Society of Journal of American Foresters FORESTRYfes.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/fes.forestry... · 2014-02-03 · Southwestern Oregon Case Study: The Soda Bear Project ... and

This Issue:Community Wildfire ProtectionPlanning: The Importance ofFraming, Scale, and BuildingSustainable Capacity

How Can We Span theBoundaries betweenWildland Fire Science andManagement in theUnited States?

A Restoration Frameworkfor Federal Forestsin the Pacific Northwest

Case Study: Roseburg DistrictPilot Project

Case Study: The Pilot Joe Project:Dry Forest Restoration inSouthwestern Oregon

Case Study: The Soda Bear Projectand the Blue Mountains ForestPartners/USDA Forest ServiceCollaboration

Quantifying Uncertaintyin Forest Nutrient Budgets

Proceedings of the 2012 Societyof American Foresters NationalConvention

Moist Forests, Dry ForestsFor details, see A Restoration Framework for Federal Forests in the Pacific Northwest

Phot

osby

Jerr

yF.

Fran

klin

Journal of

FORESTRYDecember 2012 Volume 110, Number 8

www.jofonline.org

Society of American Foresters

policy

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 implications.Implementation 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 InteriorSecretary of Interior on the potential ofdeveloping management strategies in thePacific Northwest (PNW) that integrateold-growth protection with other ecologicaland economic benefits on federal lands.1 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 lands,as suggested here, represents more than anacademic exerciseit has become a socio-political reality. In fact, comprehensive eco-logical restoration is becoming the founda-tion of federal land management across thenation (e.g., 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 2012,the 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 5,000 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 ecology.However, 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 ([email protected]) is professor, School of Environmental and Forest Science, College of the Environment, University of Washington,Seattle, WA 98195. K. Norman Johnson ([email protected]) is professor, Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, College of Forestry, Oregon 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.

PRACTICE OF FORESTRY

Journal of Forestry December 2012 429

J. For. 110(8):429439http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/jof.10-006

Copyright 2012 Society of American Foresters

ecosystem restoration must be overcome,even 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 (e.g.,Gunderson 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 past.Attempting to return landscapes to a givenhistorical state is unlikely to create either re-silience under current and future conditionsor socially desirable outcomes (Hobbs et al.2011). Third, restoration efforts shouldprioritize the most degraded environments.By degraded we mean, e.g., 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 accordinglya one-size-fits-allapproach will almost certainly fail. Hence,we divide PNW federal forestlands intomoist forests (MF) and dry forests (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 westside and eastside. 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 Range.These plant associations reflect distinctivecompositions, growth conditions, and his-torical disturbance regimes (e.g., Atzet et al.1992), 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) wildfires,which 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 (e.g., 535 year) inter-vals (Agee 1993, Perry et al. 2011). Someplant associations currently straddle theboundary between MF and DF stratifica-

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.)

430 Journal of Forestry December 2012

tion, but climate change is expected to in-creasingly shift these associations toward DFstatus with projected increases in wildfirefrequency (e.g., 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, young,mature, and old stages (Franklin et al. 2002;Figure 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 forestsi.e., 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 biodiversity.Late-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 (e.g., 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. 2011,Swanson et al. 2011). Theoretically, distur-bances of either natural (e.g., wildfire) or hu-man (e.g., 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 al.2011), 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 (e.g., live trees, snags,and 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 organisms,which 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 (e.g.,Noss 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 al.2004, Spies et al. 2006, Kolb et al. 2007,Johnson 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 (e.g.,Hessburg et al. 2005, 2007).

Composition and structure of existingDF landscapes have been dramatically al-tered by decades of fire suppression, grazingby domestic livestock, timber harvesting,and plantation establishment (Noss et al.2006) 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 (e.g., Hessberg et al. 2005, Noss et al.2006). 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 onecological forestry concepts, which incor-porate principles of natural forest develop-ment, including the role of natural dis-turbances in the initiation, development,and 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. 1997,Gustafsson 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 al.2007, Spies et al. 2009). Although it seemsstraightforward, classifying trees or stands asold is not a simple task. The age at whichforests are deemed older 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 diversityof plant life forms. (B) Young forest ecosystem dominated by Douglas-fir with high stem densities and a closed forest canopy. (C) Matureforest ecosystem dominated by Douglas-fir, which is undergoing reestablishment of the understory community, including regeneration ofshade-tolerant tree associates. (D) Old forest ecosystem dominated by mixture of tree species, including Douglas-fir and western hemlock,with a diverse and spatially variable understory of cryptogams, ferns, herbs, shrubs, and small trees.


preserved from timber harvest. Age limitscan also vary based on ecological thresholds,management objectives, and ease of imple-mentation. For example, in a prior analysiswe have used 80, 120, and 160 years to iden-tify older 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 thansizei.e., we use an age limit rather than adiameter limit.2 Diameter limits can resultin undesirable outcomes in DF restoration,such 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 competition,thereby 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 (e.g., 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 habitat,resistance to fire and drought, and geneticreservoirs, and require centuries to replace.

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 (e.g.,100160 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 clearcuts,variable retention harvests incorporate sig-nificant elements of the preharvest stand

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)

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(e.g., 100160 yr)


through the next rotation, including un-disturbed forest patches and individual liveand dead trees, to enrich the biodiversity,ecological processes, and structural diversityof the postharvest stand (Franklin et al.1997, 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 al.2011), (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).

