See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309765082

Table Rocks Oak and Vernal Pool Habitats Restoration Assessment and Prioritization

Technical Report · November 2016 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22639.02723

CITATIONS READS 0 100

5 authors, including:

Kerry Metlen Derek Olson The Nature Conservancy The Nature Conservancy

24 PUBLICATIONS 638 CITATIONS 5 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Darren Borgias The Nature Conservancy

7 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kerry Metlen on 08 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately. Table Rocks Oak and Vernal Pool Habitats Restoration Assessment and Prioritization

November 2016

Western Oregon Restoration and Resource Management Planning Cooperative Agreement # L12AC20620

Model of Oak Habitat Succession and Restoration Transitions

Prepared by: Kerry Metlen, PhD, Forest Ecologist Derek Olson, Research and Monitoring Assistant Keith Perchemlides M.S., Field Ecologist Molly Morison M.S., Stewardship Coordinator Darren Borgias M.S., Program Director

Available at https://tnc.box.com/s/ekzy882tcvarld5dr1vatpq66xzzawtf Contents Report Summary ...... 3 I. Overview and Project Goals (Purpose and Need) ...... 4 II. Oak Habitat Assessment ...... 5 Scope, Focus, Intent ...... 5 Mapping Existing Oak Habitat ...... 9 Vegetation Mapping Methods ...... 39 Restoration Planning ...... 12 Restoration Goals ...... 12 General principles for Oak-associated habitat restoration ...... 12 Unintended consequences ...... 17 Management Units and Prioritization ...... 18 Potential transitions ...... 42 Hazard and risk ...... 43 Accessibility ...... 43 Treatment Implementation Guidelines ...... 22 Oak Restoration Monitoring ...... 23 Long term monitoring plots ...... 23 III. Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment ...... 24 Scope, Focus, Intent ...... 24 Mapping Vernal Pool and Vernally Wet Habitats ...... 26 Tools for Habitat Protection and Restoration Planning ...... 28 IV. Herbaceous Species Management ...... 31 Scope, Focus, Intent ...... 31 Herbaceous Community Recovery ...... 31 Priority Noxious Weeds ...... 31 Herbaceous Management in Restoration Planning ...... 31 Herbaceous Recovery Strategies ...... 33 V. Next steps ...... 35 VI. References ...... 35 VII. Appendices ...... 39

Page 1 of 50 Tables Table 1. Stand structure and composition metrics for oak habitat types on the Table Rocks (Altman and Stephens 2012)...... 9 Table 2: Summary of current oak habitat types (acres) by area on the Table Rocks...... 10 Table 3: Potential acreage of habitat classes after initial implementation of this strategy...... 16 Table 4: Prioritized management units, acres and percent suitable transitions and low intensity areas.. 21 Table 5: Priority noxious weeds for prevention and control...... 32 Table 6: Summary of herbaceous restoration conditions, objectives, and available treatments...... 34

Figures Figure 1: Map of the Table Rocks with existing land ownerships...... 8 Figure 2: Distribution of current oak habitats at the Table Rocks...... 11 Figure 3: Songbirds associated with oak habitats of the Table Rocks (Altman and Stephens 2012)...... 14 Figure 4: Restoration Strategy integrates ecological need, mitigating fire risk, likelihood of success, and with long-term climate adaptation benefits...... 15 Figure 5: Model of oak habitat success and restoration transition ...... 17 Figure 6: Treatment units and prioritization...... 20 Figure 7: Vernal pools and upland mounds on the Table Rocks ...... 25 Figure 8: Wet flats with spring wildflowers atop the Table Rocks, and the endemic, listed Limnanthes pumila ssp. pumila (LIPUPU) dwarf wooly meadowfoam (inset)...... 25 Figure 9: An example of vernal pool basin mapping process for an area of Upper Table Rock ...... 26 Figure 10: An example of vernally wet flat mapping process for an area of Upper Table Rock...... 27 Figure 11: An example of wetland habitat mapping from Upper Table Rock ...... 28 Figure 12: Mapped hydrologic barriers resulting from topographic alterations on Lower Table Rock. .. 30

Page 2 of 50 Report Summary This report describes restoration strategies for valuable oak and vernal pool habitats of the Table Rocks Conservation Opportunity Area, an America’s Great Outdoors site in the Rogue Valley of southwestern Oregon. Across the Table Rocks disruption of the historic fire regime has dramatically impacted grassland, wetland, and oak habitats. This management strategy is thereby focused on active restoration to allow the reintroduction of fire and ongoing use while addressing the compounding problem of non-native plant invasion. The strategy includes mapping ~100-acre management units and determining priorities among units for which reduced fire hazard is most critical within an ecological restoration and social value framework. The units were drawn in part to function as reasonable prescribed-fire management units. We classified the oak habitats as differentiated by bird guilds, reflecting the conservation value of oak habitats for bird that are in decline, and thus promoting bird indicator species to be used for monitoring restoration success. In addition to active implementation monitoring at the management unit scale, a small number of permanent vegetation monitoring plots and a network of bird point- count stations have been established to detect long-term changes. In the 4,796 acres of oak associated habitats in the conservation area, fuels reduction and thinning is needed to allow the reintroduction of fire to restore native species which are dependent on more open habitats while retaining and protecting closed habitats in appropriate landscape positions. This active management also benefits the surrounding community by improving community safety and sustaining other human values. The goal is to achieve a landscape of diverse habitats that is more resistant and resilient to climate change and wildfire. Selective thinning by saw crews will reduce density, fuels, and wildfire risk to protect and promote open grown legacy structures (oak, conifer, and shrub) and reduce fuels in other areas where wildfire risk to private property and existing infrastructure is high. Treatments will create fire resistant conditions within existing habitat types to allow future prescribed fire, while occasionally creating more open habitats or retaining dense habitats in suitable landscape positions. Specific dense habitat areas determined to be ecologically important to retain have been explicitly mapped and others will be identified during implementation planning. Management units were ranked for treatment priority based on the following considerations: proportion of area that could best support open habitats where dense vegetation currently exists, wildfire hazard and risk, accessibility, engagement opportunities, and existing scheduled projects. The 740-acre mesa-tops provide a mosaic of mounded prairie, vernal pool, and vernal flat grassland habitats supporting federally-listed vernal pool fairy shrimp and endemic state-listed dwarf wooly meadow-foam. This report presents new methods for mapping vernal pools, vernal flats, surface flow paths, and probable unnatural barriers to hydrologic flow using a combination of LiDAR and aerial photo reflectance data. These maps are tools to be used to assess focal areas for habitat protection and priority restoration opportunities as well as future wetland species monitoring. Restoration of understory and herbaceous communities is needed across all habitat types at the Table Rocks to protect against invasion by non-native plants and reverse declines in herbaceous native species cover and diversity. Key tools will be seeding, careful treatment implementation to avoid spreading weeds, and rapid detection of and response to selected non-native plant species. Without effective follow-up, exotic annual grasses and other transforming invasive species can quickly dominate sites after treatments that open-up understory growing conditions. This report provides a foundation for ongoing development of collaborative conservation activities at the Table Rocks across habitats and property boundaries. Unit specific planning, ongoing collaborative dialog, and adaptive management will benefit each project. Refined objectives and variable treatment outcomes, particularly in regard to fire, are expected to increase the capacity of the vegetation to be resistant and resilient to fires and climate change while maximizing the quality and longevity of the habitats at the Table Rocks.

Page 3 of 50 I. Overview and Project Goals (Purpose and Need)

The iconic horseshoe mesa-buttes of the Table Rocks are a popular hiking destination for 50,000 visitors annually. These landmarks provide a remarkable diversity of habitats populated by a number of rare and at-risk species. The two summits include critical habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), federally listed as threatened, and associated vernal pool and grassland habitat for dwarf wooly meadow-foam (Limnanthes pumila ssp pumila), which is endemic only to the mesa-buttes. The slopes of the Table Rocks support important mixed oak woodland and Oregon white oak savanna and chaparral ecosystems. Other habitats include seasonal streams and seeps, open grasslands, cliffs and talus slopes. Seevers and Borgias (1993) provided a comprehensive ecological and species diversity account of the site. These habitats, along with salmon from the adjacent river provided much of the food and fiber needs of the Native American Takelma people who lived in the vicinity. The Table Rocks figure into the local Takelma mythology, and a temporary Indian reservation was established there in 1853 prior to the people’s forced removal by the U.S. Calvary. Private livestock grazing use prevailed for nearly one-hundred thirty years, but over the last 35 years, The Nature Conservancy (Conservancy) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), in partnership, have protected and managed portions of the Table Rocks to preserve their remarkable natural and cultural features while encouraging public use and fostering a strong sense of ownership by the local community. The Bureau of Land Management has designated 1,210 acres as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) to protect special status plant and animal species, unique geology and scenic values, and education opportunities. The Conservancy holds 2,754 acres to protect important ecological diversity; a conservation easement with the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board protects 900 acres of this Conservancy ownership. The Table Rocks are identified as a Conservation Opportunity Area in the Oregon Conservation Strategy developed by ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2006) and as an America’s Great Outdoors site by President Obama. This focused ecological assessment of vernal pool and oak habitat conditions provides baseline ecological information, a prioritization framework, and specific recommendations to guide anticipated management, including active restoration, habitat protection, climate change adaptation, short and long-term monitoring, recreation, and environmental education at the Table Rocks.

Key objectives at the Table Rocks Management Area are to conserve viable representation of the natural systems while maintaining and enhancing compatible recreation uses, education and interpretation, and American Indian uses (BLM 2013). Key natural systems identified in the Table Rocks Management Plan include: Vernal Pools and Mounded Prairie, Oak Savanna and Prairie (grassland) Communities, Mixed Oak/Madrone/Conifer Woodland, Chaparral, and Caves and Cliffs (BLM 2013, Appendix A). This work describes a strategy to increase open habitat in a landscape that has become overly dense and homogenous during decades of fire-suppression, retain and release legacy structures, maintain or increase structural/species diversity, reintroduce fire as a beneficial natural disturbance, and allow for herbaceous restoration while maintaining representation of dense habitats in strategic locations. For vernal pools, we assess the extent of critical wetland habitats, identify high-probability habitat locations for listed species, and provide map products to plan areas for elevated protection or opportunities to restore altered hydrologic function.

Key actions as described in the Table Rocks Management Plan (BLM 2013) include: a) Conduct prescribed burning b) Thin oak woodlands and encroached savanna c) Increase age class diversity in chaparral

Page 4 of 50 d) Manage recreational uses to minimize impacts on threatened species e) Reduce fuel hazard to protect values at risk f) Maintain and enhance special status plant and wildlife habitat g) Control invasive weeds

This assessment focuses on how these key actions will be planned and implemented to improve the resistance and resilience of oak-associated habitats, grasslands, vernal pools, and vernally wet flats to future climate change, invasive species, and wildfire by improving ecosystem health and viability of target populations.

II. Oak Habitat Assessment

Scope, Focus, Intent Scope: 4,796 acres of oak and associated grassland habitat across the Table Rocks Focus: Eight oak-associated habitat types from Grassland/Savanna through Oak/Conifer Goal: Define and map current oak-associated habitats, and develop landscape-scale restoration plans Purpose: Guide cross-boundary ecological restoration/fuel reduction treatments at the Table Rocks

The Southwestern Oregon office of The Nature Conservancy has collaborated with the Medford District BLM, Lomakatsi Restoration Project, Klamath Bird Observatory, and other partners to design oak habitat restoration plans intended to meet both ecological and fire-risk reduction goals. Additionally, we reached out to local Native American tribes for feedback and review. Our work is focused across the BLM and TNC ownership and easement of the Table Rocks in the Rogue River Valley (Figure 1); regionally unique mesa-butte landforms that provide a diverse range of oak habitat types including white oak savanna, oak/shrub and chaparral, mixed black-oak/madrone woodland, oaks mixed with conifers, and mesa-top vernal wetlands and prairie. Habitat type, stand structure, and trajectory on the Table Rocks are strongly influenced by soils, moisture, and disturbance history. Modeled regional oak distributions under future climate scenarios show the Rogue Basin as a probable stronghold for Oregon white oak under likely future climates which, combined with the conservation protection status of the Table Rocks make this a high priority area for conserving Oregon white oak (Pellatt et al 2012, Schindel et al. 2013, Pellatt & Gedalof 2014). From a physiological perspective oak woodlands and prairie ecosystems of the Pacific Northwest may be generally suited to future climate across much of the range of Oregon White Oak (Bachelet et al. 2011, Pellatt et al. 2012), although several indirect threats and risks are projected including loss of habitat connectivity. In northern California, oak woodland may be favored under future climate scenarios on some sites currently dominated by Douglas-fir forests (Lenihan 2003), however, oak woodlands of southwestern Oregon are intermediate between those in northern Oregon and California, and are structured largely in regard to moisture availability (Riegel et al. 1992). Climate change is predicted to increase the likelihood of fire ignitions (Whitlock et al. 2003, Westerling et al. 2006, Littell et al. 2009), severity (Brown et al. 2004, Van Mantgem et al. 2013), and suppression difficulty (Fried et al. 2004) across the west. Conservation of Table Rocks oak habitat under climate change will rely on improving fire resistance and resilience, and reducing competition for limited moisture. Historically, frequent fires (both wildfire and intentional burning by Native Americans) maintained the Rogue Basin in a mosaic of oak savanna, open and dense woodland, chaparral, and grassland with a greater expression of open structure than found currently (Detling 1961, Wilkes 1849, Franklin and Dyrness 1988, Riegel et al. 1992, Seevers and Borgias 1993, Hosten et al. 2006, Skinner et al. 2006). Historic fire intervals of <10 years have been found in adjacent low elevation dry forest (Kerry Metlen

