst.edu/cof/ NAGEL. 2006. Managing fire-prone forests in K.A., and J.F. Franklin (eds.). Island Press, fs/PDFs/JohnsonRestoration_Aug15_2009. the western United States. Front. Ecol. Envi- Washington, DC. pdf; last accessed Apr. 20, 2012. ron. 4(9):481–487. FRANKLIN, J.F., T.A. SPIES,R.VAN PELT, ET AL. JOHNSON, K.N., AND J.F. FRANKLIN. 2012. South- OBAMA, B. 2012. Proposed revised habitat for the 2002. Disturbances and structural develop- west Oregon secretarial pilot projects on BLM spotted owl: Minimizing regulatory burdens. ment of natural forest ecosystem with silvicul- lands: Our experience so far and broader consid- Mem. for the Secretary of the Interior, The tural implications: Using Douglas-fir forests as erations for long-term plans. Available online at White House, Washington, DC. Available on- an example. For. Ecol. Manage. 155:399–423. www.cof.orst.edu/cof/fs/PDFs/BLM_report_ line at www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/ FRANKLIN, J.F., AND R. VAN PELT. 2004. Spatial feb15_Johnson.pdf; last accessed Apr. 20, 02/28/presidential-memorandum-proposed- aspects of structural complexity in old-growth 2012. revised-habitat-spotted-owl-minimizing-; last forests. J. For. 102(3):22–27. KOLB, T.E., J.K. AGEE, P.Z. FULE, N.G. MC- accessed May 2, 2012. FRANKLIN, J.F., R.J. MITCHELL, AND B.J. PALIK. DOWELL,K.PEARSON,A.SALA, AND R.H. PERRY, D.A., P. HESSBURG,C.SKINNER, T.A. SPIES, 2007. Natural disturbance and stand develop- WARING. 2007. Perpetuating old ponderosa S.L. STEPHENS, A.H. TAYLOR, J.F. FRANKLIN, ment principles for ecological forestry. USDA pine. For. Ecol. Manage. 249:141–157. B. MCCOMB, AND G. RIEGEL. 2011. The ecol- For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-19. 44 p. LARSON, A.J., AND D. CHURCHILL. 2012. Tree ogy of mixed severity fire regimes in Washing- FRANKLIN, J.F., M.A. HEMSTROM,R.VAN PELT, spatial patterns in fire-frequent forests of west- ton, Oregon, and northern California. For. J.B. BUCHANAN, AND S. HULL. 2008. The case ern North America, including mechanisms of Ecol. Manage. 262:703–717. for active management of dry forest types in east- pattern formation and implications for design- REILLY, E. 2012. The Pilot Joe Project—Dry for- ern Washington: Perpetuating and creating old ing fuel reduction and restoration treatments. est restoration in southwestern Oregon. J. For. forest structures and functions. Washington For. Ecol. Manage. 267:74–92. DOI: 10.5849/jof.12-081.