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 (e.g., Ager et al. 2007, Gaines et al.2010, 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 conditions,and 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. Currently,both 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. 2008,Franklin 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

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 aggregates, which include a diversity of structures (e.g., 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.)


because (1) trees in DFs generally begin ex-hibiting some old-growth characteristics bythis age and (2) significant Euro-Americaninfluences were underway by 1860, e.g., 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 levels.Additionally, 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 treatment.However, 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 goals.Untreated 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 inevitable,butbecause the surrounding restoredmatrix still is populated with older, largertreessuitable 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 al.2007), 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 (e.g.,silvicultural 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 (e.g., Franklin and Forman 1987,Forest 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 (i.e., partial cutting)in DFs.

Our MF strategy adds regeneration har-vests in younger stands to current thinning.The 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 (e.g., Adams and Latta 2005,

Table 4. Elements of the DF restorationprescriptions.

Retain and improve survivability of older conifersby reducing adjacent fuels and competingvegetationold trees can respond positively(e.g., 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 (e.g., North et al.2009)

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 patches,creating 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 levels,incorporating spatial heterogeneity (e.g., provisionfor denser forest patches) and restoration needs innonforest ecosystems (e.g., 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 (e.g., 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 needed?Three 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 ifThere is no reasonable assurance thatsuch lands can be adequately restockedwithin 5 years after final regenerationharvest (USDA 2012, p. 21266).3 Thedefinition of adequate restocking 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 ecosystems,to allow the restoration strategy de-scribed here.

2. The planning rule incorporates a sus-tained yield requirement: The 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 basis(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 yield.Thus, it appears that this sustained yieldprovision will require the national for-ests to develop a long-term strategy thatincludes regeneration harvests on MFs.We do not know whether our proposedapproach to regeneration harvest will beconsidered in this strategy.

3. The planning rule stipulates that Theregeneration harvest of even-aged standsof trees is limited to stands that generallyhave reached the culmination of meanannual increment of growth (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 . . . de-velop clear direction, as part of the final rule,for 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 law.This 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 (e.g., Courtney et al. 2008,Dello 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 21 inch policy to remove large,young white firs that have invaded historicponderosa pinedominated 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 30% of DFs over the next 20 years re-flect budget and personnel shortages anda singular focus on fire. Unfortunately,fuel treatments alone leave most DFsand included old trees vulnerable to fire,drought, 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. However,there 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 al.2008). 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 stands.Resolution of this questioncontrolledburns or harvest or bothis 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-dressedseveral 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 forestlands.The 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 DFs,we 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 treatments.This 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 socially.There 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 (e.g.,Brown 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 rule,but the intent is similar.

Literature CitedADAMS, D.M., AND G.S. 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):13191330.

AGEE, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwestforests. Island Press, Washington, DC. 493 p.

AGER, A., B. FINEY, B. KERNS, AND H. MAFFEI.2007. Modeling wildfire risk to northern spot-ted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) habitat inCentral Oregon, USA. For. Ecol. Manage. 246:4556.

ATZET, T., D.L. WHEELER, B. SMITH, J. FRANK-LIN, G. RIEGEL, AND D. THORNBURGH. 1992.Vegetation. P. 92113 in Reforestation practicesin southwestern Oregon and northern Califor-nia, Hobbs, S.D., S.D. Tesch, P.W. Owston,R.E. Stewart, J.C. Tappeiner II, and G.E.Wells (eds.). Oregon State Univ. Forest Re-search Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.

BAILEY, J.D., AND J.C. TAPPEINER. 1998. Effectsof thinning on structural development in40-to 100-year-old Douglas-fir stands in west-ern Oregon. For. Ecol. Manage. 108:99113.

BAKER, D., G. FERGUSON, C. PALMER, ANDT. TOLLE. 2006. The Northwest Forest PlanThe first ten years (19942003). Implementa-tion monitoring: Summary of regional inter-agency monitoring results. USDA For. Serv.,Pac. Northw. Res. Stn., Portland, OR. 18 p.

BEESE, W., B.G. DUNSWORTH, K. ZIELKE, ANDB. BANCROFT. 2003. Maintaining attributesof old-growth forests in coastal B.C. throughvariable retention. For. Chron. 79:570578.

BLISS, J. 2000. Public perceptions of clearcutting.J. For. 98(12):49.

BORMANN, B.T., R.W. HAYNES, AND J.R. MAR-TIN. 2007. Adaptive management of forestecosystems: Did some rubber hit the road.Bioscience 57(2):186191.

BOSWORTH, D. 2006. Investing in the future:Ecological restoration and the US Forest Ser-vice. J. For. 105(4):208211.

BUNNELL, F.L., AND G.B. DUNSWORTH. 2009.Forestry and biodiversity: Learning how to sus-tain biodiversity in managed forests. UBC Press,Vancouver, Canada. 349 p.

BROWN, S.J. 2012. The Soda Bear Project and theBlue Mountain Forest Partners: US Forest Ser-


vice collaboration. J. For. DOI: 10.5849/jof.12-078.

CAREY, A.B. 2003. Biocomplexity and restora-tion of biodiversity in temperate coniferousforest: Inducing spatial heterogeneity withvariable density thinning. Forestry 76:127136.

COURTNEY, S.P., A.B. CAREY, M.L. CODY, ET AL.2008. Scientific review of the draft northernspotted owl recovery plan. Sustainable Ecosys-tems Institute, Portland, OR. 157 p.

CROCKER-BEDFORD, D.C. 1990. Goshawk repro-duction and forest management. Wildl. Soc.Bull. 18:262269.

DELLO, K.D., AND P.W. MOTE (EDS.). 2010.Oregon climate assessment report. Oregon Cli-mate Change Research Institute, Corvallis,OR. 414 p.

