a restoration framework for federal forests in the …...a restoration framework for federal forests...

policy

PRACTICE OF FORESTRY J For 110(8)429ndash439httpdxdoiorg105849jof10-006

Copyright copy 2012 Society of American Foresters

A Restoration Framework for Federal Forestsin the Pacific NorthwestJerry F Franklin and K Norman Johnson

We outline elements of a forest restoration strategy designed to produce ecological and economic benefits onfederal forests in Oregon and Washington along with some of their policy and management implicationsImplementation of this restoration strategy has begun on 11 projects (at scales from hundreds to thousands ofacres) on federal lands On Moist Forest sites (MF) the strategy calls for reserving older forest stands thinningplantations to accelerate development of structural complexity and implementing variable retention harvests inyounger forests to help provide diverse early seral ecosystems On Dry Forest (DF) sites the strategy calls forsilvicultural treatments that retain and release older trees reduce stand densities shift composition toward fire-and drought-tolerant tree species and incorporate spatial heterogeneity at multiple spatial scales Immediategoals of this restoration framework include increased ecological integrity and resilience in DFs increased diversityand complexity of successional stages in MFs and provision of wood products to local communities Over thelong run we believe this program can provide an acceptable pathway to sustained yield on federal forestlandsin the Pacific Northwest

Keywords Dry Forest forest restoration Moist Forest northern spotted owl old-growth retention harvest

I n the last few years we have reportedto members of the US Congress andthe US Department of the Interior

Secretary of Interior on the potential ofdeveloping management strategies in thePacific Northwest (PNW) that integrateold-growth protection with other ecologicaland economic benefits on federal lands1 Aswith much of the western United States ex-tensive forestlands in the PNW are con-trolled by the federal government (Figure 1)and their use and management has longfueled conflicts between different groupsand agencies Recent successes with the thin-ning of plantations in western Oregon andWashington and fuel reduction projects in

the wildland-urban interface by the USDAForest Service in eastern parts of those stateshave helped to build public trust (Thomas etal 2007 Toman et al 2011) and we seek tobuild on those successes

Ecological restoration on public landsas suggested here represents more than anacademic exercisemdashit has become a socio-political reality In fact comprehensive eco-logical restoration is becoming the founda-tion of federal land management across thenation (eg Bosworth 2006) In 2009 theUSDA Secretary of Agriculture announced arestoration vision for the national forests(Vilsack 2009) ultimately reinforced in therecently adopted US Forest Service planning

rule (USDA 2012) Furthermore activitiesto sustain habitat and restore ecosystemhealth are emphasized in the new northernspotted owl (NSO Strix occidentalis cau-rina) recovery plan which describes the res-toration of ecosystem structures and pro-cesses as being good for NSO (USDI Fishand Wildlife Service 2011) In early 2012the Secretary of Interior proposed expansionof ecological forestry projects in westernOregon to provide sustainable timber andhealthier habitat (US Bureau of Land Man-agement [BLM] 2012) These new projectswill cover more than 5000 ac and explorecompatibility between forest restoration andprotection of NSO

But can restoration needs of federal for-ests in the PNW be fulfilled while also meet-ing other societal needs Ecological restora-tion is grounded in principles of ecosystemscience including ecosystem dynamics dis-turbance ecology and landscape ecologyHowever restoration activities will have toprovide economic returns if they are to bewidely implemented with such benefits typ-ically coming from commercial timber har-vest Indeed shrinking federal budgets willrequire that restoration activities be at leastpartially self-supporting if large-scale resto-ration is going to occur Furthermore sig-nificant skepticism about the effectiveness of

Received January 17 2010 accepted August 23 2012 published online October 18 2012

Affiliations Jerry F Franklin (jffuwashingtonedu) is professor School of Environmental and Forest Science College of the Environment University of WashingtonSeattle WA 98195 K Norman Johnson (normjohnsonoregonstateedu) is professor Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society College of Forestry Oregon StateUniversity Corvallis OR 97331

Acknowledgments The authors thank the scores of Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service professionals who turned these ideas into projects and themany graduate students that provided them with comments on previous drafts

Journal of Forestry bull December 2012 429

Figure 1 Distribution of federal forestlands in the PNW showing locations of projectsdemonstrating the restoration principles discussed in this article (D Johnson ApplegateForestry provided this figure)

ecosystem restoration must be overcomeeven though the general concept enjoys widepublic support (Shindler and Mallon 2009)

A Strategic RestorationFramework

We begin with the following definitionprovided by the US Forest Service (USDA2012 p 21272) in its new planning rule

[Restoration is] the process of assisting therecovery of an ecosystem that has been de-graded damaged or destroyed Ecologicalrestoration focuses on reestablishing thecomposition structure pattern and eco-

logical processes necessary to facilitate ter-restrial and aquatic ecosystems sustainabil-ity resilience and health under current andfuture conditions

In applying this definition we emphasizeseveral elements First restoration shouldfocus on entire ecosystems rather than indi-vidual attributes such as fuels Programswith singular resource objectives generallymarginalize other important values (egGunderson et al 1995) resulting in less re-silient ecosystems and communities Focus-ing broadly on restoring ecosystems serves awider range of natural resource and stake-

holder interests Second restoration shouldcenter on restoring resilience and function-ality in the context of desired future con-ditions even while learning from the pastAttempting to return landscapes to a givenhistorical state is unlikely to create either re-silience under current and future conditionsor socially desirable outcomes (Hobbs et al2011) Third restoration efforts shouldprioritize the most degraded environmentsBy ldquodegradedrdquo we mean eg ecosystemswhere human activities have increased therisk of catastrophic disturbances or createdextensive landscapes deficient in importantsuccessional stages such as early seral andold-growth ecosystems Finally any com-prehensive restoration effort must recognizedifferences among ecosystems and set treat-ment goals accordinglymdasha one-size-fits-allapproach will almost certainly fail Hencewe divide PNW federal forestlands intoldquomoist forestsrdquo (MF) and ldquodry forestsrdquo (DF)because these contrasting environments re-quire fundamentally different policies andpractices including approaches to old-growth conservation

Defining MFs and DFsThe DF and MF classification of feder-

ally controlled forests with which we begin isa more appropriate ecological stratificationthan the traditional categorization of PNWforests as ldquowestsiderdquo and ldquoeastsiderdquo Ratherthan using geography we used scientificallydefined plant associations to assign forestsites to their respective DF and MF catego-ries (Table 1) with both conditions occur-ring on both sides of the Cascade RangeThese plant associations reflect distinctivecompositions growth conditions and his-torical disturbance regimes (eg Atzet et al1992) such as broad gradients in fire behav-ior in PNW forests that reflect variability inboth site and landscape conditions Anotheradvantage to plant associations is that theyare readily identifiable in the field by trainedresource professionals

MF and DF sites have contrasting his-toric disturbance regimes Historically MFsgenerally experienced large infrequent (in-tervals of one to several centuries) wildfireswhich included extensive areas where fire se-verity resulted in stand-replacement condi-tions (Agee 1993) DF sites experienced pre-dominantly low- and mixed-severity firebehaviors at frequent (eg 5ndash35 year) inter-vals (Agee 1993 Perry et al 2011) Someplant associations currently straddle theboundary between MF and DF stratifica-

430 Journal of Forestry bull December 2012

tion but climate change is expected to in-creasingly shift these associations toward DFstatus with projected increases in wildfirefrequency (eg Dello and Mote 2010 Spieset al 2010)