Page 5 of 50 unpublished data) which is similar to fire regimes found in other oak woodlands of the Klamath ecoregion (Skinner et al. 2006). Widespread habitat conversion and fire suppression has reduced healthy oak habitat by 50-95% in the twentieth century across Oregon and Washington (Baker et al. 2004, Harrington & Devine 2006, Altman & Stephens 2012). Across the West extant oak woodlands are in degraded condition due to development, over grazing, invasion by non-native plants, conversion to commercial conifer species for timber production, tree harvest, and fire suppression with consequent loss of open structure and encroachment (Thilenius 1968, Reed and Sugihara 1987, Riegel et al. 1992, Hanna and Dunn 1997, Altman 2011, Hosten et al. 2006, Skinner et al. 2006, Sikes and Muir 2009, Gilligan and Muir 2011, Long et al. 2016). Without fire, oak habitats accumulate fuels and in-fill with conifers, shrubs, or younger cohorts of oak, increasing the likelihood of large (legacy) oak mortality from moderate and severe fire (Cocking et al. 2012, Cocking et al. 2014). Uncharacteristically homogenous and dense stands are high in competitive stress which can kill legacy trees (structures providing key wildlife habitat), have reduced structural and species diversity, and reduced recruitment for fire adapted plant species (Skinner et al. 2006, Livingston et al. 2016). In-filled stands have high fuel loads and support more severe fire which can lead to loss of legacy trees and other ecological values (Skinner et al 2006, Cocking et al. 2012, Cocking et al. 2014, Long et al. 2016) as well as threatening human safety and property (West Wide Wildfire Risk Assessment 2013). Exotic annual grass invasion following wildfire and thinning treatments in conifer-encroached and shrub dominated oak systems is well documented in southwestern Oregon (Riegel et al. 1992, Coulter et al. 2010, Perchemlides et al. 2008, Sikes and Muir 2009), and in similar Mediterranean climates in California (Keeley et al. 2003, Keeley et al. 2005, Livingston et al. 2016). Exotic annual grasses are expected to benefit from both climate change and more frequent fire (D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992). Given existing threats, likely future climate, and likelihood of high severity fire with associated habitat loss, the restoration need for oak habitats paired with appropriate herbaceous vegetation management is high (see the Herbaceous Species Management section). Appropriate prescribed fire and thinning can significantly benefit native diversity in oak habitats (Coulter et al. 2010, Stanley et al. 2011, Livingston et al. 2016), especially when combined with active understory and herbaceous restoration. The presence or abundance of certain bird species which are closely linked to particular oak habitat conditions or features can serve as indicators of these habitats and thus the effectiveness of restoration treatments in sustaining or restoring desired conditions (Altman and Stephens 2012). Partners in Flight focal species that will likely benefit from restoring oak woodlands in this area through direct augmentation of more open habitat area and through reduced fire threat to more closed habitats include Acorn Woodpecker, Ash-throated Flycatcher, Bewick’s Wren, Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, Bushtit, Chipping Sparrow, Lark Sparrow, Lewis’ Woodpecker, Purple Finch, Oak Titmouse, Western Bluebird, Western Meadowlark, Western Wood Peewee, and White-breasted Nuthatch (Altman 2011; CalPIF 2002). This project area represents the northernmost range of several species, suggesting this restoration project may be particularly important in influencing potential range adjustments in the context of climate change. For these reasons restoration activities at the Table Rocks are framed in the context of oak-associated bird habitat types defined by Altman and Stephens (2012) and the long term monitoring has a strong avian component. The recommendations offered for landscape-scale treatments on the Table Rocks balance mechanical work and prescribed burning to restore both structure and function of this fire adapted system. In accordance with the Rogue Basin climate adaptation strategy (Myer et al. 2013) we will apply a primary adaptive strategy for climate change to reduce current mature and legacy forest loss to wildfire (McKinley et al. 2011; Vose et al. 2012, Millar & Stephenson 2015). We will also increase adaptive capacity by reducing competition and promoting drought and fire tolerant native species (as in Millar et al 2007; Joyce et al. 2009; Allen et al. 2010, Lawler et al. 2010, Spies et al. 2010, Peterson et al.

Page 6 of 50 2011, Franklin and Johnson 2012). Active restoration treatments will increase open habitat on the Table Rocks, thereby promoting retention of legacy trees and shrubs, increasing structural/species diversity, diminishing potential wildfire severity, and promoting recovery of native herbaceous and understory species (as in Livingston et al. 2016). Active treatments will be balanced with retention of ecologically important dense vegetation both as mapped in the Treatment Implementation Guidelines and as determined by implementation crews when open grown legacy structures are lacking and fire hazard concerns are diminished. These treatments are considered generally beneficial in maintaining conditions conducive to native American cultural values and for sustaining the potential for practicing historic cultural uses. Given the high visibility of the site, treatments and lessons-learned at the Table Rocks have the potential to be an important demonstration project and significantly impact oak, chaparral, and grassland habitat management throughout the region.

Oak habitat deliverables: a) Mapped existing oak habitats as GIS data and map images b) Restoration planning identifying ecological objectives c) Management unit delineation and prioritization d) Written guidelines for conditional treatment implementation e) Monitoring methods for implementation and effectiveness f) Strategic weed management and herbaceous restoration guidance

Page 7 of 50

Figure 1: Map of the Table Rocks with existing land ownerships. The ownership pattern illustrates the importance of accomplishing restoration treatments across ownership boundaries for protecting human and ecological communities. Mapping Existing Oak Habitat A primary tool for understanding oak habitat condition, ecological trajectory, and restoration opportunities on the Table Rocks is an accurate map of the current expression and distribution of oak habitats. We integrated remote sensing analysis of LiDAR data with on-the-ground measurements of stand structure and composition to create a high-resolution (66 feet or 20 m pixel) map of the current extent of eight distinct oak-associated habitat types (Figure 2) as defined relative to bird use by the American Bird Conservancy and Klamath Bird Observatory (Altman and Stephens 2012): Oak/Pine; Oak/Hardwood; Oak/Fir; Closed Oak Woodland; Open Oak Woodland; Oak/Chaparral; Oak Savanna; and Grassland (see Table 1). The mathematical model was largely driven by height and the differences in height among percentile classes of vegetation height, and very clearly distinguished between oak habitats, explaining 74% of the habitat variation in the LiDAR dataset. Appendix 1 presents the full method and discussion of analysis results for our oak habitat mapping.

Table 1. Summary of stand structure and composition metrics for oak habitat types (Altman and Stephens 2012) as adapted specifically for the Table Rocks. Herbaceous community of mixed grasses and forbs is the dominant vegetation type. Grassland Trees effectively absent (<<5% cover). Some sparse, patchy shrub cover may be present. Includes both upland and wetland herbaceous communities.

Scattered oak trees or small groups and a very open overstory canopy (<25% cover). Oak Savanna Tree form is open grown with large low branches. Understory is dominated by grasses and forbs with low, patchy shrub cover.

Relatively low canopy cover (25-50%). Tree form is a mixture of open grown and columnar where lower branch development is limited. Understory is dominated by Open Oak Woodland herbaceous cover and variable shrub cover. Tree-form mountain mahogany can contribute to canopy cover where +/- codominant with oaks. Relatively high canopy cover (50-75%). Tree form is predominantly columnar with higher competition for resources. Understory is dominated by herbaceous cover with Closed Oak Woodland variable shrub cover. Tree-form mountain mahogany can contribute to canopy cover where +/- codominant with oaks. Shrub dominated (>50% cover) habitat type with sparse canopy of oak trees (<25% cover) and scattered grassy openings. Oaks are often stunted by limiting conditions Oak/Chaparral and may have a shrub form on the harshest sites with little differentiation in canopy height between trees and shrubs. Typified by relatively high canopy cover where madrone or other hardwood species Oak/Hardwood are codominant in the canopy with oak. Understory is variable, but is often limited by light availability, becoming sparse to nearly absent under dense canopy.

Ponderosa pine is codominant with oak in the overstory. High variability in overstory Oak/Pine canopy cover from closed stands to open oak/pine savanna. Understory is dominated by herbaceous cover but may include patches of shrubs.

Characterized by substantial presence of both oak and Douglas-fir in the canopy, or Oak/Fir Douglas-fir as an encroaching sub-canopy cohort. Understory is often limited, but includes variable shrub density and sparse or patchy herbaceous.

During subsequent field use for assessment and monitoring, our oak habitat mapping proved to be highly accurate in detecting habitat type and variation at a fine scale across the Table Rocks. The overall distribution shows a complex mosaic of patchy and intermixed oak habitats following a general elevation gradient from open grassland and savanna, through variable-density oak chaparral and woodland, to increasingly closed-canopy oak/hardwood and oak/conifer types (Figure 2). Habitat types occur in roughly cross-contour bands spanning the side-slopes and modified by aspect and topography. Our mapping allows us to calculate total areas for current habitat types, range of habitat patch sizes and proportion of habitat types on the landscape (Table 2) to inform the restoration assessment.

Table 2: Summary of current oak habitat types by area (acres) on the Table Rocks.

Habitat Class Lower Table Rock Upper Table Rock Total Acres Percent of Total Grassland 462 882 1344 28 Oak Savanna 273 216 489 10 Open Oak Woodland 438 327 765 16 Oak/Chaparral 102 316 418 9 Oak/Pine 66 86 152 3 Closed Oak Woodland 393 330 723 15 Oak/Hardwood 492 263 756 16 Oak/Fir 43 107 151 3 Sum 2269 2527 4796 100

Page 10 of 50

Figure 2: Maps of current oak habitat distribution at the Table Rocks from integrated modeling.

Page 11 of 50 Restoration Planning Restoration Goals We recommend active vegetation restoration on the Table Rocks using thinning and prescribed fire to support a diverse assemblage of oak and grassland habitats consistent with the Table Rocks Management Plan. Given the complexity of landform and vegetation expression, we propose applying adaptive implementation informed by conditions on the ground, assessed on a unit-specific basis, and conducted by experienced technicians with significant collaborative oversight. Implementation will promote a mosaic of habitat types and stand structures across large (~100 acre) management units. Conditional thinning allows for dense vegetation to be retained with minimal or no thinning in appropriate settings, some mapped in advance and some identified by the implementation crews as described in the Treatment Implementation section. More comprehensive thinning is desirable where fire hazard threatens neighboring properties or infrastructure, around existing open-grown legacy trees, or where specific vegetation structures and site potential are favorable for transitions to more open habitat types with a high likelihood of success and minimal potential of undesirable outcomes.

Key oak habitat restoration goals are to: a) Protect open-grown legacy trees and shrubs b) Reintroduce natural processes, including fire c) Mitigate fuels and wildfire hazard d) Improve options for adaptation to climate change e) Retain and improve wildlife habitat f) Protect or promote rare/listed species g) Reduce potential for noxious weed invasion h) Create conditions for successful herbaceous restoration

General principles for Oak-associated habitat restoration A number of excellent guides exist for generalized oak restoration (e.g. Vesely & Tucker 2004; Harrington & Devine 2006; Hosten et al. 2006; Perchemlides & Borgias 2012; Klamath Bird Observatory & Lomakatsi Restoration Project 2014). Here we synthesize existing guides and make more specific recommendations targeted to the unique and diverse vegetation of the Table Rocks. This work is promoted across all of the habitat types and will maintain both open and closed habitats, but will increase the overall proportion of open habitat acknowledging that with recent in-fill, open habitats and the associated birds (e.g. the Western Wood-peewee) are in decline (Altman 2011; Altman & Stephens 2012). However, as underscored in Hosten et al. (2006), certain types of oak and chaparral habitat are adapted to infrequent high severity disturbance regimes and are less in need of or amenable to thinning restoration. Accordingly, we recognize the importance of maintaining these dense habitats upon which many birds and other species rely, and which complement the more open habitats present or restored by active management (Altman & Stephens 2012; Figure 3). Minimum patch size and connectivity thresholds for wildlife species were not key factors in our planning and prioritization because of the general paucity of such data (Vesely and Rosenberg 2010) and the diverse array of wildlife utilizing a wide range habitats of different sizes (Altman & Stephens 2012; David Roelofs personal communication) on the Table Rocks. Historic range of variability in the expression of oak habitats is difficult to quantify, limiting our ability to precisely describe restoration targets and elevating the importance of a collaborative, adaptive approach grounded in multiple lines of evidence. At the Table Rocks, General Land Office (GLO) records provide limited observations of vegetation conditions at the time of Euro-American settlement (mid 1800s); Hickman and Christy’s (2011) historical vegetation mapping from GLO interpretation was evaluated in the field and determined to be too coarse in resolution relative to variation observed. Our

Page 12 of 50 restoration recommendations focus on increasing the amount of open habitat and returning fire as a beneficial natural process while protecting large old open-grown structures (trees or shrubs) and other ecological values (e.g. chaparral, rare species, unique stands, wildlife sites) from uncharacteristic competitive stress or severe fire. During restoration we explicitly emphasize retaining representation of all habitat types at a range of scales across the Table Rocks landscape. Initial manual treatments to modify expected fire effects to large, old trees or shrubs followed by reintroduction of fire at an interval approximating the historical fire return interval (likely <10 years) is expected to increase the resistance and resilience of the vegetation while best providing the array of ecosystem services and habitat types historically expressed on the Table Rocks. Careful planning is needed to balance treatments that intertwine objectives for community wildfire safety, ecosystem resilience, and diverse habitats. This balance is especially important considering the landscape scale of treatment need, limited budgets, and an uncertain future climate. Landscape analyses provide frameworks and toolsets for decision making to strategically prioritizing areas with coinciding values to optimize treatment effects and benefit (Figure 4). The range of treatment priorities vary with existing conditions and cultural perspectives, but overall seek to create fire adapted landscapes amenable to efficient fire management where risk to important ecological and community values is minimized.

Core principles of our restoration planning: a) Plan strategically at the landscape scale for context and connectivity b) Implement at a scale that will effectively improve habitat quality and fire behavior c) Use conditional guidelines and well-trained crews to flexibly adapt treatments d) Work across all habitat types for the full range of ecological benefits e) Implement mosaic thinning to mimic natural disturbance patterns f) Reduce potential wildfire severity to retain habitat structures and values g) Utilize prescribed fire to further reduce fuels and return ecological processes h) Protect and recruit future legacy open-form trees and shrubs i) Promote stand structure and species diversity within and across habitats j) Restore native understory/herbaceous communities and k) Control non-native invasive species

Page 13 of 50

Figure 3: Songbirds associated with oak habitats of the Table Rocks (Altman and Stephens 2012).

Page 14 of 50 Fire suppression, in-fill, and recent anthropogenic disturbances have resulted in varying levels of departure ranging from full conversion and loss of habitat to lesser shifts that are still within the functional range of variation for that habitat. Perhaps most widespread are areas that retain their historic habitat type, but with an uncharacteristic stand density and/or uniformity that undermines ecological function and threatens loss and conversion with the next wildfire. Figure 4 depicts a conceptualization of the continuum in treatment need and potential intensity relative to degree of departure in stand structure. Treatments range from lighter fuel reduction and mosaic thinning primarily for fire management goals in stands within their functional range, to intensive thinning for both ecological goals and fuel reduction where in-fill has likely resulted in habitat conversion or functional loss - especially where transition to a more open habit type is appropriate and likely to succeed long- term (Figure 5). The strategic application of this range of treatment intensities across the landscape was determined by a planning and prioritization process at a management unit scale that considered fire risk, ecological values, and the potential for restoration success, including considerations for climate change adaptation. While landscape level analyses are appropriate for prioritizing management units and making coarse determinations of patches to modify treatment intensity, significant discretion and oversight is required in the implementation phase of the work at the management unit or individual stand scale.

