Conserving Biodiversity Through Sustainable Forestry - Society of ...

Conserving BiodiversityThrough Sustainable ForestryA Guide To Applying NCSSF Research

COMMISSION MEMBERSHIPJoyce Berry, PhD, Commission ChairVice President for Advancement andStrategic InitiativesColorado State UniversityGreg Aplet, PhDSenior Forest ScientistThe Wilderness SocietyAnn Bartuska, PhDDeputy Chief, Research &DevelopmentUSDA Forest ServiceJim BrownJim Brown Consulting Forestry, LLCOregon State Forester, 1986-2003Norm L. Christensen, PhD(chair 2002-2003)Professor of EcologyNicholas School of the Environment,Duke UniversityNils ChristoffersenExecutive DirectorWallowa ResourcesJohn C. Gordon, PhD(chair 2001-2002)Pinchot Professor of Forestry(Emeritus)Yale School of Forestry andEnvironmental StudiesSharon Haines, PhDManager of Sustainable ForestryInternational PaperAlan A. Lucier, PhDSenior Vice PresidentNational Council for Air andStream ImprovementDavid Perry, PhDProfessor (Emeritus)Oregon State UniversityH. Ronald Pulliam, PhDRegents Professor of EcologyUniversity of GeorgiaHal Salwasser, PhD(chair 2003-2005)Dean, College of ForestryOregon State UniversityV. Alaric Sample, PhDPresidentPinchot Institute for ConservationScott WallingerSenior Vice President (Retired)Mead WestvacoChris Bernabo, PhDNCSSF Program DirectorNational Council for Scienceand the EnvironmentFORMER MEMBERSOF THE COMMISSIONBruce J. Cabarle, PhDDirector, Global Forestry Program’sWorld Wildlife Federation2001-2004Charles H. CollinsManaging DirectorThe Forestland Group, LLC2001-2002Wallace Covington, PhDRegents Professor of Forest EcologyNorthern Arizona University2001-2003Phil JanikChief Operating Officer (Retired)USDA Forest Service2001-2002Mark Schaefer, PhDPresident and CEONatureServe2001-2003Mark Schaffer, PhDProgram Officer for the EnvironmentDoris Duke Charitable Foundation(Formerly Defenders of Wildlife)2001-2003Sponsors of the National Commissionon Science for Sustainable ForestryThe National Commission on Science For Sustainable Forestry(NCSSF) operates under the auspices of the National Council forScience and the Environment (NCSE), a non-advocacy, not-for-profitorganization dedicated to improving the scientific basis forenvironmental decision making.NCSE promotes interdisciplinary research that connects the life,physical, and social sciences and engineering.Communication and outreach are integral components of thesecollaborative research efforts that link scientific results to the needsof decision makers.

TABLE OF CONTENTSIntroduction................................................................................................. 2Section I: Factors Influencing BiodiversityChapter 1: Forest History and Biodiversity......................................... 7Forests of the Northeast................................................................ 8Lake States Forests....................................................................... 24Coastal Plain Forests of the Southeast....................................... 30Pacific Coastal Forests.................................................................. 38Colorado Plateau Forests of the Southwest.............................. 49Chapter 2: Non-native Invasives and Biodiversity............................ 56Chapter 3: Fragmentation and Biodiversity .................................... 68Chapter 4: Old-growth Forests and Biodiversity.............................. 84Northeast...................................................................................... 86Lake States.................................................................................... 91Southeast Coastal Plain............................................................... 96Pacific Northwest....................................................................... 101Southwest................................................................................... 108Section II: Tools for Landowners and ManagersChapter 5: Selecting Indicators for Biodiversity............................. 115Chapter 6: Biodiversity in Managed Forests................................... 121Chapter 7: Landscape Scale Planning and Biodiversity................. 134Chapter 8: Adaptive Management and Biodiversity..................... 148Chapter 9: Policy that Encourages Biodiversity.............................. 159Section III: AppendixTo Learn More About the Chapter Topics...................................... 167Glossary............................................................................................. 170ON THE COVERClockwise from top:Old-growth Western Hemlock, Pacific Coastal Forest .Photo: Jon MartinRetention harvest, Washington State Photo: Jerry FranklinDevelopment in the New Hampshire Ossipee Pine Barrens .Photo: Joseph KlemenitovichThinning and underburning restoration, Oregon .Photo: Bernard Borman, USDA PNW FSBottomlands, Altamaha River, Georgia Photo: Beth YoungIndex.................................................................................................. 173

INTRODUC TIONFrom the trail at the lower left to the road in the distance, this landscape includes some of the historical and contemporaryfactors influencing forest biodiversity conservation. Enjoy the trip as you explore the guidebook.2

INTRODUC TIONWHY WAS THIS GUIDEBOOK WRITTEN?This guidebook was written to promote .communication and understanding about forest .biodiversity (Glossary) among researchers, practitioners,landowners, managers, and policymakers. Its purpose isto strengthen the link between scientific understandingof biodiversity and its practical application in forest .management. Although there are gaps in our .knowledge, forest practices and policies that can be .beneficial to biodiversity are constantly being developedand tested. This guidebook will help improve forestmanagement by making biodiversity science easier tounderstand and illustrating on-the-ground applications.It emphasizes the reasons why biodiversity conservationand sustainable forestry (Glossary) are important.WHO SHOULD READ THIS GUIDEBOOK?Anyone who is interested in forests and forest managementpractices should benefit from reading this book. Itoffers forest owners, practitioners, managers, and policymakerssome advanced scientific knowledge and practicaltools for biodiversity conservation and sustainable forestry.The following examples illustrate various situations thatforest managers faceand suggest guidebookchapters that shouldbe particularly usefulin each situation. Briefchapter descriptions areincluded in “Overviewof the Guidebook”below.I’m a businessforester. I manageplantation forestlandsthat mustBusiness Forester*provide a reasonablereturn on investment. I realize that these forests aremuch more than mere fiber farms, but has anyonefigured out how to enhance biodiversity in intensivelymanaged forests and still make a profit?Recommended chapters: 6, 7, 1, 2 and 3.I’m a service or consulting forester. I work primarilywith family forest owners and see the need formanagement practices that conserve biodiversity. It’snot that the owners I work with don’t care; it’s morea situation where weall want to do theright thing and needto understand howto do it. Is theresomething here thatI can use in my workwith forest owners?Recommended chapters:1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.I’m a family forestowner. I’ve ownedmy property forquite a while. I knowwhat it’s like to makeannual payments.My acreage had nomerchantable timberwhen I bought it,but I’ve planted andthinned and the treeshave grown. Over theyears, I’ve listened to FAMILY FOREST OWNER*professional forestersand done what they recommended. It’s been a lot ofwork and now I want to generate some income, butthere’s all this talk about managing forests sustainablyand protecting biodiversity. What’s this all about?Recommended chapters: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.I’m a government forester. I live and work in a rural,forest-dependent community close to a largemetropolitan area.Local citizens arefeeling a lot ofpressure to developthe surroundingforestland. Whatwas once a remotelittle town is rapidlybecoming a bedroomcommunity. Developmentincludes1-to-5-acre upscalesuburban homesteads,a new subdivisionfor 85 homes,GOVERNMENT Foresterand plans to widen the connecting state highway.Town officials are coming to my agency for advice.Is there information here that can help?Recommended chapters: 1, 3, 7, 8 and 9.Tom IraciSERVICE OR CONSULTING Forester**© Photos courtesy of Ben Meadows Company, Janesville, WI3

INTRODUC TIONI’m a policymaker.I help establish laws,regulations, and rulesthat reflect publicconsensus on howforests can bemanaged to conservethe values that theyrepresent. I knowthe science of biodiversityis continuingto evolve, but I needinformation that willPOLICYMAKERresult in decisionsthat best protect the long-term public interest inconservation and sustainable natural resourcemanagement.Recommended chapters: 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8.WHAT’S THE BASIS OF THE GUIDEBOOK?The guidebook highlights the latest research on biodiversityand sustainable forestry sponsored by the NationalCommission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF). Itincludes topics that the Commission members have identifiedas important elements of forest biodiversity. Some seriousgaps in scientific knowledge about many of these topicshave been filled by NCSSF-sponsored research projects thatproduced new scientific findings and practical tools for applyingthose findings in the field. The Commission selectedand funded knowledgeable and experienced researchersas project leaders, and the guidebook is based largely ontheir research results and scientific opinions, along withthe expertise of Commission Members (listed on the insidefront cover). However, the Commission did not attempt toevaluate the scientific accuracy of the projects, nor does itpromote any particular scientific school of thought.The Commission acknowledges that the project reportsdon’t include everything there is to know about particularforest biodiversity topics, nor were they intended to. NCSSFproject researchers are all recognized experts in their fieldswho were chosen through national requests for proposalsand a rigorous and competitive review process. The Commissionrecognizes that it might have sponsored many otherimportant scientific studies on these same topics if unlimitedresources had been available.A complete listing of all the NCSSF project reports isincluded in the appendix under To Learn More (pages 167-168). There you will find the name of the project or projectsthat formed the basis of each chapter and the lead projectauthor or authors. All of these project reports can be viewedand downloaded at the NCSSF website (www.ncssf.org) .unless otherwise noted.Bob SzaroOVERVIEW OF THE GUIDEBOOKThe guidebook includes three major sections:s Section I: Factors Influencing Biodiversitys Section II: Tools for Landowners and Managerss Section III: AppendixEach chapter examines a specific topic, answering .three questions:s Why is this topic important?s What’s known about this topic(but not everything)?s How can that knowledge be used inforest management?In Section I, Factors Influencing Biodiversity, theguidebook looks at how biodiversity is influenced by foresthistory, non-native invasive species, forest fragmentation,and old-growth. Each chapter offers suggestions for usingthis knowledge to improve biodiversity.Chapter 1, “Forest History and Biodiversity,”describes the origins of today’s forest policies and howthat history has led to a growing interest in biodiversityand sustainable forestry. Theguidebook begins with thistopic because it’s the foundationfor why things are the way theyare. Chapter 1 doesn’t stop withhistory, but goes on to describerestoration strategies that arebeing created and tested toconserve biodiversity in the .major forest regions of theUnited States.Chapter 2, “Non-native Invasives andBiodiversity,” tells about the growing threat to biodiversityfrom non-native invasive species, due in part to foresthistory and the fact that the continents and regions of theworld have become more connected. Forests are morevulnerable than ever, and thischapter offers preventive .strategies and recognizes gapsin the war against invasives.What’s most essential is that wemove beyond the attitude thatinvasives are someone else’sjob to the recognition that thisthreat requires the attention ofevery natural-resource manager.4

INTRODUC TIONChapter 3, “Fragmentation and Biodiversity,” goesbeyond the historical loss of forestland. It explores the .theoretical underpinnings offragmentation theory and thenumerous and complicatedeffects of fragmentation onbiodiversity. The topic is difficultbecause it’s a landscape-scalephenomenon, and we don’talways relate well to that scale.Chapter 4, “Old-growthand Biodiversity,” takes thereader to five major forestregions of the United States foran update on the status of oldgrowth(OG) forests. It describessome OG-adapted species, majorthreats to OG, how society ineach region views OG, and howknowledge of OG can be usedin developing managementand conservation strategies forpublic and private forestland.Section II offers tools for improving biodiversitywhile allowing landowners and managers to achievetheir particular objectives. NCSSF has focused its supporton research that offers practical applications, and this .section is loaded with them. There are tips on selectingbiodiversity indicators, enhancing biodiversity in managedforests, scientific advances in landscape-scale planning, howto make better use of adaptive management, and policiesthat encourage biodiversity.Chapter 5, “SelectingIndicators for Biodiversity,”discusses one of the most difficulttopics for forest managersto get a handle on – how to tellif we’re successfully maintainingforest biodiversity. It describes atechnique for selecting biodiversityindicators at the landscapeand local level.Chapter 6, “Biodiversityin Managed Forests,” willinterest everyone who practicesintensive forestry across theUnited States. It looks at .management practices that .support biodiversity in thoseforests, regardless of theownership, using loblolly pineand Douglas-fir plantations asexamples.Chapter 7, “Landscape-Scale Planning andBiodiversity,” is crucial to sustainingforests and maintainingbiodiversity. It describes innovativedecision support systemsthat are being used to helpdevelop a clearer understandingof the effects of alternativeforestland management policieson biodiversity.Chapter 8, “AdaptiveManagement (AM) andBiodiversity,” explores theart/science of a concept that hashad a mixed history of successwhen applied to forestry issues.It focuses on how to ensure thesuccessful use of AM in forestmanagement and offers severalon-the-ground examples.Chapter 9, “Policy thatEncourages Biodiversity,”summarizes what the Commissionbelieves is important forprotecting biodiversity. It exploresthe question of whethercurrent incentive programsencourage biodiversity-compatiblepractices and offers policyideas that will enable privateforest owners, who controlmuch of the nation’s forestland,to practice biodiversity.Section III, the Appendix, offers references to help youlearn more about each chapter topic, highlights importantorganizations (NatureServe and The Natural Heritage .Network), includes references to reports that support .biodiversity conservation (State Wildlife Action Plan), andidentifies informative web-based references about Non-.timber Forest Products, the Rapid Assessment Scorecard,and the Carbon Sequestration Primer. It also includes a .comprehensive glossary and index.5

INTRODUC TIONWHAT IS NCSSF?The National Commission on Science for SustainableForestry (NCSSF) was created in 2001. It consists of sixteenleading scientists and forest-management professionalsfrom government, industry, academia, and environmentalorganizations. Their mission is to improve the scientific basisfor sustainable forestry practice, management, and policyin the United States. The Commission members and NCSSFstaff are dedicated to:s filling gaps in scientific understanding of biodiversityand sustainable forestry by supporting research projectss transforming research results into usable, accessibleinformation for forestry practitioners, managers, andpolicymakerss improving communication between producers and .users of scientific knowledge.The Commission’s work is guided by three broad principlesdeveloped through extensive deliberation, discussion,and consensus-building:Continuum of Forest TypesThe Commissioners believe that forests should beviewed as a continuum, with each type of forest providingbenefits to biodiversity and sustainable forestry commensuratewith its natural potential and the owner’s managementgoals. The contribution to biodiversity conservation varieswith each type of forest along the continuum.At one end are reserves – large areas protected fromdevelopment, intended to preserve native species, “wild”ecosystems, and natural processes. They include wildernessareas and other lands set aside within federal forest ownershipsand parks. Reserves are necessary but not sufficient tomaintain biodiversity. In some regions of the United Statesthat have a small portion of their forests in reserves, .biodiversity must be sustained on other kinds of forests.At the other end of the forest continuum are woodproductionforests – plantations that are managed primarilyfor industrial wood production. Even though most of theseforests are privately owned, their management is influencedby landowner rights and responsibilities determined by lawsand customs.Between the ends of the continuum are multi-resourceforests with multiple objectives chosen by the landowners.The majority of America’s forests are multi-resource, andmany are owned and managed by individuals and families.Urban forests represent a special type of multi-resourceforest, and they continue to expand as urbanization spreadsinto less developed rural areas and more of the nation’snatural resources become part of urban forest ecosystems.This continuum of forest types helps our nation meet itseconomic, environmental, and social objectives.Public PermissionThe Commissioners believe that forest practitioners,landowners, managers, and policymakers serve as stewardsof the nation’s forests with the permission of the public.The public obviously has more influence over some parts ofthe forest continuum than others, but its overall influencecontinues to grow.Federal forestlands (both reserves and multi-resourceforests) are currently being managed with emphasis onbiological diversity, and over time they will consist of .a mix of old-growth, late-succession habitats, and early-.succession habitats (the result of wildfire and other natural .disturbances). In contrast, the industrial forest landscape(wood-production forests), with its emphasis on economicprofitability, is often missing the later succession elementsof biodiversity, but instead provides some of the early- andmid-succession habitats missing in reserves.An informed public, encouraged to step back and lookat a state or region, will see a mix of habitats that representsthe forest continuum and one that is likely to provide thesuite of benefits that the public wants. The bottom line isthat biodiversity depends on a mix of management goalsacross a landscape and that this approach to biodiversityconservation will meet the public interest.Keep Forests as ForestsThe Commissioners believe that one of the most .important threats to forest biodiversity comes from .development, and the best way to conserve biodiversity isto keep forestland as forest. The chapters on fragmentation(3) and landscape-scale planning (7) each raise the specterof forest loss due to development. In most cases, however,the “highest and best use” (HBU) of a forest for society is asa forest – for all the values it produces. HBU is an economicmarket term that rarely considers the value of water, .wildlife, biodiversity, recreation, green space, carbon .exchange, etc. Keeping forests as forests is more than aslogan – it must become a national goal.SUMMARYWhile this guidebook does offer and advocate managementprescriptions, it is primarily a toolbox from whichpractitioners, landowners, managers, and policymakers canpick and choose what has merit for them. It’s the reader’sresponsibility to use the information and tools in the contextof his or her own forest management goals.We do not know all there is to know about conservingbiodiversity and sustainable forestry. However, one thingwe know for certain is that new knowledge will continueto change the way we manage our forests. The successfulconservation of biodiversity calls for careful observation ofhow the forest responds to natural and human disturbancesand requires adjustments to future management accordingto those observations.6