Characteristics and Current Stateof MFs

MF ecosystems undergo many cen-turies of stand development and change af-ter major disturbances such as severe wild-fire or windstorm before achieving themassiveness and structural complexity ofold-growth forests (Franklin et al 2002)Ecosystem development is relatively well un-derstood with distinctive early seral youngmature and old stages (Franklin et al 2002Figure 2) intermediate disturbances canalter developmental patterns (Franklin andSpies 1991 Spies 2009)

Composition structure and functionof existing unmanaged old-growth MFs gen-erally are relatively unaffected by humanactivities except at stand edges (Forest Eco-system Management Assessment Team1993) Management activities in these exist-ing old-growth MFs such as thinning arenot needed to sustain conditions in theseforests and can actually cause old-growthMFs to diverge widely from natural forestsin structure and function or become desta-bilized (Franklin et al 2002) Wildfire sup-pression is typically consistent with effortsto retain such forestsmdashie it is not known

to result in significant changes in MF ecosys-tems (Agee 1993)

Restoration may be needed in MFlandscapes in which old-growth stands areembedded however Many MF landscapesare currently dominated by dense youngplantations which are low in biodiversityand deficient in the early (preforest) andlate (mature and old-growth) successionalstages which are richest in biodiversityLate-successional MFs provide habitat forthousands of species including the NSOand other habitat specialists (Forest Ecosys-tem Management Assessment Team 1993)past timber harvests have greatly reducedtheir extent and continuity (eg Wimberly2002 Spies et al 2007) Continued declinein NSO populations across much of itsrange have heightened the importance of re-taining the remaining late-successional for-ests (Forsman et al 2011)

Early successional or seral MF sites arehighly diverse trophic- and function-richecosystems that occur after a severe distur-bance but before the reestablishment of aclosed forest canopy (Greenberg et al 2011Swanson et al 2011) Theoretically distur-bances of either natural (eg wildfire) or hu-man (eg timber harvest) origin are capableof generating this stage Large natural dis-turbances often produce high-quality earlyseral ecosystems provided they are not inten-sively salvaged and replanted (Swanson et al2011) but such disturbances are poorly dis-tributed in time and space For example lessthan 1 of suitable NSO habitat (complexforest) was transformed by wildfire into earlysuccessional habitat between 1996 and 2006in MF-dominated provinces of the North-west Forest Plan (NWFP USDI Fish andWildlife Service 2011) Areas devoted to in-tensive timber production generally providelittle high-quality early seral habitat for sev-eral reasons First few or no structures fromthe preharvest stand (eg live trees snagsand logs) are retained on intensively man-aged sites but are abundant after severe nat-ural disturbances (Swanson et al 2011) Ad-ditionally intensive site preparation andreforestation efforts limit both the diversityand the duration of early seral organismswhich may also be actively eliminated by useof herbicides or other treatments (Swansonet al 2011) Consequently many MF land-scapes currently lack sufficient representa-tion of high-quality early seral ecosystemsbecause of harvest reforestation and firesuppression policies on both private andpublic lands (Spies et al 2007 Swanson et

al 2011) Functional early seral habitat canbe created using regeneration harvest pre-scriptions that retain biological legacies anduse less intensive approaches to reestablish-ment of closed forest canopies as discussedlater

Characteristics and Current Stateof DFs

Historical forest conditions on DF siteshave been extensively summarized (egNoss et al 2006 Courtney et al 2008 andJohnson et al 2008) Low tree densities anddominance by larger older trees of fire- anddrought-resistant species such as ponderosapine (Pinus ponderosa) and western larch(Larix occidentalis) characterized many DFsites (Munger 1917 Youngblood et al2004 Spies et al 2006 Kolb et al 2007Johnson et al 2008 Figure 3) Spatial het-erogeneity including fine-scale low-contraststructural patchworks was also characteris-tic (Franklin and Van Pelt 2004 Larson andChurchill 2012) (Figure 3) Denser moreeven-structured stands consisting of mix-tures of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)grand fir (Abies grandis) western larch andponderosa pine occurred and even domi-nated some DF landscapes as a result ofmore severe fires and insect epidemics (egHessburg et al 2005 2007)

Composition and structure of existingDF landscapes have been dramatically al-tered by decades of fire suppression grazingby domestic livestock timber harvestingand plantation establishment (Noss et al2006) resulting in (1) many fewer old treesof fire-resistant species (2) denser forestswith multiple canopy layers (3) moredensely forested landscapes with continuoushigh fuel levels and consequently (4) morestands and landscapes highly susceptible tostand-replacement wildfire and insect epi-demics (eg Hessberg et al 2005 Noss et al2006) Outbreaks of western spruce bud-worm (Choristoneura occidentalis) and otherdefoliators are currently widespread in ma-ture stands of grand fir and Douglas-fir andhave been for over 30 years In southwesternOregon DF sites that have not been pre-viously harvested are largely occupied bydense maturing Douglas-fir stands whichappear to be the first generation of closedconifer forests on many of these sites His-torically these DF landscapes were occupiedby diverse communities including opengrasslands shrub fields oak savannas andmixed hardwood and conifer woodlands(McKinley and Frank 1996)

Table 1 Assignment of plant associationseries and groups to MF and DFcategories Moist grand and white firassociations are intermediate and may beappropriately considered as either MF orDF depending on circumstances

MFWestern hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) seriesSitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) seriesWestern redcedar (Thuja plicata) seriesPacific silver fir (Abies amabilis) seriesMountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) seriesSubalpine fir-Engelmann spruce (Abies lasiocarpa-

Picea englemanni) seriesTanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus) series

Moist grand fir (Abies grandis) Plant AssociationGroup

Moist white fir (Abies concolor) Plant AssociationGroup

DFPonderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) seriesOregon white oak (Quercus garryana) seriesDouglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) seriesJeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) seriesDry grand fir Plant Association GroupDry white fir Plant Association Group


Ecological Forestry as a Basisfor Restoration Prescriptions

Our silvicultural proposals are based onldquoecological forestryrdquo concepts which incor-porate principles of natural forest develop-ment including the role of natural dis-turbances in the initiation developmentand maintenance of stands and landscapemosaics (Seymour and Hunter 1999 Northand Keeton 2008 Bunnell and Dunsworth2009 Long 2009) Key elements of eco-logical forestry include (Lindenmayer andFranklin 2002 Franklin et al 2007) (1) re-taining structural and compositional ele-ments of the preharvest stand during re-generation harvests (Franklin et al 1997Gustafsson et al 2012) (2) using naturalstand development principles and processesin manipulating established stands to restoreor maintain desired structure and compo-sition (3) using return intervals for silvi-

cultural activities consistent with recoveryof desired structures and processes and(4) planning management activities at land-scape scales using knowledge of spatial pat-tern and ecological function in naturallandscapes

Protection of Older Stands and TreesElements of ecological forestry differ in

their application even though they share acommon theme For example managementof old trees and stands would vary as a func-tion of forest type On MF sites older foreststands on federal lands are retained underour restoration strategy because of their eco-logical and social significance whether theyare located inside or outside of current re-serves In addition older trees in any treatedyounger MF stands are also retained On DFsites older trees are retained under our res-toration strategy regardless of their size On

these sites the focus is on individual oldtrees rather than stands because active man-agement is often necessary to restore DFstands to more resilient conditions includ-ing enhancement of the survival of old trees

In the PNW the occurrence of oldertrees and forests currently is far below thehistoric range of variability despite theirecological importance (Spies 2009) De-cades of legal battles over older stands andtrees are clear evidence of societal interest inthem these conflicts have perpetuated stake-holder distrust of foresters and diverted at-tention from restoration (Thomas et al2007 Spies et al 2009) Although it seemsstraightforward classifying trees or stands asold is not a simple task The age at whichforests are deemed ldquoolderrdquo is a social deci-sion influenced but not defined by scientificinput with age a commonly used surrogatein determining which forests are going to be