FINNEY, M., R. SELI, C. MCHUGH, A. AGER,B. BAHRO, AND J. AGEE. 2007. Simulation oflong-term landscape-level fuel treatment ef-fects on large wildfires. Int. J. Wildl. Fire. 16:712727.

FOREST ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENTTEAM. 1993. Forest ecosystem management:An ecological, economic, and social assessment.USDA For. Serv. Reg. 6, Portland, OR.

FORSMAN, E.D., R.G. ANTHONY, K.M. DUGGER,ET AL. 2011. Population demography of northernspotted owls: 19852008. Studies in AvianBiology, No. 40, Cooper Ornithological Soci-ety, University of California Press, Berkeley,CA. 106 p.

FRANKLIN, J.F., AND R.T. FORMAN. 1987. Creat-ing landscape patterns by forest cutting: Eco-logical consequences and principles. Landsc.Ecol. 1(1):518.

FRANKLIN, J.F., AND T.A. SPIES. 1991. Ecologicaldefinitions of old-growth Douglas-fir forests.P. 6169 in Wildlife and vegetation of un-managed Douglas-fir forests, Ruggiero, L.F.,K.B. Aubry, A.B. Carey, and M.H. Huff(eds.). USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech Rep.PNW-GTR-285. 533 p.

FRANKLIN, J.F., D.R. BERG, D.A. THORNBURGH,AND J.C. TAPPEINER. 1997. Alternative silvi-cultural approaches to timber harvesting: Vari-able retention harvest systems. P. 111139 inCreating a forestry for the 21st century, Kohm,K.A., and J.F. Franklin (eds.). Island Press,Washington, DC.

FRANKLIN, J.F., T.A. SPIES, R. VAN PELT, ET AL.2002. Disturbances and structural develop-ment of natural forest ecosystem with silvicul-tural implications: Using Douglas-fir forests asan example. For. Ecol. Manage. 155:399423.

FRANKLIN, J.F., AND R. VAN PELT. 2004. Spatialaspects of structural complexity in old-growthforests. J. For. 102(3):2227.

FRANKLIN, J.F., R.J. MITCHELL, AND B.J. PALIK.2007. Natural disturbance and stand develop-ment principles for ecological forestry. USDAFor. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-19. 44 p.

FRANKLIN, J.F., M.A. HEMSTROM, R. VAN PELT,J.B. 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, Olympia,WA. 97 p.

GAINES, W.L., R.J. HARROD, J. DICKINSON, A.L.LYONS, AND K. HALPUKA. 2010. Integration ofnorthern spotted owl habitat and fuels treat-ments in the eastern Cascades, Washington,USA. For. Ecol. Manage. 260:20452052.

GARMAN, S.L., J.H. CISSEL, AND J.H. MAYO.2003. Accelerating development of late-succes-sional conditions in young managed Douglas-firstands: A simulation study. USDA For. Serv.Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-557. 57 p.

GREENBERG, C.H., B.S. COLLINS, AND F.R. 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, L.H., C.S. HOLLING, AND S.S. LIGHT.1995. Barriers and bridges to the renewal ofecosystems and institutions. Columbia Univer-sity Press, New York. 593 p.

GUSTAFSSON, L., S.C. BAKER, J. BAUHUS,ET AL. 2012. Retention forestry to maintainmultifunctional forests: A world perspective.BioScience 62:633645.

HESSBURG, P., J. AGEE, AND J.F. FRANKLIN. 2005.Dry forests and wildland fire of the inlandNorthwest USA: Contrasting the landscapeecology of the presettlement and modern era.For. Ecol. Manage. 211:117139.

HESSBURG, P.F., K.M. JAMES, AND R.B. SALTER.2007. Re-examining fire severity relations inpre-management era mixed conifer forests:Inferences from landscape patterns of foreststructure. Landsc. Ecol. 22(1):524.

HOBBS, R.J., L.M. HALLETT, P.R. EHRLICH, ANDH.J. MOONEY. 2011. Intervention ecology:Applying ecological science in the twenty-firstcentury. Bioscience 61:442450.

JOHNSON, K.N., J.F. FRANKLIN, AND D.L. JOHN-SON. 2008. A plan for the Klamath Tribes man-agement of the Klamath Reservation Forest.Rep. to the Klamath Tribes. Available on-line at www.klamathtribes.org/information/background/documents/Klamath_Plan_Final_May_2008.pdf; last accessed Apr. 21, 2011.

JOHNSON, K.N., AND J.F. FRANKLIN. 2009. Resto-ration of the federal forests of the Pacific North-west. Available online at www.cof.orst.edu/cof/fs/PDFs/JohnsonRestoration_Aug15_2009.pdf; last accessed Apr. 20, 2012.

JOHNSON, K.N., AND J.F. FRANKLIN. 2012. South-west Oregon secretarial pilot projects on BLMlands: Our experience so far and broader consid-erations for long-term plans. Available online atwww.cof.orst.edu/cof/fs/PDFs/BLM_report_feb15_Johnson.pdf; last accessed Apr. 20,2012.

KOLB, T.E., J.K. AGEE, P.Z. FULE, N.G. MC-DOWELL, K. PEARSON, A. SALA, AND R.H.WARING. 2007. Perpetuating old ponderosapine. For. Ecol. Manage. 249:141157.

LARSON, A.J., 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 treatments.For. Ecol. Manage. 267:7492.

LINDENMAYER, D.B., AND J.F. FRANKLIN. 2002.Conserving forest biodiversity. Island Press,Washington, DC. 351 p.