Figure 4: Restoration Strategy. Planning requires addressing the most urgent ecological need and mitigating fire risk to ecological systems and human communities while prioritizing projects with the highest likelihood of success and with long-term climate adaptation benefits.

Page 15 of 50 Reduction of vegetation density to increase ecosystem resilience is a primary project objective across all habitats, but at a range of treatment intensities. Higher treatment intensity is not necessarily linked to habitat transition; in some cases, a lighter treatment will transition a less-departed habitat, in other cases intensive treatment may simply open up an existing habitat without transition – especially in oak/hardwood and oak/conifer habitat types that are defined by composition more than cover. This nuanced approach to restoration depends on strong collaborative relationships and ongoing implementation review. Larger areas of light-touch treatments intended to disrupt fuels while maintaining dense habitats were explicitly mapped based on landscape position, current structure and composition, and neighboring habitats (Figure 6). Oak/fir and oak/hardwood habitat types are also likely to be in a relatively dense condition even after thinning is implemented with transitions to more open habitats only rarely occurring. After implementation across the entire Table Rocks, the proportion of open habitats are likely to increase, but importantly no habitat types will be eliminated (Table 3) and implementation will be staged over an approximately ten-year span allowing for ongoing succession and development of stand structures in initial treatment units. Our process of evaluating the range of treatments and priorities across the landscape was informed by geophysical models estimating areas of high relative habitat suitability for each of the existing vegetation types. We then compared the habitat suitability models with the existing vegetation map to identify areas of suitable transition where the landscape position and productivity could support open habitat types but where the existing vegetation was dense (Figure 5). The proportion of unit area with suitable transitions was used to prioritize the most important units for initial treatment (see Management Units and Prioritization below). Maps of land facets potentially suitable for habitat transitions are not provided here. These are model estimates used to rank unit priority or estimate overall treatment outcomes, but actual conditions on the ground should determine treatment intensity and resulting stand structure. However, Table 4 below provides the percentage of each management unit containing likely favorable transitions and this can help guide treatment planning. In general, oak savanna could increase by about two thirds and oak woodland closed and oak chaparral may be reduced by a third each (Table 3).

Table 3: Existing and approximate potential acreage of habitat classes after restoration thinning. Outcomes will vary as collaborative feedback, adaptive management, and fire are applied.

Habitat Class Existing (acres) Existing (%) Potential (Acres) Potential (%) Grassland 1343 28 1343 28 Oak Savanna 489 10 815 17 Oak Woodland Open 765 16 863 18 Oak/Chaparral 421 9 240 5 Oak/Pine 144 3 144 3 Oak Woodland Closed 723 15 480 10 Oak/Hardwood 767 16 767 16 Oak/Fir 144 3 144 3 Sum 4796 100 4796 100

Page 16 of 50 Model of Oak Habitat Succession and Restoration Transitions

Figure 5: Most treatments will result in more open conditions within existing oak habitats, while some will transition from a more closed habitat class to a more open habitat type where suitable. The transitions depicted here are those where likelihood of success is greatest.

Unintended consequences Long-term planning that addresses habitat function and value, fire risk, and recreational use, and includes maintenance, careful preparation, monitoring-based adaptive management, and active follow-up are needed to avoid unintended consequences from thinning and burning treatments that are well-known to occur in the types of oak systems found at the Table Rocks. Ineffective thinning which fails to reduce stand density sufficiently to lower fire behavior and competitive stress can undermine restoration and fire management goals. Thinning needs to be implemented at a sufficient intensity and scale to achieve restoration objectives of legacy survival, reduced fire severity, and creation of functional open habitat. Treatments that stop short of adequate

Page 17 of 50 thinning still carry most of the costs and impacts of the work without yielding desired results, and can lead to a public and agency perception of restoration as a management failure. Overly aggressive and/or uniform thinning, while meeting many of the fire management objectives, results in a loss of habitat diversity, function, and resilience. These types of treatments are not consistent with restoration and may actually degrade habitat conditions (Hosten et al. 2006; Perchemlides et al. 2008; Sikes and Muir 2009; Duren and Muir 2010; Gilligan and Muir 2011). Even under the historic fire regime, areas of dense vegetation would likely have been common and provided closed habitat and shelter important to a suite of native species. Retention of closed canopy and dense patches within a thinned landscape is critical to protecting and enhancing the overall habitat value of the area, especially in habitat types such as chaparral which function in aggregations. Re-sprouting species (oak, madrone, and mountain mahogany) can quickly regrow surface and ladder fuels. Drawing on a mature root system, cut trunks of these species send up multiple stems capable of accelerated growth and can quickly begin reversing the more open structure achieved by thinning restoration. Maintenance application of cutting or prescribed fire may be needed, with fire the best approach to effective and lasting density reduction and ecological benefits. Targeted herbicide application to freshly-cut cambium during initial thinning treatments presents another option. But not all re-sprouting should be controlled; especially after fire, re-sprouting trees and shrubs add to the structural diversity and habitat values of these systems – from high forage value re-growth on shrubs, to development of ring-form multi-stem oak and madrone legacy trees. Cutting of ring-form hardwoods should be limited, particularly when individuals have vigorous stems, both for their legacy structure and the likely extensive root systems underground and subsequent potential to re-sprout vigorously. Invasive species, especially exotic annual grasses can quickly dominate and transform sites after treatments that open-up understory growing conditions, particularly in the absence of a vigorous native seed bank. Invasive species act to lower habitat function and quality, directly compete with and exclude native herbaceous species (including rare and listed species), alter fuel structures to increase the potential for ignition and spread of fires, and decrease public enjoyment of landscape. Invasive species and native herbaceous communities are covered under Herbaceous Species Management below. Inappropriate and damaging recreational use can follow thinning treatments that open up formerly dense vegetation. Even light or patchy thinning can dramatically increase foot, horse, or vehicle access opportunities (including temporary access routes created by treatment crews. Although light and dispersed off-trail foot travel is not a main concern for ecological damage, heavier foot travel can lead to erosion, transport invasive species, and focus public use on sensitive areas intentionally left off of official trail routes. Trespass by horse riders, hunters, or OHV users would be far more problematic. One simple mitigating strategy can be to leave barriers of dense vegetation at key off-trail access points.

Management Units and Prioritization Management units (Figure 6) were designed to promote treatments across the range of habitat types with a large footprint that facilitates reintroduction of fire as the second phase of treatment. Two types of units were designated based on the likely complexity and intensity of needed treatment:

1. ~100 acre units configured in broad bands spanning the elevational gradient of habitat types from the toe-slope boundary with private lands (or flat oak savanna) up to the mesa-top edge; 2. large 100 to 400-acre oak savanna-specific units on extensive areas of the relatively flat toe- slopes where existing conditions are more open and uniform.

Unit boundaries follow existing natural or human-made breaks in vegetation or topography. Treatment units assume no barriers or restrictions to treatment across BLM or TNC management. Within these treatment units, smaller implementation sub-units may be defined. BLM fuel management

Page 18 of 50 funds will be most readily available for treatments in oak and shrub habitats adjacent to private lands; additional funding sources will likely be needed to complete comprehensive treatments in other habitat types and locations. In order to plan for effective resource allocation and timely treatment of areas at greatest risk, management units were prioritized for treatment using a ranking process based on the proportion of area suitable for transition to more open habitat types, wildfire hazard and risk, accessibility, engagement opportunities, and presence of existing projects. The methods and rationale for each of these criteria are presented in more detail in Appendix 2. Although protection of legacy structures is a key management goal, legacies or other ecological values were not used to prioritize units because they are ubiquitous across the Table Rocks and have not been comprehensively mapped. Similarly, because most management units were laid out to intentionally span the range of oak habitat types present on the Table Rocks, habitat type was not a useful factor in our unit prioritization process despite being a guiding concept for our ecological planning. We emphasize treatment of areas currently in dense habitat types but modeled as suitable for a more open structure, because these indicate greater departure from conceptual reference conditions. Preliminary unit prioritization is based on the following variables with details discussed in Appendix 2:

1. Proportion of area with potentially suitable transitions (as in Figure 5). 2. Wildfire Risk a. Wildlife fire hazard (from West Wide Wildfire Risk Assessment 2013) i. Average WWWRA hazard rating of 250 foot buffer on adjacent private lands ii. Average WWWRA Hazard for the entire unit b. Risk to private property, i.e. the number of structures within 250 feet of unit boundaries 3. Accessibility of management units a. Accessibility on existing roads for thinning and fire implementation b. Trails and vistas as opportunities for public outreach/education 4. Inclusion of BLM’s six pre-planned fuel treatment thinning units

This mathematical prioritization is a relatively unbiased method for ranking units for treatment (Figure 6). Funding, federal and contractor capacity, and the considerations of engaged stakeholders will determine priorities and implementation sequence. A blocked approach that prioritizes a set of adjacent units may be employed to increase continuity of treatment, informed by the prioritization process.

Page 19 of 50

Figure 6: Treatment units span the elevation gradient of the Table Rocks and are intended to encourage treatment across habitat classes. Unit prioritization focuses initial funding where open habitats are most sustainable, on units with greatest wildfire hazard and on units adjacent to private lands, and is designed to promote prescribed fire at larger scales. The initial 500 acres in most urgent need of treatment are outlined in white. Black polygons identify selected large-scale areas to retain dense cover with low-intensity treatment. BLM fuel management units appear in white cross-hatching.

Page 20 of 50 Table 4: Table Rocks management unit prioritization, and suitable transitions or low intensity treatment as acres and percent of area. Acres of suitable transitions provide a comparison among units, but are not prescriptive. Acres of low intensity are intended as prescriptive (black polygons in Figure 6). Total Suitable Transition Low Low Treatment Management Unit Transition Percent Intensity Intensity Priority Units Acres Acres Unit Area Acres Percent Rank Lower Table Rock L01 92 12 13 0 0 28 L02 93 8 8 2 2 29 L03 102 23 23 0 0 11 L04 119 14 12 0 0 32 L05 123 23 19 0 0 20 L06 132 31 24 11 8 27 L07 107 9 9 17 16 36 L08 97 12 13 5 5 31 L09 108 19 17 0 0 23 L10 135 32 24 0 0 13 L11 91 19 21 14 15 17 L12 87 18 21 14 16 14 L13 102 35 34 10 10 8 L14 77 19 24 10 13 33 L15 78 19 25 22 28 9 L16 87 27 31 6 7 16 L17 109 42 38 8 7 6 L18 104 23 22 9 9 3 L19 84 26 31 0 0 1 L20 107 18 17 0 0 21 L21 266 29 11 9 3 38 LTR Sums 2300 459 20 137 6 - Upper Table Rock U01 92 23 25 23 25 4 U02 148 59 40 29 20 2 U03 112 28 25 25 22 12 U04 95 11 11 3 3 37 U05 79 17 21 6 8 18 U06 99 38 38 15 15 7 U07 127 28 22 3 2 15 U08 117 15 13 4 3 30 U09 122 31 25 8 7 34 U10 128 27 21 5 4 5 U11 78 26 34 4 5 22 U12 125 47 38 26 21 19 U13 115 38 33 12 10 26 U14 106 27 26 11 10 35 U15 76 32 42 5 7 10 U16 443 18 4 9 2 24 U17 477 42 9 3 1 25 UTR Sums 2539 507 20 191 8 - Totals 4839 966 20 328 7 -

Page 21 of 50 Treatment Implementation Guidelines Our goals of increasing vegetation resistance and resilience to fire, invasive species, and climate change are promoted with initial mechanical treatments that focus on protecting large old ecological structures from uncharacteristic competitive stress or severe fire and mitigating existing wildfire hazard to neighboring property and infrastructure. Prescribed fire is recommended to further achieve thinning and hazard reduction goals, increasing resistance and resilience while best providing a wide array of ecosystem services. This approach should result in a range of treatment intensities within management units ranging from light-touch high-density areas little altered from current condition (~8% mapped as high-density in Figure 6, with more to be identified at a finer scale by implementation crews), opening up and diversifying stand structure while maintaining the current oak habitat type (~72%), and relatively intensive treatments in suitable areas to transition from current structure to more open habitat types (~20%). Application of prescribed fire will further influence vegetation density and even those areas where low intensity thinning is recommended may convert to open patches after prescribed fire. Across the landscape mosaic thinning should be implemented using conditional treatment guidelines (see below) by well-trained and supervised crews familiar with the methods describe in the oak restoration guide written by Klamath Bird Observatory & Lomakatsi Restoration Project (2014). The following restoration guidelines provide key concepts for conditional thinning at the Table Rocks. More location- specific unit or sub-unit prescriptions will be developed based on these guidelines and through field consultation by the restoration forestry implementation staff and crew (see Next Steps).

1) Continually identify the desired fire and drought resistant/resilient species for that location by looking to the older individuals or aggregations with open branching structures and large limbs; both trees and shrubs are candidates for desirable species. 2) Thin adequately to achieve vegetation restoration objectives, reduce competitive stress and risk of uncharacteristically severe fire by removing overly dense, generally younger individuals. 3) Use open-grown individuals and aggregations (both trees and shrubs) as well as patches with uncommon species composition or structure as ecological anchors; radially thinning to remove encroaching or ladder fuels and increase vigor. 4) Thin around well-situated young individuals of appropriate species (as in #1) with the capacity to grow into open-formed individuals, facilitating development of future legacy structures. 5) Avoid uniform treatments: work with existing stand patterns of both trees and shrubs to thin across a range of intensities and topographic positions, maintaining or increasing structural diversity. Plan for fire to further reduce density and increase structural diversity. 6) Create gaps and openings at functional scales to abate fire behavior and to promote regeneration of shade intolerant and fire-adapted tree and shrub species and native herbaceous communities. 7) Retain additional patches (¼ - 5 acres) of continuous dense shrub or tree cover, favoring aggregations with substantial interior and limited edge for habitat value and fire resistance. 8) Plan for understory response and invasive species when thinning: plan-ahead to acquire native herbaceous/understory seed and sow after thinning or fire; consider shrub regeneration response and fire-adaptation; prepare and rapidly implement strategic control of invasive species. 9) In larger chaparral or shrub/oak patches, reduce cover and fuel continuity using mosaic thinning with leaves or strip patches where soil erosion is a concern. Strip patches should be offset from one another so as not to lie directly up and down the slope (to lower fuel connectivity and erosion potential) and include a variety of spacing between patches from ten to thirty feet. 10) Promote retention of large downed woody debris, large old snags, and dying trees with multiple large dead limbs.