Figure 2 Major stages in MF development after a stand-replacement event (A) Early seral or preforest ecosystem dominated by diversityties and a closed forest canopy (C) Maturestory community including regeneration ofncluding Douglas-fir and western hemlockall trees

of plant life forms (B) Young forest ecosystem dominated by Douglas-fir with high stem densiforest ecosystem dominated by Douglas-fir which is undergoing reestablishment of the undershade-tolerant tree associates (D) Old forest ecosystem dominated by mixture of tree species iwith a diverse and spatially variable understory of cryptogams ferns herbs shrubs and sm


preserved from timber harvest Age limitscan also vary based on ecological thresholdsmanagement objectives and ease of imple-mentation For example in a prior analysiswe have used 80 120 and 160 years to iden-tify ldquoolderrdquo in MFs (Johnson and Franklin2009) an age range that goes from retainingall late-successional forests (80) to retainingmost mature and all old-growth forests(120) or (at a threshold age of 160) retainingthe oldest mature and all old-growth forests

Given the importance of age the initialselection of individual trees for retention intreated DFs is based on age rather thansizemdashie we use an age limit rather than adiameter limit2 Diameter limits can resultin undesirable outcomes in DF restorationsuch as by allowing removal of small oldertrees important to stand complexity andfunction Diameter limits also can prohibitremoval of large young trees that provideladder and crown fuels and competitionthereby increasing the potential for wild-fire or drought to kill old trees (McDowellet al 2003 Johnson et al 2008) We also doincorporate retention of younger larger-diameter trees for wildlife and other pur-poses in our prescriptions especially whenthey offer no threat to older trees

Our focus on older trees rather thansimply larger ones is because older trees havedistinctive ecological characteristics andfunctions Older trees are not simply larger

versions of young trees Trees acquire dis-tinctive physiological and structural featuresfrom the aging process and responses tophysical and biotic damage (eg wind dis-ease parasites and insects Table 2) Suchcharacteristic features of old trees (often in-cluding their larger size) make them struc-tural cornerstones in forests contributing toecosystem services such as wildlife habitatresistance to fire and drought and geneticreservoirs and require centuries to replace

Figure 3 Dry Forest dominated by ponderosa pine illustrating the fine-scale mosaic thatincludes openings and patches dominated by tree reproduction and by mature and oldtrees such conditions were historically characteristic of many but not all DF landscapes(Yakima Indian Reservation Washington)

Table 2 Some distinguishingcharacteristics of old conifers of ecologicalsignificance

Heartwood accumulations and development of thickfire-resistant bark (Van Pelt 2008)

Abundant microhabitats important for maintainingbiodiversity (Michel and Winter 2009)

Highly individualistic canopies including largebranches epicormic branch systems and multipletops (Van Pelt 2008 Van Pelt and Sillett 2008)

Presence of cavities pockets of decayed wood andbrooms (Van Pelt 2008)

MF Restoration StrategyOur MF strategy focuses on increasing

the underrepresented late-successional for-ests and early seral ecosystems (Table 3)Demonstration projects using these MF re-generation harvest principles are underwayon the Roseburg and Coos Bay Districts ofthe BLM and at least two more projects arebeing planned (Figure 1 Wheeler 2012) Asmentioned earlier older forest stands onMF sites on federal lands will be retained(both inside and outside of current reserves)to protect their ecological and social sig-nificance The MF strategy also includes thethinning of younger forests to accelerate de-velopment of structural complexity charac-teristic of older forest stands

The most potentially controversial ele-ment of our MF restoration strategy is re-sumption of regeneration harvesting inyounger stands using variable retention pre-

scriptions (Figure 4) One specific objectiveof these harvests is to provide for continuedcreation of diverse early seral ecosystems inMF landscapes as a part of a silviculturalsystem that includes management of mixed-age mixed-species forests over long (eg100ndash160 years) rotations Very few regener-ation harvests are currently planned in fed-eral MFs in the PNW outside of the projectsdescribed in this article primarily becausepast proposed harvests in mature and old-growth stands have been litigated consis-tently Existing timber harvests are currentlyconfined to thinning younger stands (Bakeret al 2006 Thomas et al 2007)

We expect the resumption of regen-eration harvests on federal lands to be con-troversial partly because stakeholders usu-ally equate it with the unpopular practiceof clearcutting (Bliss 2000) However wepropose using variable retention harvestingand not clearcutting these are very differentapproaches Unlike conventional clearcutsvariable retention harvests incorporate sig-nificant elements of the preharvest stand

Table 3 Elements of MF restorationstrategy

Retain existing older stands and individual oldertrees found within younger stands proposed formanagement using a selected threshold age

Accelerate development of structural complexityin younger stands using diverse silviculturalapproaches (Bailey and Tappeiner 1998 Garmanet al 2003 Carey 2003 Wilson and Puettmann2007)

Implement variable retention regeneration harvests(Franklin et al 1997 Beese et al 2003 Franklinet al 2007 Gustafsson et al 2012) in someyounger MFs retaining such structures asindividual trees snags and logs and intact forestpatches

Accommodate development of diverse early seralecosystems following harvest by using less intenseapproaches to site preparation and tree regeneration

Embed preceding objectives in a silvicultural systemthat includes creation and management ofmultiaged mixed-species stands on long rotations(eg 100ndash160 yr)


through the next rotation including un-disturbed forest patches and individual liveand dead trees to enrich the biodiversityecological processes and structural diversityof the postharvest stand (Franklin et al1997 Gustafsson et al 2012 Lindenmayeret al 2012 Figure 4) Our current proposal

for MF regeneration harvest calls for reten-tion of approximately 30 of the preharveststand as patches plus some additional reten-tion (typically of green trees that are in-tended to become snags and logs) on har-vested portions of the units With thesebiological legacies and the significant open

areas created by the harvesting variable re-tention harvests provide optimal conditionsfor (1) development of diverse early seralecosystems needed by significant elementsof regional biodiversity (Swanson et al2011) (2) regenerating new cohorts of de-sirable shade-intolerant tree species and(3) providing substantial flows of woodproducts We view younger previously har-vested stands as the obvious candidates forregeneration harvests given current levels ofolder forests are far below historic levels andpolicy direction calls for their retention asNSO habitat (USDI Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice 2011)

Figure 4 Ground and aerial views of variable retention regeneration harvest units (A) Re-tention harvest unit with approximately 15 of the preharvest forest left in undisturbedpatches or ldquoaggregatesrdquo which include a diversity of structures (eg live trees snags anddown logs) (B) Retention harvest unit with approximately 15 of the preharvest forest leftin undisturbed patches of varying size including some associated with protection of ripar-ian and stream habitat (Photo courtesy of Washington State Department of NaturalResources)

DF Restoration StrategyElements of this DF restoration strat-

egy including stand-level treatments and re-tention of dense forest habitat patches at thelandscape level have been or are currentlybeing incorporated into projects on federallands (eg Ager et al 2007 Gaines et al2010 Brown 2012) Projects (Figure 1) us-ing our DF principles are underway on BLMlands in southwestern Oregon where theNSO is featured (Reilly 2012) the MalheurNational Forest in central Oregon (Brown2012) and the Fremont-Winema NationalForest in south-central Oregon DF restora-tion has a number of important stand- andlandscape-level elements (Table 4 also seeNorth et al 2009 and Larson and Churchill2012) Many DFs need silvicultural treat-ments to restore more resistant and resilientconditions although details of prescriptionswill vary with specific management objec-tives plant associations stand conditionsand landscape contexts