LINDENMAYER, D.B., J.F. FRANKLIN, ET AL. 2012.A major shift to the retention approach forforestry can help resolve some global forestsustainability issues. Conserv. Lett. DOI:10.1111/j.1755-263X. 2012.00257.

LONG, J.N. 2009. Emulating natural disturbanceregimes as a basis for forest management: ANorth American view. For. Ecol. Manage. 257:18681873.

MANNING, T., J.C. HAGAR, AND B.C. MCCOMB.2012. Thinning of young Douglas-fir forestsdecreases density of northern flying squirrels inthe Oregon Cascades. For. Ecol. Manage. 264:115124.

MCDOWELL, N., J.R. BROOKS, S.A. FITZGERALD,AND B.J. BOND. 2003. Carbon isotope dis-crimination and growth response of old Pinusponderosa trees to stand density reductions.Plan, Cell Environ. 26:631644.

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, A.K., 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. 257:14531464.

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

NORTH, M.P., AND W.S. KEETON. 2008. Emu-lating natural disturbance regimes: an emerg-ing approach for sustainable forest manage-ment. P. 341372 in Patterns and processesin forest landscapesMultiple use and sustain-able management, Lafortezza, R., J. Chen,G. Sanesi, and T.R. Crow (eds.). Springer,The Netherlands.

NORTH, M., P. STINE, K. OHARA, ET AL. 2009.An ecosystem management strategy for Sierranmixed-conifer forests. USDA For. Serv. Gen.Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-220, Pac. Southw.Res. 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):481487.

OBAMA, B. 2012. Proposed revised habitat for thespotted owl: Minimizing regulatory burdens.Mem. for the Secretary of the Interior, TheWhite House, Washington, DC. Available on-lineatwww.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/28/presidential-memorandum-proposed-revised-habitat-spotted-owl-minimizing-; lastaccessed May 2, 2012.

PERRY, D.A., P. HESSBURG, C. SKINNER, T.A. SPIES,S.L. STEPHENS, A.H. TAYLOR, J.F. FRANKLIN,B. MCCOMB, AND G. RIEGEL. 2011. The ecol-ogy of mixed severity fire regimes in Washing-ton, Oregon, and northern California. For.Ecol. Manage. 262:703717.

REILLY, E. 2012. The Pilot Joe ProjectDry for-est restoration in southwestern Oregon. J. For.DOI: 10.5849/jof.12-081.


www.klamathtribes.org/information/background/documents/Klamath_Plan_Final_May_2008.pdfwww.klamathtribes.org/information/background/documents/Klamath_Plan_Final_May_2008.pdfwww.klamathtribes.org/information/background/documents/Klamath_Plan_Final_May_2008.pdfwww.cof.orst.edu/cof/fs/PDFs/JohnsonRestoration_Aug15_2009.pdfwww.cof.orst.edu/cof/fs/PDFs/JohnsonRestoration_Aug15_2009.pdfwww.cof.orst.edu/cof/fs/PDFs/JohnsonRestoration_Aug15_2009.pdfwww.cof.orst.edu/cof/fs/PDFs/BLM_report_feb15_Johnson.pdfwww.cof.orst.edu/cof/fs/PDFs/BLM_report_feb15_Johnson.pdfwww.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/28/presidential-memorandum-proposed-revised-habitat-spotted-owl-minimizing-www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/28/presidential-memorandum-proposed-revised-habitat-spotted-owl-minimizing-www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/28/presidential-memorandum-proposed-revised-habitat-spotted-owl-minimizing-

ROBBINS, W. 2009. Landscapes of promise: TheOregon story, 18001940. University of Wash-ington Press, Seattle, WA. 416 p.

SEYMOUR, R., AND M. HUNTER. 1999. Principlesof ecological forestry. P. 2264 in Managingbiodiversity in forested ecosystems, Hunter,M. (ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge, UK.

SHINDLER, B., AND A.L. 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, OR.42 p.

SPIES, T.A. 2009. Science of old growth, or a jour-ney into wonderland. P. 3143 in Old growthin a new world: A Pacific Northwest icon reex-amined. Spies, T.A., and S.L. Duncan (eds.).Island Press, Washington, DC. 326 p.

SPIES, T., M. HEMSTROM, A. YOUNGBLOOD, ANDS. HUMMEL. 2006. Conserving old growth for-est diversity in disturbance-prone landscapes.Conserv. Biol. 20(2):356362.

SPIES, T.A., K. JOHNSON, K. BURNETT, J.L. OH-MANN, B.C. MCCOMB, G.H. REEVES, P. BET-TINGER, J.D. KLINE, AND B. GARBER-YONTS.2007. Cumulative ecological and socioeco-nomic effects of forest policies in coastal Ore-gon. Ecol. Applic. 88(1):517.

SPIES, T.A., S.L. DUNCAN, K.N. JOHNSON, F.J.SWANSON, AND D. LACH. 2009. Conservingold growth in a new world. P. 313326 in Oldgrowth in a new world: A Pacific Northwest iconreexamined, Spies, T.A., and S.L. Duncan(eds.). Island Press, Washington, DC. 326 p.

SPIES, T.A., T.W. GIESEN, F.J. SWANSON, J.F.FRANKLIN, D. LACH, AND K.N. JOHNSON.2010. Climate change adaption strategies forfederal forests of the Pacific Northwest, USA:Ecological policy and socio-economic perspec-tives. Landsc. Ecol. 25:11851199.

STANKEY, G.H., B.T. BORMANN, C. RYAN,B. SHINDLER, V. STURTEVANT, R.N. CLARK,AND C. PHILPOT. 2003. Adaptive management

and the Northwest Forest Plan: Rhetoric andreality. J. For. 101:4046.