Page 22 of 50 Oak Restoration Monitoring The high profile of the Table Rocks and their expression of important oak habitats in the Rogue Valley elevate the importance of monitoring and adaptive management. Careful tracking of the rationale for treatments, as in this report, and mapping of treatments achieved in a transparent, collaboratively accessible geodatabase is essential. Additionally, vegetation and stand-structure monitoring designed and led by the Conservancy covers both short-term treatment implementation to inform management, and limited long-term effectiveness monitoring tracking vegetation responses. Both of these monitoring efforts record pre- and post-treatment data, establishing a current condition baseline, post-treatment impacts, and a set of plot locations at the management unit and landscape scales that can be revisited at future intervals. Bird point-count transects established by the Klamath Bird Observatory in 2013 and existing vegetation plots established by a variety of collaborators could also be revisited to provide rapid assessment of treatment impacts on vegetation and bird habitats. When available, reanalysis of LiDAR data could provide a comprehensive analysis of how well treatments are reducing vegetation density while maintaining representation of open and closed habitats across the landscape. Tracking the herbaceous response to treatments, including prescribed fire and seeding targeted to restore native communities post-thinning, will require an additional, more focused monitoring effort. This would entail a shift from unit-wide monitoring to intensive pre-post treatment sampling within representative focal areas specifically to advance herbaceous restoration. Field sampling during peak spring phenology would be essential for accurate species identification and consistent cover estimates. The herbaceous monitoring timeline would need to include relevant post-thinning treatments (e.g. seeding, fire) and the time-lag of herbaceous community response. (See Herbaceous Species Management section below).

Management unit implementation monitoring Adaptive management for Table Rocks oak restoration will respond to implementation monitoring and performance on indicators developed for ongoing projects at the treatment or management unit scale. For example, the Wildlife Conservation Society has funded 400 acres of work through 2016 to increase climate resilience through thinning and reintroduction of prescribed fire. Our implementation monitoring associated with that project developed a rapid plot-based method to evaluate and photo-document potential change in fire behavior, stand structure and composition, oak habitat class, and condition of legacy structures. This WCS method was intentionally designed to be more broadly relevant to implementation monitoring across all Table Rocks habitats and units. By maintaining a consistent monitoring method across management units and over multiple projects and years, we will be able to track and report on treatments at a range of relevant scales from unit to habitat type to landscape. Our WCS-based implementation monitoring method was tested on an initial set of five BLM fuel management units (189 total acres). Based on these pilot data, we refined our method by modifying metrics and measures to better capture treatment impacts and increased our sample size to improve estimate confidence for the indicators that responded most strongly to treatment. We successfully field-tested the resulting monitoring design on the remaining 212 acres of WCS-funded treatment (Units L17, L18, and partial L19, Figure 6) and intend to use it on all future implementation. Appendix 3 presents the full method for this monitoring.

Long-term vegetation monitoring Effectiveness at promoting more resistant and resilient vegetation and habitats over the long- term will be possible to monitor by re-measurement of the KBO point counts and by returning to permanent vegetation plots. To establish a framework for long-term monitoring of vegetation structure and composition, one permanent plot was installed in each of 8 habitat types on both upper and lower

Page 23 of 50 Table Rocks. At each plot, we collected data for indicators of stand structure and composition, canopy closure, potential fire behavior, condition of legacy structures, herbaceous cover, and invasive weeds. Appendix 4 presents the full method and metrics for these long-term plots.

III. Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment

Scope, Focus, Intent Scope: 740 acres of mesa-top prairie and wetland mosaic across both Lower and Upper Table Rocks Focus: Vernal pool and wet flat habitats for vernal pool fairy shrimp and dwarf wooly meadowfoam Goal: Map surface topography and hydrology as current wetland habitat for listed species Purpose: Inform BLM habitat management, species monitoring, protection, and restoration planning

The Nature Conservancy has collaborated with the Medford District BLM to protect and understand 700 acres of unique wetland habitats on the mesa-tops of the Table Rocks for nearly thirty years (BLM 2013). These mesa tops are erosional remnants of an ancient lava flow; their nearly-level andesite bedrock surface is largely impermeable and perches the water table causing extensive seasonal wetlands to form during the winter and spring months. The thin overlying soils are arranged by natural processes into upland mounds in some areas or nearly absent in others leaving rocky scablands. Subtle variations in surface topography result in a complex mosaic of wetland and upland habitats. These wetlands are of two intergrading types: vernal pools found in shallow basins characterized by seasonal inundation and hosting the federally listed vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi, BRLY) (Figure 7); and vernally wet flats in expanses of nearly-level or subtly sloped ground, characterized by seasonally saturated soils or ephemeral surface sheet-flows, and providing habitat for the endemic and state-listed dwarf wooly meadowfoam (Limnanthes pumila ssp. pumila, LIPUPU) (Figure 8); the transitional margins, or flanks, of the vernal pools and interconnecting flow-paths also provide LIPUPU habitat. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has designated the mesa-tops of both Upper and Lower Table Rocks as a Critical Habitat Area for BRLY and includes the Table Rocks in the recent Recovery Plan Rogue and Illinois Valley Vernal Pool and Wet Meadow Ecosystems (Service 2012). More generally, the unusual soils and hydrology of the Table Rocks mesa tops provide irreplaceable habitat for a large number of rare, uncommon, or wetland-dependent native plant species. The highly accessible nature of the site presents an important opportunity for both conservation and public engagement, as well as the potential for damage from inappropriate recreation or over-use (BLM 2013).

Vernal pool and vernally wet flat deliverables: • High-resolution mesa-top topography as ground-surface LiDAR Digital Elevation Model (DEM) • Map of mesa-top wetland habitats – vernal pools, vernally wet flats, and surface flow paths • Map of topographic alterations resulting in altered vernal pool hydrology/function • Tools to map and assess focal areas for habitat protection and priority restoration opportunities

Page 24 of 50

Figure 7: Inundated vernal pool (foreground) and upland mound (background) on the Table Rocks mesa- top, and a mature male of the federally threatened Branchinecta lynchi (BRLY) vernal pool fairy shrimp (inset). Main photo credit, Robert D. Mumby; inset, Larry Serpa.

Figure 8: Wet flats with spring wildflowers atop the Table Rocks, and the endemic and state-listed Limnanthes pumila ssp. pumila (LIPUPU) dwarf wooly meadowfoam in bloom (inset). Photo credit, BLM.

Page 25 of 50 Mapping Vernal Pool and Vernally Wet Habitats An accurate map of vernal pools and wet flat habitats allows for consistent quantification and spatially explicit planning for conservation and management, and improves the efficiency and quality of monitoring by identifying the full extent of suitable habitat and allowing field staff to target or sample known locations. Although examples of these wetland types are easy to identify during the inundated season (Figures 7 and 8 above), subtler distinctions in hydrologic function important to species habitat can be difficult to discern unless field observations are perfectly timed; and during the dry season, simply differentiating between wetland and upland habitats can be a considerable challenge. The large area of mesa top habitat (700 acres) combined with need to carefully time observations, makes field- mapping of these vernal wetlands impractical and prone to observer bias.

Vernal Pools by LiDAR Analysis To efficiently and objectively map vernal pool habitat, we applied ESRI ArcGIS (v.10.1) spatial analyst tools to a high-resolution (1 ft2) LiDAR ground surface digital elevation model (DEM) raster to map closed topographic basins and the related surface drainage flow networks (Perchemlides et al. 2013). Appendix 5 presents the GIS method and details of our LiDAR vernal pool mapping method. The resulting map of vernal pool basins captures the highest potential extent of pooled surface inundation for each pool beyond which water flows away to a lower elevation. Actual inundation extent (or vegetation expression) is variable within and across basins over time, but the boundaries of these topographically-defined basins remain stable and consistent over time (unless there are substantial new alterations to the ground surface). At lower inundation levels a basin may contain two or more discrete bodies of surface water, but these share a common hydrologic environment and will comingle at higher water levels – a characteristic highly relevant to BRLY populations and monitoring. Figure 9 below illustrates our LiDAR-based vernal pool mapping process and result for an area of Upper Table Rock.

Figure 9: An example of our vernal pool basin mapping process for an area of Upper Table Rock: LiDAR ground-surface topography, displayed as a hill-shade at left, contains the fine-scale elevation data for deriving topographic basins, overlaid in blue on right. The red arrow indicates the location of a single basin on the hill-shade and as a polygon.

Vernally Wet Flats by Aerial Photograph Analysis Field validation found our LiDAR basin mapping to be highly successful at identifying the location and extent of hydrologically functional vernal pools. However, the method greatly underestimated or failed to capture the expression and extent of vernally wet flats. We realized that much of the wet flat habitat does not occupy topographic basins or depressions, but occur as a subtle sheet-flow; although

Page 26 of 50 some wet flat habitat occurs in shallow basins, the impermeability, texture, and low slope variance of the mesa tops allows surface water to pond or persistently saturate soils well outside the extent of topographic basins. These vernally wet flats were critical to accurately map as they provide key habitat for the endemic LIPUPU. To map vernally wet flats we ran a spectral analysis (color and texture) on high resolution 1993 aerial photograph imagery taken by the BLM during a period of high inundation specifically to record the expression of wetland habitat (Figure 10). See Appendix 5 for the details of this method, including software tools used. The resulting map captures the expression and spatial patterning of these vernal wetlands, accurately mapping vernally wet flats extending beyond and between the LiDAR-derived vernal pool basins during subsequent field validation.

Figure 10: An example of our vernally wet flat mapping process for an area of Upper Table Rock: The color signature of wet flats is clearly visible in the 1993 aerial image at left, allowing for extraction of vernally wet flat extents by spectral analysis, overlaid in teal at right. The red arrow highlights an example of a wet flat on the aerial and as mapped by our polygons.

Integrated Wetland Habitat Model We integrated the final output of vernally wet flats from aerial imagery analysis with the LiDAR- based vernal pool basin mapping to predict the extent of both potential BRLY and LIPUPU habitats on the Table Rocks. Vernal pool basins > 100 ft2 in area with > 0.1 ft depth are mapped as distinct features, including where they occur within a larger extent of vernally wet flat; these basins provide high- potential BRLY habitat. Shallow topographic basins > 100 ft2 in area but less than < 0.1 ft depth were treated as wet flats and merged into the polygons from our aerial photo analysis where those overlapped; this definition of wet flats covers high-potential habitat for LIPUPU. Surface flow paths reveal directional hydrologic linkages between basins and flats, and are also potential linear habitat features for LIPUPU. Figure 11 displays the results of our wetland habitat mapping for an example area on UTR. Targeted field surveys found our mapping to be highly accurate across a range of wetland expression and to be consistent with BLM data on BRLY detections and LIPUPU population distribution. For a relatively small proportion of our mapped basins, subsurface flows or drainage result in a lack of wetland expression despite substantial topographic depressions and potential flow connectivity; field survey and classification based on hydrophytic vegetation could be used as a next-step to rank basins and wet flats by degree of inundation or wetland function.

Page 27 of 50

Figure 11: An example of our wetland habitat mapping from Upper Table Rock : Vernal pools (blue) mapped from surface LiDAR as topographic basins > 32.8 ft2 in area with > 1.2 inch depth (upper left) were merged with vernally wet flats (teal) mapped by analysis of aerial imagery (lower left) to produce an integrated wetland habitat map (right).

Tools for Habitat Protection and Restoration Planning Current threats to vernal pool and wet flat habitat on the Table Rocks include disturbance from recreational use, hydrologic barriers from topographic alterations (roads, berms, impoundments, filling, excavation), and herbaceous invasive species. Our mapping of wetlands allows for planning of protection or restoration management that makes the best use of resources by focusing on central habitat areas, and identifying projects most likely to succeed in realizing both direct and indirect benefits to hydrology and habitat function. Invasive species, especially non-native grasses, impact LIPUPU and other native species directly through competitive exclusion, and can lower wetland function and BRLY habitat quality by altering soil structure, increasing early-season evapotranspiration, and shortening inundation periods (Barry 1998; Pyke and Marty 2004). The control of invasive species and restoration of native grassland communities is the primary restoration need for the mesa-top habitats on the Table Rocks, and is covered in the following section on herbaceous species management. Our mapping of wetland habitats on the Table Rocks will allow for targeted protection or restoration work to prioritize areas of important LIPUPU or BRLY habitat when planning weed control and herbaceous restoration with limited resources. We are providing initial mapping of topographic and hydrologic alterations across the Table Rocks mesa-tops. Alterations were identified in GIS using the LiDAR DEM hill shade combined with our mapping of vernal wetlands and flow paths. Across both Table Rocks, we have drawn polygons around man-made features that alter hydrology, such as barriers to flow that creating upstream impoundments and downstream loss of inundation, or filled pools and leveled topography causing a loss of surface inundation and wetland function (Figure 12). These hydrologic alterations are ranked as heavy, moderate, or slight relative to the apparent impact on habitat function. In Figure 12 below, red polygons

Page 28 of 50 outline areas of heavy impacts to habitat function from the historic runway (1) and adjacent leveling or topsoil collection (2), both of which filled vernal pools, divert natural flows, and alter inundation by impounding upstream basins. A side-trail or old jeep track (3, orange) appears to have a moderate impact by diverting or impounding flows and altering pool extents; and an unofficial trail (4, yellow) crossing an area with naturally weak vernal pool expression has only a slight impact that habitat. Future targeted field survey combined with our mapping tools will allow for specific assessment of restoration need, potential, and likely habitat benefits to inform prioritization and planning. Our mapping reveals that the Table Rock mesa-tops are generally topographically and hydrologically intact, with the main alterations being the UTR access road and LTR landing strip. Installation of culverts at key flow points, or recontouring of surface topography to historic upland and basin forms are actions that can effectively restore hydrologic function to impacted wetlands. Well-planned and managed hiking trails are a compatible use on vernal pool and wet flat habitats unlikely to cause any significant harm to conservation species; and the same is likely true of light and dispersed off-trail travel. Vernal pools, wet flats, and prairie grasslands are disturbance- adapted systems, historically stimulated by fire and native herbivore grazing. However, heavy off-trail use or targeted disturbance of vernal pool basins can negatively impact both habitat and scenic values. Our mapping enables re-routing of trails and recreational use in wetland habitat to protect areas of strong vernal pool and wet flat expression without limiting public enjoyment; or could indicate focal areas for educational boardwalk trails or seasonal tours. Comprehensive survey for locations of listed or special status species, including BRLY and LIPUPU, would further inform public use management.

Page 29 of 50

Figure 12: An example of mapped hydrologic barriers resulting from topographic alterations on Lower Table Rock. Our other GIS products, vernal pool basins (blue polygons), flow paths (teal lines), and LiDAR bare-earth hillshade, provide context and guide interpretation.