C H A P T E R1Forest History AND Biodiversit yPine Barrens of the NortheastIntroduction to the Pine Barrens(Map, page 7)Tree Species• pitch pine (Pinus rigida)• scrub oak (Quercus ilicifolia)Groundcover Species• black huckleberry (Gaylussacia baccata)• blueberry (Vaccinium species)• wintergreen (Gaultheria procumbens)• sweetfern (Comptonia peregrina)• bracken fern (Dennstaedtia punctiloba)Location• Pine Barrens occur on dry sand plains or sandy glacialoutwash in major river valleys.• The flat terrain encourages the spread of wildfiresthat eliminate its shade-tolerant competitors andprovides a new seedbed.Pitch Pine Requirements:• mineral soil for establishment from seed• a relatively shade-free environment• a stand-replacing fire or management that mimicssuch a disturbance.What do we know about the natural andland-use history of the Pine Barrens andtheir effect on biodiversity?Sediment cores fromlakes near today’s pinebarrens indicate thatthese forests have beenpresent for thousandsof years. Prior toEuropean settlement,pine barrens wereprobably evenagedstands startedby large-scale firedisturbances (see PitchPine Requirements inIntroduction box).Fires were frequent. Infact, pine barrens havethe highest incidenceof fire of any northeastforest. Without firepine-oak forestssucceed to oak.Natural HistoryLand Use HistoryNative Americansdeliberately burnedpine barrens in thespring and fall to clearfields for planting,improve game habitat,drive game and assisthunting, reducereptiles and insects,increase berries andseeds, or remove coverfor protection fromtheir enemies.Massachusetts pinebarrens (Map, page 7)were often cleared forfarmland. Europeansettlers pushed forestsback to the hillsides,swamps, and dry sandplains. Settlementinitially increasedfire frequency, dueto land clearing orescaped fires, but firesuppression becamemore prevalent whensettlements wereestablished.The New Jerseypine barrens (Map,page 7) and thenorthern barrensof New Hampshirewere actively loggedbut rarely plowed(discussed on nextpage). Pitch pine wasused for firewood,fuel, fence posts,railroad ties, barrelsand boxes, and earlyshipbuilding.After 1850 the lureof more productivelands in the Midwest,the development ofrailroads, and theindustrial revolutionin the cities resultedin the abandonmentof pine barren farmsand their subsequentnatural regenerationto forest.8

Forest History AND Biodiversit yPine Barrens of the NortheastC H A P T E R1What are the Effects of Clearing the Pine Barrens?Plow layers in soils persist for centuries after sites .are reforested. The physical effects of plowing had directand lasting effects on understory and groundcovervegetation in the Montague pine barrens of the ConnecticutRiver Valley (Map, page 7). Wintergreen (Gaultheriaprocumbens) is a plant restricted to areas of the barrensthat had never been plowed. However, seeding experimentsindicate that it can be sown and will grow in plowed areas.Research indicates thatwintergreen is absenton sites that wereplowed and presentonly on sites that werenever plowed. While itcan be sown artificially,its natural rate of spreadby seed and its slowgrowth rate kept it fromcolonizing plowed sites.Erv Evans, NC State UniversityAt its present rate ofexpansion, it will take thousands of years for wintergreen torecolonize its former range.In the Montague pine barrens, historical plowing andland use also affected overstory tree species. Researchindicates that 97% of stands dominated by pitch pine wereon formerly plowed areas, whereas 89% of sites dominatedby scrub oak existed on unplowed areas. In plowedareas, scrub oak recolonized only as scattered understoryindividuals, in contrast to the dense thickets found inunplowed areas today. Because abandoned fields providedan excellent litter-free seedbed, nearly all pitch pine treesin plowed areas today belong to the post-abandonmentcohort. (A forest cohort is a stand of trees that areapproximately the same age.) Knowing that pitch pine canbe reestablished by plowing is important for restoring pinebarrens (described below).What are the Effects of Changing the Fire Regime?Since the 1940s, large fires have been excluded frommany forests that formerly burned. As a result, pine barrenshave changed so much that ecological threats are nowappearing. Most northeast barrens are declining as a resultof fire suppression.In the Ossipee Pine Barrens of New Hampshire (Map,page 7), shade-tolerant, fire-intolerant hardwoods andwhite pine have increased over the last 50 years. Pitchpine declined from more than 60% to less than 40%between 1952 and 2002, even though a seed sourcewas present. This is evidence that pitch pine seed can’tpenetrate the litter layer of scrub oak without soil surfacedisturbance.On the Delmarva Peninsula before 1937, fire hadreturned every 10-40 years, supporting a landscape ofoak-pine or pine woodland (50%) or open savanna (50%).Between 1937 and 1993, 25% of the barrens converted .to hardwood forest, with 50% converting to closedcanopy oak-pine or pine, at the expense of 50% of thesavanna area.What are the Effects on Pine Barrens Biodiversity?Both regionally and globally rare plants and animalsare dependent on these habitats. The Long Island pinebarrens support 54 rare plants and 19 rare animals.Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths) are especiallydependent on barrens. Scrub oak is the principal larvalhost for 16 (29%) of the 56 Lepidoptera of conservationconcern in New England and New York. Frost pockets – .small depressions where frost is likely to form – found inpitch-pine/scrub-oak barrens provide an important habitatfor these rare or endangered Lepidoptera. This mayhave to do with the time of appearance of oak leaves.Young, tender leaves are more nutritious than older leavesbecause they have more nitrogen and water content.Spring leaf development is delayed in frost pockets,providing highly nutritious food on warm sunny days,resulting in rapid growth of butterfly larvae.Gary BoydThe Karner bluebutterfly (Lycacidesmelissa samuelis) isa federally protectedendangered butterflyspecies.9

C H A P T E R1Forest History AND Biodiversit yPine Barrens of the NortheastHow can knowledge of pine barrens historybe used to restore biodiversity?Why Restore Pine Barrens?Restoration is important because:s A number of rare plants and animals are dependent onthese habitats.s Pine barrens contain important bogs and marshes thatcontribute to biodiversity.What’s Their Current Status?Most are old pitch-pine stands, either invaded by orbeing replaced by less fire-tolerant species like white pine,oak, red maple, or other hardwoods. Fifty years of fireexclusion and fragmentation have prevented the fires .that regenerated these stands in pre-settlement times.Pitch-pine regeneration is minimal due to dense forestfloorleaf litter.Important Points about Pine BarrensPine barrens:s require periodic fire, so .long-term management .must include some kindof burning or equivalentmanagement practice(described on next page)s are threatened by development and fragmentation.These forests exist on outwash plains that provide flat,well-drained land suitable for housing developments,roads, shopping malls, and airports. State and privateorganizations are working to protect the remaininglarge, undeveloped sand plains.There is no blanket approach to pine barrensmanagement. Geographically isolated pine barrenshave their own history, and restoration plans should bedeveloped on a site-by-site basis.Overcoming Difficulties of Pine Barrens RestorationHistorical stand-replacing fires that occured afterdroughts and usually in the summer, regenerated pinebarrens prior to European settlement. Today, such firesare dangerous and difficult to control. Managers alsoface additional complications resulting from multipleownerships and parcelization along boundaries betweenurban areas and large undeveloped pine barrens. TheNature Conservancy is attempting a solution in its OssipeePine Barrens (see photo caption below).10In the New Hampshire OssipeePine Barrens, mature pineforests originated from 1885,1920, and 1957 fires. Fuelmodels that predict surfaceflame lengths and rates ofspeed indicate that catastrophiccrown fires would result withwind speeds of only 15-20 mph.Burning could be hazardousto suburban property unlessdefensible space is maintainedbetween dwellings and theforest edge. Fire managementareas would have to beenclosed with firebreaksto prevent uncontrolledspreading.This buffer created bymechanical harvesting duringthe late winter of 2005 inMadison, New Hampshire, doestwo things. First, it protectshomes adjacent to the OssipeePine Barrens Preserve fromwildfire. Second, it mimics theeffects of fire and restoresthe pine barrens ecosystemby removing white pineand hardwoods and addingopenings in the forest.Joseph Klemenitovich

Forest History AND Biodiversit yPine Barrens of the NortheastC H A P T E R1Effects of Prescribed Fire in Pine BarrensPrescribed fire can be useful in restoring pine barrens.It’s been used in New Jersey since the 1950s to controlfuel loads and reduce catastrophic wildfires. However, itseffectiveness varies with the time of year and the intensityof the burn. (See box)Prescribed fires may be restricted near residentialareas. For example, only spring burns are allowed in theConnecticut Valley of Massachusetts. Unfortunately, lowintensity spring burns have little effect (see box), so athree-part approach to restoration is recommended:Results of Low Intensity Spring BurnsThese burns:• typically are hot enough to char bark on large trees• have little effect on roots of hardwood and shrub speciesthat compete with pitch pine• don’t eliminate the litter layer that prevents pitch pineestablishment.Stands are likely to succeed to mixed pine-hardwoodsor red maple because these fires don’t damage the rootsystems or sprouting ability of red maple or oak.Results of High Intensity Spring BurnsThese burns:• can consume the litter layer• should be plannedwith a heavy pitch-pineseedfall, or a harvestthat opens the canopy,followed by burningslash piles to reducefuel loads.They are recommendedfor successfullyregenerating pitch pine.Results of RepeatedLight Summer BurnsBurns repeated annuallyas many as three times:• reduce fuel loads• reduce red maple and grey birch by killing theirrootstocks• don’t reduce scrub oak density.Unfortunately, pitch pine does not regenerate .in light burns.Results of High Intensity Summer BurnsThese burns:• successfully regenerate pitch pine stands• may be controlled if done during wet weather.However, they’re probably impractical due to .control problems.1 cut unwanted hardwoods in the growing season2 scarify the soil to promote pitch pine regenerationfrom seed (historically effective when plowed fieldswere abandoned)3 use follow-up controlled burns to maintainvegetation.Burning doesn’t always restore plant compositionto historic levels, and it’s not always possible to getrid of introduced species, but some kind of burning isimportant to perpetuate pine barrens. Where summerburns are impractical, annually repeated small-scaleburns might slowly eliminate hardwood competition.Controlled growing-season burns during wet weatherand/or mechanical treatments have been recommended inMassachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York to reducefuel loads adjacent to residential development.Is It Possible to Practice Sustainable Forestry inPine Barrens?If the goal is to grow white pine for harvest along withpitch pine, here’s a possible scenario:s Delay burning until white pine is large enough towithstand heat (it’s intolerant of fire when young).s Once white pine is large enough, burning each year for3-5 years may be needed to control hardwoods.s Continued burning at pre-settlement return intervals(10-40 years) is necessary to prevent hardwoods fromgrowing back.s Cutting or girdling large hardwood trees that surviveprescribed burns may be necessary to remove theirseed source.s Pitch pine isn’t as commercially valuable as whitepine, but conversion to white pine should be avoidedbecause pitch pine is the primary species of thisecosystem. Attempts to convert to white pine in theOssipee Pine Barrens failed due to white pine weevil.s Some white pine grown under the protection of pitchpine may be more weevil resistant, because it typicallyattacks and deforms white pine monocultures.s Eventually, a clearcut or seed-tree harvest can be usedto simulate natural disturbance.s Soil scarification (shallow plowing) will allow pitch pineregeneration by seed from adjacent areas.This management scenario would create even-agedpitch-pine stands similar to those that result from standreplacingfires. It would provide structural diversity,ecological sustainability, and fuel management. It wouldend the history of fire suppression, which threatens today’spine barrens with replacement by fire-intolerant species.Implementing this scenario will be costly. However, it maybe possible over the long term to pay management costswith profit from harvests and manage these disappearingecosystems for their benefit to biodiversity.11

C H A P T E R1Forest History AND Biodiversit yTransition Hardwoods of the NortheastIntroduction to tRANSITION HARDWOODs(Map, page 7)Location• A band of transition hardwoods extends from thecoast of Maine and New Hampshire throughMassachusetts and northern Connecticut intosouthern New York and central Pennsylvania.Transition hardwoods grow in some of the mostpopulated parts of the Northeast and are some ofthe most heavily disturbed and modified forests inthe region.Tree SpeciesHardwoods include:• American beech (Fagus grandifolia)• sweet birch (Betula lenta)• yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis)• sugar maple (Acer saccharum)• red maple (Acer rubrum)• northern red oak (Quercus rubra)• black oak (Quercus velutina)• white oak (Quercus alba)• shagbark hickory (Carya ovata)• mocknut hickory (Carya tomentosa)• pignut hickory (Carya glabra)• white ash (Fraxinus americana)Conifers include:• white pine (Pinus strobus)• eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis)What do we know about the naturaland land-use history of the TRANSITIONHARDWOODS and their effect on biodiversity?Lake sediment cores show that pre-settlement speciescomposition varied between uplands and lowlands.Natural HistoryIn the Uplands• The central uplandsin Massachusettsincluded hemlock,sugar maple, yellowbirch, beech and othershade tolerant, matureforest species.• Hemlock and chestnutwere dominantin the Berkshire-Taconic plateauof northwesternConnecticutand westernMassachusetts.• Oak and chestnut wereimportant in other upland sites in central Massachusetts.• Around 1450, during the “Little Ice Age” of extreme wintersand cool summers, beech, sugar maple, and hemlock beganto decline while oaks increased.In the Lowlands• Oak, chestnut, andhickory, along withsome pine (whiteand pitch) dominatedthe lowlands andmajor river valleys inMassachusetts, alongwith lesser amountsof hemlock, beech,and sugar maple.Charcoal in sedimentcores indicatesthat periodic firescontributed to longtermmaintenance ofoak forests. Fire wasmost frequent in thevalleys, where NativeAmerican populationswere highest.Along the easternseaboard, hurricanesare a major standreplacingdisturbancewith a return intervalof from 85-150 years.The great hurricaneof 1938 felled 3 billionboard feet of timberon 240,000 ha (600,000a), including half of allthe white pine in theregion.In north-centralPennsylvania, thefollowing differencesin species compositionwere influenced bylandform, elevation andgeography:• Upper elevationswere dryer, favoringoak, chestnut, andfire- and droughttolerantpitch pine.• Lower elevations hada higher proportionof species thatrequire a moderateamount of water,such as white pineand hemlock, mixedin with the oaks.• Red maple crossed alllandforms and was more abundant than anywhere else inthe transition hardwoods zone.12

Forest History AND Biodiversit yTransition Hardwoods of the NortheastC H A P T E R1Land Use HistoryNative Americans in thetransition hardwoodshad well-developedagricultural societies.However, Europeandiseases that arrivedahead of the colonistsdrastically reducednative populations. TheMayflower pilgrims,landing at Plymouth,found abandoned Indiansettlements, not anunbroken wilderness,an indication of NativeAmerican impact onforested landscapes.European colonies wereestablished in the early1600s in coastal NewYork, Massachusetts,and New Hampshire,and spread inland.Settlement broughtextensive clearing offorests for agriculture.In Massachusetts,between 1830 and 1885,50-60% of the land wasin agriculture, sheepand cattle numbersexceeded 650,000, andforests were confinedto poor quality lands,mountains, and swampsand were harvested fortimber and fuel.Both population andland use peaked around1850 when westwardrailroad expansionallowed a mass exodusto more fertile Midwestfarmland, leavingabandoned acreages.Forests increased andagricultural land usedecreased. Only 7%of Massachusetts is inagriculture today.Agriculturalabandonment led toeven-aged stands ofwhite pine. Hemlockhardwoodunderstorieseventually developedbeneath the pine andincluded beech, redoak, yellow birch, redmaple, sugar maple andother species. Thesestands were commonfrom New England towestern Pennsylvaniauntil logged or damaged by the 1938 hurricane.Regeneration following the hurricane was in the form ofadvanced hardwood growth beneath the white pine. Ingeneral, hardwoods benefited from the hurricane.Around 1900, growthof white pine standson old agriculturalland resulted in anew round of timberharvesting. Pine forestswere either clearcut orselectively logged andreplaced by even-agedhardwoods that hadestablished under thepines and now becamethe dominant speciesand are still dominanttoday.13

C H A P T E R1Forest History AND Biodiversit yTransition Hardwoods of the NortheastWhat are the Effects of Clearing TransitionHardwoods?Today’s stands of transition hardwoods still reflect .19th-century land-use practices in many ways:s The age structures are often similar, the result of .old-field abandonment or clearing.s Most are stratified mixed-species stands, with complexdiameter distributions and vertical structure.s Those not cleared for agriculture were cut repeatedlyfor firewood, producing even-age stands and .multi-stemmed trees that remain today.s They lack large trees, large down logs, tip-up .mounds and pits (resulting from wind damage), .and large snags.s Less than 1% of northeastern forests are true oldgrowth.Old-growth stands, defined on the basisof structure (i.e. old large trees, uneven-aged andshade-tolerant species) are extremely rare because ofwidespread clearing for agriculture and clearcuttingfrom the time of settlement.s Many understory plants haven’t recolonized, andunderstory diversity is below pre-settlement levels.Species without adaptations for long distance seeddispersal are rare. Bedrock outcrops served as refugia(locations that support organisms limited to small partsof their previous geographic range) throughout theagricultural period for species that are poor dispersersand assisted with recovery in nearby areas.What are the Effects of Changing theFire Regime?Before European settlement, frequent but lightunderstory fire appears to have been important in .transition hardwoods.s By the late 1700s, fires decreased as the area of forestdeclined and most land was converted to agriculture.s With old-field reforestation after agriculturalabandonment in the late 1800s, fire returned.s Fire incidence increased with logging, reaching amaximum around 1900, before fire control policieswere established.s Since World War II, forests that historically burnedhave been protected from fire. Major fires in the 20thcentury only occurred when drought conditions .favored them.s Fire suppression in transition hardwoods, especially inPennsylvania, has led to a decrease in oak and hickoryand an increase in red maple. The oaks will continue todecline if fire is not reintroduced.What are the Effects on Animal Biodiversity?Animal populations responded to forest changeafter farmland abandonment. Today, mid-successionstands dominate the region, and some animal speciesare becoming more abundant as tree sizes increase. Forexample, pileated woodpeckers have responded to theincreased availability of larger diameter trees for nestingand foraging. However, few species are dependent uponthe mid-succession stands that now dominate the region.More than 260vertebrates useforest habitats in theNortheast, with themajority finding foodand cover in earlyandlate-successionforests. As a result,wildlife communitiesare handicapped bythe lack of youngforests and old-growthstands. Populationsthat depend on young,regenerating forests aredeclining conspicuously.Pileated woodpeckersThey include bird species (golden-winged warblers),mammals (cottontail rabbits), reptiles (black racers) andvarious butterflies and moths.s Present-day populations of cottontails (Sylvilagustransitionalis) depend on large patches of regeneratinghabitat close to each other for long-term survival.s Golden-winged warblers (Vermivora chrysoptera)don’t nest in patches less than 10 ha (24.7 a).s Large-bodied snakes like the black racer (Coluberconstrictor) seem limited to patches greater than 10 ha(24.7 a) of regenerating forests in human-dominatedlandscapes.In contrast, white-tailed deer populations haveincreased in response to landscape modifications andelimination of large predators. Removal of wolves andcougars has had a lasting impact since the early 1800s. Insome areas, deer density is greater than in pre-settlementtimes. One 50-year study at an old-growth stand inPennsylvania showed deer populations increasing withearly-succession habitat following farm abandonmentand clearcutting between 1890 and 1920. Overbrowsingof tree seedlings and saplings by deer created an age/size gap for several species and also encouraged hayscentedfern (Dennstaedia pinctilobula) to dominate in theunderstory (see photo caption on next page).Great Lakes Ecological Assessment14