SWANSON, M., J.F. FRANKLIN, R.L. BESCHTA,C.M. CRISAFULLI, D.A. DELLASALA, R.L.HUTTO, D.B. LINDEMAYER, AND F.J. SWAN-SON. 2011. The forgotten stage of forest suc-cession: Early-successional ecosystems on for-est sites. Front. Ecol. Environ. 9:117125.

THOMAS, J.W., J.F. FRANKLIN, J. GORDON, ANDK.N. JOHNSON. 2007. The Northwest ForestPlan: Origins, components, implementationexperience, and suggestions for change. Con-serv. Biol. 20:277287.

TOMAN, E., M. STIDHAM, B. SHINDLER, ANDS. MCCAFFREY. 2011. Reducing fuels in thewildlandurban interface: Community per-ceptions of agency fuels treatments. Int. J.Wildl. Fire 20(3):340349.

US BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM).2012. Secretary Salazar proposes expansion ofecological forestry in western Oregon to providesustainable timber, healthier habitat. Availableonline at www.blm.gov/or/news/files/2]22-12_Oregon_Forestry_Release.pdf; last ac-cessed Mar. 21, 2012.

USDA. 1982. 36 CFR Part 219. National forestsystem land and resource management plan-ning, Fed. Regist. 47:4303743061.

USDA. 2012. 36 CFR Part 219. National forestsystem land management planning. Fed. Reg-ist. 77(68):2116221276.

USDA FOREST SERVICE. 1995. Interim manage-ment direction establishing riparian, ecosystem,and wildlife standards for timber sales (revised).Regional foresters forest plan amendment no. 2.Available online at www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5314617.pdf;last accessed Apr. 20, 2012.

USDA FOREST SERVICE. 2012. Increasing thepace of restoration and job creation on our na-tional forests. Available online at www.fs.fed.us/publications/restoration/restoration.pdf.; last ac-cessed May 3, 2012.

USDA FOREST SERVICE, AND US BUREAU OFLAND 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, OR.74 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):1406214165.

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

VAN PELT, R., AND S.C. SILLETT. 2008. Crowndevelopment of coastal Pseudotsuga menziesii,including a conceptual model for tall conifers.Ecol. Monogr. 78:283311.

VILSACK, T. 2009. Vision for the forest service: Re-marks as prepared for delivery Seattle, Washing-tonAugust 14, 2009. Available online at www.fs.fed.us/video/tidwell/vilsack.pdf; last ac-cessed Apr. 21, 2011.

WHEELER, A. 2012. Roseburg District secretarialpilot project: My experience. J. For. DOI:10.5849/jof.12-076.

WILSON, D.S., AND K.J. PUETTMANN. 2007.Density management and biodiversity inyoung Douglas-fir forests: Challenges of man-aging across scales. For. Ecol. Manage. 246:123134.

WIMBERLY, M. 2002. Spatial simulation of his-torical landscape patterns in coastal forests ofthe Pacific Northwest. Can. J. For. Res. 32:13161328.

YOUNGBLOOD, A., T. MAX, AND K. COE. 2004.Stand structure in east-side old-growth pon-derosa pine forests of Oregon and northernCalifornia. For. Ecol. Manage. 99(213):191217.

CASE STUDY J. For. 110(8):439441http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/jof.12-076

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 (O&C) lands of western Oregon havebeen the focus of intense debate. The O&C Lands Act of 1937 andthe Endangered Species Act of 1973 have driven discussions regard-

ing these lands since the northern spotted owls 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 plans predicted sustained yield volume wassupposed to have come from regeneration harvest in old-growthforests. The recent status quo has been a thinning-only approach,

Received August 27, 2012; accepted September 3, 2012; published online October 25, 2012.

Affiliations: Abe Wheeler ([email protected]) is O&C forester, Roseburg District of the US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, 777 NWGarden Valley Boulevard, Roseburg, OR 97471.


www.blm.gov/or/news/files/2]22-12_Oregon_Forestry_Release.pdfwww.blm.gov/or/news/files/2]22-12_Oregon_Forestry_Release.pdfwww.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5314617.pdfwww.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5314617.pdfwww.fs.fed.us/publications/restoration/restoration.pdf.www.fs.fed.us/publications/restoration/restoration.pdf.www.fs.fed.us/video/tidwell/vilsack.pdfwww.fs.fed.us/video/tidwell/vilsack.pdf

and the BLM has achieved a high level ofsuccess within the thinning program. How-ever, there does not seem to be agreementthat the status quo is realizing either the eco-nomic or the ecological goals set forth in theNorthwest Forest Plan.

After a Dec. 8, 2010 stakeholder meet-ing in Washington, DC, USDI SecretaryKen Salazar directed the BLM to produce aseries of pilot projects intended to demon-strate the principles of ecological forestry es-poused by Dr. Norman Johnson and Dr.Jerry Franklin. The Roseburg District insouthwestern Oregon was selected to dem-onstrate a moist forest variable retention re-generation harvest project. As a forester inthis district, I had the privilege to workclosely with Dr. Johnson and Dr. Franklinalongside our interdisciplinary team in theplanning phases of this project.