The retention and nurturing of oldertrees and other significant structural ele-ments of the DF stand is the starting pointfor this restoration strategy Although manyDFs include older trees almost all such for-ests are highly modified structurally andcompositionally by past management whichhas greatly reduced older tree populationsand increased stand densities Currentlyboth remaining old trees and the forests inwhich they are embedded are at risk fromintense wildfires epidemics of defoliatinginsects and competition the latter resultingin accelerated mortality due to bark beetles(Noss et al 2006 Courtney et al 2008Franklin et al 2008) Selection of thethreshold age for older trees is particularlyimportant for DFs because it is applied toall DF stands In our work we usually use150 years as the threshold age for older trees


because (1) trees in DFs generally begin ex-hibiting some old-growth characteristics bythis age and (2) significant Euro-Americaninfluences were underway by 1860 eg in-troduction of large domestic livestock herds(Franklin et al 2008 Robbins 2009)

Other threshold ages for older treescould be considered in DFs such as 100 and200 years but these introduce other prob-lems When 100 years is used as the thresh-old many trees lacking old-growth attri-butes are retained making it difficult toreduce stand densities to the desired levelsAdditionally this age threshold limits theremoval of higher-valued trees and thus af-fects economic viability of treatments Using200 years many trees that have old-growthcohort attributes will likely be removed af-fecting the ecological value of the treatmentHowever this age threshold would also al-low harvest of more high-value trees at leastinitially

Retaining some denser forest areas in anuntreated or lightly treated condition is achallenging landscape-level planning com-ponent of our DF restoration strategy MostDF landscapes include species and processesthat require denser forest as habitat such aspreferred nesting roosting and foraginghabitat for NSO (USDI Fish and WildlifeService 2011) Another more widely dis-tributed example in PNW DFs is the north-

ern goshawk (Accipitor gentilis Crocker-Bedford 1990) Maintaining approximatelyone-third of a DF landscape in denserpatches of multilayered forest has been pro-posed for the NSO (Courtney et al 2008)In general landscape amounts and distribu-tions will be a function of topographic andvegetative factors along with wildlife goalsUntreated patches in the hundreds of acrescould be preferentially located in less fire-prone areas such as steep north-facingslopes riparian habitats and sites protectedby natural barriers such as lakes and lavaflows The longevity of the dense forestpatches should be increased by restoring DFconditions in the surrounding landscapematrix (Agar et al 2007 Gains et al 2010)Losses of denser forest patches are inevitablebutmdashbecause the surrounding restoredmatrix still is populated with older largertreesmdashsuitable dense replacement habitatcan be regrown within a few decades

Ecological Forestryand Adaptive Management

Credible adaptive management will beessential to implementing our proposed res-toration approach on federal forests in thePNW because it includes significant newelements and affects the entire region Thisis challenging because successful adaptivemanagement has been limited in the PNW(Stankey et al 2003 Bormann et al 2007)Key elements include comprehensive re-gional analysis and planning integratedmonitoring and research activities and sys-tematic assessments of ecological and socialoutcomes by independent parties Two ele-ments requiring particular attention are(1) interactions between DF restoration andNSO populations and (2) effectiveness increation of diverse early seral ecosystems us-ing variable retention regeneration harvests

Regional targets for total amount andspatial distribution of early seral ecosystemsneed to be scientifically assessed for the MFson federal lands in the PNW Determina-tions of natural range of variability of suchhabitat such as has been done in the OregonCoast Ranges (Wimberly 2002 Spies et al2007) is a good starting point Additionalfocused research on early seral ecosystems isneeded to (1) expand current knowledge ofbiodiversity and functions in early seral eco-systems of both natural and human originand (2) explore different approaches (egsilvicultural prescriptions) for creating di-verse early seral ecosystems

Finally road networks and plantation

establishment after intensive harvestinghave significantly affected both aquatic andforest ecosystems on both DF and MF land-scapes (eg Franklin and Forman 1987Forest Ecosystem Management AssessmentTeam 1993) Restoring aquatic and semi-aquatic ecosystems is a high-priority restora-tion concern throughout federal forests butone that we cannot adequately address inthis short article Reducing the impacts ofpermanent roads on aquatic ecosystems is animportant objective but it must be weighedagainst needed access for restoration projectsand long-term management

Harvest PotentialWe have estimated (Johnson and

Franklin 2009) that our restoration strategycould increase timber harvest from the fed-eral forests of the PNW over the next 15years primarily by resuming regenerationharvests in MFs and expanding the extent ofrestoration treatments (ie partial cutting)in DFs

Our MF strategy adds regeneration har-vests in younger stands to current thinningThe economic viability of such sales in nor-mal markets is unquestionable because re-generation harvests remove larger volumesper acre and include larger trees than areproduced in the currently thriving thinningprograms However a critically importantundetermined variable is the MF land baseavailable for regeneration harvests for severalreasons including some related to the strat-egy itself For example initial estimates us-ing unmanaged stands as models suggestthat our proposed silvicultural system mightprovide one-half of the per acre yields ex-pected under intensive timber production(Johnson and Franklin 2012) On the otherhand the significantly greater wildlife andenvironmental benefits from the variable re-tention approach may result in greater socialacceptability of this approach and conse-quently significantly broaden the land baseon which it could be applied

Our DF strategy calls for shifting fromfuel treatments a current focus of DF fed-eral actions to broad-scale ecosystem resto-ration Stand-level harvest implications aredifficult to clarify Basically we call for cre-ating a more heterogeneous spatial patternthan in current practice while conservingold trees and removing diameter limits onharvest However some DF stands clearlyare economically marginal with viability de-pending on market conditions and millproximity (eg Adams and Latta 2005

Table 4 Elements of the DF restorationprescriptions

Retain and improve survivability of older conifersby reducing adjacent fuels and competingvegetationmdashold trees can respond positively(eg McDowell et al 2003)

Retain and protect other important structures such aslarge hardwoods snags and logs some protectivecover may be needed for cavity-bearing structuresthat are currently being used (eg North et al2009)

Reduce overall stand densities by thinning so as to(1) reduce basal areas to desired levels (2) increasemean stand diameter (3) shift composition towardfire- and drought-tolerant species and (4) providecandidates for replacement old trees

Restore spatial heterogeneity by varying the treatmentof the stand such as by leaving untreated patchescreating openings and providing for widely spacedsingle trees and tree clumps (Larson and Churchill2012)

Establish new tree cohorts of shade-intolerant speciesin openings

Treat activity fuels and begin restoring historic levelsof ground fuels and understory vegetation usingprescribed fire

Plan and implement activities at landscape levelsincorporating spatial heterogeneity (eg provisionfor denser forest patches) and restoration needs innonforest ecosystems (eg meadows and riparianhabitats)


Johnson and Franklin 2009) Mill closureseast of the Cascades have accentuated thisproblem making comprehensive restora-tion dependent on new infrastructure in-vestments Accurate assessments of feasibil-ity and timber yields from DF restorationawait empirical data from field trials such asthe projects in Oregon using our restorationstrategy (eg Brown 2012)

Integrating RestorationStrategies with Existing andEmerging Forest Policies

How well do our proposals for conserv-ing old-growth and restoring MFs and DFsinterface with existing PNW federal poli-cies Where are they consistent with existingpolicies and where are adjustments neededThree important current policies are (1) theNWFP which was adopted in 1994 for allfederal forests within the NSO range (2) in-terim management guides developed in themid-1990s for eastside national forests be-yond the NSO range (USDA Forest Service1995) and (3) new policies proposed in theNSO Recovery Plan (USDI Fish and Wild-life Service 2011) and proposed critical hab-itat for the NSO (USDI Fish and WildlifeService 2012)