438 Journal of Forestry • December 2012 ROBBINS, W. 2009. Landscapes of promise: The and the Northwest Forest Plan: Rhetoric and decision for amendments for Forest Service and Oregon story, 1800–1940. University of Wash- reality. J. For. 101:40–46. Bureau of Land Management planning docu- ington Press, Seattle, WA. 416 p. SWANSON, M., J.F. FRANKLIN, R.L. BESCHTA, ments within the range of the northern spotted SEYMOUR, R., AND M. HUNTER. 1999. Principles C.M. CRISAFULLI, D.A. DELLASALA, R.L. owl. USDA For. Serv. Region, Portland, OR. of ecological forestry. P. 22–64 in Managing HUTTO, D.B. LINDEMAYER, AND F.J. SWAN- 74 p. (plus Attachment A: Standards and biodiversity in forested ecosystems, Hunter, SON. 2011. The forgotten stage of forest suc- guidelines.) M. (ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cam- cession: Early-successional ecosystems on for- USDI FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 2011. Revised bridge, UK. est sites. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9:117–125. recovery plan for the northern spotted owl SHINDLER, B., AND A.L. MALLON. 2009. Public THOMAS, J.W., J.F. FRANKLIN,J.GORDON, AND (Strix occidentalis caurina). USDI Fish and acceptance of disturbance-based forest manage- K.N. JOHNSON. 2007. The Northwest Forest Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 258 p. ment: A study of the Blue River landscape strategy Plan: Origins, components, implementation USDI FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. 2012. Endan- in the Central Cascades Adaptive Management experience, and suggestions for change. Con- gered and threatened wildlife and plants; re- Area. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-RP- serv. Biol. 20:277–287. vised critical habitat for the Northern Spotted 581, Pac. Northw. Res. Stn., Portland, OR. TOMAN, E., M. STIDHAM,B.SHINDLER, AND Owl. Fed. Regist. 77(46):14062–14165. C AFFREY 42 p. S. M C . 2011. Reducing fuels in the VAN PELT, R. 2008. Identifying old trees and forests SPIES, T.A. 2009. Science of old growth, or a jour- wildland–urban interface: Community per- in eastern Washington. Washington State De- ney into wonderland. P. 31–43 in Old growth ceptions of agency fuels treatments. Int. J. partment of Natural Resources, Olympia, in a new world: A Pacific Northwest icon reex- Wildl. Fire 20(3):340–349. WA. 166 p. amined. Spies, T.A., and S.L. Duncan (eds.). US BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM). VAN PELT, R., AND S.C. SILLETT. 2008. Crown Island Press, Washington, DC. 326 p. 2012. Secretary Salazar proposes expansion of development of coastal Pseudotsuga menziesii, SPIES, T., M. HEMSTROM,A.YOUNGBLOOD, AND ecological forestry in western Oregon to provide including a conceptual model for tall conifers. S. HUMMEL. 2006. Conserving old growth for- sustainable timber, healthier habitat. Available Ecol. Monogr. 78:283–311. est diversity in disturbance-prone landscapes. online at www.blm.gov/or/news/files/2]22- VILSACK, T. 2009. Vision for the forest service: Re- Conserv. Biol. 20(2):356–362. 12_Oregon_Forestry_Release.pdf; last ac- marks as prepared for delivery Seattle, Washing- SPIES, T.A., K. JOHNSON,K.BURNETT, J.L. OH- cessed Mar. 21, 2012. ton—August 14, 2009. Available online at www. MANN, B.C. MCCOMB, G.H. REEVES,P.BET- USDA. 1982. 36 CFR Part 219. National forest fs.fed.us/video/tidwell/vilsack.pdf; last ac- TINGER, J.D. KLINE, AND B. GARBER-YONTS. system land and resource management plan- 2007. Cumulative ecological and socioeco- ning, Fed. Regist. 47:43037–43061. cessed Apr. 21, 2011. nomic effects of forest policies in coastal Ore- USDA. 2012. 36 CFR Part 219. National forest WHEELER, A. 2012. Roseburg District secretarial gon. Ecol. Applic. 88(1):5–17. system land management planning. Fed. Reg- pilot project: My experience. J. For. DOI: SPIES, T.A., S.L. DUNCAN, K.N. JOHNSON, F.J. ist. 77(68):21162–21276. 10.5849/jof.12-076. SWANSON, AND D. LACH. 2009. Conserving USDA FOREST SERVICE. 1995. Interim manage- WILSON, D.S., AND K.J. PUETTMANN. 2007. old growth in a new world. P. 313–326 in Old ment direction establishing riparian, ecosystem, Density management and biodiversity in growth in a new world: A Pacific Northwest icon and wildlife standards for timber sales (revised). young Douglas-fir forests: Challenges of man- reexamined, Spies, T.A., and S.L. Duncan Regional forester’s forest plan amendment no. 2. aging across scales. For. Ecol. Manage. 246: (eds.). Island Press, Washington, DC. 326 p. Available online at www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/ 123–134. SPIES, T.A., T.W. GIESEN, F.J. SWANSON, J.F. FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5314617.pdf; WIMBERLY, M. 2002. Spatial simulation of his- FRANKLIN,D.LACH, AND K.N. JOHNSON. last accessed Apr. 20, 2012. torical landscape patterns in coastal forests of 2010. Climate change adaption strategies for USDA FOREST SERVICE. 2012. Increasing the the Pacific Northwest. Can. J. For. Res. 32: federal forests of the Pacific Northwest, USA: pace of restoration and job creation on our na- 1316–1328. Ecological policy and socio-economic perspec- tional forests. Available online at www.fs.fed.us/ YOUNGBLOOD, A., T. MAX, AND K. COE. 2004. tives. Landsc. Ecol. 25:1185–1199. publications/restoration/restoration.pdf.; last ac- Stand structure in east-side old-growth pon- STANKEY, G.H., B.T. BORMANN,C.RYAN, cessed May 3, 2012. derosa pine forests of Oregon and northern B. SHINDLER,V.STURTEVANT, R.N. CLARK, USDA FOREST SERVICE, AND US BUREAU OF California. For. Ecol. Manage. 99(213):191– AND C. PHILPOT. 2003. Adaptive management LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM). 1994. Record of 217.

CASE STUDY J. For. 110(8):439–441 http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/jof.12-076 Roseburg District Pilot Project

Abe Wheeler ing these lands since the northern spotted owl’s listing in 1990. In an attempt to balance seemingly opposed interests, the Northwest For- or the past 20 years, the US Department of the Interior est Plan was developed in 1994. Litigation within the courts has (USDI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Oregon and prevented a full implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan. For F California Railroad (O&C) lands of western Oregon have example, much of the plan’s predicted sustained yield volume was been the focus of intense debate. The O&C Lands Act of 1937 and supposed to have come from regeneration harvest in “old-growth” the Endangered Species Act of 1973 have driven discussions regard- forests. The recent status quo has been a thinning-only approach,

Received August 27, 2012; accepted September 3, 2012; published online October 25, 2012. Afﬁliations: Abe Wheeler ([email protected]) is O&C forester, Roseburg District of the US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, 777 NW Garden Valley Boulevard, Roseburg, OR 97471.

Journal of Forestry • December 2012 439