Forest History AND Biodiversit yTransition Hardwoods of the NortheastC H A P T E R1Erv Evans, NC State UniversityHay-scented fern• Deer feed heavily onAllegheny blackberry(Rubus allegheniensis),a plant that colonizesforest openings.Blackberry seedlingsin turn promotethe establishmentof tree seedlings.When blackberry isremoved by overbrowsing,hay-scentedfern (Dennstaediapinctilobula) replacesit. Deer avoid this fern,which then becomesvery abundant andinhibits the growthof tree seedlings andsmall herbs. Onceestablished, hayscentedfern maypersist for decades.Overbrowsing deer:s affect herbs, which represent most plant diversity intemperate forests, because they never grow tall enoughto escape browsings may eliminate herbs that naturally occur at low densitiesfrom some locationss can reduce vertical complexity of forest understories,reducing the abundance and diversity of shrub-nestingsongbirds.From these examples it’s clear that the history oftransition hardwoods has affected biodiversity. The loss oflarge predators has altered animal communities, resultingin an abundance of habitat generalists that can affect plantcommunities and modify local species abundance.Introduced Insects and Diseases inTransition HardwoodsNon-native invasive species have reduced populations oreliminated some native species (Chapter 2). Two importantexamples are:s Chestnut blight, a fungus imported from China,completely eliminated large chestnut from its .historical dominance.s Hemlock wooly adelgid insect is a current seriousconcern.This subject is discussed in more detail in .Chapter 2, page 58.HOW CAN KNOWLEDGE OF TRANSITIONHARDWOOD HISTORY BE USED TO RESTOREBIODIVERSITY?Why Restore Transition Hardwoods?Land use, changed fire regimes, distorted animalpopulations, and invasive species have altered thestructure and composition of these forests.What’s Their Current Status?Transition hardwood forests are characterized by:s a decrease in oak and hickory and an increase in redmaple resulting from fire suppression, especially inPennsylvania, trends that will continue if fire is notreintroduceds mid-succession stands that dominate the landscapewith serious consequences for biodiversitys declining populations of animals dependent on .early-succession.They’re some of the most densely human-populatedand most heavily disturbed and modified forests in theNortheast, both historically and currently.Important Points About Transition HardwoodsThere is concern about the future of sustainableforestry in this region for several reasons:s There are a lot of small, non-industrial forestownerships with parcel sizes ranging from ten to afew hundred hectares.s There are only a few large industrial or even largenon-industrial forest holdings, which complicates thereintroduction of fire (discussed below).s In addition to parcelization, there’s widespreadfragmentation from roads, residential clearing, andcommercial development along main travel corridors.Difficulties in Restoring Transition HardwoodsMany scientists contend that silviculture that reflectspre-settlement or natural disturbance patterns willconserve ecosystem functions and biodiversity. Theypoint to evidence that pre-settlement forests experiencedfrequent large-scale stand-replacing disturbances,including hurricanes, together with understory andoccasional catastrophic fire. This raises three majorquestions:1 Can fire be reintroduced into this landscape?2 What silvicultural management system is mostsuitable in these areas, which are dominated by themost recent post-hurricane cohort?3 How can a mid-succession forest landscape bemanaged to create large live trees, large snags, andlarge down logs?15

C H A P T E R1Forest History AND Biodiversit yTransition Hardwoods of the NortheastThe Question of Reintroduced FirePre-settlement fire favored the dominance of oak andpine over shade-tolerant species, but reintroducing it maynot be easy for three reasons:s Compared to pre-settlement fires, low-intensityprescribed fires fail to regenerate oak populationsbecause the fire probably won't control the shadetoleranthardwoods, that are otherwise fire-intolerant,due to their relatively large size.s The infrastructure required for a safe prescribed fireeffort is probably beyond the capability (and interest) ofmost non-industrial private forest owners, who controlthe majority of forestland.s The air-quality impacts of prescribed fire would likely bea problem and create legal and policy challenges.The Question of Silviculture in Post-Hurricane AreasStudies of the silviculture of post-hurricane, .single-cohort stands (Glossary) have produced a reasonablygood understanding of the regeneration of major species. .We know that:s oaks are strongly dependent on either stump sprouts orwell-established advance regeneration for dominance inthe next cohorts the stems of young eastern white pine can beprotected from white pine weevil damage by leaving acanopy of partial shade until the pines have reached apredetermined heights both of these factors argue strongly for single-cohortsilviculture using a shelterwood system to establish newstands under the protection of a partial canopy .of trees.Unfortunately, the silvicultural science behindintermediate treatments such as thinning isn’t welldeveloped for transition hardwoods. Instead, many forestersrely on Midwestern oak density-management guidelines.However, considering the financial value and importance oftree grade, there is a critical need for research to developindividual crop-tree approaches to thinning.Creating Structural Legacy in Transition HardwoodsLegacies are conditions that link past and futuresystems. Mid-succession forests often lack structural legaciessuch as large live trees, large snags, and large down logs(see discussion of their value, page 44). One approach todeveloping structural legacy in single-cohort stands is topractice green-tree retention when harvesting (retain somelarge trees into the next rotation, described in more detailon page 45). Unfortunately, foresters lack scientific guidancefor selecting retention trees or predicting their impact inthe next cohort. This approach would be difficult given theimportance of tree grade to the value of hardwoods andthe tendency of oaks, along with sugar maples, to developcrooks following partial shade or suppression.Another approach to structural legacy might be groupselection or group shelterwood, including a variety ofirregular shelterwood techniques. But there are challengesto group selection in the single-cohort structure of today’stransition hardwoods. For example, relatively large openings(greater than 0.12 ha/.29 a) are required to maintain treespecies diversity, and trees in lower strata would needto be eliminated. And there’s another complication: thecontinued prevalence of the unsustainable practice of highgradingoaks and pines (taking the best trees and leavingthe rest) from private forests, especially in Massachusetts.Rather than producing an uneven-aged stand, this practicesimplifies stand structure, speeding the dominance ofshade-intolerants like beech, red maple and hemlock inlower canopy strata.It may be impossible to reconstruct pre-settlementforests in the transition hardwoods region, which has beensubstantially modified by several centuries of human activity.Instead, those who recognize this limitation recommendproviding a range of forest habitats that support viablepopulations of native species. Ultimately, this may be morerealistic than attempting to simulate natural disturbances.16

Forest History AND Biodiversit yNorthern Hardwoods of the NortheastC H A P T E R1Introduction to NORTHERN HARDWOODs(Map, page 7)Location• Northern hardwoods lie between the transitionhardwoods of southern New England and centralPennsylvania and spruce-fir forests at high elevationsand latitudes in the Northeast. They cover parts ofnorthern Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, NewHampshire, northwestern Massachusetts, westernMaine, and extreme northeastern Maine.Tree SpeciesHardwoods include:• American beech (Fagus grandifolia)• sugar maple (Acer saccharum)• yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis)Less shade-tolerant hardwood species include:• paper birch (Betula papyrifera)• gray birch (Betula populifolia)• mountain paper birch (Betula papyrifera var. cordifolia)• pin cherry (Prunus pensylvanica)• white ash (Fraximus americana)• striped maple (Acer pensylvanicum)• red maple (Acer rubrum)Conifers dominate lowland and riparian forestsand include:• white pine (Pinus strobus)• eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis)• balsam fir (Abies balsamea)• red spruce (Picea rubens)WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT NATURAL ANDLAND-USE HISTORY OF NORTHERN HARDWOODSAND THEIR EFFECT ON BIODIVERSITY?Natural HistoryPre-settlement forestcomposition andstructure of northernhardwoods havebeen analyzed usingrecords of “witnesstrees” blazed by landsurveyors to mark thelocations of sectioncorners. Resultsinclude:• In northern NewEngland and NewYork, 49 tree specieswere identified. 79% were beech, spruces, maples,hemlock, and birches.• In Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, beechaveraged 24%, maples 11.8%, and birches 9.7% of allwitness trees. Other species were oaks, pines, hemlock,and spruces.• In the Catskill Mountains of southern New York,northern hardwoods existed at middle elevations (305-914 m/1000-3000 ft), bounded by transition hardwoodsat lower elevations and spruce-fir at higher elevations.In the Adirondacks, the upper limit of northernhardwoods was 980 m (3200 ft).• Forest composition in north-central Pennsylvania (1765-1798) also followed elevation. Forests on the AlleghenyHigh Plateau resembled northern hardwoods, but oaksof the central hardwoods dominated warmer and drierelevations of the Allegheny Front. High Plateau forestsincluded beech and hemlock. Other northern hardwoodassociates such as maple and birch were not as common.Fire was rare in thenorthern hardwoods,with a return intervalof approximately 1000years. The reasons:cooler climate,ample rains, highsoil moisture, anddeciduous vegetation.The northern limit offire probably set theboundary betweentransition hardwoodsand northernhardwoods.Here’s an interestingquestion: Since firewas rare, how didshade-intolerantbirches survive for1000 years betweenstand-replacingdisturbances?Answer: Birchessurvived in canopygaps (openings causedby the death of one ormore adjacent trees).Old age, insects and fungi, physical damage, andwindthrow are natural causes of gaps. More explanationis in the box on the next page: Tree RegenerationStrategies in Gaps.17

C H A P T E R1Forest History AND Biodiversit yNorthern Hardwoods of the NortheastNatural HistoryIce storms areintermediate intensitydisturbances. Theycreate gaps bytaking down treesand acceleratingdeterioration ofinjured trees. Higherelevations and/orlatitudes makenorthern hardwoodsprone to ice storms.Older trees incur moredamage than youngertrees because largercrowns catch morefreezing rain.The effect of windstormdisturbances.• Northern hardwoodscloser to coastalareas were disturbedmore frequently byhurricanes, whichoccur on average morethan 380 years apart.• The great hurricaneof 1938 devastatedthe White Mountains.Post-hurricane standswere dominatedby pin cherry, apattern that alsofollows clearcut harvesting. Within 50 years, pin cherrywas overtopped and eliminated (dynamic stratification).The result was that beech, sugar maple, and yellow birchbecame dominant.(See box below: Tree Regeneration Strategies in Gaps)Tree Regeneration Strategies in GapsDifferent northern hardwood species responddifferently to sunlight in gaps. Trees already establishedin the understory at the time the gap is created are calledadvanced regeneration. They are shade-tolerant enoughto persist in the understory for many years. Examplesinclude beech, sugar maple, hemlock, and red spruce.Each species in this group has a different strategy forsecuring sunlight and resources.Beech can survive approximately 11 years(maximum 30 years) in a suppressed state. It respondsonly modestly to increased light in gaps. However, itscapacity to root sucker allows it to dominate stands withlow gap size and frequency.Sugar maple may survive an average of 2 years inthe understory, but it can alter its leaf to intercept morelight in gaps. It can out-compete beech following gapformation because of its faster growth rate.Striped maple is a gap specialist. It uses thetemporary increase in light to grow quickly and produceseeds, then dies back when the gap closes.Birch can survive for 1000-year periods betweenstand-replacing disturbances by arriving in a gap as seed,then germinating and outgrowing the established shadetolerantspecies. Their success is controlled by gap size,because smaller gaps favor more shade-tolerant speciesand larger gaps favor shade-intolerant regeneration. Inother words, for intolerant trees (such as birches) to be“gap fugitives” and survive between infrequent standreplacementevents, large gaps had to be a frequentcharacteristic of many stands. The small windblownseeds of yellow birch survive on the bare mineral soil oftip-up mounds or on rotting logs or stumps, all of whichare present in gaps. Because it requires soil disturbance,heavy leaf litter or inadequate soil disturbance interfereswith its regeneration.Pin cherry stores seeds in the soil until a lightgap is created, triggering germination and growth.It’s shade-intolerant, but its rapid growth makes itsuccessful in larger gaps and after stand-clearingdisturbances such as fire or clearcutting. But pin cherryis a transient, and it’s eventually overtopped by slowergrowing species that began growing at the same time.It’s an example of “dynamic stratification,” the reversalof stratum layers during stand development, where onelayer follows the elimination of a less-tolerant stratum.Various size gaps create a patchwork ofdevelopmental stages, with the main part of the forestbeing shade-tolerant species. In the White Mountainsof New Hampshire, smaller, older gaps were associatedwith hemlock, while larger, newer gaps were associatedwith paper birch, striped maple, pin cherry, and redmaple. Yellow birch, red maple, and striped maplewere less abundant in the old-growth parts of theforest than in gaps, while hemlock, beech and sugarmaple showed the opposite trend. Gap age, gap size,and location within the gap all explained variation inspecies abundance and community structure, withgap age being the most influential. For pin cherry andpaper birch, gap size was important because bothneed larger gaps to regenerate. For shade-intolerantspecies, location within a gap was important becauseregeneration success increased toward the center.Finally, gap age is a strong predictive indicator of speciescomposition and dominance as gaps are reclaimed.Knowledge of gaps is important for successfulrestoration.18

Forest History AND Biodiversit yNorthern Hardwoods of the NortheastC H A P T E R1The pattern in northern hardwoods was similar totransition hardwoods, but with interesting differences.Northern hardwoodswere less settled byNative Americans thantransition hardwoods.Their inland locationmade them lessaccessible to Europeansettlers, but land wascleared for agriculturewhen colonizationoccurred by the late1700s.Like the pine barrensand transitionhardwoods, farmedacreages wereabandoned inthe 1850s. Here,abandoned landreverted to old-fieldwhite pine, birch, andmaple. And 150 yearslater, these forests stillshow effects of thosehistorical land uses(see Effects of ClearingNorthern Hardwoodsbelow).Land Use HistoryFrom the late 1800sto the early 1900s,nearly all the northernhardwood forestwas logged witha combination ofclearcutting and/orpartial cutting thathigh-graded thebiggest and besttrees. Custom-builtlogging railroads madelarge-scale harvestingpossible from theWhite Mountains to theAlleghenies of Pennsylvania. The steam-poweredlocomotives started slash fires that raged across recentlylogged landscapes and shaped the character of manyforests today. This devastation of forests and watershedsled to national legislation (Weeks Act of 1911) andestablishment of national forests in the east.Virgin red spruce, sugar maple, yellow birch and whitepine were cut for furniture. Beech was seldom harvestedbut was used for wood-burning locomotives. Hemlockwas cut for its bark and used in the leather tanningindustry.What are the Effects of Clearing theNorthern Hardwoods?Historic clearcutting and burning left currentlandscapes dominated by mid-succession stands with thefollowing characteristics:s They’re often stratified single-cohort mixtures,lacking the horizontal gaps (canopy openings) thatare common in advanced developmental stages.They lack tip-up mounds and pits, the result of largetree blowdown in natural forests, which provideregeneration habitats for paper and yellow birch .(see box: Tree Regeneration Strategies in Gaps, .page 18).s High-grading has left forests that lack large old trees,large dead snags, and large down logs, elementswhich provide habitat for diversity, including insects,fungi and lichens.s Subsequent natural disturbances – hurricanes, fires,and major windstorms – have not been enough toundo human impacts on northern hardwood forestecosystems.What are the Effects of Northern HardwoodsHistory on Biodiversity?Long-lived, late-succession species such as beech,sugar maple, hemlock, and yellow birch have declinedcompared to pre-settlement populations. Shorter-lived,early- to mid-succession species such as red maple,poplars, cherries, white pine, and white ash haveincreased. This landscape-scale age structure favors animalspecies that need/prefer mid-succession habitat. Just as inthe transition hardwoods region (page 14), animal speciesthat need/prefer early- and late-succession habitats are lowin the northern hardwoods, and many are declining.What’s Important About Early- andLate-succession Habitats?Early-succession habitats offer herbaceous groundcover and fruit-bearing shrubs. The length of time somevertebrates use early-succession habitat varies, and it maybe extremely short for some species. For example, thedecline in the population of olive-sided flycatchers is ofgreat conservation concern (see photo captions on .next page).19

C H A P T E R1Forest History AND Biodiversit yNorthern Hardwoods of the NortheastTom Munson Tom MunsonOlive-sided flycatcher(above) easternbluebird (below)Olive-sided flycatchers(Contopus cooperi)and eastern bluebirds(Sialia sialis) maycolonize a site ayear or two aftera disturbance butabandon it after onlytwo or three breedingseasons. In additionto this short periodof suitability, bothspecies rely on largecanopy gaps that maybe associated withbeaver dams or otherdisturbances thatkill many trees. Theydo not make use ofopenings created byindividual or smallgroup-selectionharvests.Mammals occupy a greater diversity of habitats thanbreeding birds. More than 85% of the 60 species endemicto the region use various combinations of forest types anddevelopmental stages. However, nearly all mammals in thisregion use early-succession habitats, and about 20 haveshown a preference for such habitats. Several species aretightly associated with young forests, and their abundanceis directly dependent on the dense understory vegetationfound in regenerating stands (see Snowshoe hare/.Lynx caption).Vertebrate species richness in mature stands, overmaturestands, and stands with all age classes is greaterthan in early-succession stands. One important featureof mature stands is decay in standing and fallen trees.In northern hardwood forests, 41 species of birds andmammals nest, den, roost, or forage for insects in treeswith stem cavities. Most nest in relatively large trees(greater than 45 cm/18 in DBH) with suitable decay.Unfortunately, little is known about northernhardwood forest development and other organisms likeinsects and fungi. Organisms requiring large living treesor large down logs may be more abundant and diverse inolder stands, for example:s Some groups of beetles such as the Pselaphidae andLeiodidae appear to be more abundant in old-growthforests compared to younger managed forests. Atleast one Leiodid beetle has been cited as a possibleindicator of old-growth northern hardwoods, and thespecies richness of beetles that feed on fungi underbark was higher in an old-growth stand than in a .40-year-old managed stand.s The species richness of Calicioid lichens and fungi,which often grow on the bark of large, slowgrowingtrees, increases over time, with older standssupporting more rare species.s Maintaining species richness in these insect andfungal groups may depend on protecting some oldgrowthnorthern hardwoods and managing someolder stands to allow for a sufficient number of largelegacy structures.Introduced Insects and Diseases inNorthern HardwoodsAs in the transition hardwoods, invasives havereduced populations of some native species. This subject isdiscussed in more detail in the invasives chapter, but twoare of serious concern:s Beech bark disease, a 20th-century invasive (Chapter2, page 59), has had the largest impact of any nonnativepathogen, because beech was the mostabundant forest species in pre-settlement times and isalso the most shade-tolerant. Eastern hemlock is theprimary beneficiary, filling the openings left by deadand dying beech trees.s Hemlock woolly adelgid is a serious invasive as it is inthe transition hardwoods (Chapter 2, page 58).Tom and Pat Leeson/Photo ResearchersLynx hunting snowshoe hareLagomorphs (rabbits, hares, and pikas) are dependentupon young forests. They’re major prey for a numberof carnivores. Changes in lagomorph abundance affectpredator number. Snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus)are the only lagomorph present in northern hardwoods.The lynx is a threatened species in the Northeast. Becauseits abundance is closely associated with the abundanceof hares, attention is being directed toward maintainingadequate hare habitat to assure lynx viability.20