Our first step in the application of theirecological forestry program was to conduct alandscape-scale stand selection process. Westarted by looking at the Myrtle Creek water-shed and the surrounding area. Following apublic process and working with our regula-tory partners (USDI Fish and Wildlife Serviceand National Marine Fisheries Service), the in-terdisciplinary team selected a group of candi-date stands (Figure 1). Some of the criteriaused for stand selection were stand age, habitatconditions, northern spotted owl homeranges, and reproductive history, access needs,and other factors. Our final stand pool wasaround 450 ac, on which we focused our proj-ect design efforts. We then produced and fieldchecked the access and harvest plan to identifyoperational issues and limitations early on inthe process. Next, we sent out foresters, fishand wildlife biologists, botanists, fire ecolo-gists, hydrologists, soil scientists, and archeol-ogists to identify ecologically, culturally, andother socially valuable features on the candi-date areas. Examples of these features includedold-growth trees, snags and accumulations ofdowned wood, wet areas, rock outcrops, spe-cial habitats, rare plants, sensitive soils, andheritage sites. Once these valuable featureswere identified and mapped, we designed a sil-vicultural plan identifying harvested areas, un-treated areas, underburning opportunities,and individually retained legacy compo-nentsthe valuable features were incorpo-rated as much as possible into aggregated re-tention blocks from 0.25 to 15 ac in size.

The treatments were designed to pro-tect or enhance the ecological values. Wewere given general guidelines for retention

levels ranging from 20 to 30% on an acre-age/basal area basis, although some standscould be above 40%, while others could belower. Retention would be either aggre-gated or dispersed. Using what the standshad to offer, dispersed retention trees in-cluded most older trees (those more than160 years) and specimens with unique struc-tural characteristics or other high ecologicalvalue(s). We would also replant the standwith modest quantities of native tree species

to help ensure that a functional and diverseearly successional community could flourishfor around 30 years before the eventualcrown closure of the conifers (Figure 2).

This process is not a cookie-cutter ap-proach to forest management, but it is in-tended to meet many local and regionalgoals. We designed this project with pre-scriptions customized for the existing standconditions and attempted to emulate a nat-ural disturbance event to produce a diverse

Figure 2. Representative local early seral plant community, with many flowering andfruiting, sun-loving plants.

Figure 1. Representative preharvest candidate stand, dominated by Douglas-fir (Pseudo-tsuga menziesii), rhododendron (Rhododendron macrophyllum), and salal (Gaultheriashallon).


early successional ecosystem (Figure 3). Atthe same time, we have produced a commer-cially viable timber sale that has the potentialto contribute to the economic prosperity oflocal communities. The project, as proposedin the Environmental Assessment, includesthe harvesting and regeneration of approxi-mately 285 ac across 11 units, yielding anestimated 10.5 million bd ft of timber.1

This new strategy has yet to change somethingswe still find ourselves dealing withhighly vocal stakeholders with entrenched andpolarized positions. Even after our carefulplanning, one side claims we plan to cut toomany trees and the other side believes that notenough will be harvested. There is a long his-tory of disagreement and emotionally chargedviewpoints, and in the past our stakeholdershave successfully used the courts as a direct av-enue to influence or stop forest managementactivities. Managing the forests through thecourts has proven very inefficient and there is

no indication that this will change anytimesoon. As prudent public servants, it is our dutyto manage these lands for the benefit of allAmerican citizens. The BLM has recentlystarted working on a new resource manage-ment plan (RMP) in which these ecologicalforestry principles will help to guide the for-mulation of potential alternatives.2 The analy-sis produced in this planning effort shouldhelp answer many of our stakeholders ques-tions, including one that is continually asked:How would these management practices bescaled up, and what are the large-scale implica-tions?

The BLM and the regulatory agencieshave been working over the past several yearsto try different approaches to forest manage-ment. After interacting with many individ-uals throughout this process, it is my percep-tion that there is a growing acceptance andunderstanding about what we are doing.Professionals from the BLM and our regula-

tory agencies are engaging in creative think-ing and opening doors that have long beenclosed. I think that if you asked an averageperson if they thought a carefully designedtimber harvest that produced both ecologi-cal benefits and economic returns was a goodidea, they would say yesoptimistically, awinwin scenario. This approach is not asilver bullet and we have not yet answeredall of the lingering questions of our stake-holders. However, the pilot projects appearto be a step in the right direction, and eco-logical forestry has the promise of evenbroader success if properly implemented.

Endnotes1. The EA is available online at www.blm.gov/

or/districts/roseburg/plans/files/PilotProjectEA.pdf.

2. USDI BLM RMP process information isavailable at www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/.

Figure 3. An example of variable retention harvest. No harvest areas were selected to protect or enhance ecological values.


www.blm.gov/or/districts/roseburg/plans/files/PilotProjectEA.PDFwww.blm.gov/or/districts/roseburg/plans/files/PilotProjectEA.PDFwww.blm.gov/or/districts/roseburg/plans/files/PilotProjectEA.PDFwww.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/

CASE STUDY J. For. 110(8):442445http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/jof.12-081

Copyright 2012 Society of American ForestersThe Pilot Joe Project: Dry ForestRestoration in Southwestern Oregon