Page 30 of 50 IV. Herbaceous Species Management

Scope, Focus, Intent Scope: All conservation lands across the Lower and Upper Table Rocks, 4840 acres Focus: Grass and forb (herbaceous) species across all habitat types Goal: Assess current condition and threats and recommend management actions Purpose: Conservation and restoration of native species cover, diversity, and habitat function

Herbaceous Community Recovery Across all habitat types, herbaceous management and restoration will involve four key components: 1. Protecting existing high-quality areas of native herbaceous communities; 2. Preventing or reversing active invasion by priority noxious weeds; 3. Controlling and reducing the cover of widespread and abundant invasive species that have already occupied and altered large areas of the Table Rocks; 4. Restoring native cover and functional groups including seeding and re-introduction of natural processes that favor a vigorous and diverse native herbaceous community.

Priority Noxious Weeds The Table Rocks Management Plan (BLM 2013) describes six priority noxious weeds documented at the Table Rocks. These species plus additional known and early detection noxious weeds are listed in Table 5, with their habitats and abundance. Weed distribution maps for some species are also available from BLM and the Conservancy. We recommend developing noxious weed plans for each management unit as a next-step in implementation planning for appropriate scale and timing. Preventing the introduction of new weeds or the spread of existing weeds is always the top strategy during ground-disturbing management activities and prescribed fire. The BLM has best management practices for prevention that will be followed during restoration treatments including equipment cleaning, removal of weeds in staging areas, use of weed- free mulch and post-treatment surveys. Other considerations including the control of existing noxious weeds at least 2 years in advance of restoration treatment may also be helpful in reducing seed spread or seed banks in or near management units. Yellow star thistle for example, has a relatively short-lived seed bank. Carefully- timed mowing, hand pulling, or herbicide applications can be effective in preventing seed production. Ecological prevention strategies focus on maintaining resilient native plant communities. Areas within management units with robust native bunchgrass and forb cover or with specialized native species could be identified prior to treatments and given extra consideration against noxious weed invasion. Strategies may include creating a noxious weed-free buffer around these patches or modifying the intensity of disturbance (fire intensity or location of slash piles for example) to reduce bare soil that may be more prone to invasion. Ultimately, strong native herbaceous communities (existing or restored) will be key to the long-term success of weed control work by increasing resistance to invasion.

Herbaceous Management in Restoration Planning Herbaceous species management concerns apply to all oak and vernal wetland habitats. Invasion by exotic species, especially annual grasses, following wildfire or thinning treatments is likely in southwestern Oregon oak habitats, especially in conifer-encroached or shrub dominated systems (Riegel et al. 1992, Coulter et al. 2010, Perchemlides et al. 2008, Sikes and Muir 2009, Hosten et al 2006, Livingston et al. 2016), and in similar Mediterranean climates in California (Keeley et al. 2003, Keeley et al. 2005). Grassland, savanna, and open oak habitats are generally already heavily invaded and converted to exotic-dominated herbaceous systems (Dennehy et al 2011; D'Antonio et al 2007; Sinclair

Page 31 of 50 et al 2006); in vernal wetlands, strongly inundating pool basins tend to resist invasion and retain high native cover, but transitional margins and ephemeral wetlands are prone to invasion and have become exotic dominated (Gerhardt and Collinge 2003; 2007). Similarly, in oak woodlands woody native species dominance can suppress exotic herbaceous species invasion, but with a corresponding loss in native herbaceous species diversity (Livingston et al. 2016).

Table 5: Priority noxious weeds for prevention and control.

Priority Noxious Weeds Guild Growth Habitat Abundance ODA Status Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata) F B R L, ED B, T Italian Thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus) F A, B OS A, ED B Yellow Starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) F A G, C, OS W B Rush Skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea) F P G L, ED B, T Common Teasel (Dipsacus fullonum) F B R, SW C - Cutleaf Teasel (Dipsacus laciniata) F B R, SW A, ED B Armenian Blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) S P F,R, VW C B Curly Dock (Rumex crispus) F P VP, SW C - Milk Thistle (Silybum marianum) F A, B G,D A, ED B Medusahead Rye Grass (Taeniatherum G A G,C,OS, W B caput-medusa) OW Puncturevine (Tribulus terrestris) F A D A, ED B Guild: F=forb, G=grass, S=shrub Growth: A=annual, B=biennial, P=perennial Habitat: G=grassland, C=chaparral, OS=oak savanna, OW=oak woodland, F=forest, SW=seasonally wet, R=riparian, VP=vernal pool, D=disturbed Abundance: A=absent, L=limited, C=common, W=widespread, ED=early detection ODA Status: A=eradication possible, B=regionally abundant, T= state priority for targeted control

Native plant abundance and seed pools are diminished under dense woody vegetation and non- native grasses are pervasive across all side slopes and mesa-tops. Under current conditions management actions on the Table Rocks that remove canopy or increase availability of growth sites and resources are likely to elicit a vigorous non-native response, necessitating proactive plans for invasive species control and native seeding following all widespread thinning and burning. In general, across the Table Rocks, the more open habitat types have more heavily invaded herbaceous communities. The mesa-top vernal pool prairie, as well as lower-slope savanna and grassland are characteristically dominated by invasive annual grasses and non-native forbs; the remaining native species are primarily annual forbs, with native perennial forbs and bunchgrasses rare to absent. In these grassland and savanna habitats, herbaceous restoration is the central or only management need. Open native grassland communities may be the most compromised habitat type on the Table Rocks in terms of species composition. In contrast, oak/hardwood or oak/fir habitats on the upper slopes have herbaceous cover that is greatly diminished under increasingly closed canopies. In these understory habitats, invasive cover is typically low, and native species persist, but communities are sparse, patchy, low-diversity, and often dominated by shade-tolerant groundcover shrubs such as honeysuckle or poison oak with very limited native seed banks. Under these circumstances, thinning and burning treatments will create widespread

Page 32 of 50 openings for invasion unless countered with well-timed follow-up of native seeding and vigilant weed control. Mid-slope habitats characterized by open to patchy canopy cover, such as oak/chaparral, oak/pine, and oak woodlands, combine challenges of the above two scenarios. Canopy openings or understory areas with high light infiltration are heavily invaded, while beneath dense shrub or tree in-fill patches, the understory is sparse and patchy. Native species persist throughout, but are typically a minor component of the herbaceous layer with limited seed presence. This creates a situation where abundant invasive seed sources are poised to invade immediately following thinning and burning treatments that open up dense areas. In the absence of combined invasive control and native species seeding, these habitats will likely become as invaded as the current savanna and grasslands following treatment.

Herbaceous Recovery Strategies The wide range of habitat types, ecological conditions, and threats and impacts from non-native species across the Table Rocks correspond with differentially realistic management objectives and recommended treatments for protection, prevention, control, or restoration strategies. Effective herbaceous restoration will typically involve a multi-phased approach of complementary invasive species treatments, returning appropriate disturbance, and native seeding over a span of two or more years (Dennehy et al 2011; DiTomaso et al 2007; Stromberg et al 2007; Stanley et al 2011; Krueger et al 2014, Livingston et al. 2016). Table 6 presents a suite of common problematic conditions in herbaceous communities on the Table Rocks resulting from invasive species, loss of native cover/diversity, and a lack of natural disturbance processes. For each condition, the table identifies important ecological impacts and suggests a range of restoration treatment options to achieve specific restoration goals. General treatment recommendations include returning natural processes or close surrogates (e.g. prescribed fire, grazing, hydrologic restoration), or the careful and targeted use of herbicide (Tu et al 2001), as a practical means of reversing invasive dominance and creating conditions for the successful reintroduction of native species. As such, Table 6 is a tool for understanding the range of discrete challenges and barriers address during restoration, and can be used as a “menu” of common problems that occur in various combinations across the Table Rocks, matched with potential solutions to inform targeted planning at the management unit scale. Effectively restoring native herbaceous cover and diversity will not only improve habitat function and value, but will benefit future management of non- native species by making the restored habitats resistant to repeat invasion. And the aesthetic benefit of restoring grasslands and understory at the Table Rocks from the current often uniform cover of invasive species to diverse native bunchgrass and wildflowers is an important social goal at this popular and highly visited natural area.

Page 33 of 50 Table 6: Conceptual summary of herbaceous restoration conditions, objectives, and available treatments across the range oak, grassland and vernal pool habitats on Table Rocks.

Current Condition Ecological Impacts Available Treatments General Objectives Prescribed (spring) fire; Greatly reduced invasive Invasive grasses and forbs Exclude/suppress native herbicide; ecological species cover; avoid new dominate lower slopes and diversity and abundance; grazing; manual invasion in thinned areas; mesa-top herbaceous reduce habitat function; treatments including resources and space community and are actively invade recently thinned mowing and pulling; available for native expanding areas augment competitive species native species

Repeated treatments: Invasives regenerate prescribed fire; herbicide; Depleted invasive seed Invasive species seed bank vigorously after alternating fire and bank; greatly reduced abundant in prairie, wetland, disturbance; compete, grazing; map and return competitive pressure for and understory soils on suppress, exclude to EDRR species patches; native species following lower slopes and mesa-top sown/re-establishing repeated sowing of native disturbance or seeding native species species

Thatch and litter Barrier to germination Greatly reduced thatch Prescribed fire; ecological accumulations thick and and growth of native and leaf/needle litter; grazing; mechanical widespread especially in species; elevated fine open-up ground surface; treatment (mowing, savanna and grassland, and fuels; reduced herbicide resources and space raking); over-story under dense oak/hardwood, effectiveness; impedes available for native thinning (longer-term) oak/fir, oak/pine stands seeding efforts species

Loss of key native Seeding or plug planting Native grass and forb Restored abundant and species; reduced habitat following disturbance; abundance, diversity, and diverse self-sustaining function; diminished or over-sowing/drilling into distribution diminished, native perennial species; absent seed bank; lack of established native especially in savanna, abundant seed/propagule seed production on-site; annuals; patch grassland, and mesa-top bank in soil; restored lack of native introductions (e.g. burn wetlands habitat functions competition for invasives piles or cleared CECU)

Disturbance adapted native Reintroduce fire regime Abundant and self- species including rare plants Loss of diversity and with repeated burning; sustaining populations in low or absent, not habitat function; failed thinning to restore proportion to available regenerating or not recovery or protection; regeneration conditions; suitable habitat; sustained increasing, including some passive restoration not shallow soil disturbance; program of beneficial fire-adapted trees and working restore wetland hydrology disturbance shrubs

Intensive and repeated Native species seed bank Passive restoration not Vigorous and dense post- seeding following lacking (esp. perennial and working; disturbance disturbance regeneration disturbance; follow-up listed); do not adequately alone unsuccessful; from seed-bank and over-sowing/drilling; self-increase following invasive control alone persistent perennial ongoing control of disturbance unlikely to be successful reserves invasive species

Page 34 of 50 V. Next steps This report provides a foundation for the protection and active restoration of oak, vernal wetland, and herbaceous habitat on the Table Rocks. Below, we recommend future work to follow-through on planning and implementation of these management actions under collaboration with multiple engaged partners.

a) Through partnerships, apply science and monitoring to better inform ecological restoration treatments in oak and chaparral habitat using the Table Rocks as a demonstration site. b) Develop more detailed oak and chaparral habitat treatment prescriptions to facilitate implementation across a range of ownerships beyond the Table Rocks and by a range of implementers. c) Work with implementers to achieve desired outcomes, facilitate implementation monitoring, and promote active adaptive management. d) Sustain long term monitoring at the Table Rocks with additional plots following methods provided in this report. e) Promote the Table Rocks as a climate adaptation demonstration site for oak habitats. f) Develop historical references for oak and shrub habitats from GLO notes and historical aerial photos. g) Develop an herbaceous recovery plan for each habitat that includes native seed lists and invasive species control. h) Rank wetlands by hydrologic function using vegetation indicators. i) Detail vernal pool restoration and protection areas. Develop public access recommendations for vernally wet habitats.

VI. References

Allen, C. D., A. K. Macalady, H. Chenchouni, D. Bachelet, N. McDowell, M. Vennetier, T. Kitzberger, A. Rigling, D. D. Breshears, and E. Hogg. 2010. A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. Forest Ecology and Management 259:660-684. Altman, B. 2011. Historical and current distribution and populations of bird species in prairie-oak habitats in the Pacific Northwest. Northwest Science 85:194-222. Altman, B., and J. L. Stephens. 2012. Land managers guide to bird habitat and populations in oak ecosystems of the Pacific Northwest. American Bird Conservancy and Klamath Bird Observatory. Bachelet, D., B. R. Johnson, S. D. Bridgham, P. V. Dunn, H. E. Anderson, and B. M. Rogers. 2011. Climate change impacts on Western Pacific Northwest prairies and savannas. Northwest Science 85:411-429. Baker, J. P., D. W. Hulse, S. V. Gregory, D. White, J. Van Sickle, P. A. Berger, D. Dole, and N. H. Schumaker. 2004. Alternative futures for the Willamette River Basin, Oregon. Ecological Applications 14:313-324. Barry, S. 1998. Managing the Sacramento Valley vernal pool landscape to sustain the native flora. Pages 236-240 in C. W. Witham, E. T. Bauder, D. Belk, W. R. Ferren Jr., and R. Ornduff, editors. Ecology, conservation, and management of vernal pool ecosystems. California Native Plant Society, Sacremento, CA. Brown, T. J., B. L. Hall, and A. L. Westerling. 2004. The impact of twenty-first century climate change on wildland fire danger in the western United States: an applications perspective. Climatic change 62:365-388. Bureau of Land Management. 2013. Table Rocks Management Area: Management Plan. Butte Falls Resource Area, Medford District, USDI Bureau of Land Management: BLM/OR/WA/AE-05/00. CalPIF (California Partners in Flight). 2002. The oak woodland bird conservation plan: a strategy for protecting and managing oak woodland habitats and associated birds in California (S. Zack, lead author). Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. http://www.prboorg/calpif/plans.html. Cocking, M. I., J. M. Varner, and E. E. Knapp. 2014. Long-term effects of fire severity on oak-conifer dynamics in the southern Cascades. Ecological Applications 24:94-107.