Forest History AND Biodiversit yNorthern Hardwoods of the NortheastC H A P T E R1HOW CAN KNOWLEDGE OF NORTHERN HARDWOODHISTORY BE USED TO RESTORE BIODIVERSITY?Why Restore Northern Hardwoods?One reason is that current forests don’t mirror thedistribution of pre-settlement forests. Research based onhistorical records and the few existing old-growth standsindicates that those forests were more diverse:s 30% were in early-succession stages, best produced byeven-aged or single-cohort silvicultural systems.s 40% were in later-succession stages, best producedby uneven-aged multi-cohort systems with gap sizesranging from small groups to small patches.s 30% were in transitional stages between the two.Today’s mid-succession forest landscape has left ashortage of early- and late-succession stands and a lack oflegacy structures.A mix of silvicultural systems would be necessaryto maintain a forest landscape with the pre-settlementproportions described above. Redeveloping legacystructures will require modifying both even- and unevenagedmanagement approaches. To achieve that goal, somescientists advocate converting from even-aged stands touneven-aged stands over time.What’s Their Current Status?Today’s forests are much younger than pre-settlementforests, even though the tree species are largely the same.Forests growing on abandoned agricultural fields areapproximately 150 years old. The oldest second-growthforests are about 100 years old. Third-growth forests,logged and regenerated in the 20th century, are evenyounger. Characteristics include:s even-aged stands with complex vertical structure but nohorizontal structure (natural openings or gaps)s some snags and down logs, but few large standingtrees, large snags and large down logs (Table 1.1, page23). Some fungi, lichens, and insects are dependent onthese structures, and they tend to be more abundantand diverse in the few existing old-growth standss lower percentages of later-succession beech and sugarmaple, and higher densities of low- to mid-tolerant redmaple, paper birch, and white ash than pre-settlementforests.Important Points about Northern HardwoodsEven with a history of conversion and heavy harvest,these forests are not as fragmented, parcelized, or closeto large human population centers as the transitionhardwoods. So in theory, more management options .are possible.While the quality (grade) of trees is not the same, theforest has recovered to merchantable size, with 58% ofstands in the sawtimber size class. A range of managementtechniques, from even-aged to uneven-aged, is available tomeet management objectives.Difficulties in Restoring Northern HardwoodsAs with transition hardwoods, many forest scientistscontend that silviculture that reflects pre-settlement naturaldisturbance may be the most effective way to protectplants, animals, and natural ecosystem processes whilemaintaining a forest-supported economy. They encourageforesters to avoid even-aged management that doesn’tmirror natural processes.Local experts counter by saying that a naturaldisturbancesilvicultural system has not been adoptedbecause there are no specific quantitative guidelines fordesigning and manipulating natural patterns.A key question is: can modern forest managementmaintain forest functions (productivity, nutrient and watercycling, etc.), along with the array of native organismspresent in pre-settlement forests, and at the same time dealwith the loss of landscape-scale diversity in age and standstructure produced by 300 years of prior land use?Two major issues in the restoration of northernhardwoods are:1 Is a pre-settlement model of management thatcalls for a shift from even-aged to uneven-agedmanagement valid, would it achieve ecological andsocial objectives, and is it feasible?2 How can the goals of creating large living trees andlarge down logs be achieved?The Pro and Con of Even-Aged ManagementEven-aged management, practiced in many regionsof the United States, is a repeatable cycle of regeneration,tending, and harvesting stands dominated by a singlecohort. Its major benefit is economic because:s Harvesting is less expensive.s Administration and supervision are less complex.s More wood can be harvested at one time.s Roads and landings require less upkeep.In the northeast, both clearcutting and shelterwoodtechniques are used, each having a different effect on whichspecies will dominate after harvest. Clearcutting favorsshade-intolerant birch and is highlighted in the illustratedsequence below. Open shelterwood (leaving 30-50% crowncover) favors mid-tolerant yellow birch and red maple. Denseshelterwood (leaving 80% crown cover) favors shadeintolerantsugar maple and beech.21

C H A P T E R1Forest History AND Biodiversit yNorthern Hardwoods of the NortheastOne year afterclearcuttingan even-agedcohort of shadeintolerantregenerationhas begun. Thesuccessful speciesis influenced bysoil. On fine till,early dominantsinclude yellowbirch, pin cherry,and paper birch, while red maple, paper birch, pin cherry,and yellow birch dominate on sandy till.The tree canopycloses 10-15 yearsafter logging.Herbaceousforage declinesdue to shading.At 20 years,the height tolive canopy is3-4 meters (10-13 ft). At thisstage, changesin canopycompositionare based onelimination ofshort-lived andshade-intolerantspecies. Thoseearly dominantsdecrease overtime as shadetolerantspeciesfrom lower strataincrease andeventuallydominate.At age 70, withtrees 50-60 cm(20-24 in) indiameter, thestand is ready toharvest.Even-aged management is not popular with the publicbecause of its appearance. Large clearcuts are supposed tosimulate large catastrophic disturbances, but the frequencyof such events in any northern hardwood stand was atmost once every several centuries (more about this below).Today’s even-aged management uses a 50-100 yearrotation.The Pro and Con of Uneven-aged ManagementSupporters of uneven-aged management contend thatit is most similar to pre-settlement disturbance regimes.They refer to science-based calculations indicating thata stand-replacing disturbance affecting 20 ha (50 a) ofcontiguous forest would occur in the same spot every 347years. They point out that current even-aged systems,with a 50-100 year rotation, allow more frequent clearcutson that same area of forest. Supporters also say that aregulatory approach that regenerates 0.7-1.3% of thelandscape per year would better approximate naturalcanopy turnover, resulting in a maximum tree age withinmanaged stands of 70-140 years, a longer rotation thaneven-aged silviculture. Obviously, this approach would bemore expensive. On private land, where trees are seen asa capital investment, holding stands beyond a certain agewould reduce the rate of return.General opinion is that while the concept of unevenagedmanagement is biologically sustainable, it’s unlikely tobecome a viable practice because most landowners wouldsee it as having financial disadvantages. Other challengesto successful uneven-aged management include:s Beech bark disease has lowered beech value bykilling most of the larger trees. Mortality leads to rootsprouting, resulting in high understory beech densitiesthat compete with more valuable species such as .sugar maple.s Where sprouting beech densities are high, sitepreparation with herbicides may be necessary tocontrol them.s To provide a sustainable yield, an uneven-aged standmust produce not only the same volume of woodover time, but also a consistent species and grademix. Species composition can be regulated to somedegree by gap size. For example, a group selectionharvest, with patches up to 0.81 ha (2 a) wouldfavor birch regeneration, while single tree and smallgroup selection would favor sugar maple and beechregeneration.s The forest must have enough pole-size trees to growinto sawtimber size, but not be so dense that growthis slowed.22

Forest History AND Biodiversit yNorthern Hardwoods of the NortheastC H A P T E R1Can There be a Shift From Even- toUneven-aged Management?Converting from even- to uneven-aged stands wouldtake many decades and involve speeding up canopy breakuprather than waiting for trees in even-aged stands to dienaturally. The result would be a structure similar to presettlementforests, but the maximum diameter and basalarea would be smaller.While moving from even- to uneven-aged forests, itwould be important to:s control the cut so that some older trees remains create gaps large enough for new cohorts to becomeestablished at regular intervalss maintain species diversity (especially shade-.intolerant species)s assure the health and vigor of the old trees .that remains sustain seed production until younger cohorts matures regulate the number and mix of trees in each cohort asmulti-aged stands develop over as much as a century.Once they are established, a selection system could besustainable.Two methods for conversion have been suggested:1 regularly scheduled uniform partial cuts, similar toheavy thinning or light shelterwood to establish newseedlings – for eventual single tree selection2 periodic patch cutting (1-2 tree heights in diameter)with thinning to establish clusters of seedlings,eventually supporting group selection.The first would favor shade-tolerant species, and thesecond would allow regeneration of shade-intolerantspecies. A mix of the two would increase heterogeneousstands, an important characteristic of natural uneven-agedforests.Successful conversion would depend on:s sustaining the regeneration of seedlings and saplingsover many decades by growing trees free fromintense animal browsing, free from interferencefrom undesirable woody or herbaceous plants, andprotected from fire and droughts because overstory trees must produce seeds atappropriate thinning intervals, the eventual forestshould have three to four age classes with consistentintervals between them, each occupying a similaramount of space.How to Develop Large Trees, Snags, andLarge Down LogsLand-use history left very few old-growth stands withlarge live trees, and there’s no quick fix. Table 1.1 comparesthe basal area of snags and the volume of large down logsin the few remaining old-growth stands with managedstands.Old-growth StandsManaged StandsSnag basal area 4-8 m 2 /ha (30-60 ft 2 /a) 0.3-4 m 2 /ha (2.25-30 ft 2 /a)Volume of large 60-160 m 3 /ha 15-65 m 3 /hadown logs (1240-3300 ft 3 /a) (310-1340 ft 3 /a)Table 1.1A Comparison of Legacy Structures in Northwest ForestsIt would take several decades for managed standsto reach the volume of large down logs in old-growthstands, even if no harvesting occurred. Thinning mightaccelerate the development of large-diameter trees andsnags, but it would still take decades. There are threeways to achieve these goals more quickly:s the passive approachs the long-rotation approachs the active retention approach.The passive approach simply recognizes the valueof large live trees, snags, large down logs, and otherlegacies with old-growth character. However, protectingentire stands would involve some economic cost, andthere’s no guarantee against a major disturbance.This approach is relatively inexpensive but probablywon’t achieve the targets in Table 1.1. There may beimprovement as some landowners see its value, butstructural legacies will be a feature in only a few stands,not a common feature in most stands.The long-rotation approach requires rotation agesof 120-200 years in even-age systems and even longerin uneven-aged systems. Unfortunately, there has beenno research on this approach, and it requires economicsacrifice that might be unacceptable except for publicownerships.The active retention approach uses green-treeretention (see page 45) to increase snags and large downlogs in stands managed on shorter rotations. This ideais appealing, but there’s not much field data to supportrecommendations on green-tree retention in northernhardwoods. In addition, there’s no information about thesusceptibility of retention trees to windthrow disturbance.While it’s true that biodiversity has been impacted byland-use history in the northern hardwoods, the successfuldevelopment of legacy structures associated with olderstands and landscapes will require modifying both evenanduneven-aged silviculture in this region. Unfortunately,a lack of older stands provides few opportunities forresearch. Redevelopment of the northern hardwoodlandscape will be a long-term proposition, not a quick .and easy fix. Tools and strategies to sustain publicand political commitment to this goal over multiplegenerations will be required.23

C H A P T E R1Forest History AND Biodiversit yLake States ForestsIntroduction to LAKE STATES FORESTsMature red and white pine, Menominee Reservation,Wisconsin.WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT NATURAL ANDLAND-USE HISTORY OF WHITE PINE FORESTS OF THELAKE STATES AND THEIR EFFECT ON BIODIVERSITY?PresettlementForestL. Wilson, Great Lakes Ecological AssessmentTree SpeciesHardwoods include:• quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides)• bigtooth aspen (Populus grandidentata)• paper birch (Betula papyrifera)• sugar maple (Acer saccharum)• red maple (Acer rubrum)• basswood (Tilia americana)• white ash (Fraxinus americana)• Ameican elm (Ulmus americana)• northern red oak (Quercus rubra)• shagbark hickory (Carya ovata)• butternut hickory (Carya cordiformis)Conifers include:• eastern white pine (Pinus strobus)• red pine (Pinus resinosa)• jack pine (Pinus banksiana)• northern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis)• white spruce (Picea glauca)• black spruce (Picea mariana)• tamarack (Larix laricina)• eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis)• balsam fir (Abies balsamea)Modified and reproduced from History .of the Lake States Forests, Forest StearnsPine ForestAspen-Birch ForestAll Other ForestNon-ForestcurrentForestLake States forest cover has declined from 32.7 million ha(81 million a) at the time of European settlement, to 20million ha (49 million a) today. White pine forests haveseen a drastic loss, from 1.4 million ha (3.4 million a) to 0.2million ha (.49 million a) currently.24

Forest History AND Biodiversit yLake States ForestsC H A P T E R1Glacial landforms, theresult of the WisconsinGlacial Epoch whichended 10,000 yearsago, are a dominantpart of Lake Statesforests and determinesoils, topography,and potential naturalvegetation.Pre-settlement forestswere diverse andincluded:• pine on sandy soils• hardwood and mixedhardwood coniferson more fertilesoils (till plains andmoraines)• cedar, spruce, andlarch in swampforests• young stands ofaspen/birch, pine ormaple• older stands of pine,hemlock, or northernhardwoods rangingin age from 250-400years.Natural disturbancesthat influencedforest structure andcomposition includedwind (particularlycatastrophic wind),fire, disease, insectinfestations, andfluctuations in climate.Natural HistoryForests located ondry, sandy soilsare extremelyflammable. Fireeliminated competinghardwoods, createda mineral seedbedfor pine, and allowedresidual trees torestock the land.White pine occurredmost frequently withred pine and mostoften followed jackpine.• White pine was maintained by a repeating sequenceof catastrophic fires every 150 to 300 years, with lightsurface fires at shorter intervals.• Fire intervals of 100-150 years tended to favor red pine.• Intervals greater than 300 years resulted in northernhardwoods.White pine is a midsuccessionspecies.• Its seed regeneratessuccessfully inmineral soil and fullsunlight after fires.• It is relatively slowgrowing duringestablishment,which allows fastergrowing pioneerspecies to dominatepost-fire stands.• It persists because ithas a long life span (up to 450 years), has the ability tosurvive surface fires, and is moderately shade tolerant.25

C H A P T E R1Forest History AND Biodiversit yLake States ForestsLand Use HistoryHumans have reshapedthe forest landscape ofthe Lake States region.Native Americansintentionally burnedforests for hunting andagriculture.Following the clearingof northeasternforests by the 1850s,many eastern lumbercompanies relocatedto the Lake Stateswhere there was virginwhite pine and watertransportation. Loggingintensified from the1870s through the1890s.White pine wasconsidered the onlyspecies worth loggingbecause it was light,strong, and easy totransport. Harvestingbegan in the 1830s. Thefollowing 50 years sawrapid exploitation ofthe forest. It reacheda peak around 1890when all merchantablepine had been cut ordestroyed by fire.With the white pinesupply exhausted,blister rust fungusinfected many of theremaining white pines,and landowners werediscouraged fromreplanting the tree.Timber companiesmoved on to hemlockand hardwood species,including maple, birch,ash, basswood, elm,cedar, and fir. Hemlockbark was used fortannin in the leatherindustry. After a forestwas clearcut, fires werestarted in the slash tocreate “stump pastures”that were used forfarming. But agriculturewas not sustainable onthe sandy, unproductivesoils.By the 1920s themerchantable pine,hemlock, and smallerhardwoods weregone. Logging hadpermanently changedthe species compositionof pine, hemlock andhardwood forests.• Soils were exposedto excessive drying,eliminating seedlingsand saplings ofsensitive species likehemlock.• Logging favored more aggressive, sprouting, and winddispersedsugar maple. The less mobile, animal-dispersedbeech was at a disadvantage.• Old-growth forests of hemlock, beech, and sugar maplewere converted to second-growth sugar maple forests.• The extensive fires that followed logging favoredsprouting oak and maple. Seed producers like white pinewere at a disadvantage.• Fires helped maintain fire-dependent jack pine andpioneer species like aspen, white birch and cherry.• In other areas, pinelands were converted to largeexpanses of sweet fern and open stands of aspensuckers, scrubby oak, and red maple.The Weeks Act of 1911 and the Clark/McNary Act of 1924funded cooperative state/federal forest fire protection andreforestation and authorized private land purchases east ofthe Great Plains for national forests. Both acts emphasizedforest protection rather than exploitation. The incidence offires decreased and reforestation expanded dramatically.The Great Depression brought the Works ProgressAdministration (WPA) and the Civilian Conservation Corps(CCC). These agencies built forest nurseries and beganreforestation.Fire-suppression policyhas left many 40-60year old stands. Sincethe 1950s aspen andjack pine have becomevaluable as pulpwoodfor paper, fiberboardand waferboard. Theyare managed on 30-60year clearcut rotationcycles. The low firefrequency in jack pineand aspen forests hasraised concern aboutthe maintenance ofthese short-lived,shade-intolerant species. Without the reintroduction offire, major unnatural changes in the ecosystem could occur.Continuing fire control may allow spruce and fir to replacebroadleaf species in the area.26