Ed Reilly

T he US Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau ofLand Management (BLM) has recently begun to develop newresource management plans (RMPs) for western Oregon.1 Indoing so, the BLM has specifically sought out a range of viewpoints andsuggestions on new and innovative approaches to the management oftheir timberlands in western Oregon. One aspect of management beingconsidered is the ecological forestry approach of Franklin and Johnson(this volume). The Pilot Joe Project, planned in 2011 and implementedin 2012, was designed under the conceptual framework of Franklin andJohnsons Dry Forest restoration strategy. This demonstration projectintegrates ecosystem restoration, conservation of northern spotted owl(NSO) habitat, and commodity production over portions of the MiddleApplegate watershed, an 80,000-ac landscape that is approximately62% under control of USDI BLM. The rugged Middle Applegate land-scape has cool, moist winters and hot, dry summers. Annual precipita-tion is 2535 in. (varying with elevation), with less than 10% occurringfrom June through September. Because of these moisture limitations,slight changes in aspect and soil type dramatically affect forest produc-tivitycooler, moister north-facing slopes are typically covered bydense coniferous forest, while hot, dry south-facing slopes are usuallydominated by hardwoods, shrubs, and grass. In the past, fire was themajor disturbance agent affecting these plantcommunities. Alteration of historic fire re-gimes has allowed the proportion of Doug-las-fir and dense closed-canopy forests to sig-nificantly increase, threatening old trees andincreasing the possibility of crown fire.Hence, specific goals of this project includedincreasing the resistance and resilience of for-ests to wildfire, drought, and insects by re-ducing stand densities and ladder fuels; shift-ing species composition from the currentdominance of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga men-ziesii) to include more ponderosa pine (Pinusponderosa), sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana),California black oak (Quercus kelloggii), andPacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii); andconserving and improving the survivability ofolder trees (more than 150 years).

The Pilot Joe Project is the first learn-ing and demonstration phase of a multiyeareffort by BLM to apply the FranklinJohn-son approach within the Middle Applegatewatershed. Fundamental to the success of thisproject was the ability to move forward onthe treatments in a timely fashion. The rela-

tively small size (890 ac) of Pilot Joe allowed it to be implemented morerapidly than a larger project that would take several years to plan anddeployit was brought from public scoping to a sold timber sale in 8months. Building stakeholder confidence was also needed to facilitatethe process, so transparency was keythe BLM created and maintains awebsite2 for the Middle Applegate to post all meeting notes, officialreports, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 documents, andother related material for rapid, easy access to any interested party.

Public participation was also critical to its successextensive in-volvement occurred during the planning and development of Pilot Joe.More than a dozen field trips and public meetings were held to discuss,evaluate, and prioritize sites and conditions for treatment (Figure 1).Two in-depth meetings were held with the general public to specificallydiscuss the pilot goals and solicit criteria to be used for selection of foreststands to show the FranklinJohnson restoration approach. Majoritysupport existed for prioritizing treatment units most at risk to loss fromwildfire, insects, or disease, especially those stands that could be accessedvia the existing road network.

Although there was general support for restoration forestry, therewere many concerns. For example, some participants were very con-cerned about new road construction and skeptical that commercial har-vest could be done while protecting residual stand characteristics such aslarge oak trees. Others felt restoration forestry does not provide highenough economic return. Developing partnerships outside of the agen-cies helped considerably. In the case of the Pilot Joe Project, the Apple-

Figure 1. One of numerous meetings with the public on the Pilot Joe Project including a fieldtrip to evaluate the pretreatment forest conditions to be modified. (Photograph courtesy ofGary Gnauck.)

Received September 7, 2012; accepted September 14, 2012; published online October 25, 2012.

Affiliations: Ed Reilly ([email protected]) was GIS analyst and planner, project coordinator, and NEPA writer for the Pilot Joe Project, USDA Forest Serviceand Bureau of Land Management (retired); currently working as a private consultant in Jacksonville, OR.


gate Partnership and the Southern OregonForest Restoration Collaborative were strongparticipants.3 These local groups, with mem-bership from industry, environmental, andother community interests, were supportiveof the projects goals. In fact, they were instru-mental to the success of the project develop-ment and public review processe.g., thePartnership and Collaborative organized andfacilitated meetings side-by-side with theBLM. Having local community membersmake presentations and facilitate meetingsprovided a different tone to the proceedingsthan the usual meetings run solely be federalagency staff.

Once the public scoping of the PilotJoe Project was conducted, the treatmentsneeded to be designed, planned, and im-plemented in the field. One of the firststeps in landscape planning involved theidentification of that part of the landscapeto be retained as denser forest patchesneeded by some biota, particularly theNSO and its prey species. With the assis-tance of the US Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS), a predictive mapping effort forrelative habitat suitability4 identified areasthat may be expected to support high-qual-ity mature and late-successional NSO hab-itat well into the future. Fire probabilitymodeling suggested areas where importanthabitat would be less likely to be lost inwildfire and strategically placed thinningand fuels reduction efforts would reduce orslow fire spread (Figure 2). With the addi-tion of historical NSO patterns of use, con-tiguous patches of 300500 ac were iden-tified and selected as Late SuccessionalEmphasis Areas (LSEA). The restorationthinning areas targeted stands to reduce thethreat of fire spreading uphill into theLSEAs (Figure 3).

Before any ground-disturbing action,federal agencies are required to consult onthe potential effects to Endangered SpeciesAct listed species. After review of thePilot Joe Project design, USFWS issued abiological opinion for the project support-ing a strategy that protects important NSOhabitat in landscape positions likely to bemaintained over the long term even thoughthis meant degrading some existing NSOhabitat in areas with density reductionthinnings.5 This opinion recognized thatthe long-term benefits of restoration (e.g.,enhancing growth and vigor, reducing firethreats, and shifting to more desirable spe-cies mix) exceeded the short-term negativeimpacts of modifying some owl habitat.

Figure 2. Predicting the relative probability of fire across the Pilot Joe landscape, with areasmore likely to receive fire in yellows to oranges, and areas more likely to be free of fire inblues. Forest cover in the blue areas are more likely to persist long term on the landscape.This map influenced the areas selected for retention of important NSO habitat andthe choice of restoration units where treatment would reduce fire threat to this habitat(Figure 3).

Figure 3. An overview of the areas selected for demonstration of the ecological restorationwork in the Pilot Joe Project. The LSEA provide large blocks of dense, older forest cover forspecies such as NSO. The majority of the restoration thinning is located strategicallydownslope and adjacent to the LSEAs.