Moist ForestsRetaining older forests on MF sites is

generally consistent with existing and emerg-ing policy Much late-successional forest(more than 80 years) was protected in theNWFP as late-successional reserves (LSR)and riparian reserves (Thomas et al 2007)and most of the remaining older forests onMF sites was recently recommended for re-tention in the NSO Recovery Plan (USDIFish and Wildlife Service 2012) Commer-cial thinning in plantations to increase struc-tural complexity is generally consistent withthe NWFP (USDA Forest Service and USBLM 1994) and the NSO Recovery Planand draft critical habitat rules allow for theseactions (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service2011 2012) although recent findings onthe negative impact of such thinning onsome prey species of the NSO may createnew limitations on harvest activities (Man-ning et al 2012)

However there are numerous policy is-sues that surround implementation of theregeneration harvest component of our res-toration strategy on MF sites Three provi-sions from the planning regulations imple-menting the National Forest ManagementAct (NFMA) are especially important

1 The revised NFMA planning rule callsfor national forestland to be identified asnot suitable for timber production ifldquoThere is no reasonable assurance thatsuch lands can be adequately restockedwithin 5 years after final regenerationharvestrdquo (USDA 2012 p 21266)3 Thedefinition of ldquoadequate restockingrdquo ad-opted in the Forest Service Handbook andRegional Direction would need to acceptthe concept of relating adequacy ofstocking to prescription goals such ascreation of diverse early seral ecosystemsto allow the restoration strategy de-scribed here

2 The planning rule incorporates a sus-tained yield requirement ldquoThe quantityof timber that may be sold from the na-tional forest is limited to an amountequal to or less than that which can beremoved from such forest annually inperpetuity on a sustained yield basisrdquo(USDA 2012 p 21267) The plan maydepart from this limit under certain con-ditions and after allowing public com-ment but calculation of the long-termsustained yield remains a foundationalelement in national forest planning Re-generation harvests are one major com-ponent of long-term sustained yieldThus it appears that this sustained yieldprovision will require the national for-ests to develop a long-term strategy thatincludes regeneration harvests on MFsWe do not know whether our proposedapproach to regeneration harvest will beconsidered in this strategy

3 The planning rule stipulates that ldquoTheregeneration harvest of even-aged standsof trees is limited to stands that generallyhave reached the culmination of meanannual increment of growthrdquo (USDA2012 p 21267) but exceptions are al-lowed where the primary purpose of theharvest is something other than timberproduction These exceptions are impor-tant because some stands which otherwisewould be candidates for a regenerationharvest have not reached culmination

Implementation of the regenerationharvest component on MF sites will also beaffected by the recent NSO Recovery Plan(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011) andproposed critical habitat for the NSO(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012) Ac-tive management using ecological forestryprinciples is endorsed in both documentsbut there is uncertainty about the type tim-

ing and location of allowed activities In aPresidential Memorandum (Obama 2012)released with proposed critical habitat theSecretary of Interior is directed to ldquo de-velop clear direction as part of the final rulefor evaluating logging activity in areas ofcritical habitat in accordance with the sci-entific principles of active forest manage-ment and to the extent permitted by lawrdquoThis direction will be critical to determiningthe extent to which regeneration harvestswill be allowed within critical habitat

Dry ForestsInterfacing our proposal for restoration

of DFs with existing policy is complex be-cause candidate DFs are located both insideand outside the NWFP area Within theNWFP areas LSRs included DF landscapesin eastern and southern portions of the NSOrange The NWFP allowed for harvest in DFLSRs to restore and maintain natural ecolog-ical conditions (Forest Ecosystem Manage-ment Assessment Team 1993) althoughsuch activity rarely has been undertaken inthe past (Thomas et al 2007) Hence ourDF restoration strategy is consistent with theNWFP DF restoration is explicitly encour-aged in the NSO Recovery Plan (USDI Fishand Wildlife Service 2011) in part becausepotential for large wildfires and outbreaks ofwestern spruce budworm greatly increaserisks to large contiguous blocks of multi-layered DFs (eg Courtney et al 2008Dello and Mote 2010) Still it is not clearhow this stated intent will be implementedand some owl biologists and environmental-ists currently oppose any modification ofsuitable NSO habitat litigation of this as-pect of the NSO Recovery Plan is likely

Outside the NWFP area our proposalsfor restoration of DF are largely consistentwith existing policy We do substitute reten-tion of older trees for the current interimupper diameter limit of 21 inches (seeBrown 2012) However increasingly na-tional forests have been granted exceptionsto the ldquo21 inchrdquo policy to remove largeyoung white firs that have invaded historicponderosa pinendashdominated stands

Still as with MF several policy issuesremain regarding implementation of our DFrestoration strategy

1 We call for accelerated rates of treatmenton a much broader DF land base than iscurrently proposed under fuel treatmentprograms Simulations of fuel treatmenteffects show that thinning as little as 1


of the forest per year can significantlyalter fire behavior (Finney et al 2007)Consequently goals of thinning 20 ndash30 of DFs over the next 20 years re-flect budget and personnel shortages anda singular focus on fire Unfortunatelyfuel treatments alone leave most DFsand included old trees vulnerable to firedrought and insects hence our call forboth an altered and an accelerated pro-gram

2 Our strategy calls for a network of densepatches in treated landscapes tailored tothe situation and wildlife species of in-terest a feature often not recognized inDF project implementation Howeverthere is a framework for such a networkin the new NSO Recovery Plan and pro-posed critical habitat designation Be-cause many DF stands provide suitablehabitat for NSO it is essential to com-prehensively plan the amount and spa-tial distribution of reserved dense forestpatches and conversely identify areasfor restoration treatment

3 Although commercial treatments arecentral to our DF strategy comprehen-sive restoration of DF landscapes will re-quire investments from either timbersale revenues or appropriated funds(Adams and Latta 2005 Johnson et al2008) Such investments are problem-atic in a time of shrinking federal bud-gets

4 Maintenance of restored DF conditionsafter initial mechanical treatments couldbe done with prescribed fire possiblyeliminating the potential for future tim-ber production We envision the contin-ued use of harvesting to maintain de-sired conditions in many DF standsResolution of this questionmdashcontrolledburns or harvest or bothmdashis also relatedto addressing the sustained yield clauseof the NFMA planning rule

Conclusions and ImplicationsOur experiences thus far with projects

implementing our restoration strategies in-cluding extensive interactions with stake-holder groups have been very useful in re-fining our strategy Agency personnel haveproved to be very capable of developing sil-vicultural prescriptions based on ecologicalforestry principles and implementing the re-sulting projects We view our restorationstrategy as a credible alternative to the ex-treme choices with which stakeholders arecurrently being presented of either manag-

ing federal lands for intensive wood produc-tion on the one hand or effectively preserv-ing all of it for owls on the other This doesnot mean that we do not anticipate otherchallenges will arise that need to be ad-dressedmdashseveral key issues must still be re-solved and we make the following recom-mendations to address these issues

First the lack of public trust in agencyproposals probably has been the largestsingle obstruction in moving active man-agement forward on federal forestlandsThe general absence of credible third-partyassessments has contributed significantlyto this problem We view such third-partyreview and public reporting as essential forsuccessfully undertaking a major newinnovative management program on federallands