Forest History AND Biodiversit yLake States ForestsC H A P T E R1What are some of the Effects of Lake States ForestHistory on Biodiversity?There’s been a drastic loss of white pine and red pinein Minnesota over the last 100 years. Efforts are underwayto restore white pine, but there are five main impediments:1 There’s a landscape-wide reduction of viable seedtrees due to the region-wide reduction of whitepine and red pine forests noted above.2 In the absence of fire, more shade-tolerantdeciduous species dominate pine sites, includingsugar maple, aspen, paper birch, basswood,northern red oak, and woody brush species likehazel (Corylus cornuta).3 With the absence of large predators, whitetail deer(Odocoileus virginianus) populations in Minnesotaare vastly larger than in pre-settlement forests.Deer prefer white pine buds to other coniferspecies due to the lower resin content.4 Exotic white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola),a fungus disease, was introduced in 1916. NorthcentralMinnesota has one of the highest hazardratings for white pine blister rust in the Lake Stateregion. (Chapter 2, page 58).5 The white pine tip weevil (Pissodes strobi) killsterminal leaders of white pine saplings at least 1.5meters tall growing in open conditions. The resultis growth loss, poor form, and reduced value ofindividual trees.HOW CAN KNOWLEDGE OF LAKE STATES HISTORYBE USED TO RESTORE BIODIVERSITY?Why Restore Lake States Forests?One reason is that the landscape of northernMinnesota and the upper Lake States is generally secondgrowthforests shaped by human disturbance. Timberharvesting started with white pine, moved on to otherspecies, involved large-scale slash-fueled wildfires, andconcluded with almost complete fire exclusion. The resulthas been a transition in forest composition from northernhardwood and conifer types to early-succession species,such as aspen, and a shift toward younger stand age.What’s Their Current Status?s Forest cover has declined significantly from .pre-settlement forest (Map, page 24).s Old-growth forests were 68%; they now make up5.2% for all forest types.s Primary forests (areas that remained in forestthroughout European settlement, which may or maynot be old-growth) are about 1% of what they werein pre-settlement times.s Secondary forests (cleared for farmland and/orpasture, and logged or disturbed by humans butnot cleared for farmland), consisting of oak-hickory,aspen-birch, red-white pine, jack pine, swamp conifersand northern hardwoods, are the most extensiveforest types.Why Restore Eastern White Pine in Minnesota?The challenge of white pine restoration in the northernMinnesota landscape seems insurmountable given theproblems noted in 1-5 above. In spite of the difficulties,and at great cost, there has been success. The key hasbeen to recognize the role of natural disturbance and theneed for silvicultural systems that provide conditions similarto those generated by natural disturbance, particularly fire.The Rajala Approach to White Pine RestorationRajala Company, a fourth-generation, family-ownedgroup of sawmills and forest products manufacturingplants that manages about 12,000 ha (29,500 a), hasworked for 25 years to restore eastern white pine andassociated tree species in north-central Minnesota.The company’s silvicultural fieldwork focuses on whitepine but includes red pine. Red pine is easier and cheaperto grow, but white pine is more desirable. It grows across arange of site conditions, is moderately shade tolerant, andthe physical and mechanical properties of the wood makeit easier to mill than red pine.Rajala’s approach differs from conventional pinemanagement in the region. Rajala practices retentionharvesting, a system best described as modified irregularshelterwood. It includes the following elements:s Live mature trees are left during harvest, eitherscattered across the harvest area (in a dispersedpattern) or in clumps (aggregate pattern).s Snags and downed logs are intentionally kept, and amineral seedbed is developed.27

C H A P T E R1Forest History AND Biodiversit yLake States Forestss White pine stands aremanaged on 100 to200 year rotations withseveral commercialthinnings.s White pine isunderplanted followingretention harvests orvariable density thinnings(described in PacificCoastal forests, page 45).s Live mature trees, leftafter harvesting, act asnurse trees, but are alsoretained as crop treesthat continue to addvalue as future veneerand eventual high-gradelumber products.s White pine is the species of choice for retention, butpreference is given to other commercially valuablespecies including red oak, paper birch, basswood,and balsam fir. If no crop trees are present, then lessmerchantable trees are retained as nurse trees.s Nurse trees lessen the impact of frost pockets byretaining heat and reducing condensation from risingpockets of air. Since moisture is a key in the infectionof white pine needles by blister rust, controllingmoisture decreases the probability of infection.Overstory shade helps reduce tip weevil infestation .by keeping white pine terminal leaders below athreshold size.Brian PalikRajala Company loggers are trained to understand theecological requirements of white-pine regeneration. Theirgoal is to minimize damage to residual nurse trees, evennon-commercial-crop trees, because of their importanceto underplanted white pine. White pine sites range from1-24 ha (2.5-60 a). The management cycle includes thefollowing six steps:1 Study stands and develop plans for regeneration.2 Design harvest plans for white pine underplantingand mark trees to leave.3 After harvest, prepare the site by mechanicalscarification (raking) and herbicide application.4 Plant the site.Overstory retention of large pine after harvest.5 Apply intermediate treatments includingprotection, pruning, and commercial thinning,6 Schedule a retention harvest (described in greaterdetail on pages 45-46).How the Rajala Program was DevelopedThe Rajala program started as an experiment usingwhite pine on a variety of sites under different harvestingand site preparation treatments. Restoration siteswere selected by soil characteristics. Yearly evaluationsidentified the most successful and cost-effective treatmentcombinations. With experience came greater siteselectivity, with attention to competing vegetation anddeer populations.Retention harvest levels are determined using crownclosure management instead of basal area, guided by thearchitectural characteristics of the tree species and thepredicted crown response to thinning. For example, sugarmaple crowns respond aggressively (within 2-5 years) tothinning. So in stands with abundant sugar maple thepost-harvest crown closure range is 20-30%. In contrast,the crown closure target is 40-60% in stands dominatedby species with much narrower and thinner crowns, suchas trembling and bigtooth aspen, paper birch, balsam fir,or red pine.28

Forest History AND Biodiversit yLake States ForestsC H A P T E R1Retention harvests are followed by intense sitepreparation and intermediate silvicultural treatmentsdesigned to optimize conditions for establishing whitepine. Early attempts at underplanting prepared the sitewith either herbicides alone or mechanical scarificationalone. Both were generally unsuccessful. Success camewhen site preparation combined an exposed mineralseedbed from mechanical scarification with herbicides toreduce woody brush and herbaceous vegetation for 3-5years. Mineral soil exposure and reduction of competitionin the understory imitate periodic natural surface fires inLake States pine ecosystems. Without natural disturbance,these substitutes are important for successful white pineregeneration.Conventional forest herbicide combinations werefound to damage residual canopy trees. Current herbicidecombinations are designed to reduce herbaceous andwoody competition while remaining on the site for theshortest time possible (half-life of 6 days). They .include low concentrations of glyphosate (Accord) .and sulfometuron (Oust).Protection treatments include manual release of whitepine from woody competition and protection from deerbrowsing. Chemical release is less expensive than manualrelease, but white pine is less resistant to chemical damagethan most pine species. After testing tubes and commercialdeer repellents, the most cost-effective deer protectionwas found to be budcaps on terminal leaders, appliedevery fall before browsing begins. Other intermediateprotective treatments include pruning to remove blisterrust and prevent future infections.Rajala Company used their understanding of localnatural history to develop silvicultural techniques that meettheir economic goals and at the same time conserve animportant native tree species.After retention harvestingthe structural complexity andcompositional diversity of thisred pine stand are still in place.Underplanted and budcapped(bud protection device) whitepine seedlings are in theforeground.Brian Palik29

C H A P T E R1Forest History AND Biodiversit yCoastal Plain Forests of the SoutheastBeth YoungIntroduction to COASTAL PLAIN FORESTsOF THE SOUTHEASTBottomland hardwoods along the Altamaha River, Georgia.WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT NATURAL ANDLAND-USE HISTORY OF THE COASTAL PLAINFORESTS OF THE SOUTHEAST AND THEIR EFFECTON BIODIVERSITY?Tree SpeciesHardwoods include:• red maple (Acer rubrum)• white oak (Quercus alba)• black oak (Quercus velutina)• chestnut oak (Quercus prinus)• scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea)• American beech (Fragus grandifolia)• shagbark hickory (Carya ovata)• shellbark hickory (Carya laciniosa)• mocknut hickory (Carya tomentosa)• pignut hickory (Carya glabra)Conifers include:• longleaf pine (Pinus palustris)• loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)• slash pine (Pinus elliottii)• shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata)• Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana)• sand pine (Pinus clausa)• bald cypress (Taxodium distichum)Originally, longleaf pine extended from southern Virginiato central Florida and west to Texas. At the time ofEuropean settlement its estimated coverage was 60% ofthe upland forest area in the coastal plains. Today, 2% ofits historical coverage remains. In Virginia, Louisiana, andTexas, the decline of longleaf forests is almost complete.PresettlementLONGLEAF PINE RANGEcurrentLONGLEAF PINE Forest30

Forest History AND Biodiversit yCoastal Plain Forests of the SoutheastC H A P T E R1Natural HistoryWith the retreat ofcontinental glaciers12,000 years ago,the climate of thesoutheast becamewarmer and drier.Species that inhabitsites that are neithervery wet nor verydry, such as sugarmaple, beech, andred maple, retreatedto bottomlands andprotected coves.Oak, hickory, andherbaceous speciesdominated theuplands.Approximately 5,000years ago, the climatebecame cooler andmoister and marshesand bogs formedalong the AtlanticCoastal Plain. Southernpine and oak speciesmigrated north,invading prairies andopen forests. Swamps and floodplains covered 15% of thetotal area. Their changing water levels resulted in a diversearray of environments.Disturbance regimesincluded tornadoesand hurricanes,southern pine beetleoutbreaks, and fire.Landscape-level firesshaped longleaf andslash pine forests.Fires, usually startedby Native Americans,were more local inoak forests. Fireswere infrequentin floodplains, butcatastrophic fires occured during major droughts.Coastal Plain ForestStructure andComposition• High humidityand lack of verycold winters arecharacteristic.• Soils are older,strongly leachedwith low nutrients.• The seven majorpine species include Jason McGeeshortleaf, loblolly,Virginia, longleaf, slash and sand pine. Longleaf, loblollyand slash pine dominate coastal areas.• Inland areas have deciduous forest species,especially oak.• Prescribed fire is needed to control succession of oakspecies because they are more shade tolerant than pine.Bottomlandhardwoods within theCoastal Plain:• occur primarily onflood plains next torivers and streams• are economicallyand ecologicallyimportant• mitigate the effectsof uplands byfiltering nutrientsand sediment• include a largenumber of species.Many of these forestshave been convertedto farmland.Jack Kenner31

C H A P T E R1Forest History AND Biodiversit yCoastal Plain Forests of the Southeast32Long before Europeansettlement, NativeAmericans practicedagriculture consistingof cut, burn, plant,and abandon. LateMississippian culture(1400 to the time ofEuropean contact)decentralized intosmaller agriculturalvillages. Thesesettlements were morepermanent and cleared8-80 ha (20-200 a)patches of forest foragriculture.Land Use HistoryEuropean settlementbegan along theAtlantic coastlineand gradually movedinland. Humandisturbances includeddeforestation foragriculture, timberharvesting, firesuppression, andchanges in floodplainhydrology. Earlylogging was confined to the coastline and larger riversfor easier log transport. Forests dominated by longleaf,shortleaf, loblolly, and slash pine were harvested first.After the Civil War,forestry was thefastest growingtrade in the South.Other industriesthat depended onthe forest wereturpentine, tanning,shipbuilding, shingles,charcoal for the ironindustry, and whiskey.In 1870, the extent ofSouthern States pinewas estimated to bethree times that ofthe Lake States. Supplies were predicted to last 300 yearsin Arkansas alone. Exploitation increased as northeasternand Great Lakes forests were depleted. Northern timbercompanies purchased so-called Gulf “swampland” for 25cents per acre.From 1880 to 1920, anestimated 36 millionha (90 million a) oflongleaf, shortleaf,loblolly, and slashpine were harvested.Only one-third wasreplanted, leavingextensive scrub woodsand barrens. By 1910nearly 39,000 milesof railroad in the13 southern stateshelped move timberto markets. By 1914,predicted timbersupplies droppedbelow a 30-yearsupply.As concern overtimber supply grew,forests became morevaluable. Fire wasseen as a negativefactor, consuming ordamaging valuabletimber, especially indeciduous forests. In1920, fire suppressionpolicy was aimed atkeeping fire out offorests.Agricultural andlogging practices priorto the 1930s DustBowl drought causedextensive erosionand sedimentationof streams. It’s beenestimated that thePiedmont has lost 25%or more of its topsoil inthe last century.From the 1920s to1950s, forest clearingfor logging andagriculture moved fromuplands to floodplainsand swamplands.Flood-control leveesmade it possible toharvest virgin timber.Bottomland was putinto soybean andcotton production. Swamps were drained to grow treesand crops. Timber harvesting benefited because baldcypress could be cut out of deep swamps. Early loggingused pullboat cones, attached to the end of logs, thatprevented snagging on debris. By the 1950s bald cypressswamps were nearly gone.

Forest History AND Biodiversit yCoastal Plain Forests of the SoutheastC H A P T E R1Gary BoydWhat are the Effects of Changed Fire Regimes onCoastal Plain Forests?In the decades following the establishment of the firesuppression policy of the 1920s, two large-scale changes invegetation pattern began to emerge:1 Pines, being shade intolerant and unable toregenerate under their own canopy, succeed to oakwithout periodic fire disturbance.2 Most oaks, while more shade tolerant than .pines, also have difficulty regenerating under aclosed canopy.What are the Effects of Coastal Plain Forest Historyon Biodiversity?Slash, loblolly, longleaf pine, and shortleaf pine morethan 100 years old provide rare habitat that’s becomingrarer as older trees and stands disappear (Restorationsection below).s Historical forests were more open, with widely spacedtrees and more understory plants. Periodic firesand large herbivores, now extinct, maintained thislandscape.s Longleaf pine ecosystems have declined steadilythroughout the 20th century and are consideredthreatened in North America. These forests are centersof biodiversity containing upwards of 40 speciesof vascular plants/square meter. Their conversionto loblolly and slash pine (short-rotation plantationforestry) has dramatically increased their loss.Today, prescribed fire is used to maintain oak forests andsavanna-like pine forests such as longleaf pine.HOW CAN KNOWLEDGE OF COASTAL PLAINFOREST HISTORY BE USED TO RESTORELONGLEAF PINE BIODIVERSITYWhy Restore Longleaf Pine?Renewed interest in longleaf pine began in the 1990s,primarily due to its resistance to disease and insects andlack of vulnerability to market volatility. Declines in the pulpmarket have spurred landowners to look for alternativemodels of forest management.What’s The Current Status of Longleaf Pine Forests?s Only 2% of their historical coverage remains.s They are home to rare and threatened native .flora and fauna.s The long-term viability of at least 187 plants associatedwith Coastal Plain grassland ecosystems is ofconcern at state, national, or global scales. The redcockadedwoodpecker, Bachman’s sparrow, flatwoodsalamander, gopher tortoise, and gopher frogs are veryrare. Habitat for these species exists in the Red Hills(described below).What’s the Role of Fire in Longleaf Pine Savannas?Historically, fire was the dominant disturbance thatinfluenced structure and regulated function in longleafpine grasslands. Pre-settlement forests were vast savannasdominated by a mix of open canopy, multi-aged longleafpine with even-aged cohorts of regeneration in the largeropenings. Most regeneration patches were relativelysmall (0.1 ha/. 25 a), but hurricanes andtornadoes created some larger patches.Fire frequency was most often 1-3years, with return intervals of 3-5 yearswhere topography protected areas fromburning. Longleaf pine was co-dominantwith other southern pines and/orhardwoods.Today, these fire-maintained uplandforests help conserve regional biodiversityby vectoring fire into neighboringwetlands, maintaining habitat for plantsand animals, particularly amphibians andreptiles (described below).Natural regeneration of longleaf pinedepends on fire. Lightning opens canopygaps; fire regulates competing groundvegetation and maintains open canopyconditions. Wiregrass (Aristida stricta), adominant ground-cover species, is a finefuel for fire.33

C H A P T E R1Forest History AND Biodiversit yCoastal Plain Forests of the SoutheastJulius AriailThe federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker(RCW) is dependent on tree cavities found in maturelongleaf pine forests, and their frequent fire regimemaintains open foraging stands.Bunchgrass crowns catch the long needles of longleaf pine,leaving many needles elevated above the forest floor. Theresult is a loosely packed, fully exposed fuel that driesquickly after rain and ignites easily.Fire is a cost-effective way to reduce hardwoods.Reintroducing fire and favorable conditions for burning iscritical to restoring native biodiversity. The key is a groundcover of wiregrass that’s been frequently burned in .the past. Management should maintain native groundcover by:s burning frequentlys avoiding soil disturbances that disrupt ground-coverroot systemss avoiding a dense, closed-canopy overstorys using herbicides sparingly, if evers continually producing pine needles for fuel bymaintaining the overstory.Where the ground cover or forest has been .disturbed, compromising fuel production by grasses,invading woody shrubs are much more difficult to control(more details below).Restoration of Longleaf Pine in the Red Hills:A Case StudyThe Red Hills region of southern Georgia andnorthern Florida comprises a remnant longleaf pine forestthat includes a group of large, privately owned propertiesmanaged for game birds and timber. The owners of theseproperties recognize the importance of old tree retention,frequent fire, and complex biological communities.The management philosophy of the Red Hills propertyowners contrasts with the plantation managementapproach that dominates industrial and other privateforests. Those commercial forests are heavily stocked,even-aged plantations of slash and loblolly pine, grown on25-30 year rotations to reduce costs. Their closed canopystructure and intensive site preparation can reduce thediversity of native understory plants. They have fewer ageclasses and less dead wood, and they don’t provide someunique habitats that are found in native forests (moredetail below). While some native plants and animals, suchas young loblolly pine, slash pine, and early successionpioneer plants, deer, and turkey, thrive in this type offorest, many other important elements of biodiversity .are reduced.The Red Hills management philosophy evolved underthe guidance of forestry consultants Herbert L. Stoddard,Sr., and Leon Neel, who started working with huntingestate owners in the early 1950s. Stoddard and Neelvalued aesthetics and wildlife, especially the habitat needsof primary game species such as the northern bobwhite(Colinus virginiana), as well as the economic value oftimber. They recognized the importance of retaining oldcanopy trees, applying fire frequently, and maintainingcomplex biological communities. They developed anapproach based on selective cutting and long rotations.The Stoddard/Neel approach conserves biodiversity byapplying sustainable forestry principles that include:s maintaining a perpetual forest with all its componentswhile harvesting timbers allowing timber to grow to a threshold beforeremoving part of the growths accepting time as an important ecological feature .of lands recognizing that forests aren’t just about wood orgame but are ecosystems sustained by disturbancesthat provide structural complexity and heterogeneity.While disturbance takes many forms in these .forests, the most important is frequently applied andcontrolled fire that regulates the structure and controlsecosystem function.34