The silvicultural prescriptions for theproject were designed to move the currentcrowded, uniform forests (Figure 4) to con-ditions that are more open and spatiallyheterogeneous (clumpy) in nature, with a di-versity of age classes and species (Figure 5).Stands with both sawlog-sized material tobe removed as well as younger stands andstands with noncommercial species wereidentified for treatment. Prescriptions typi-cally removed 510 mbf/ac, depending onsite productivity and tree size.6 Most treesremoved were from 8 to 24 in. dbh, with themajority at the lower end of this size range.Mapping of plant associations was done toestablish appropriate basal area retentiontargets matched to individual site productiv-ity. Thinning prescriptions for Douglas-firdominated stands generally reduced basalareas to around 100120 ft2/ac from pre-treatment levels that often exceeded 200 ft2/ac. Gaps of 0.52 ac were created to providesites for establishing pine regeneration andother understory components. These gapsare not complete openings but rather wereheavily thinned (down to 2030% canopycover) to provide sufficient light and mois-ture for regeneration of sun-loving species.

Harvest operations primarily used a50-ft tower cable system and whole treeyarding, leaving tops attached. A stroker/delimber with a processing head removedbranches and cut whole trees to mill speci-fied lengths. Approximately 15% of theacreage within harvest units was designatedas untreated skips to provide denser forestpatches for shadier and moister microenvi-ronments, hiding cover, visual barriers, andundisturbed soil areas. Ecologically signifi-cant features, such as seeps, rock outcrops,snag patches, large down wood, and hard-wood groves were used to help identifyskips, which were marked with flagging toexclude logging equipment and yarding ac-tivities. Careful coordination was needed tolocate skips in places that would not impedeharvest operationsthe timber sale admin-istrator, wildlife biologist, and silviculturistworked together to locate skips and integrateneeds of the three disciplines. Although theearly designation of skips generally workedwell, there were places where the harvest op-erations could not completely reach trees tobe removed without impacting a skip. Inthose cases, modification of the skip was re-quired during harvest operations.7

In addition to the timber harvest,thinning of younger, noncommercial-size

trees within harvest units was performed toachieve desired species mix and stand densi-ties in all age classes. A silviculturist and fuelsspecialist worked together to design treat-ment prescriptions and develop contract

language to achieve the desired goal. In alltreatments, thinning was performed to vari-able densities and not to a uniform spacing.Young tree thinning material along withtops and limbs still remaining after harvest

Figure 4. A uniform stand of Douglas-fir encroaching on an old black oak. (Photographcourtesy of Ed Reilly.)

Figure 5. The immediate postharvest result at the Pilot Joe Project, with mature sugar pine,black oak, and madrone legacies retained and most young Douglas-fir removed. Thehand-piled logging slash in a prescribed gap will be burned in the wet season. (Photographcourtesy of Ed Reilly.)


were hand piled and will be burned in thewet season. Follow-up maintenance under-burning will be performed in the near futurein areas where it can be achieved safely.

Postharvest monitoring is an importantcomponent of this project (Figure 6). Nu-merous issues and concerns brought up inpublic meetings are being evaluated througha rigorous multiparty monitoring effort thatincludes field sampling as well as interviewswith key stakeholders, agency personnel,and local community members. A set of in-dicators including ecological factors acrossmultiple scales, economic and contractingefficiencies, and public understanding andacceptance of the project goals and out-comes are currently being measured.8 De-tailed pre- and posttreatment plots havebeen installed with numerous repeat photopoints. A case study of logging systems, lay-out, and contracting is planned after finaltimber sale contract completion.

Pilot Joe represents a step forward inthe implementation of larger landscape res-toration efforts in the dry forest, with thelessons of this effort helping to influence ad-ditional larger dry forest projects across theregion. The second phase (Pilot Thompson)of the larger Middle Applegate Project iscurrently under development and is ex-pected to produce an Environmental Assess-ment in late 2012 and a timber sale in 2013.Not surprisingly, there continues to be skep-ticism from certain interest groups as to thevalue of this approach. Some in the timberindustry feel there should be more emphasison production forestry while conservationinterests question the use of high impactlogging methods and heavy equipment.Given that it sold for $152/mbf, economi-cally restoring the dry forests of the MiddleApplegate is not without challenges. Log-ging and transportation costs for stands withthe majority of the material in the 8- to 14-inch size and long-reach cable yarding canexceed the value of the sawlogs removed.Finish work to reduce harvest slash, thinyounger residual trees, reduce fuel ladders,and pile and burn the material can approach

$600900 an acre. Significant investment isneeded in stands with no commercial-sizetrees or species to create conditions that willallow development of desired species mixand accelerate growth and reduce fire threat.However, I believe that the Pilot Joe Projectachieved a good balance between restoringforest densities and species mix, reducingthreat of destructive wildfire, providing localjobs, and 1.5 million bd ft of wood products,while also addressing the conservation needsof the NSO and other species.

Endnotes1. RMPs for Western Oregon webpage: www.

blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/index.php.

2. www.blm.gov/or/districts/medford/forestrypilot/.

3. More information on the Applegate Partner-ship (www.applegatepartnership.org/) andthe Southern Oregon Forest Restoration Col-laborative (www.pacrimrcd.org/Page.asp?NavID313) can be found online.

4. See Appendix C of the 2011 Revised NSORecovery Plan: www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/northern spotted owl/Recovery/Library/Documents/NSORPDraftAppendixC.pdf.

5. The USFWS Recovery Plan for the NSO(www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/northern sp