Second given the high potential forcatastrophic resource losses in federal DFswe advocate a comprehensive 20-year pro-gram for restoring one-half to two-thirds ofPNW DF landscapes outside of wildernessand roadless areas through a combination ofcommercial and precommercial treatmentsThis will require a significant increase in theamount of commercial thinning undertaken(Johnson and Franklin 2009) The need toincrease the pace of restoration was recentlyacknowledged by the US Forest Service(USDA Forest Service 2012)

Finally resolving the MF land base onfederal lands that will ultimately be availablefor reinstituting regeneration harvests ishighly problematic both legally and sociallyThere are even questions about whether pre-viously harvested stands will be available forsuch harvests Some of them have been iden-tified as NSO critical habitat others providehabitat for other species requiring specialtreatment (Johnson and Franklin 2012)Three conclusions emerge (1) our MF strat-egy provides a pathway to a long-term sus-tained timber yield from MFs that does notcurrently exist (2) reversing the trend of theshrinking land base for timber production isa key element in determining sustainabletimber harvests and (3) developing publicunderstanding and acceptance of the ecolog-ical need for creating diverse early seral eco-systems in MF will require significant effort

Endnotes1 This article is largely based on two more

comprehensive reports (Johnson and Frank-lin 2009 2012)

2 Age limits can be criticized as being moredifficult to apply than diameter limits How-ever effective visual guides to tree age based

on external characteristics of trees have beendeveloped (Van Pelt 2008) and used (egBrown 2012) Furthermore questions typi-cally arise regarding only the subsample oftrees that appear near the threshold age Twocaveats are relevant in the use of age as thefirst screen in selecting trees for retention(1) stakeholders and agency personnel mustagree on some allowance for errors in ageestimation and (2) as noted size is importantfor many wildlife species such as cavity nest-ers and will be considered in developing sil-vicultural prescriptions

3 National forests operate under the 1982planning rule until they develop new forestplans (USDA 1982) The wording on theseprovisions is slightly different in that rulebut the intent is similar

Literature CitedADAMS DM AND GS LATTA 2005 Costs and

regional impacts of restoration thinning pro-grams on the national forests in eastern Ore-gon Can J For Res 35(6)1319ndash1330

AGEE JK 1993 Fire ecology of Pacific Northwestforests Island Press Washington DC 493 p

AGER A B FINEY B KERNS AND H MAFFEI2007 Modeling wildfire risk to northern spot-ted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) habitat inCentral Oregon USA For Ecol Manage 24645ndash56

ATZET T DL WHEELER B SMITH J FRANK-LIN G RIEGEL AND D THORNBURGH 1992Vegetation P 92ndash113 in Reforestation practicesin southwestern Oregon and northern Califor-nia Hobbs SD SD Tesch PW OwstonRE Stewart JC Tappeiner II and GEWells (eds) Oregon State Univ Forest Re-search Laboratory Corvallis OR

BAILEY JD AND JC TAPPEINER 1998 Effectsof thinning on structural development in40-to 100-year-old Douglas-fir stands in west-ern Oregon For Ecol Manage 10899ndash113

BAKER D G FERGUSON C PALMER AND

T TOLLE 2006 The Northwest Forest PlanmdashThe first ten years (1994ndash2003) Implementa-tion monitoring Summary of regional inter-agency monitoring results USDA For ServPac Northw Res Stn Portland OR 18 p

BEESE W BG DUNSWORTH K ZIELKE AND

B BANCROFT 2003 Maintaining attributesof old-growth forests in coastal BC throughvariable retention For Chron 79570ndash578

BLISS J 2000 Public perceptions of clearcuttingJ For 98(12)4ndash9

BORMANN BT RW HAYNES AND JR MAR-TIN 2007 Adaptive management of forestecosystems Did some rubber hit the roadBioscience 57(2)186ndash191

BOSWORTH D 2006 Investing in the futureEcological restoration and the US Forest Ser-vice J For 105(4)208ndash211

BUNNELL FL AND GB DUNSWORTH 2009Forestry and biodiversity Learning how to sus-tain biodiversity in managed forests UBC PressVancouver Canada 349 p

BROWN SJ 2012 The Soda Bear Project and theBlue Mountain Forest Partners US Forest Ser-


vice collaboration J For DOI 105849jof12-078

CAREY AB 2003 Biocomplexity and restora-tion of biodiversity in temperate coniferousforest Inducing spatial heterogeneity withvariable density thinning Forestry 76127ndash136

COURTNEY SP AB CAREY ML CODY ET AL2008 Scientific review of the draft northernspotted owl recovery plan Sustainable Ecosys-tems Institute Portland OR 157 p

CROCKER-BEDFORD DC 1990 Goshawk repro-duction and forest management Wildl SocBull 18262ndash269

DELLO KD AND PW MOTE (EDS) 2010Oregon climate assessment report Oregon Cli-mate Change Research Institute CorvallisOR 414 p

FINNEY M R SELI C MCHUGH A AGERB BAHRO AND J AGEE 2007 Simulation oflong-term landscape-level fuel treatment ef-fects on large wildfires Int J Wildl Fire 16712ndash727

FOREST ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT

TEAM 1993 Forest ecosystem managementAn ecological economic and social assessmentUSDA For Serv Reg 6 Portland OR

FORSMAN ED RG ANTHONY KM DUGGERET AL 2011 Population demography of northernspotted owls 1985ndash2008 Studies in AvianBiology No 40 Cooper Ornithological Soci-ety University of California Press BerkeleyCA 106 p

FRANKLIN JF AND RT FORMAN 1987 Creat-ing landscape patterns by forest cutting Eco-logical consequences and principles LandscEcol 1(1)5ndash18

FRANKLIN JF AND TA SPIES 1991 Ecologicaldefinitions of old-growth Douglas-fir forestsP 61ndash69 in Wildlife and vegetation of un-managed Douglas-fir forests Ruggiero LFKB Aubry AB Carey and MH Huff(eds) USDA For Serv Gen Tech RepPNW-GTR-285 533 p

FRANKLIN JF DR BERG DA THORNBURGHAND JC TAPPEINER 1997 Alternative silvi-cultural approaches to timber harvesting Vari-able retention harvest systems P 111ndash139 inCreating a forestry for the 21st century KohmKA and JF Franklin (eds) Island PressWashington DC

FRANKLIN JF TA SPIES R VAN PELT ET AL2002 Disturbances and structural develop-ment of natural forest ecosystem with silvicul-tural implications Using Douglas-fir forests asan example For Ecol Manage 155399ndash423

FRANKLIN JF AND R VAN PELT 2004 Spatialaspects of structural complexity in old-growthforests J For 102(3)22ndash27

FRANKLIN JF RJ MITCHELL AND BJ PALIK2007 Natural disturbance and stand develop-ment principles for ecological forestry USDAFor Serv Gen Tech Rep NRS-19 44 p

FRANKLIN JF MA HEMSTROM R VAN PELTJB BUCHANAN AND S HULL 2008 The casefor active management of dry forest types in east-ern Washington Perpetuating and creating oldforest structures and functions Washington

Department of Natural Resources OlympiaWA 97 p

GAINES WL RJ HARROD J DICKINSON ALLYONS AND K HALPUKA 2010 Integration ofnorthern spotted owl habitat and fuels treat-ments in the eastern Cascades WashingtonUSA For Ecol Manage 2602045ndash2052

GARMAN SL JH CISSEL AND JH MAYO2003 Accelerating development of late-succes-sional conditions in young managed Douglas-firstands A simulation study USDA For ServGen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-557 57 p

GREENBERG CH BS COLLINS AND FR THOMP-SON III (EDS) 2011 Sustaining young forestcommunities Ecology and management of earlysuccessional habitats in the central hardwood re-gion of the USA Springer New York 310 p