Forest History AND Biodiversit yCoastal Plain Forests of the SoutheastC H A P T E R1Julius AriailFrequent fire is the most important disturbance in longleafpine-wiregrass ecosystems. It maintains the open canopystructure, sustains understory regeneration, encouragesdiversity of plant life, regulates the flow of energy andmaterials through the ecosystem, and maintains fine fuels.How does the Stoddard/Neel Approach (SNA)Maintain Diversity?The goal in upland landscapes is to:s discourage hardwood vegetation that invades in theabsence of fires keep hardwoods small by sustaining a pine overstorythrough time.On more extreme longleaf pine growing sites .such as dry sandhill sites and wet drainages/depressions,the overstory becomes even more important inmaintaining fires.Dry sandhills tend to be the least productive sites.Harvesting reduces pine fuels, which makes burningpatchier and allows oaks to establish and grow tomore fire-tolerant sizes. As oaks grow, their litter is lessflammable than grass or pine needles, allowing them topersist in fire-dominated ecosystems. Fire on these sitesregulates but does not eliminate scrub oak.Wet drainages and depressions protect hardwoods,allowing them to assume dominant and co-dominantcrown positions. Higher soil nutrients allow production oflarge amounts of litter. This reduces the frequency of fireand increases survival of hardwoods, which gradually movetoward the uplands.There is no demarcation between drainages thatsupport hardwoods and upland, fire-dominated savannas.If this zone is well managed, it is dynamic, moving inresponse to prescribed fire and timesince burning. It is rich in species,so managing it and neighboringwetlands is important to conservingbiodiversity. The SNA recognizes theimportance of the pine canopy inmaintaining fire in this ecologicallysensitive part of the landscape.SNA timber harvest guidelines .are designed to enhance theecosystem by:s increasing the age structure .of pines converting from other .pine species to longleaf on.. .upland sitess removing hardwoods and.encouraging grass and pine .fuels that sustain frequent.. .controlled burns.Harvesting sustains the ecosystem by:s removing low-vigor treess removing trees with economically valuable defect(detail below)s evaluating each tree individually for removal – thereare no simple rules or equations, but principles thatguide tree selection.Harvest guidelines in upland sites call for:s giving preference to longleaf pine because it liveslongest of the southern pines, is preferred habitat forRCW, and provides the best fuels for burnings using retention criteria that are adjusted as sitemoisture increases to include slash pine, a speciescommonly found with longleafs favoring older live trees over younger trees forretention because of their heartwood. They tend tobe less susceptible to decay and fire and are a sourceof standing and fallen woody debris. Decay from redheart disease occurs only in older pines and provideshabitat for cavity nesters in live trees.s removing trees with sparse crowns and yellowingneedles, but not all at onces harvesting defective trees (forked, crooked, ordiseased with cankers) but leaving some defect – forexample, witch’s brooms are kept to supply habitat tosome animalss harvesting some old dead trees, even though theyhave ecological value, because they’re not producingneedles for fuel.35

C H A P T E R1Forest History AND Biodiversit yCoastal Plain Forests of the SoutheastAfter a forest reaches thedesired condition, it ismaintained. It changes atsmaller spatial scales, withtrees regenerating andgrowing, but remains stableover larger spatial scales.Tree selection is alsobased on spatial distributionwithin the stand, with thegoal ranging from nearlyclosed canopy to widelyscattered trees. Trees are cutto release seedlings or createopenings to encourage newregeneration, but openingsize and total area are restricted to maintain canopy coverfor needle production. Longleaf seedlings develop in gapsas small as 0.1 ha (.25 a). To encourage regeneration,cutting generally shouldn’t exceed 0.25 ha (.6 a). Cuttingsingle trees may start regeneration that continues throughseveral cutting cycles, gradually enlarging openings andreleasing seedlings.How to Convert Stands to Longleaf PineOne way to convert is to clearcut loblolly, slash, orshortleaf pine and plant longleaf in even-aged stands. Butthis approach can encourage hardwoods, which then haveto be controlled mechanically or with herbicides to permitthe use of fire.It’s better to convert incrementally by maintainingpine forests over time, even species that are less desirablethan longleaf. The pine canopy provides fuel for hardwoodcontrol with fire. This approach reduces costs andmaintains the herbaceous ground cover. It can be done inthe following stages:1 Use cutting practices that favor any overstory longleafpine that is present.2 Start a fire regime that encourages longleaf pineregeneration while suppressing other tree regeneration.3 Plant or seed longleaf pine in gaps created by .harvesting off-site pine according to the SNA approachdescribed above.How to Reintroduce Fire in Fire SuppressedLongleaf PineSome trees die in longleaf pine stands that have beenburned after periods of fire suppression. The cause may beroot damage from fire, stem girdling, leaf scorch, or insector pathogen injury after fire. Mortality can be reduced by:s Raking litter away from trees to avoid damage tovaluable trees with red-cockaded woodpecker cavities.This is expensive and impractical on a large scale.s Burning in the winter when litter is nearly too moistto burn. Only a little surface litter will be removed;smoldering embers should be extinguished to avoidpine damage.s Continuing to burn in the cool season to removelayer after layer of duff. This encourages grassestablishment for fuel and slowly expands the area offorest that is burned.s After initial fuel reduction, burning during lowerhumidity and fuel moisture will increase fire intensityand hardwood control.Repeated upland fire will help delineate betweenuplands and drainages that require infrequent but intensefire to keep them at bay. Periodically pushing burns intodrainages helps bottomland forests and areas between thehardwood drainages and the uplands to be dynamic anddefined by fire.Julius Ariail36

Forest History AND Biodiversit yCoastal Plain Forests of the SoutheastC H A P T E R1Todd Engstrom/CLOBiodiversity Spin-offs of SNAOther birds and smallmammals use thecavities of red-cockadedwoodpeckers. Theyinclude chickadees,bluebirds, titmice andother woodpeckers(downy, hairy, and redbelliedwoodpecker).Larger woodpeckers likethe pileated may enlargethe hole and take over thecavity, and screech owlsand wood ducks are oftennext in line.The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) appears toprefer longleaf pine but will use other species of uplandpine (loblolly, shortleaf, slash). Patches of old-growthlongleaf pine in the Red Hills support a high density ofRCWs. SNA has benefited them in several ways:s Cavity trees, a critical resource for the RCW, are notedduring timber inventories and protected from harvest,in contrast to the regional trend of harvesting them.s Potential cavity trees are identified and protected.s SNA advocates high stocking levels for mature trees,and many old trees (more than 100 years) are kept foraesthetic reasons, providing quality foraging habitatfor RCW.Gopher tortoisesexcavate a burrowup to 30 feetlong with a denat the end. Theybrowse on lowgrowing vegetationincluding wiregrass,broadleaf grassesand legumes.Gary BoydThe gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), a speciesof concern in the southeastern United States, digs burrowsin open-canopy forests with abundant ground cover forforage. SNA has benefited habitat for the gopher tortoiseand the Florida gopher frog (Rana capito), which lives intortoise burrows. Here’s how:s Short-rotation forests with intensive site preparationcan eliminate herbaceous tortoise food. Their hightree densities and closed canopy cause the tortoisesto abandon their burrows and migrate to forest edgesand roadsides. This also happens in fire-suppressedlongleaf pine forests where oak encroachment resultsin a closed canopy.s Gopher tortoise burrows are used by more than 60vertebrate and 300 invertebrate species, providingshelter from high temperatures and predators. TheFlorida gopher frog spends most of its life in andaround tortoise burrows, leaving only to breed inwetlands during winter months. It requires an opencanopypine forest and access to wetlands. Firesuppression or changes in the water regime can makewetlands unsuitable for successful breeding.s Invasion of oaks in the absence of fire can alter pondregimes and impact frog larvae development. Oakthickets support large numbers of predators that feedon migrating frogs.SNA has benefited native plants because:s Native plants are adapted to re-sprouting after fire.Some species are vulnerable to fire suppression anddecline in the absence of fire. The protection ofexisting ground cover or reintroduction of fine fuelsalong with pine canopy provides the necessary fuel tosustain the plant diversity.s Forest management that maintains a perpetual foreststructure over time is key to floral diversity in thelongleaf pine ecosystem.37

IODIVERSITY?C H A P T E R1Tree SpeciesForest History AND Biodiversit yPacific Coastal ForestsIntroduction to PACIFIC COASTAL FORESTsConifers include:• Douglas-fir (Pseudosuga menzizii)• white fir (Abies concolor)• grand fir (Abies grandis)• sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana)• Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis)• western white pine (Pinus monticola)• western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)• western redcedar (Thuja plicata)• Alaska yellow-cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis)Hardwoods include:• black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa)• red alder (Alnus rubra)• Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana)• big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum)• Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii)• Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia)Pacific Coastalforests stretchfrom the coastredwood regionof northernCalifornia tosouthern BritishColumbia andeast to theCascadeMountains.Natural HistoryOcean maritimeinfluence keepstemperatures mildthroughout the year.Annual precipitationis high but seasonal(127-381 cm/50-150in), with little rainfallduring the summergrowing season (Junethrough September).Dry warm summershave importantwildfire implications.Winter storms withhigh winds are common. Occasional extreme wind eventsoccur at intervals of several decades in coastal areas. TheColumbus Day Windstorm of 1962 affected several millionhectares in western Washington and Oregon.Windstorms and pathogens helped shape forestdevelopment, but fire has been the primary naturaldisturbance.Fire disturbanceconsisted of intense,very large-scalestand-replacementfires. Large fuelaccumulations,coupled with weatherpatterns of hot, dryair from continentalregions, led to thesefire events. Fire returnintervals decreasefrom north to south.For example:• up to 750 years inthe moist coastal forest of the northern Oregon CoastRange and the Olympics•

Forest History AND Biodiversit yPacific Coastal ForestsC H A P T E R1Al Levno, USFS PNW-OSU Forest Science Data BankPacific Coast Forest Structure and Compositions Massive conifer forests dominated the region prior toEuropean settlement. The major tree species have longlife spans and can grow for centuries to large sizes.s Douglas-fir dominates much of the low to middleelevations. These forests are the result of long fireintervals separated by catastrophic fires, althoughperiodic, low-intensity surface fires were also commonin places.s The Klamath Mountains in the south, with lowerprecipitation and complex geological and ecologicalhistory, support a mixture of drought-resistant conifersand hardwoods.s Southwestern Oregon and northwestern Californiainclude evergreen hardwoods, such as tanoak, Pacificmadrone, canyon live oak, and California laurel.s Coast redwood is an important and distinctive speciesin northwestern California and extreme southwesternOregon.s Oak woodlands, grasslands, wetlands, and riparianforests with black cottonwood, red alder and big leafmaple replace conifers in lowland river valleys. Oaksinclude Oregon white oak and California black oak.Land Use HistoryEuropean settlementbegan in the early1800s. At that time,approximately twothirdsof the coastalforest cover was morethan 200 years old.These old-growthforests were the resultof extensive standreplacementfires.Except for a few areas,such as Oregon’sWillamette Valleygrasslands, these forests were a challenge to earlysettlers who cleared them for agriculture and settlements.Compared to the Northeast, the Lake States, or theSoutheast, not much forestland was cleared for agriculturebecause most land was unsuitable for cultivation.Difficulties withtransportationand access limitedharvesting to lowlandareas near harborslike Puget Sound. Bythe 1850s the firstsawmill was operatingat Fort Vancouver.By 1890, with theLake States forestsdepleted, timbercutting and exportingwere becoming a majorindustry. Pacific Coastlogging expandeddramatically in the early1900s, and by the 1920sit rivaled the Southeast.39

C H A P T E R1Forest History AND Biodiversit yPacific Coastal ForestsLand ownershippatterns were wellestablished by 1900,with forests dividedamong private, state,and federal ownership.The Homestead andTimber and StoneActs transferred largetracts of forestland.Other land grantssubsidized constructionof railroads and wagonroads.Highly productive forests with merchantable timber at lowelevation with easy access were in private ownership.State governments received trust lands that providedincome for schools, universities, roads, and other publicservices. They also received “in lieu” lands, substitute landsin place of sections that were already in private hands.Additional lands came to the states from unpaid taxesduring the Great Depression and from large wildfires likethe Tillamook and Yacholt Burns.The Federal government held large blocks ofnational forests.Early Logging(1880-1940)Teams of oxen orhorses moved hugelogs to streams andrivers for transportto mills. Over time,railroads and steampoweredcable-yardingsystems improvedefficiency.Old-growth Douglasfirswere consideredthe most valuabletrees in the forest,and the main job was clearing these trees. Large acreagesof logging slash were left behind, often resulting indevastating wildfires on and adjacent to logged areas.By the 1920s, tractorsand trucks replacedrailroads.Major wildfires werea recurring problemup to the 1930s. The1902 Yacholt Burnconsumed nearly100,000 ha (247,000a), and the TillamookBurns covered 111,000ha (274,000 a).Private landownerswere unwilling toapply silvicultural principles until effective fire suppressionprograms were in place. By 1940, the tree-farm movementsignaled the beginning of credible fire suppressionprograms.Before World War II,most harvestingwas on private landsbecause the industrylobbied to keep federaltimber off the marketduring the Depression.After the war, demandfor wood productsexpanded. The ForestService broughtnational forests underintensive management,and harvests increased.Intensive managementthat included clearcutting and even-aged management wasthe norm on both private and public lands.Clearcutting wasjustified becauseshade-intolerantDouglas-fir neededlarge, sunny openingsto successfullyregenerate andgrow. Clearcutswere considered theecological equivalentof stand-replacementwildfires.Clearcut size dependedon the ownership.Large clearcutshundreds of hectares in size were typical of private lands.Dispersed, small clearcuts 2.5-5.5 ha (6-13 a) in size weretypical of federal lands.40

Forest History AND Biodiversit yPacific Coastal ForestsC H A P T E R1National forests andstate trust landsfollowed the corporatehigh-yield forestrymodel. Planting wasfavored over naturalregeneration, andgreater log utilizationleft little organicmaterial after harvest.For a time, the ForestService requiredgathering and pilingof cull logs andunmerchantable woodon all clearcuts.Slash and large down logs were even removed fromstreams and riparian areas in the 1960s. Stream wood wasthought to block fish passage.“What’s good for woodproduction is good forthe forest” seemed tobe the motto of forestmanagers.Little thoughtwas given to theconsequences ofintensive managementon forest biodiversityand ecosystemfunction.Interest in wildlifewas confined to gamespecies that werethought to flourish inedge habitat created by clearcutting.Scientists studied ecosystem functions such as nutrientcycling and stream flow regimes, but they received littleattention from land managers.Current harvestpatterns in the PacificCoast region use thestaggered setting orcheckerboard model,with clearcut units15 ha (37 a) or moredispersed throughoutthe landscape toproduce a mosaicof even-aged,structurally-uniformstands.Logging slash istypically burned to reduce fuel loading and controlcompetition from surviving understory plants. Othermanagement activities include herbicide and fertilizerapplications that further alter the natural rates andpatterns of stand development (see page 43).Before the 1950s,reforestation wasoften left to reseedingfrom adjacent stands,but since the 1960sreplanting has beenpracticed, often withonly one (Douglas-fir)or a few species.By the 1960s, scientistswere expressingconcern about theeffects of intensivemanagement andforest roads onecosystem functionssuch as soil stability,sedimentation,and stream watertemperatures.Public concern focusedon the aesthetics ofintensive managementand concern for theenvironmentin general.Environmental laws of the 1960s and 70s made it possibleto legally challenge federal land management. Litigationforced changes in management.41