Page 35 of 50 Cocking, M. I., J. M. Varner, and R. L. Sherriff. 2012. California black oak responses to fire severity and native conifer encroachment in the Klamath Mountains. Forest Ecology and Management 270:25-34. Coulter, C. T., D. Southworth, and P. E. Hosten. 2010. Prescribed fire and post-fire seeding in brush masticated oak-chaparral: consequences for native and non-native plants. Fire Ecology 6:60-75. D'Antonio, C., and P. M. Vitousek. 1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23:63-87. D'Antonio, C. M., C. Malmstrom, S. A. Reynolds, and J. Gerlach. 2007. Ecology of invasive non-native species in California grassland. Pages 67-83 in M. R. Stromberg, J. D. Corbin, and C. M. D’Antoino, editors. California grasslands, ecology and management. University of California Press, Berkely, CA. Dennehy, C., E. R. Alverson, H. E. Andersen, D. R. Clements, R. Gilbert, and T. N. Kaye. 2011. Management strategies for invasive plants in Pacific Northwest prairies, savannas, and oak woodlands. Northwest Science 85: 329-351. Detling, L. R. E. 1961. The chaparral formation of southwestern Oregon, with considerations of its postglacial history. Ecology 42:348-357. DiTomaso, J. M., S. F. Enloe, and M. J. Pitcairn. 2007. Exotic plant management in California annual grasslands. Pages 281-296 in: M. R. Stromberg, J. D. Corbin, C. M. D’Antoino (Editors). California Grasslands, Ecology and Management. University of California Press, Berkely, CA. Duren, O. C. and P. S. Muir. 2010. Does fuel management accomplish restoration in southwest Oregon, USA, chaparral? Insights from age structure. Fire Ecology 6: 76-96. Franklin, J. F., and C. T. Dyrness. 1988. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. Franklin, J. F., and K. N. Johnson. 2012. A restoration framework for federal forests in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Forestry 110:429-439. Fried, J. S., M. S. Torn, and E. Mills. 2004. The impact of climate change on wildfire severity: a regional forecast for northern California. Climatic change 64:169-191. Gerhardt, F. and S. K. Collinge. 2003. Exotic plant invasions of vernal pools in the Central Valley of California, USA. Journal of Biogeography 30:1043-1052. Gerhardt, F. and S. K. Collinge. 2007. Abiotic constraints eclipse biotic resistance in determining invisibility along experimental vernal pool gradients. Ecological Applications 17: 922-933. Gilligan, L. A. and P. S. Muir. 2011. Stand structures of Oregon White Oak woodlands, regeneration, and their relationship to the environment in southwestern Oregon. Northwest Science 85: 141-185. Hanna, I., and P. Dunn. 1996. Restoration goals for Oregon white oak habitats in the south Puget Sound region. Pages 231-235 in P. Dunn and K. Ewing, editors. Ecology and Conservation of the South Puget Sound Prairie Landscape. The Nature Conservancy of Washington, Seattle, WA. Harrington, C. A., and W. D. Devine. 2006. A practical guide to oak release. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-666. Hickman, O. E., and J. A. Christy. 2011. Historical vegetation of central southwest Oregon based on GLO survey notes. Final report to USDI Bureau of Land Management, Medford District, Oregon:124 pp. Hosten, P. E., O. E. Hickman, F. K. Lake, F. A. Lang, and D. Vesely. 2006. Oak woodlands and savannas. Pages 63-96 in:D. Apostol and M. Sinclair(Editors). Restoring the Pacific Northwest: The Art and Science of Ecological Restoration in Cascadia. Island Press, Washington D.C. Jackson County. 2014. Jackson County Residential Structures. http://gis.jacksoncounty.org/Portal/gis-data.aspx. Joyce, L., G. Blate, S. McNulty, C. Millar, S. Moser, R. Neilson, and D. Peterson. 2009. Managing for multiple resources under climate change: National forests. Environmental management 44:1022-1032. Keeley, J. E., M. Baer-Keeley, and C. J. Fotheringham. 2005. Alien plant dynamics following fire in Mediterranean-climate California shrublands. Ecological Applications 15:2109-2125. Keeley, J. E., D. Lubin, and C. J. Fotheringham. 2003. Fire and grazing impacts on plant diversity and alien plant invasions in the southern Sierra Nevada. Ecological Applications 13:1355-1374. Klamath Bird Observatory, and Lomakatsi Restoration Project. 2014. Restoring oak habitats in southern Oregon and northern California: a guide for private landowners. Klamath Bird Observatory, Ashland, Oregon. Krueger, J. J., S. T. Bois, T. N. Kaye, D. M. Steeck, and T. H. Taylor. 2014. Practical guidelines for wetland prairie restoration in the Willamette Valley, Oregon – Field tested methods and techniques. Lane Council of Governments and the Institute for Applied Ecology, Eugene, Oregon. Lawler, J. J., T. H. Tear, C. Pyke, M. R. Shaw, P. Gonzalez, P. Kareiva, L. Hansen, L. Hannah, K. Klausmeyer, A. Aldous, C. Bienz, and S. Pearsall. 2010. Resource management in a changing and uncertain climate. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8:35-43. Lenihan, J. M., R. Drapek, D. Bachelet, and R. P. Neilson. 2003. Climate change effects on vegetation distribution, carbon, and fire in California. Ecological Applications 13:1667-1681. Littell, J. S., D. McKenzie, D. L. Peterson, and A. L. Westerling. 2009. Climate and wildfire area burned in western US ecoprovinces, 1916-2003. Ecological Applications 19:1003-1021.

Page 36 of 50 Livingston, A. C., J. M. Varner, E. S. Jules, J. M. Kane, and L. A. Arguello. 2016. Prescribed fire and conifer removal promote positive understorey vegetation responses in oak woodlands. Journal of Applied Ecology 53:1604-1612. Long, J. W., M. K. Anderson, L. Quinn-Davidson, R. W. Goode, F. K. Lake, and C. N. Skinner. 2016. Restoring California black oak to support tribal values and wildlife. USFS Pacific Southwest Research Station PSW-GTR-252. McGaughey, R. 2012. FUSION/LDV: Software for LIDAR Data Analysis and Visualization, FUSION Version 3.21. Technical Report, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. McKinley, D., M. Ryan, R. Birdsey, C. Giardina, M. Harmon, L. Heath, R. Houghton, R. Jackson, J. Morrison, B. Murray, D. E. Pataki, and K. E. Skog. 2011. A synthesis of current knowledge on forests and carbon storage in the United States. Ecological Applications 21:1902-1924. Myer, G., K. L. Metlen, and K. Wearstler. 2013. Forest assessment. in G. Griffith, T. Thaler, A. Perry, T. Crossett, and R. Rasker, editors. The Rogue Basin action plan for resilient watersheds and forests in a changing climate, Model Forest Policy Program in association with the Southern Oregon Forest Restoration Collaborative, the Cumberland River Compact and Headwaters Economics, Sagle, ID. Millar, C., N. Stephenson, and S. Stephens. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17:2145-2151. Millar, C. I., and N. L. Stephenson. 2015. Temperate forest health in an era of emerging megadisturbance. Science 349:823-826. Ottmar, R., R. Vihnanek, C. Wright, and D. Olson. 2004. Volume VII: Oregon white oak, California deciduous oak, and mixed- conifer with shrub types in the western United States (General Technical Report), Stereo Photo Series for Quantifying Natural Fuels. National Wildfire Coordinating Group, National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID, USA. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006. Oregon Conservation Strategy. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon. Pellatt, M. G., S. J. Goring, K. M. Bodtker, and A. J. Cannon. 2012. Using a down-scaled bioclimate envelope model to determine long-term temporal connectivity of Garry oak (Quercus garryana) habitat in western North America: implications for protected area planning. Environmental management 49:802-815. Pellatt, M., and Z. e. Gedalof. 2014. Environmental change in Garry oak (Quercus garryana) ecosystems: the evolution of an eco-cultural landscape. Biodiversity and Conservation 23:2053-2067. Perchemlides, K., and D. Borgias. 2012. Guidelines for restoring white oak woodland on the Whetstone Savanna, Jackson County, Oregon. Report prepared for the Oregon Department of Transportation by The Nature Conservancy Southwest Oregon Field Office, Medford, OR. Perchemlides, K. A., P. S. Muir, and P. E. Hosten. 2008. Responses of chaparral and oak woodland plant communities to fuel- reduction thinning in southwestern Oregon. Rangeland Ecology & Management 61:98-109. Perchemlides, K. A., D. Borgias, and D. Olson. 2013. Proposed modifications to Branchinecta lynchi monitoring and performance evaluation on Oregon Department of Transportation mitigation sites in Jackson County, Oregon: Vernal pool habitat delimitation, streamlined field protocol, and revised percent occupancy metric. Report prepared for the Oregon Department of Transportation by The Nature Conservancy Southwest Oregon Field Office, Medford, Oregon. Peterson, D. L., C. I. Millar, L. A. Joyce, M. J. Furniss, J. E. Halofsky, R. P. Neilson, and T. L. Morelli. 2011. Responding to climate change in national forests: a guidebook for developing adaptation options. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station GTR-855. Pyke, C. R. and J. Marty. 2004. Cattle grazing mediates climate change impacts on ephemeral wetlands. Conservation Biology 19: 1619-1625. Reed, L. J., and N. G. Sugihara. 1987. Northern oak woodlands: ecosystem in jeopardy or is it already too late? Pages 59-63 in T. R. Plumb and N. H. Pillsbury, editors. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Riegel, G. M., B. G. Smith, and J. F. Franklin. 1992. Foothill oak woodlands of the interior valleys of southwestern Oregon. Northwest Science 66:66-76. Schindel, M., S. Scott, and A. Jones. 2013. Rogue Basin oak mapping and climate resilience: final report to the Medford District of the Bureau of Land Management in partial fulfillment of cooperative agreement L11AC20249. The Oregon Chapter of The Nature Conservancy. Scott, J. H., and R. E. Burgan. 2005. Standard fire behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set for use with Rothermel's surface fire spread model. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station RMRS-GTR-153:66. Seevers, J., and D. Borgias. 1993. Oregon plants, Oregon places: Upper and Lower Table Rocks, Jackson County. Kalmiopsis 3:1- 9. Service (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. Recovery plan for Rogue and Illinois Valley vernal pool and wet meadow ecosystems. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. Sikes, K. G., and P. S. Muir. 2009. A comparison of the short-term effects of two fuel treatments on chaparral communities in southwest Oregon. Madroño 56:8-22. Sinclair, M., E. Alverson, P. Dunn, P. Dunwiddie, and E. Gray. 2006. Bunchgrass prairies. Pages 29-61 in: D. Apostol and M. Sinclair (Editors). Restoring the Pacific Northwest: The Art and Science of Ecological Restoration in Cascadia. Island Press, Washington D.C.

Page 37 of 50 Skinner, C., A. Taylor, and J. Agee. 2006. Klamath mountains bioregion. Pages 170-194 in N. Sugihara, J. van Wagtendonk, J. Fites-Kaufmann, K. Shaffer, and A. Thode, editors. Fire in California's ecosystems. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Spies, T. A., T. W. Giesen, F. J. Swanson, J. F. Franklin, D. Lach, and K. N. Johnson. 2010. Climate change adaptation strategies for federal forests of the Pacific Northwest, USA: ecological, policy, and socio-economic perspectives. Landscape ecology 25:1185-1199. Stanley, A. G., P. W. Dunwiddie, and T. N. Kaye. 2011. Restoring invaded Pacific Northwest prairies: Management recommendations from a region-wide experiment. Northwest Science 85: 233-246. Strickler, G. S. 1959. Use of the densiometer to estimate density of forest canopy on permanent sample plots. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experimental Station Research Note 180. Stromberg, M. R., Corbin, J. D. and C. M. D’Antonio. 2007. California grassland restoration. Pages 254 -280 in: M. R. Stromberg, J. D. Corbin, C. M. D’Antoino (Editors). California Grasslands, Ecology and Management. University of California Press, Berkely, CA. Thilenius, J. F. 1968. The Quercus garryana forests of the Willamette Valley, Oregon. Ecology 49:1124-1133. Tu, M., C. Hurd, and J. M. Randall. 2001. Weed control methods handbook: Tools and techniques for use in natural areas. The Nature Conservancy, Wildland Invasive Species Team, Davis, California. Van Mantgem, P. J., J. C. B. Nesmith, M. Keifer, and M. Brooks. 2013. Tree mortality patterns following prescribed fire for Pinus and Abies across the southwestern United States. Forest Ecology and Management 289:463-469. Vesely, D., and G. Tucker. 2004. A landowner's guide for restoring and managing Oregon white oak habitats. Salem District, USDI Bureau of Land Management: BLM/OR/WA/AE-05/00. Vesely, D. G. and D. K. Rosenberg. 2010. Wildlife conservation in the Willamette Valley’s remnant prairies and oak habitats: A research synthesis. Report prepared for the Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program, USDI Bureau of Land Management/USDA Forest Service. Oregon Wildlife Institute, Corvallis, Oregon. Vose, J. M., D. L. Peterson, and T. Patel-Weynand, editors. 2012. Effects of climatic variability and change on forest ecosystems: a comprehensive science synthesis for the US forest sector. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. PNW-GTR-870. Westerling, A., H. Hidalgo, D. Cayan, and T. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940. West Wide Wildfire Risk Assessment. 2013. West Wide Wildfire Risk Assessment Fire Risk Index http://www.odf.state.or.us/gis/ data/Fire/West_Wide_Assessment/WWA_FinalReport.pdf). Whitlock, C., S. L. Shaferb, and J. Marlon. 2003. The role of climate and vegetation change in shaping past and future fire regimes in the northwestern US and the implications for ecosystem management. Forest Ecology and Management 178:5-21. Wilkes, C. 1849. Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition during the years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842. Volume V:215-250.

Page 38 of 50 VII. Appendices

Appendix 1. Oak Habitat Vegetation Mapping Methods

Existing vegetation of the Table Rocks was mapped by remote sensing informed by a combination of field and photo interpretation plots. LiDAR data obtained in 2009 was used to develop a mathematical model to distinguish the vegetation habitat classes. To calibrate and interpret that data with on-site observations we laid out an initial set of 123 tenth-acre pilot plots (Table A1.1) gridded across both Upper and Lower Table Rocks where we determined oak habitat class per Altman and Stephens (2012). Additionally, we gathered percent cover by cover class for overstory species. Percent tree cover by growth form was collected relative to the total cover for all tree species in the plot. To ensure that we adequately captured the full range of habitat variation 150 additional plots were distributed randomly across both Rocks stratified by LiDAR vegetation height and cover. Finally, an additional 63 representative plots were placed to account for unique or rare vegetation assemblages, bringing the total number of field plots to 336 (Figure A1.1).