GUNDERSON LH CS HOLLING AND SS LIGHT1995 Barriers and bridges to the renewal ofecosystems and institutions Columbia Univer-sity Press New York 593 p

GUSTAFSSON L SC BAKER J BAUHUSET AL 2012 Retention forestry to maintainmultifunctional forests A world perspectiveBioScience 62633ndash645

HESSBURG P J AGEE AND JF FRANKLIN 2005Dry forests and wildland fire of the inlandNorthwest USA Contrasting the landscapeecology of the presettlement and modern eraFor Ecol Manage 211117ndash139

HESSBURG PF KM JAMES AND RB SALTER2007 Re-examining fire severity relations inpre-management era mixed conifer forestsInferences from landscape patterns of foreststructure Landsc Ecol 22(1)5ndash24

HOBBS RJ LM HALLETT PR EHRLICH AND

HJ MOONEY 2011 Intervention ecologyApplying ecological science in the twenty-firstcentury Bioscience 61442ndash450

JOHNSON KN JF FRANKLIN AND DL JOHN-SON 2008 A plan for the Klamath Tribesrsquo man-agement of the Klamath Reservation ForestRep to the Klamath Tribes Available on-line at wwwklamathtribesorginformationbackgrounddocumentsKlamath_Plan_Final_May_2008pdf last accessed Apr 21 2011

JOHNSON KN AND JF FRANKLIN 2009 Resto-ration of the federal forests of the Pacific North-west Available online at wwwcoforsteducoffsPDFsJohnsonRestoration_Aug15_2009pdf last accessed Apr 20 2012

JOHNSON KN AND JF FRANKLIN 2012 South-west Oregon secretarial pilot projects on BLMlands Our experience so far and broader consid-erations for long-term plans Available online atwwwcoforsteducoffsPDFsBLM_report_feb15_Johnsonpdf last accessed Apr 202012

KOLB TE JK AGEE PZ FULE NG MC-DOWELL K PEARSON A SALA AND RHWARING 2007 Perpetuating old ponderosapine For Ecol Manage 249141ndash157

LARSON AJ AND D CHURCHILL 2012 Treespatial patterns in fire-frequent forests of west-ern North America including mechanisms ofpattern formation and implications for design-ing fuel reduction and restoration treatmentsFor Ecol Manage 26774ndash92

LINDENMAYER DB AND JF FRANKLIN 2002Conserving forest biodiversity Island PressWashington DC 351 p

LINDENMAYER DB JF FRANKLIN ET AL 2012A major shift to the retention approach forforestry can help resolve some global forestsustainability issues Conserv Lett DOI101111j1755-263X 201200257

LONG JN 2009 Emulating natural disturbanceregimes as a basis for forest management ANorth American view For Ecol Manage 2571868ndash1873

MANNING T JC HAGAR AND BC MCCOMB2012 Thinning of young Douglas-fir forestsdecreases density of northern flying squirrels inthe Oregon Cascades For Ecol Manage 264115ndash124

MCDOWELL N JR BROOKS SA FITZGERALDAND BJ BOND 2003 Carbon isotope dis-crimination and growth response of old Pinusponderosa trees to stand density reductionsPlan Cell Environ 26631ndash644

MCKINLEY G AND D FRANK 1996 Stories onthe land An environmental history of the Apple-gate and Illinois Valleys USDI Bureau of LandManagement Medford District Office Med-ford OR 247 p

MICHEL AK AND S WINTER 2009 Tree mi-crohabitat structures as indicators of biodiver-sity in Douglas-fir forests of different standages and management histories in the PacificNorthwest USA For Ecol Manage 2571453ndash1464

MUNGER TT 1917 Western yellow pine in Ore-gon USDA Bull 418 Washington DC 48 p

NORTH MP AND WS KEETON 2008 Emu-lating natural disturbance regimes an emerg-ing approach for sustainable forest manage-ment P 341ndash372 in Patterns and processesin forest landscapesmdashMultiple use and sustain-able management Lafortezza R J ChenG Sanesi and TR Crow (eds) SpringerThe Netherlands

NORTH M P STINE K OrsquoHARA ET AL 2009An ecosystem management strategy for Sierranmixed-conifer forests USDA For Serv GenTech Rep PSW-GTR-220 Pac SouthwRes Stn Albany CA 49 p

NOSS R J FRANKLIN W BAKER AND T SCHOEN-NAGEL 2006 Managing fire-prone forests inthe western United States Front Ecol Envi-ron 4(9)481ndash487

OBAMA B 2012 Proposed revised habitat for thespotted owl Minimizing regulatory burdensMem for the Secretary of the Interior TheWhite House Washington DC Available on-lineatwwwwhitehousegovthe-press-office20120228presidential-memorandum-proposed-revised-habitat-spotted-owl-minimizing- lastaccessed May 2 2012

PERRY DA P HESSBURG C SKINNER TA SPIESSL STEPHENS AH TAYLOR JF FRANKLINB MCCOMB AND G RIEGEL 2011 The ecol-ogy of mixed severity fire regimes in Washing-ton Oregon and northern California ForEcol Manage 262703ndash717

REILLY E 2012 The Pilot Joe ProjectmdashDry for-est restoration in southwestern Oregon J ForDOI 105849jof12-081


ROBBINS W 2009 Landscapes of promise TheOregon story 1800ndash1940 University of Wash-ington Press Seattle WA 416 p

SEYMOUR R AND M HUNTER 1999 Principlesof ecological forestry P 22ndash64 in Managingbiodiversity in forested ecosystems HunterM (ed) Cambridge University Press Cam-bridge UK

SHINDLER B AND AL MALLON 2009 Publicacceptance of disturbance-based forest manage-ment A study of the Blue River landscape strategyin the Central Cascades Adaptive ManagementArea USDA For Serv Res Pap PNW-RP-581 Pac Northw Res Stn Portland OR42 p

SPIES TA 2009 Science of old growth or a jour-ney into wonderland P 31ndash43 in Old growthin a new world A Pacific Northwest icon reex-amined Spies TA and SL Duncan (eds)Island Press Washington DC 326 p

SPIES T M HEMSTROM A YOUNGBLOOD AND

S HUMMEL 2006 Conserving old growth for-est diversity in disturbance-prone landscapesConserv Biol 20(2)356ndash362

SPIES TA K JOHNSON K BURNETT JL OH-MANN BC MCCOMB GH REEVES P BET-TINGER JD KLINE AND B GARBER-YONTS2007 Cumulative ecological and socioeco-nomic effects of forest policies in coastal Ore-gon Ecol Applic 88(1)5ndash17

SPIES TA SL DUNCAN KN JOHNSON FJSWANSON AND D LACH 2009 Conservingold growth in a new world P 313ndash326 in Oldgrowth in a new world A Pacific Northwest iconreexamined Spies TA and SL Duncan(eds) Island Press Washington DC 326 p

SPIES TA TW GIESEN FJ SWANSON JFFRANKLIN D LACH AND KN JOHNSON2010 Climate change adaption strategies forfederal forests of the Pacific Northwest USAEcological policy and socio-economic perspec-tives Landsc Ecol 251185ndash1199

STANKEY GH BT BORMANN C RYANB SHINDLER V STURTEVANT RN CLARKAND C PHILPOT 2003 Adaptive management

and the Northwest Forest Plan Rhetoric andreality J For 10140ndash46

SWANSON M JF FRANKLIN RL BESCHTACM CRISAFULLI DA DELLASALA RLHUTTO DB LINDEMAYER AND FJ SWAN-SON 2011 The forgotten stage of forest suc-cession Early-successional ecosystems on for-est sites Front Ecol Environ 9117ndash125