C H A P T E R1Forest History AND Biodiversit yPacific Coastal ForestsWhat are the Effects of Pacific Coastal Forest Historyon Biodiversity?Most private Pacific Coast forests were convertedfrom complex ecosystems to simpler plantations that favorwood production. The most significant effects involvedchanges in fire regime and loss of forest habitat:s Within less than a century, the natural disturbanceregime of wildfire and windstorms was largelyreplaced by short-rotation, even-aged managementusing clearcuts and prescribed burning, disturbancesthat are more frequent and less variable in size .and intensity.s The Pacific Coastal region contains some of the largestand oldest trees in the United States and harborsmany endemic species. There is evidence that habitatchange and loss of structural diversity in forestplantations favors some species but results in a lowerdiversity of others.s The area of old-growth forests on all land ownershipsin Washington, Oregon, and California has declinedby greater than 50% since the 1930s and 1940s.Scientists estimate that only about 17% of the oldgrowthDouglas-fir forests that existed in the early1800s remained in 1988 and that 96% of the originalcoastal rain forests of Oregon and 75% in Washingtonhad been logged by 1988 (Condition and Extent ofPacific Coast Old-growth, page 102).How Can knowledge of pacific coastalforest history be used to restorebiodiversity?Why Restore Pacific Coastal Forests?s Landscapes have been limited in their ability toprovide for native biodiversity related to latesuccessionforests. The northern spotted owl, marbledmurrelet, bull trout and some salmon populations arethreatened or endangered.s The consequences of forest fragmentation continueto be an issue. Today’s national forests are composedprimarily of patches of older stands, with much largertrees intermixed with stands of small trees less than 50years old.What’s Their Current Status?s Society is concerned about biological diversity andecosystem functions such as stream protection andwater quality.s Federal land managers attempt to maintainbiodiversity and ecosystems even at the expense ofreduced timber harvest and increased fire risk.s Private and state trust lands use Best ManagementPractices to protect aquatic biodiversity and producehigh wood yields.s Efforts are aimed at restoration of upland andriparian forests to ensure biodiversity and functioningecosystems. Achieving these goals requires forestmanagement that will sustain biodiversity.Important Points about Pacific Coastal ForestsTwo major challenges to managing these forests forbiodiversity are how to:s maintain biodiversity and ecosystem function innatural stands that continue to be harvested ands restore biodiversity and ecosystem function in youngdeveloping stands and landscapes where they havebeen lost due to past management.Silvicultural systems that satisfy these challengesrequire three essential ingredients:s Include biological legacies in harvesting prescriptions.(Described below in the section: What is VariableRetention Harvesting? Page 45)s Include principles of natural stand development,including small-scale disturbance processes, insilvicultural treatments of young developing stands.(Described below in the section: Restoring Structureand Biodiversity to Young Developing Stands usingVariable Density Thinning, Page 47)s Allow for appropriate recovery periods betweenregeneration harvests. (Described below in thesection: The Economics of Restoration, Page 48)Pacific Coastal Forest RestorationForest restoration is already underway in coastalforests. Variable retention harvesting is used to maintainbiodiversity in natural stands that continue to be harvested.Variable-density thinning is used to restore biodiversity andecosystem function in forest stands and landscapes wherethey have been lost due to past management. These tworestoration techniques (described below) are based on thenatural disturbance regimes (described above), and standdevelopment patterns that have been studied over the last30 years (see box: Development of Pacific Coast DouglasfirForests). The following points are important:s Different ownerships vary in their efforts to maintainand restore biodiversity, but all ownerships areinvolved in these practices to some degree.s Restoration efforts include terrestrial and aquaticecosystems, since riparian forests and stream systemshave been impacted by 100 years of timber harvestand other activities.s Reserve lands (Late-Successional Reserves on federalforests within the range of the northern spotted owl),have been established and removed from timberharvesting as part of the effort to maintain andrestore biodiversity and ecosystem function.42

Forest History AND Biodiversit yPacific Coastal ForestsC H A P T E R1Development of Pacific Coast Douglas-fir ForestsWe understand how these stands change in composition and structure. Although stand development is complex anddiverse, and not all stands go through all stages, there is a general pattern across a wide range of forest types andlocations. It includes eight stages.1 Disturbance andLegacy Creation.Historically, after wildfiredisturbance in an oldgrowthDouglas-fir stand,legacy structure wascarried over in the form oflarge standing trees andlarge down logs.2 Cohort Establishment.After the disturbance, anew cohort of trees andother organisms develops.Initial dominance is oftenby Douglas-fir, a shadeintolerantspecies.3 Canopy Closure. As thetree canopy develops, lackof sunlight causes shadeintolerantherbaceous andshrub species to disappearalong with lower treebranches.5 Maturation.At the age of approximately 150years, the Douglas-fir stand hasachieved maximum height andcrown spread. A shrub and herblayer reappears, the result ofunderstory redevelopment.6 Vertical Diversification. Canopygrowth continues with thedevelopment of multiple layers.Lower branch systems develop ondominant trees. Shade-toleranttrees (western hemlock andwestern red cedar) may graduallybecome established and growinto the upper canopy, replacingDouglas-fir, a process that cantake several centuries.7 Horizontal Diversification. Treesdevelop multiple tops, stem andtop rots, cavities, and brooms.Large-diameter branches formand lichens and fungi move in.4 Competitive Exclusion.In this stage, mortalityoccurs in the tree layeras trees compete forlight and water. Naturalpruning of lower branchesoccurs and understoryplants and tree vegetationis sparse.8 Pioneer Cohort Loss. Individualcanopy trees or groups of treesbegin to die, forming gaps ofvarious sizes and shapes. Newtrees establish in the understory,and trees already in lower andmid-canopy positions grow taller.This phase requires hundredsof years and is uncommon inlandscapes where logging andnatural disturbances occurfrequently.There are exceptions to this general developmentpattern. For example:s Shade-tolerant species can be part of the initialstand-replacement disturbance.s Douglas-fir occasionally reproduces and growssuccessfully in established stands.s Stand-replacement disturbances typically return beforepioneer cohort loss because Douglas-fir can survive for800 to 1500 years.This stand-development pattern can be generalized .to forest types other than those dominated by Douglas-fir orstand-replacement fires. The descriptions of each stage areuseful when planning stand treatments to be used in forestrestoration.43

C H A P T E R1Forest History AND Biodiversit yPacific Coastal ForestsWhat’s so Important about Biological Legacies?Biological legacies help conserve biological diversity in significantlydisturbed forest ecosystems. Pictured here are biological legacies leftbehind by three different natural disturbances.Jerry FranklinUnderstory plants, large quantities of tree seedling, snags, anddown logs were legacies at some locations after the Mount St. Helenseruption in Washington, May 1980.s They improve connections across thelandscape for some organisms byproviding protective cover.s Their role is most important where astand replacement disturbance hastaken place. The lifeboating functionis provided by the large live trees,snags, and down logs that persist.These structures sustain organisms byproviding habitat (nesting sites andhiding cover) and energy, especiallyimmediately after the disturbance.s Live green plants that survive a standreplacementdisturbance sustain energyflows to belowground organisms andfood webs, as well as to abovegroundherbivores.s Legacy structures modify microclimateconditions, allowing organisms tosurvive, that might otherwise beeliminated from the post-disturbanceenvironment.s Biological legacies are responsible for the survival of plant species,either immature or mature individuals or reproductive structuressuch as seeds, spores, or sprouting vegetative parts.s They affect other plant and animal life by creating refugia thatprovide a lifeboating function.s They provide structural habitat needed by re-colonizingorganisms.Jerry FranklinAbove: Six years after a stand-replacementfire in Yosemite National Park, California,snags and down log legacies remain toserve important functional and habitatroles.Jerry FranklinLeft: After a windstorm in the Bull RunRiver drainage on the Mount Hood NationalForest, Oregon, understory plants, treeseedlings and saplings and down logswere left.44

Forest History AND Biodiversit yPacific Coastal ForestsC H A P T E R1Jerry FranklinWhat is Variable Retention Harvesting?It includes harvesting practices that retain biologicallegacies and riparian buffers along streams and rivers andaround other aquatic areas.Why was it developed? Variable retentionharvesting was developed to mitigate the negative impactsof clearcutting and even-aged management and mimic thebiological legacies of natural disturbance regimes.Is it new? Not entirely. Shelterwood and groupselection harvesting techniques have been applied onfederal lands since the 1970s. They provided experience inretaining overstory trees. When the concept of biologicallegacies became apparent from ecological studies ofMount St. Helens in the early 1980s, it merged with thepractical experience of structural retention in shelterwoodand group selection harvests. Today, it is being used onboth public and private ownerships in Pacific Coastalforests.How it differs from shelterwood? There are two majordifferences. First, what’s left after the harvest is intendedto stay into the next rotation, rather than being harvestedRetention harvestingon national forestlands. In this casedifferent tree speciesand sizes, along withlarge old trees, snags,and down logs, havebeen left (about 25%of the original stand).after trees become established. Second, as shown in thephoto above, the retained trees are either left in blocks orscattered across the cutting unit (lower left quadrant .of photo).What does it look like on public forests? .All federal forest land within the range of the northernspotted owl now requires regeneration harvests that retaina minimum of 15% of the previous stand, effectivelyeliminating the practice of clearcutting (see photo).Retained structures include some of the largest and oldesttrees, large snags, and large down logs. The WashingtonDepartment of Natural Resources also has adopted thispractice on its trust lands within the Pacific Coastal region.What’s its effect on biological diversity? Variableretention harvesting is thought by some to be moreeffective than clearcutting at sustaining biological diversity.It provides both a lifeboating effect for organisms in thenear term and a means of recolonizing the harvested siteby displaced species as the next forest develops (see box:What’s so Important about Biological Legacies?).45

C H A P T E R1Forest History AND Biodiversit yPacific Coastal ForestsRobert LoganCougar Ramp retention harvest unit onPlum Creek property in Washington,five years after harvest (1989).What does it look like onprivate forests? When Plum CreekTimber Company started using variableretention harvesting in its PacificCoastal forests in 1989, it was the firsttimber corporation in the United Statesto adopt and apply this approach.The goal was to reduce impacts onpotentially threatened and endangeredspecies and minimize harvesting costsand safety issues while maximizingthe effectiveness of retention fromthe standpoint of biodiversity andaesthetics.This illustration sequence shows thePlum Creek retention harvest in thefirst year (A) and what it will look likein 25 years (B). At year 1 the retentionunit includes carry-over biologicallegacy structures from the originalforest (snags for cavity nesters, old livetrees, and habitat for lichens, fungi,birds, and small mammals). The result25 years later is a complex forest,enriched with structural features thatwould be absent from a clearcut.AB46

Forest History AND Biodiversit yPacific Coastal ForestsC H A P T E R1How to Restore Structure and Biodiversity to YoungDeveloping Stands Using Variable Density ThinningBy using intermediate treatments that modelprocesses found in natural stand development (box, page43), simplified young stands can be managed to acceleratestructural complexity and biodiversity.What’s the difference between traditional thinningand variable density thinning? Traditional thinning isdone to accelerate timber production and create spatialhomogeneity in the stand. It can include:s removal of suppressed smaller treess development of dominant treess elimination of non-commercial tree species.Variable density thinning, sometimes described as“skips and gaps,” creates spatial heterogeneity in thestand. It includes:s accelerating development of large diameter treess maintaining greater diversity of plants and animals andecosystem processess forming “gaps” by removing dominant trees tomaintain and enhance growth of shade-tolerantconifers and hardwood species and islands ofunderstory vegetations leaving “skips” that maintain habitat for species andprocesses dependent on heavy shade.Variable density thinning is new. There aredisagreements and questions among scientists about itseffectiveness in restoring late-successional structures andorganisms.s Some favor very heavy thinning, believing that itreplicates the wide spacing thought to exist in thedevelopment of old-growth stands.s Others think heavy thinning will result in two-tieredstands with a low density of overstory trees and adense understory of either shrub species or westernhemlock, neither of which is structurally diverse.Despite differences of opinion and unknowns, there isconsensus about the benefits of variable density thinningin accelerating development of late-successional forests.However, the practice and its effects are quite limited .at present.Where is This Approach Being Used?s On federal lands where young stands are locatedwithin late successional reserves (LSRs).s In simplified forests on municipal watersheds, such asSeattle’s Cedar River Watershed.s On trust lands administered by the WashingtonDepartment of Natural Resources where Dispersal andNesting-Roosting-Foraging (NRF) habitat for northernspotted owls is required.On Federal LandsThe Northwest Forest Plan, developed in 1995, isa strategy to sustain old-growth forest ecosystems andrelated organisms by creating LSRs that contain welldevelopedold-growth forests fragmented by harvestingthat occurred between 1950 and 1990. The result issignificant areas of young forest, less than 50 years old,mixed with old-growth.The goal for these LSRs is to restore contiguous latesuccessionalforest cover. This could be achieved by lettingnatural stand development processes take place, butthat would take considerable time. To speed the process,variable density thinning can be used in young stands tocreate snags and large down logs, stimulate developmentof decadence, accelerate development of large diametertrees, and re-introduce missing plant and animal species.On the Cedar River Watershed in SeattleThe City of Seattle watershed has a habitatconservation plan (HCP) that calls for restorating latesuccessionalforest conditions throughout the drainage.There is some old-growth in remote and inaccessible partsof the watershed, but most is 10-80 year old stands. Thecity is using variable density thinning on very young stands.Thinning of older stands will begin soon, and much of thewood will be left in the forest to provide large down logson the forest floor.47

C H A P T E R1Forest History AND Biodiversit yPacific Coastal ForestsOn Washington State Trust LandsAs part of its HCP with US Fish and Wildlife Service,the Washington Department of Natural Resources(WADNR) is required to create and maintain Dispersal andNesting-Roosting-Foraging (NRF) habitat for the northernspotted owl. This requires forest stands with highlycomplex structure. For now, WADNR can accommodatethe objective of their HCP by maintaining existing olderstands, but they can’t harvest those older stands untilreplacement stands are available for owl habitat. Thedepartment needs to develop suitable Dispersal and NRFhabitat as rapidly as possible. They are currently usingvariable density thinning to create snags, large down logs,and other old and decaying wood.The Economics of RestorationIt’s one thing to invest in restoring and maintainingbiological diversity, but in the long run forest managershave to consider economic returns along with ecologicalbenefits. Research scientists have developed a silviculturalsystem called “biodiversity pathways” that integrateseconomic and ecological goals. It was developed forWADNR as an alternative to traditional forest practices ontrust lands. Stand simulations have shown that this systemcan integrate ecological goals with positive economicreturns. As much as 82% of the net present valuegenerated by traditional timber management systems canresult from a biodiversity management strategy that uses:s variable density thinnings alternating rotations of 70 and 130 yearss structural retention at the time of regenerationharvest.Biodiversity pathways focuses on intermediate standtreatments of established stands that integrate economicand ecological goals.Jerry FranklinStructures retained on a harvest unit on public landsinclude large, decaying live trees, large snags, and largedown logs. All of these structures are impossible tore-create in stands managed under even moderate(e.g., 100-year) rotations.Summary of Pacific Coast Forest RestorationSilvicultural practices being designed and used torestore and maintain native biodiversity and ecosystemprocesses include:s regeneration harvests (variable retention rather thanclearcutting) that mimic natural disturbance regimes,especially biological legaciess managing young stands (variable density thinning)to restore and maintain structural complexityand compositional diversity by simulating naturaldevelopment processes.48

Forest History AND Biodiversit yColorado Plateau Forests of the SouthwestC H A P T E R1Introduction to COLORADO PLATEAUFORESTs OF THE SOUTHWESTPonderosa pine forest, Colorado PlateauModified and reproduced from Woodlands in Crisis by Nabhan, Coder and Smith.NV UT WYCOColorado RiverMESA VERDECANYON DE CHELLYCHUSKA MTNS.JEMEZ MTNS.Josef Muench, NAU Cline Library, Special Collections and ArchivesTree SpeciesConifers include:• corkbark fir (Abies lasiocarpa var. arizonica)• alpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa)• white fir (Abies concolor)• Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)• blue spruce (Picea pungens)• Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmanni)• limber pine (Pinus flexilis)• bristlecone pine (Pinus aristata)• ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)• lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta)• pinyon-pine juniper (Pinus edulis)• Rocky Mountain juniper(Juniperus scopulorum)• Southwestern white pine (Pinus strobiformis)• western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis)Hardwoods include:• quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides)• Gambel oak (Quercus gambellii)CASAN FRANCISCOVOLCANIC FIELDAZWUPATKISUNSETCRATERBANDELIERNMForests of the Colorado Plateau sprawl across southeasternUtah, northern Arizona, western Colorado, andnorthwestern New Mexico. Noted are the four case studiesreferred to in the text.WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT NATURAL ANDLAND-USE HISTORY OF THE COLORADO PLATEAUFORESTS OF THE SOUTHWEST AND THEIR EFFECTON BIODIVERSITY?Three Major Forest TypesThe Colorado Plateau of the Southwest, also called the“Four Corners” region, includes three major forest types:s Mixed conifer forests, dominated by ponderosa pineand Douglas-fir along with white fir and blue spruce,occur at high elevations. Ponderosa pine, once codominantin many stands, has been replaced by adense understory of Douglas-fir and white fir, theresult of fire suppression.s Ponderosa pine forests grade into mixed coniferforests at higher elevations and into pinyon-juniperwoodlands or grasslands or sage scrub below.Widespread surface fires occurring at 4-36 yearintervals kept many of these forests open and diverseuntil the 1880s and early 1900s. Since then, thicketsof ponderosa saplings have increased in density as oldoverstory trees declined or died. Ponderosa forestsare shrinking as fire-intolerant fir in the mixed conifermoves downslope and pinyon in the lower elevationwoodlands moves upslope.49

C H A P T E R1Forest History AND Biodiversit yColorado Plateau Forests of the Southwests Pinyon-juniper woodlands are more heterogeneousthan the other two. Some of the highest levels ofspecies richness in the western United States havebeen found in landscapes dominated by pinyonjuniperwoodlands. The fire history of this forest typeis not well known, but recent evidence suggests thatinfrequent, high-severity fires were more common inthe historic record than spreading, low-severity .surface fires.Four Colorado Plateau Case StudiesThe Colorado Plateau is ranked in the top four of 109ecoregions in North America for species richness in severaltaxonomic groups and first for unique or endemic plantsand animals. The following information is based on fourcase studies that demonstrate the heterogeneity of today’sColorado Plateau landscape and the variability in historicland uses and other ecological changes that have shapedthe current conditions. The case studies include:s The Jemez Mountains/Bandelier National Park, .New Mexicos Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado, is known for itsstone cliff dwellings that served the prehistoric Anasazipeople for more than 200 years and are some of thebest-preserved Indian sites in the nation.s The Chuska Mountain Complex (Canyon de ChellyNational Monument), Arizona, one of the longestcontinuously inhabited areas in North America, islocated on Navajo tribal land, and today’s Navajos playa role in preserving its integrity.s San Francisco Volcanic Field/Wupatki and SunsetCrater National Monuments, Arizona.How Do We Know the Natural and Land-use Historyof Colorado Plateau Forests?Researchers have developed detailed informationabout the history of this landscape based on:s palynology (the study of pollen and spores)s dendrochronology (tree growth rings)s fire scarss packrat middens (dung piles)s archaeologys written and oral histories and repeat photography.Packrat middens left in caves and crevices by packratscontain fossil plants that formerly grew nearby. Rockformations can shelter and preserve these middens fromthe elements for thousands of years. They can be used tocompare historical and modern vegetation.Natural HistoryPast and currentclimate variability hasshaped the ColoradoPlateau woodlandsand forests. Afterreviewing allclimatic recordsof the four studyareas, researchersfound examples offlood, drought, ortemperature variationthat were moreextreme in the pastthan any modern climate event, although the currentglobal warming trend appears to be becoming anextreme event.Fire history variedgreatly among thefour study sites,with periods of firecessation occurringcenturies earlier insome landscapes thanin others. Interestingly,wildfire regimes atthe four study siteswere permanently anddramatically reducedby 1880. That is wellbefore national fireexclusion and suppressionpolicies were initiated.Insect infestationsmay have influencedprehistoric woodedlandscapes across theColorado Plateau.50