Table A1.1: Data dictionary for oak habitat classification plots to inform and refine remote sensing

Field Description Codes QUKE, QUGA, ARVI, CECU, CEBE, ARME, PIPO, PSME, GAFR; TODI, SPCD Tree and shrub species within plot AMAL, SYAL, PRSU, CEIN, CADE, ROEG, PRVI COVR Percent cover by species Trace, 1, 1-10, 10-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-90, 90-99, >99 O: Open Grown broad rounded crown, large branches less than 10 ft from the ground; S: Semi-open upwardly spreading crown, large Crown form of oaks within plot OKCF branches higher than 10 ft; F: Forest grown narrow crown, no large (By proportion of cover) low branches; R: Ring form with 3 or more joined stems arranged in +/- a circle. a. Oak savanna-<25% cover oak canopy 1-5 large trees, 1-10 younger TPA b. Oak woodland open 25-50% 5-10 large, 10-20 younger TPA c. Oak woodland closed 50-75%, 10-30 large, 20-40 younger TPA d. Oak forest >75%, >30 large, >40 younger TPA e. Oak/Pine – woodland or savanna, oak/pine co-dominance, grass/forb or shrub pocket understory HBCL Proposed habitat categories f. Oak/fir -- closed woodland or forest, may be rare naturally, common due to encroachment g. Oak/Hardwood closed woodland, oak and other hardwoods (e.g. ARME co-dominant) h. Oak/chaparral-- shrub dominated (often > 50% cover) i. Riparian Oak—see above with denser shrubs and canopy and diversity j. Grassland- No shrub or tree species in plot

Discrete return airborne LiDAR was processed using FUSION software (McGaughey 2013) to derive digital terrain models and vegetation metrics for Upper and Lower Table Rocks. LiDAR point spacing averaged 1.8 returns per square foot, considered suitable for vegetation mapping. The FUSION batch processing produced over 100 metrics related to the height, density, and intensity of LiDAR returns, and each metric constituted its own raster grid. The resolution of each output was 65.6’ by 65.6’ (20m), or roughly 1/10 acre, matching the size of our field plots. A single grid was converted to a point

Page 39 of 50 shapefile and values from the remaining rasters were appended to the table. The point shapefile was then clipped to the appropriate property boundaries leaving roughly 20,000 possible photo interpretation (PI) plot centers at which we could determine habitat class to better inform the vegetation model. A sample size of 800 plots for PI habitat prediction was determined using power analysis of both LiDAR height and cover. This large sample size resulted from high variance among the data. GIS was then used to randomly select 800 of the grid points stratified by height and cover, where we assigned habitat class interpreted from high resolution aerial photography, LiDAR canopy metrics, and field knowledge. The metrics of the PI plots and field plots were combined for a total of 1013 total plots on which to base the mathematical model distinguishing the habitat types. Discriminant analysis (DA) in JMP 10.0.0 (SAS Institute Inc. 2012) was used to classify every pixel into one of the eight habitat classes (Figure A1.2). Discriminant analysis is an Eigen-analysis technique that seeks to maximize among-group variation while minimizing within-group variation. Unlike other multivariate methods the groups are treated as dependent variables while, in this case, the LiDAR metrics are treated as independent variables. A direct procedure was used where all of the LiDAR metrics were entered into the discriminant function simultaneously. Interpretation of the DA results was based on evaluation of Wilk’s lambda, or the error sum of squares divided by the sum of squares and the error sum of squares. This metric describes the variance among the habitat classes not explained by the discriminant functions. The model developed to describe existing vegetation at the Table Rocks had a very significant Wilks’ Lambda (F=22.6, p<0.0001) and correctly classified habitat at 81% of the pixels for which habitat had been previously determined by field inspection or photo interpretation (Figure A1.2). To map habitat patches at a practical and realistic scale we removed small (pixel sized) habitat inclusions within relatively homogenous areas of a single habitat using spatial smoothing techniques. The primary LiDAR derived map was minimally smoothed in ArcGIS v 10.1 (ESRI, 2012) using the Generalization Tools in Spatial Analyst. The Majority Filter Tool was parameterized with an eight cell analysis window and a replacement threshold of half of the cells in the analysis window. If a minimum of 4 contiguous cells surrounding the center pixel were of the same value then the value of those pixels replaces the value of the center pixel, generalizing habitat patches to a half-acre scale in these cases.

Page 40 of 50

Figure A1.1: Map of field plots used to establish existing vegetation characteristics and sub-set selected for long-term monitoring.

Figure A1.2: The discriminant analysis of oak habitats on the Table Rocks. Height in the 75th and 25th percentile classes, as well as the difference between the 75th and 25th percentile height classes were the primary drivers. Vector length represents the strength of the relationship for explanatory variables. Group circles represent 95th percentile confidence intervals.

Page 41 of 50 Appendix 2: Analysis Methods for Management Unit Prioritization

Preliminary ranking of the proposed management units for treatment priority is based on the following variables, defined below:

1. Proportion of area with potentially suitable transitions (as in Figure 7). 2. Wildfire Risk a. Wildlife fire hazard (from West Wide Wildfire Risk Assessment 2013) i. Average WWWRA hazard rating of 250-foot buffer on adjacent private lands ii. Average WWWRA Hazard for the entire unit b. Risk to private property, i.e. the number of structures within 250 feet of unit boundaries 3. Accessibility a. Accessibility on existing roads b. Trails and vistas as opportunities for public outreach/education 4. Inclusion of BLM’s five pre-planned fuel treatment thinning units

The variables were combined using: Equation 1: Unit Priority = 4*[Suitable] + 2*[Structures] + [Private Risk] + [Unit Risk] + [Trails] + [Road Access] + 2*[BLM Units] Where: Suitable, Structures, Private Risk and Unit Risk were scaled by dividing by the maximum value to get an index from 0-1. Trails and BLM Units were a 1 for presence or 0 for absence, and Road Access was a 0 for absence, 1 for existing but non-passable and 2 for drivable road.

The mathematical prioritization is a relatively unbiased method for ranking units for treatment (Figure 8). Funding, federal and contractor capacity, and the considerations of engaged stakeholders will determine priorities and implementation sequence. A blocked approach that prioritizes a set of adjacent units may be employed to increase continuity of treatment, informed by the prioritization process.

Potential transitions Discriminant analysis was used to identify the combination of geophysical factors most associated with each habitat class in order to determine vegetation most likely departed from a presumed more-open reference condition, and correspondingly, landscape facets most amenable to maintaining more open vegetation. Independent model variables included solar insolation, slope, and two differing scales of landscape position. We then overlaid the habitat suitability models with the existing vegetation map to expose the land facets where transition from a more closed to more open habitat type would likely successfully persist (suitable transitions) with focus on transitions to more open pine/oak habitats, oak savanna, or open oak woodland. This calculation was used to provide a relative measure of management units most in need of restoration thinning but it is important to note that treatments should be implemented across all habitat types, and that each habitat type receives a range of treatment intensities (Figure 7). Land facets best suited to maintaining closed vegetation were also mapped, in this case to be used in the implementation phase rather than during unit prioritization. Low intensity treatment areas were defined as existing closed oak woodland and oak/chaparral habitats not overlapping suitable transitions (to open habitats) and >200 feet from private property boundaries; these are mapped as black polygons in Figure 8. We further refined these light touch areas by choosing the largest contiguous areas where relatively little oak cover was a component of the chaparral. These areas represent important pure chaparral habitat types, and would likely respond to thinning and burning treatments with aggressive shrub regeneration or conversion to invasive annual grassland. The resulting 328 acres

Page 42 of 50 are suitable for relatively light mosaic thinning and will be retained in a relatively dense condition, contingent on subsequent fire effects (Table 4).

Hazard and risk We used the West Wide Wildfire Risk Assessment (2013) to inform prioritization of proposed management units relative to overall within-unit and adjacent ownership fire risk. The Fire Risk Index (FRI) combines the probability of fire occurrence, fire behavior, and fire suppression effectiveness into a Fire Threat Index (FTI) for each pixel (98.4 foot or 30 meters). Each pixel also incorporates important values such as drinking water, infrastructure, and forest and riparian assets into a Fire Effects Index (FEI). The FTI and FEI are multiplied together to produce an index that accounts for the likely interaction between fire and both human and ecological values. This was used both at the scale of the entire management unit (average WWWRA Risk Index) and for a 250 foot (76.2 m) buffer on adjacent private lands. In addition to these more standardized metrics of wildfire hazard we elevated risk to private structure by counting the number of structures within 250 feet of unit boundaries using the Jackson County Residential Structures data (Jackson County).

Accessibility Ability to treat vegetation and manage with fire hinges on the ability of implementation crews to access the area. For this reason, units that were accessible on existing roads were prioritized. Similarly, opportunities to conduct outreach to the public and other engaged stakeholders are facilitated by the presence of trails and vistas so units with these features were also elevated in the prioritization.

Page 43 of 50 Appendix 3: Management Unit Implementation Monitoring Method

Within each management unit we randomly disperse 15 sample plots proportionally stratified by pre-treatment habitat type (excluding grassland) using GIS tools (Spatial Ecology, GME 7.3). The monitoring plots are circular, 0.1 acre (r = 37.2 ft), with plot centers GPS located but not permanently field marked. At each plot, relevant data are recorded both before and after (within 1 year) treatment in the fall or winter. At each plot we take a single photo representative of typical stand conditions and treatment impacts before and after treatment, and record the photo azimuth to enable repeat-photos and to assist with re-locating plot center. To directly measure treatment impact on fuels and habitat type, we classify the plot by best-fit to Scott and Burgan (2005) fuel model and KBO oak habitat class. We also record the canopy base height as the minimum height (meters in the field, feet here) from surface fuels to continuous ladder fuels to the canopy. To quantify treatment impacts on stand structure and composition, we record the percent cover by species of all trees and shrubs within the plot using Daubenmire cover classes, and the percent cover within height strata (< 3.3 ft; 3.3 – 16.4 ft; > 16.4 ft) of all tree or shrub species combined. As coarse metrics of groundcover and herbaceous community condition, we record the percent cover of bare ground, the total percent cover of all live (within past season) herbaceous vegetation, and the combined percent cover of native perennial grasses. When hiking to monitoring plots we collect additional GPS points marking the presence of critical early detection/rapid response invasive species to augment ongoing BLM-funded invasive species monitoring. To assess treatment impacts on legacy structures, we record the presence, species, and competitive environment of all legacy trees or shrubs within the plot. For this monitoring, legacy structures are defined as live trees or shrubs that are relatively large, old individuals with complex form and providing important habitat features and aesthetic value; all native tree species as well as manzanita (Arctostaphylos viscida), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides), and silk tassel (Garrya fremontii) shrubs can have readily-identifiable legacy forms. To track legacy trees and shrubs we record the species and azimuth from plot center for each pre-treatment live individual in the plot, we then note the pre- and post-treatment condition of the legacy as either encroach/overtopped or not. A legacy is typically considered encroached when there is >25% shrub and/or understory tree cohort cover within approximately 2x the crown radius, or when it is overtopped or pierced by one or more non- legacy trees. Treatments are expected to reduce this encroachment. Only live legacy individuals are recorded; if any of these are found dead post-treatment this is specifically noted in the data. See Table A3.1 for a complete listing and definitions of our implementation monitoring indicators.

Page 44 of 50 Table A3.1: Oak restoration treatment implementation monitoring data fields and descriptions to be sampled on 0.1 acre plots across units.

Field Description Pre/Post PlotID unique plot identifier assigned in GIS pre only Unit_ID management/treatment unit identifier pre only Date_ date of monitoring pre and post PhID_ photo file ID from camera pre and post PhotoDeg compass bearing from plot center to photo center, 14 degrees E declination pre only one of eight KBO oak habitat classes - focus on canopy cover for oak or Hab_ chaparral types, species composition for hardwood or conifer types pre and post fuel model from Scott and Burgan photo series - select based on what fuels/vegetation will carry the fire, what fuel/veg will significantly affect fire SBfuel_ behavior, relative loading (low, mod, high), & relative flame lengths pre and post QUGA_ percent cover of all Quercus garryana, white oak pre and post QUKE_ percent cover of all Quercus kelloggii, black oak pre and post ARME_ percent cover of all Arbutus menziesii, madrone pre and post PIPO_ percent cover of all Pinus ponderosa, Ponderosa pine pre and post PSME_ percent cover of all Pseudotsuga menziesii, Douglas fir pre and post CECU_ percent cover of all Ceanothus cuneatus, buckbrush pre and post ARVI_ percent cover of all Arctostaphylos viscida, manzanita pre and post CEBE_ percent cover of all Cercocarpus betuloides, mt. mahogany pre and post TODI_ percent cover of all Toxicodendron diversilobum, poison oak pre and post OthTS_ percent cover of other major (5-25%) tree or shrub; record species in notes pre and post TS1_ percent cover of all trees and shrubs < 1 m (3 ft) tall pre and post TS1_5_ percent cover of all trees and shrubs 1 - 5 m (3 - 16 ft) tall pre and post TS5_ percent cover of all trees and shrubs > 5 m (> 16 ft) tall pre and post Bare_ percent cover of exposed soil and rock (includes burn pile ash) pre and post BGrs_ combined percent cover of all native perennial grass species pre and post Herb_ combined percent cover of live herbaceous vegetation, grasses and forbs pre and post CBH_ minimum height (m) to continuous ladder fuels to canopy within plot pre and post species code of first legacy tree/shrub (from N) in plot - legacy trees/shrubs are living, relatively large, old individuals with complex form and structure, L1_Sp providing important habitat features and aesthetic value pre only L1_Az compass bearing (14 deg E dec) from plot center to legacy tree trunk center pre only legacy is encroached (roughly >25% shrub or tree sapling cover in 2x drip L1_EO_ radius) or legacy canopy is overtopped/pierced by non-legacy tree(s) pre and post L1_D_ post-treatment legacy tree/shrub is dead (only record live pre-treatment) post only repeat above 4 fields for second through fifth legacies, if present. If > 5 legacy variable, as L2…L5 individuals present in the plot, include as notes with full data above optional - additional information on treatment, plot condition, or above data important to interpretation - record species for OtherTS above as "Other = Notes _____" - record legacies if > 5, or species as "OtherLegacy = _____" pre and post