THOMAS JW JF FRANKLIN J GORDON AND

KN JOHNSON 2007 The Northwest ForestPlan Origins components implementationexperience and suggestions for change Con-serv Biol 20277ndash287

TOMAN E M STIDHAM B SHINDLER AND

S MCCAFFREY 2011 Reducing fuels in thewildlandndashurban interface Community per-ceptions of agency fuels treatments Int JWildl Fire 20(3)340ndash349

US BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM)2012 Secretary Salazar proposes expansion ofecological forestry in western Oregon to providesustainable timber healthier habitat Availableonline at wwwblmgovornewsfiles2]22-12_Oregon_Forestry_Releasepdf last ac-cessed Mar 21 2012

USDA 1982 36 CFR Part 219 National forestsystem land and resource management plan-ning Fed Regist 4743037ndash43061

USDA 2012 36 CFR Part 219 National forestsystem land management planning Fed Reg-ist 77(68)21162ndash21276

USDA FOREST SERVICE 1995 Interim manage-ment direction establishing riparian ecosystemand wildlife standards for timber sales (revised)Regional foresterrsquos forest plan amendment no 2Available online at wwwfsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb5314617pdflast accessed Apr 20 2012

USDA FOREST SERVICE 2012 Increasing thepace of restoration and job creation on our na-tional forests Available online at wwwfsfeduspublicationsrestorationrestorationpdf last ac-cessed May 3 2012

USDA FOREST SERVICE AND US BUREAU OF

LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM) 1994 Record of

decision for amendments for Forest Service andBureau of Land Management planning docu-ments within the range of the northern spottedowl USDA For Serv Region Portland OR74 p (plus Attachment A Standards andguidelines)

USDI FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 2011 Revisedrecovery plan for the northern spotted owl(Strix occidentalis caurina) USDI Fish andWildlife Service Portland OR 258 p

USDI FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 2012 Endan-gered and threatened wildlife and plants re-vised critical habitat for the Northern SpottedOwl Fed Regist 77(46)14062ndash14165

VAN PELT R 2008 Identifying old trees and forestsin eastern Washington Washington State De-partment of Natural Resources OlympiaWA 166 p

VAN PELT R AND SC SILLETT 2008 Crowndevelopment of coastal Pseudotsuga menziesiiincluding a conceptual model for tall conifersEcol Monogr 78283ndash311

VILSACK T 2009 Vision for the forest service Re-marks as prepared for delivery Seattle Washing-tonmdashAugust 14 2009 Available online at wwwfsfedusvideotidwellvilsackpdf last ac-cessed Apr 21 2011

WHEELER A 2012 Roseburg District secretarialpilot project My experience J For DOI105849jof12-076

WILSON DS AND KJ PUETTMANN 2007Density management and biodiversity inyoung Douglas-fir forests Challenges of man-aging across scales For Ecol Manage 246123ndash134

WIMBERLY M 2002 Spatial simulation of his-torical landscape patterns in coastal forests ofthe Pacific Northwest Can J For Res 321316ndash1328

YOUNGBLOOD A T MAX AND K COE 2004Stand structure in east-side old-growth pon-derosa pine forests of Oregon and northernCalifornia For Ecol Manage 99(213)191ndash217

CASE STUDY J For 110(8)439ndash441httpdxdoiorg105849jof12-076

Roseburg District Pilot Project

Abe Wheeler

F or the past 20 years the US Department of the Interior(USDI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Oregon andCalifornia Railroad (OampC) lands of western Oregon have

been the focus of intense debate The OampC Lands Act of 1937 andthe Endangered Species Act of 1973 have driven discussions regard-

ing these lands since the northern spotted owlrsquos listing in 1990 In anattempt to balance seemingly opposed interests the Northwest For-est Plan was developed in 1994 Litigation within the courts hasprevented a full implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan Forexample much of the planrsquos predicted sustained yield volume wassupposed to have come from regeneration harvest in ldquoold-growthrdquoforests The recent status quo has been a thinning-only approach

Received August 27 2012 accepted September 3 2012 published online October 25 2012

Affiliations Abe Wheeler (a2wheeleblmgov) is OampC forester Roseburg District of the US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management 777 NWGarden Valley Boulevard Roseburg OR 97471


Figure 1 Distribution of federal forestlands in the PNW showing locations of projectsdemonstrating the restoration principles discussed in this article (D Johnson ApplegateForestry provided this figure)

ecosystem restoration must be overcomeeven though the general concept enjoys widepublic support (Shindler and Mallon 2009)

A Strategic RestorationFramework

We begin with the following definitionprovided by the US Forest Service (USDA2012 p 21272) in its new planning rule

[Restoration is] the process of assisting therecovery of an ecosystem that has been de-graded damaged or destroyed Ecologicalrestoration focuses on reestablishing thecomposition structure pattern and eco-

logical processes necessary to facilitate ter-restrial and aquatic ecosystems sustainabil-ity resilience and health under current andfuture conditions

In applying this definition we emphasizeseveral elements First restoration shouldfocus on entire ecosystems rather than indi-vidual attributes such as fuels Programswith singular resource objectives generallymarginalize other important values (egGunderson et al 1995) resulting in less re-silient ecosystems and communities Focus-ing broadly on restoring ecosystems serves awider range of natural resource and stake-

holder interests Second restoration shouldcenter on restoring resilience and function-ality in the context of desired future con-ditions even while learning from the pastAttempting to return landscapes to a givenhistorical state is unlikely to create either re-silience under current and future conditionsor socially desirable outcomes (Hobbs et al2011) Third restoration efforts shouldprioritize the most degraded environmentsBy ldquodegradedrdquo we mean eg ecosystemswhere human activities have increased therisk of catastrophic disturbances or createdextensive landscapes deficient in importantsuccessional stages such as early seral andold-growth ecosystems Finally any com-prehensive restoration effort must recognizedifferences among ecosystems and set treat-ment goals accordinglymdasha one-size-fits-allapproach will almost certainly fail Hencewe divide PNW federal forestlands intoldquomoist forestsrdquo (MF) and ldquodry forestsrdquo (DF)because these contrasting environments re-quire fundamentally different policies andpractices including approaches to old-growth conservation

Defining MFs and DFsThe DF and MF classification of feder-

ally controlled forests with which we begin isa more appropriate ecological stratificationthan the traditional categorization of PNWforests as ldquowestsiderdquo and ldquoeastsiderdquo Ratherthan using geography we used scientificallydefined plant associations to assign forestsites to their respective DF and MF catego-ries (Table 1) with both conditions occur-ring on both sides of the Cascade RangeThese plant associations reflect distinctivecompositions growth conditions and his-torical disturbance regimes (eg Atzet et al1992) such as broad gradients in fire behav-ior in PNW forests that reflect variability inboth site and landscape conditions Anotheradvantage to plant associations is that theyare readily identifiable in the field by trainedresource professionals

MF and DF sites have contrasting his-toric disturbance regimes Historically MFsgenerally experienced large infrequent (in-tervals of one to several centuries) wildfireswhich included extensive areas where fire se-verity resulted in stand-replacement condi-tions (Agee 1993) DF sites experienced pre-dominantly low- and mixed-severity firebehaviors at frequent (eg 5ndash35 year) inter-vals (Agee 1993 Perry et al 2011) Someplant associations currently straddle theboundary between MF and DF stratifica-



















































































































































































































Abe Wheeler
























































































































































































































Abe Wheeler







a restoration framework for federal forests in the …...a restoration framework for federal forests...

Documents