Page 45 of 50 Appendix 4: Long-Term Vegetation Monitoring Method

To establish a framework for long-term monitoring of vegetation structure and composition, one permanent plot was installed in each of 8 habitat types on both upper and lower Table Rocks (Figure A1.1). Plot locations were randomly distributed in GIS and plot centers were monumented with rebar. We collected GPS locations at each plot center and differentially corrected to a spatial accuracy of less than 16.4 ft. From plot center reference photos were taken in the 4 cardinal directions, fuel model was obtained from Ottmar et al (2004) or Scott and Burgan (2005) fuel photo series, and canopy closure was measured with a densiometer using the modified grid V method (Strickler 1958). Plot sizes were scaled by plant guild to account for differences in size and abundance among forbs and grasses, shrubs, and trees. Two - 1/1000 acre herbaceous plots were established 18.6 feet east and west from plot center. Herbaceous plots have a 3.7 foot radius, and were completed first to avoid trampling while measuring the remaining plot characteristics. All cover was measured as absolute cover by Daubenmire class (Table A4.1). Cover categories include native perennial grasses, all perennial grasses, annual grass cover, perennial forb cover, annual forb cover, woody vegetation less than 2 feet tall, exotic species cover, native species cover, and cover of specific noxious species (Table A4.1). Saplings were recorded on a 1/100 acre plot established at plot center with a radius of 10.1 feet and tallied by species in categories of 0.8 – 4.5 feet tall, 0.01 – 2.0 inches diameter breast height (DBH), and 2.01 – 4 inches DBH. Shrub cover was measured on a 1/10 acre plot with a radius of 37.2 feet established at plot center. Cover by species was measured by Daubenmire class and height categories of less than 6 feet, 6-12 feet, and greater than 12 feet. All trees greater than 4 inches DBH were documented on a 1/10 acre plot in all habitat types except oak savanna and oak/chaparral. To account for low tree density in these two habitats plot size was increased to 1/5 acre. Species and DBH were recorded for each tree greater than 4 inches DBH, and if the individual was multi-stemmed it must have at least one stem greater than 4 inches DBH or have met a minimum size threshold for species and root crown diameter (Table A4.1) to be included. All stems, including dead stems, less than 4 inches DBH on multi-stemmed individuals were tallied into sapling size class bins. Tree condition was described as live or dead and individuals that appear to have been top killed and re-sprouted were noted as such. For re-sprouted hardwood species the size of the root crown is likely more highly correlated with an individual’s age than DBH and was measured for all hardwoods as the average of two perpendicular measurements beginning with the longest axis. Canopy position is correlated with growth rate and vigor and is important for understanding ecosystem structure and function as well as development of allometric models. Tree canopy position was binned into categories include open grown, dominant, co-dominant, intermediate, and suppressed. Tree vigor is a species specific visual estimate of foliar density and condition broken into four classes A, B, C, and D. Live crown ratio further describes individual tree form and vigor, and is the percent of the tree bole and major branches that support live crown based on the distance from the ground to the top of live foliage. To better understand the change in growing conditions available to individuals of different cohorts we document the growth form of each tree as open grown, semi-open grown, forest grown, or ring form. To identify mature trees dwarfed in stature by limiting site conditions trees less than 15’ tall are noted. Snag and stump decay conditions are described in five classes and are available in the data dictionary. An estimate of legacy status is noted for each tree. As legacy tree retention and vigor are especially important ecological considerations from a management perspective additional sampling is allocated to these individuals. Each legacy tree is monumented with a steel tag and issues with insects and disease or noted if present. If the tree is a hardwood species the percent dieback of major limbs is noted in four categories (Table A4.1). As hardwood species often exhibit phototropism making them more susceptible to limb breakage the distance that the canopy is offset horizontally from the base is documented.

Page 46 of 50

Table A4.1: Series of sub-tables for oak restoration permanent plot monitoring providing lists of fields and their associated descriptions for a nested series of plots and sub-plots at each sample location: tree plot, saplings, tree and shrub cover, legacy trees, and herbaceous cover.

Tree Plot Data 0.1 acre plot radius: 11.35 meters; 0.2 acre plot radius: 16.05 meters Field Description Codes Plot Plot number assigned in GIS 1-30 Obs Names of observers Fuel Model Fuel Model; fuels photo series by vegetation type – Ottmar Model code from respective et al, or Scott and Burgman guide/series Canopy Canopy Closure taken at plot center using spherical Percent – single reading for plot Closure densiometer and grid-wedge method (% = sum of four readings/2) CNBH Lowest canopy base height (ladder fuels) for the entire plot In meters (0.5 m increments if < 5m) (0.1 or 0.2 acre) PHID_N Number of photo ID for photo taken facing North Unique ID assigned by camera PHID_E Number of photo ID for photo taken facing East Unique ID assigned by camera PHID_S Number of photo ID for photo taken facing South Unique ID assigned by camera

PHID_W Number of photo ID for photo taken facing West Unique ID assigned by camera TRID Unique ID for the tree recorded on the largest stem if multi- 1 - n stem. To be included, tree must have at least one stem with DBH >10 cm, or RCDM >16 cm (QUGA), >17 cm (QUKE), or >20 cm (ARME) if multi-stem re-sprout STID Stem ID: Consecutive number ID with the largest stem being Reset for each tree, not cumulative stem #1. All stems with DBH > 10 cm receive their own record. Stems of 0, 0.1-4.9 cm or 5.0-10.0 cm are tallied and receive a single record. Includes dead stems. SPCD Species Code: 4 letter species code (Genus and Species) QUGA= Quercus garryana ARME=Arbutus menziesii PIPO=Pinus ponderosa PILA = Pinus lambertiana PSME=Pseudotsuga menziesii QUKE=Quercus kelloggii CEBE= Cercocarpus betuloides

DBH Diameter in cm measured at 1.37 m (4.5 feet) from the base Diameter in centimeters to the for all trees, at 0.33 m (1 foot) from the base for cut stumps. nearest millimeter If the tree forks below breast height or multi-stem re-sprout, add multiple records for multiple stems. COND Condition Code: Description of tree status 1 = Live, 2 = Dead

RESP For madrone and oak note if this tree has re-sprouted from a 0=No, 1=Yes prior root crown.

RCDM Root Collar Diameter (m) – average of two perpendicular Meters to cm (0.01) measurements. Recorded for all individuals of resprouting species (ARME, QUGA, QUKE, CEBE). Recorded on the first (largest) stem of multi-stem individuals

Page 47 of 50 Tree Plot Data 0.1 acre plot radius: 11.35 meters; 0.2 acre plot radius: 16.05 meters Field Description Codes CAPO Canopy position by light environment for whole tree. Open O, D, C, I, S Grown (O) – full light from all sides with little competition. Dominant (D) – light from above and partly from the sides. Codominant (C) – light from above, little from the sides. Intermediate (I) – little light from above or the sides, but in the upper canopy. Supressed (S) – below main canopy, no direct light. VIGR Vigor of the tree broken into 4 classes, similar to Keene’s 1=A, 2=B, 3=C, 4=D classification for ponderosa from best (A) to worst (D).

CRPC Percent of tree height in live crown after scrunching the tree Percent crown to remove foliage gaps, excluding new epicormic branches

GRFM Growth Form of whole tree, not individual stems, for 1= Open grown, 2= Semi-open hardwood or conifer grown, 3= Forest Grown <15’HT Height of tree is < = 15 ft/5m. Record for all DBHs – intent is Checkbox – check if yes to note mature trees dwarfed in stature by limiting site. Legacy Field estimate of tree legacy status. For hardwood, RCDM > Yes or No 1.0 m is guide. DCCL Decay class of snags Reference standard snag and stump decay classes

Legacy Tree Data 0.1 acre plot radius: 11.35 meters; 0.2 acre plot radius: 16.05 meters Field Description Codes TRID Legacy Tree ID: Unique ID of the tree 1-n TAG ID Number already inscribed on steel tag 300-n MSTL Mistletoe present or absent Yes or No HWDB Only on hardwoods, relates to dieback of major 0=no dieback, 1=least one, but <50% of all major branches. For whole tree. limbs dead, 2= ≥50%, but not all, major limbs dead, 3=all major limbs dead; epicormic branches only. GRFM Growth Form of whole tree, not individual 1= Open grown, 2= Semi-open grown, 3= Forest stems Grown CAOF Estimate of distance tree crown is offset from Meters tree bole, for whole tree

Shrub Plot Data 0.1 acre plot radius: 11.35 meters; 0.2 acre plot radius: 16.05 meters Field Description Codes <6’ Shrub cover by species less than 6’ tall within <1, 1-5, 5-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-95, 95-100 0.1 acre plot 6’ – 12’ Shrub cover by species 6 to 12 feet tall within <1, 1-5, 5-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-95, 95-100 0.1 acre plot >12’ Shrub cover by species greater than 12’ tall <1, 1-5, 5-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-95, 95-100 within 0.1 acre plot <15’ Cover of trees by species for trees >DBH height, <1, 1-5, 5-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-95, 95-100 < 15’ tall, in 0.1 or 0.2 acre plot 15’ Cover of trees by species for trees > 15’ tall, in <1, 1-5, 5-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-95, 95-100 0.1 or 0.2 acre plot

Page 48 of 50

Sapling Plot Data 0.01 acre – 3.09 meters Field Description Codes 0.25 – 1.37 m Tally by species of saplings less than breast height, but greater than a 1/4 meter 1-n tall (0.82 feet) 0.01 – 5 cm Tally by species of saplings 0.01 – 5 cm DBH 1-n 5.01 – 10 cm Tally by species of saplings 5.01 – 10 cm DBH 1-n

Herbaceous Plot Data – all cover is absolute by cover class two subplots located 5.68 meter from plot center - subplot radius: 1.12 meters Field Description Codes Tree Plot ID ID number of tree plot 1-30 SubPlot E for 90 and W for 270 degree azimuth E or W NABG Native bunchgrass cover (include non-bunch native <1, 1-5, 5-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-95, 95-100 perennial grasses) PEBG Perennial grass cover (include POBU, POPR, POCO) <1, 1-5, 5-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-95, 95-100 ANGR Annual grass cover <1, 1-5, 5-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-95, 95-100 PEFB Perennial forb cover <1, 1-5, 5-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-95, 95-100 ANFB Annual forb cover <1, 1-5, 5-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-95, 95-100 WOODY Cover of woody-stemmed shrub and tree species in <1, 1-5, 5-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-95, 95-100 herbaceous layer = individuals with maximum height of less than 24” EXOTIC Total cover of all non-native grass, forb, and woody <1, 1-5, 5-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-95, 95-100 species NATIVE Total cover of all native grass, forb, and woody <1, 1-5, 5-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-95, 95-100 species ELCA Medusahead cover <1, 1-5, 5-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-95, 95-100 AVFA Wild oats cover <1, 1-5, 5-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-95, 95-100 CYEC Hedgehog dog tail cover <1, 1-5, 5-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-95, 95-100 POBU Poa bulbosa cover <1, 1-5, 5-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-95, 95-100 POPR/POCO Poa pratensis/Poa compressa cover <1, 1-5, 5-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-95, 95-100 CESO Starthistle cover <1, 1-5, 5-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-95, 95-100 VIVI Vicia villosa cover <1, 1-5, 5-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-95, 95-100 OTHR Other invasive species cover; list four letter code <1, 1-5, 5-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-95, 95-100 COVR Cover of OTHR in preceding column <1, 1-5, 5-25, 25-50, 50-75, 75-95, 95-100

Appendix 5: Analysis Method for LiDAR-based Mapping of Vernal Pool Basins

LiDAR surface topography analysis to map vernal pool basins To efficiently and objectively map vernal pool habitat, we applied ESRI ArcGIS (v.10.1) spatial analyst tools to a high-resolution (1 ft2) LiDAR ground surface digital elevation model (DEM) raster to map closed topographic basins and the related surface drainage flow networks (Perchemlides et al. 2013). The DEM was first minimally smoothed to reduce high-frequency noise in the LiDAR data (mean focal statistic, circular neighborhood, 3-cell radius) by testing various parameters to arrive at a best-fit of mapped results to known reference topography. To map basins, we used the hydrology fill tool to simulate maximum inundation conditions across the DEM surface, and difference and reclass tools to extract those fill extents from the DEM; we then converted the raster output to polygons, applying polygon simplification to smooth pixilated edges.

Page 49 of 50 The resulting polygons capture the highest potential extent of contiguous pooled surface inundation for each vernal pool basin beyond which water flows away downslope to a lower elevation. Unlike extents based on observations of surface water or vegetation expression, the number and area of these topographically-defined basins are stable over time unless there are substantial new alterations to the ground surface. Actual inundation extent and vegetation expression are variable within and across basins over time. At lower inundation levels a basin may contain two or more discrete bodies of surface water, but these share a common hydrologic environment and will comingle at higher water levels – a characteristic highly relevant to BRLY populations and monitoring. Figure 11 in the main report above illustrates our LiDAR-based vernal pool mapping process steps and result for an area of Upper Table Rock. And Figure 12 shows the results of our basin mapping integrated with photographic spectral analysis mapping of wet flats to produce an integrated wetland habitat map for the Table Rocks. Flow paths and basin size were used as secondary filters to identify pools providing likely BRLY habitat. To map drainage networks at a scale relevant to our vernal pool basins, we used flow direction and accumulation GIS spatial analyst tools to generate potential surface-water flows on the scale of upland mounds (1000 pixel input flow threshold), and converted these to polylines. We used the resulting flow lines as a filter to remove topographic depressions on uplands that typically do not inundate, eliminating basins not intersected by a flow path. We further filtered by basin depth, removing basins with a topographic relief of < 0.1 foot (3 cm) as these do not have the potential to meet minimum USFWS inundation requirements for BRLY survey, and are functionally indistinguishable from wet flats. During field checks, we found that basins smaller than approximately 100 ft2 (10 m2) in area often had low hydrologic function and were difficult to discern from vernal flats where they overlapped. Because these small basins amount to < 5% of the total area of basins > 0.1 ft. in depth, removing them substantially improves the accuracy and focus of our BRLY habitat mapping while retaining > 95% of all potential vernal pool area.

Aerial photograph analysis to map vernally wet flats To map vernally wet flats we utilized high resolution 1993 aerial photograph imagery acquired through a partnership effort of TNC and BLM, and taken during a period of high inundation specifically to capture the expression of wetland habitat (Figure 10). The aerial photos were orthorectified by the BLM resulting in images with a uniform spatial scale such that the spectral analysis of wet flats would retain spatial fidelity when combined with the LiDAR analysis of pool basins. Extraction of vernally wet flats was accomplished using Feature Analyst machine-learning automated feature extraction software (Feature Analyst © 2001-2010 Overwatch Systems, Ltd.). The software utilizes spatial context as well as spectral and texture information from training polygons as templates for the desired information; training polygons for this analysis were mapped extents of field-verified vernally wet flat habitat. The model was improved through iterations of hierarchical learning, where correct and incorrect examples were provided as feedback. Large gradations in shading on different parts of the images caused high variation in spectral reflectance of wet flats - this required the study area to be broken in to regions by image brightness and contrast to improve accuracy of analysis results.

Page 50 of 50

View publication stats