Land Use HistoryThe Southwest hasa complex history ofhuman occupation andabandonment over thelast 12,000 years. Thathistory has affectedsubstrates, bedrock,geology, precipitationand microclimate, andthe dominant forestvegetation types.Native inhabitantsinfluenced theselandscapes by manyactivities, includingfarming, grazing, and logging. In some cases, the mostintensive land use occurred centuries before Anglo-American settlement.Anglo-Americansettlement broughtadded impacts to thelandscape includingsheep overgrazingand logging. Historicalevidence of nativebunch grasses indicatesthat these habitatsevolved with lowlevels of soil surfacedisturbance byungulates.Insect infestationsacross the ColoradoPlateau have haddramatic impacts onforests and woodlandsin recent years, with750 million acres ofdead or dying treesdocumented in Arizonaand New Mexico in2002.Forest History AND Biodiversit yColorado Plateau Forests of the SouthwestSome importantnatural processesin pre-settlementlandscapes are nowdifficult to maintain,such as frequent lowintensityfires, the roleof missing predators,and depletion ofsurface and groundwater through humanoveruse. The missingpredators are thegrizzly bear andMexican gray wolf(recently reintroducedin the region).Modern influences onthis landscape includepollution, exotic speciesinvasions, habitatloss or fragmentation,and climate change.One notable invasiveplant is cheatgrass(Bromus tectorum).(See Invasives, page 59)C H A P T E R1What are the Effects of Colorado Plateau Historyon Biodiversity?The land-use, climate change, and fire history of theColorado Plateau have changed forest composition, structure,and ecological processes. Here are some examples:s Ponderosa pine forests and pinyon-juniper woodlandshave had dramatic increases in stand density, decreasesin the number and variety of species in the understory,reduced native biodiversity, and loss of cool-seasongrasses and non-timber forest products (NTFPs).s Higher elevation mixed-conifer forests show an increasein stand density and shade-tolerant trees.s Intensive harvesting and fires in some locations haveresulted in a loss of old-growth ponderosa pine.s Trees and shrubs have expanded into grasslands.s Overgrazing has affected ecological processes such ashydrologic regimes and fire frequency.s The loss of understory vegetation has reduced surfacewater infiltration, which in turn has altered streamflows.s Habitat loss and fragmentation from urban and ruralpopulation growth are threats in three (Jemez, Chuskas,and SF Volcanic Field) of the four areas studied.s Invasive exotic plant species are a threat in three of fourareas studied. For example, 10-17% of the plants areintroduced species at Mesa Verde, the Jemez Mountains,and in the Canyon de Chelly/Chuska Mountain area.51

C H A P T E R1Forest History AND Biodiversit yColorado Plateau Forests of the SouthwestHOW CAN KNOWLEDGE OF THECOLORADO PLATEAU FOREST HISTORY BEUSED TO RESTORE BIODIVERSITY?Why Restore Colorado Plateau Forests?In the last century, forest and woodland managementhas resulted in increasingly homogeneous habitats thatare more prone to high-severity stand-replacing fires andare less diverse in understory NTFPs. These trends haveregional ecologic, economic, and cultural consequences.Their causes include interactions among land-use history,climate, physical characteristics of the landscapes, andrelationships among predators, prey, protected livestock,and forage species.What’s Their Current Status?Unprecedented wildfires in recent years promptedpassage of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act in 2003.This national legislation authorizes money for preventativeforest thinning. Opinions differ about whether thinningcan really restore forests and about the historicalconditions to which forests should be restored. Some saypre-settlement conditions should be the goal. Others saypre-settlement conditions are too general and may notapply to specific locations.Ecological restoration to more natural conditions isurgently needed. But scientists differ about whether thechanges in vegetation are the result of fire exclusion,livestock grazing, climatic fluctuations, bark beetleinfestations, or other factors. Ponderosa pine forests nearthe San Francisco Peaks in northern Arizona have beenthe model for forest restoration in the Southwest. Butthe Colorado Plateau case studies demonstrate that theSan Francisco Peaks model does not describe the historicconditions found in other ponderosa pine forests in theregion, let alone mixed conifer forests or pinyon-juniperwoodlands.The Healthy Forests Restoration Act passed in 2003has focused the debate. The question is: How can thefunds provided by this legislation be used not just toreduce property-damaging fires, but also to restore thehealth and diversity of forests in the future? There isscientific uncertainty about how to achieve this goal inponderosa pine forests. The conclusion, after looking atforest history in the Colorado Plateau, is that there is nosingle pre-settlement target for restoration.Important Points about Colorado Plateau ForestsThe four case studies demonstrate that each sitehas unique characteristics that must be recognized whendeveloping management or restoration plans, and eachlandscape has unique needs. However, there are somegeneral patterns.s Species richness of native plants and birds has declinedand exotic invasive plants have increased over the past150 years at all sites.s There have been reductions in fire frequencies inducedby historic grazing that predated government firesuppression mandates.s Most important is the reduced heterogeneity ofcultural management strategies for forests andwoodlands. Bureau of Indian Affairs managers havereplaced Native American practices with one-sizefits-allU.S. Forest Service and National Park Servicepolicies. Reducing Native American and Hispanictraditional use has helped to homogenize thelandscape. Practices have been lost that formerlymaintained a mosaic of habitats through the use offire and small-scale farming and gathering. Thesepolicies have focused management on timber orgrazing resources to the detriment of NTFPs, whichcontribute to biodiversity and ecosystem health.s Geology has played a key role in the adaptationof many of the endemic plants that are influencedby particular soil conditions. This geographicheterogeneity and its influence on endemic, rare,threatened, and endangered species underscore theneed for land managers to base their restoration andmanagement on site-specific characteristics.52

Forest History AND Biodiversit yColorado Plateau Forests of the SouthwestC H A P T E R1Two locations highlight the range of variability on the Colorado Plateau and the need for site-specific restoration.Susan J. SmithNorthern Arizona University, Cline LibraryPinyon-juniper forest, Jemez Mountains, near BandelierNational Monument:• Geology: volcanic• Precipitation: moderately dry• Forest: co-dominated by ponderosa pine andpinyon-juniper• Almost continuously occupied by Pueblo, Hispanicand Anglo cultures• Grazed by sheep since the 1600s, then cattle upto the 1930sMesa Verde National Park:• Geology: sedimentary• Precipitation: more moist• Forest: dominated by pinyon-juniper• Intense prehistoric agriculture (900 and 1300) thenabandoned until 1500 when occupied by very lightpresence of Utes and Anglo cultures• Short grazing history by cattle (1880 to 1935)Differing Ideas AboutRestoration in theColorado PlateauLand managers and scientistsgenerally agree that restorationof Colorado Plateau forests andwoodlands is urgently needed.Disagreement comes in howto carry out that restoration. Inresponse to unprecedented standreplacingwildfires in the West, thegovernment has invested moneyin preventative forest thinning torestore forests. This has prompteddebate about thinning, controlledburns, and other restorationactivities.Most land managers andscientists agree that:s the evidence indicates more frequent, intense, andlarge wildfires, along with increasing costs of firesuppression and rehabilitation in the ponderosa pineforests over the last decades these changes in fire dynamics have been related tohistoric changes in the density and age structure ofponderosa pine forests.Craig D. AllenThe Cerro Grande Fire, burned into the town of LosAlamos, New Mexico in May, 2000. This is the area inApril, 2006, showing the burned area adjoining thewest perimeter of the townsite. Stand-replacing crownfire like this are evidence of more frequent, intense andlarge wildfires occurring in the Southwest, along withincreasing fire suppression and rehabilitation costs.53

C H A P T E R1Forest History AND Biodiversit yColorado Plateau Forests of the SouthwestThey disagree about:s whether the structural changes in vegetation areexplained by fire exclusion and suppression policies,livestock overgrazing, climatic fluctuations, bark beetleinfestations, or other factorss the degree to which thinning or controlled burningcan restore wooded habitats, and what the referencepoint should be.One group of scientists advocates using presettlementconditions to understand what forest standstructure was like before European settlement. Theyconclude that thinning would restore stand structure,which in turn will restore ecosystem processes, such asfrequent low-intensity fires.Another group of scientists fears that usingstructure alone, or in combination with fire frequency,to predict ecosystem function will miss other pieces ofthe ecosystem. Those pieces include biodiversity andunderstory composition, the effects of the understoryon hydrology, changes in nutrient cycling, the role ofpredators, birds, and other wildlife, and the importanceof NTFPs. They point out that using past conditions as amodel to restore modern forests also underestimates newinfluences such as pollution, fragmentation, invasives,and climate change. They claim that a restoration modeldeveloped around Flagstaff, Arizona, is not transferableto other pine-dominated landscapes in the west and thatwhat works in the ponderosa pine forest around Flagstaffmay actually cause damage in other forests and woodlandson the Plateau.Forest Restoration Ideas for the Colorado PlateauHow have these landscapes responded to restorationtreatments in the past?s Within 3 to 50 years, grazing exclosures have shownincreases in native biodiversity, increases in nativecool-season grasses, and more well developedbiological soils crusts (see photos).s Mesa Verde research showed a 17-foot rise in thewater table after grazing was excluded for 11 years.Mesa Verde National ParkAfter exclusion of cattle and sheep from Mesa VerdeNational Park, repeat photography demonstrates a changefrom nearly 100% bare ground to nearly 100% cover(mostly clover) within 8 years, and native herbs within11 years. Recovery of the water table was also dramatic.Prater Canyon 1935Prater Canyon 1942Prater Canyon 194654

Forest History AND Biodiversit ySummaryC H A P T E R1ssssIn general, fire recovery studies show changesin species composition and increases in nativebiodiversity following fire.Invasives are a concern in burned habitats.Preliminary results show significant changes in grassspecies composition and cover in response to thinningand mulching treatments in the Jemez Mountains.The health and richness of understory species wasenhanced by the harvest of NTFPs. These speciestend to increase landscape heterogeneity becausethey prefer certain substrates or growing conditions,and their harvest is an important way to encouragestewardship of native biodiversity in these wildlands.Additional Thoughts on Colorado PlateauRestorationScientists who conducted the four case studiesadvocate a stronger focus on restoring ecologicalprocesses rather than exclusively focusing on foreststructure or composition. They believe that historic andcontemporary uses of NTFPs have been undervaluedrelative to timber and livestock production. They want torestore understory species and wildlife, not just conifersand grass. With these concerns in mind, they make thefollowing recommendations.s Manage adaptively for the uncertainty of drought orclimate change rather than for timber, livestock, or firemanagement. Direct research toward restoring forestand woodland ecological processes, given current andpredicted climatic regimes, rather than reconstructingpast vegetation structure or composition.s Management plans for ponderosa pine forestsand pinyon-juniper woodlands should be basedon site-specific information rather than regionalgeneralizations. There is no single pre-settlementtarget for restoration.s Since invasive plants are a significant threat over muchof the Colorado Plateau, forest thinning methods thatincrease the dispersal, recruitment, and establishmentof invasive exotic weeds should be avoided. Becausemost landscapes on the Colorado Plateau haveevolved with low levels of soil surface disturbance,and are dependent on the biological crusts that havedeveloped, management and restoration effortsshould minimize disturbance of soil crusts in thinningand burning activities, and in recreational use, logging,mining, livestock management, and other activitiesthat would disturb the soil’s biological crusts.s Ecological restoration must be presented to the publicin a broader context than just structural thinning andcontrolled burns. The focus should be on managingforests as ecosystems, with cultural and economic tiesto the local population. It may be difficult to promotepractices that focus on overall health of forestecosystems when the public fears wildfire. However,managers can increase a sense of stewardship througheducation and a stronger focus on other uses of theforest, such as the harvest of NTFPs, traditional uses,hunting, and wildlife observation and photography.SUMMARYThe forest history of the five major regions describedin this chapter is a starting place, an explanation of howand why we arrived at where we are today. It’s also a steptoward restoration and preparation for conserving biodiversityin the forests of the future. In Chapter 2 we will look atthe role of non-native invasives, a factor that has influencedbiodiversity in the past and one that will have even moreprofound impact in the future.To Learn More About This Topic, See Appendix, page 167.55

C H A P T E R2non - native invasives AND BIODIVERSIT YWhy are non-native invasives important?WHY ARE NON-NATIVE INVASIVES IMPORTANT?A non-native invasive species is a species whoseintroduction threatens or harms natural ecosystems,human health, economic values, or all three. Throughoutthis chapter we’ll use the term invasives as shorthand fornon-native invasive species.Forest ecosystems are adapted to the slow, naturalmovement of species and to natural disturbances likewildfires, floods, and droughts. In the last 200 years,however, people have been able to travel betweencontinents faster and easier than ever before, and theyhave carried plants, animals, and pathogens (microscopicorganisms that cause disease) to places they might neverhave reached by natural dispersal. Once there, awayfrom parasites and other ecological controls that limitedtheir environmental and socioeconomic impacts on theirhome continents, some of these non-native speciesbecome invasive.Invasive species are a major threat to sustainableforestry. Over the past century, invasives in the UnitedStates have impacted all of the forest ecosystem valuesthat sustainable forestry seeks to ensure. They affectbiological diversity, forest health and productivity, waterand soil quality, and socioeconomic values. The loss,just in terms of forest products, is more than $2 billionannually. In spite of these serious impacts, we havefailed to deal effectively with forest invasives in theUnited States and worldwide.We have inventoried and calculated invasives,but we haven’t answered the question of what we’regoing to do about them. To help answer that question,NCSSF sponsored a research project to describe howresearch can help eradicate, contain, or suggest newways to control forest invasives. This chapter explains thefindings of the scientists who conducted that project.It reviews some major invasive species that affect forestecosystems, briefly describes the organizations involvedin their control, and lays out a strategy to reduce theirthreat more effectively.WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE THREATFROM INVASIVES?Some invasives have a long history of impact on .our forests (chestnut blight), others have appeared morerecently (emerald ash borer and sudden oak death), and .still others such as the nun moth (pages 58-59) represent .future threats.United States forests have yet to experience manypossible invasions or even the full effects of some alreadyestablished non-native species. Despite defensive efforts,such as seed purity requirements and sanitation regulationsfor imported wood packing materials, entry pathwaysremain open or only partially regulated, and forest invaderscontinue to spread. Movement of invasives across theglobe is on the rise because of increasing international andinterstate commerce. At the same time, increasing humanaccess to forests, forest fragmentation (Chapter 3), andforest disturbance all create opportunities for invaders topenetrate and become established. When climate changeis added to the list, there’s potential for the threat to growin response to altered disturbance regimes and geographicranges of forest species. We’re facing future invasions thatare likely to have enormous social, economic, and ecologicalconsequences.Sidney V. Streator, Forest History SocietyChestnut blight, one of the most devastating invasivesin recorded history, reduced the most important treein Eastern forests to insignificance. This photo, takenin Graham County, NC, first appeared in AmericanLumberman in 1910. (From left to right, B. King, TimberWarden and D.W. Swan, Timber Agent)56

non - native invasives AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about the threat from invasives?C H A P T E R2Before examining the impacts, let’s briefly review somebasics. First, invasives fall into one of four categories:1. Invasive pathogens are microscopic organisms capableof causing disease. Sudden oak death (SOD) is an invasivepathogen that can affect many different plants and cause avariety of symptoms. Early detection is challenging becauseof the size of pathogens.John M. Randall/The Nature ConservancyJapanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) is found in37 states. It invades forest edges and disturbed areas,suppressing native plants, bringing down trees and alteringsongbird populations by changing forest structure. Cuttingstems at ground level or burning makes the registeredherbicide treatment more effective.Joseph O’Brien, USDA Forest Service, www.forestryimages.orgDeath of this oak canopy is caused by the sudden oak deathpathogen (Phytophthora ramorum).2. Invasive insects, along with pathogens, have damagedand killed dominant tree species and caused changes inthe ecology, function, and value of forest ecosystems. Anexample is the European gypsy moth, which defoliatesmillions of acres each year.3. Invasive plants, including trees, modify forestecosystems by altering fire and water regimes and foodwebs, preventing the growth of groundcover, wildflowers,and dominant tree species. One example is Japanesehoneysuckle (others are described on pages 58-59). .Sometimes invasive plants are weeds, helped by forestmanagement activities, such as prescribed fire, roadbuilding, soil disturbance, harvesting, and use of .non-native plants in forest revegetation projects (i.e.,following wildfire).Mark Robinson, USDA Forest Service, www.forestryimages.orgExtensive summer defoliation due to the European gypsymoth (Lymantria dispar).Gary BoydAdult bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana Shaw, 1802).Control: catch and remove frogs.4. Invasive aquatic species and wildlife often spreadfrom one region to another with unintended help fromlandowners and others who are not fully informed abouthow invasive species can affect the forest or about controlstrategies. Examples include the movement of bullfrogs,brook trout, and rainbow trout (from eastern to westernUnited States). The fact that these invasives are viewed asdesirable for recreation contributes to their spread.57

C H A P T E R2non - native invasives AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about the threat from invasives?Here’s a sample of U.S. forest invaders and theirimpacts, arranged according to the date of theirdetection. Starting at the top right are two possiblefuture invaders, followed by some of the most recent,and finally some established invaders that go back tothe 1850s. The impacts noted here are not exhaustive,but they do indicate that inventory data are limited andcost estimates of impacts are rudimentary. These are justtwo shortcomings that hinder the war on invasive forestspecies. There’s more about these and other limitations .in the discussion of efforts needed to reduce the threat .of invasives.Hannes Lemme,.www.forestryimages.orgFemale Nun mothon Scotch pine inGermany.l Not yet detectedt Unknownn Nun moth(Lymantria monacha)s Could cause cumulative 30-year tree losses as high as$2.5 billion if established inthree cities. Most damagingforest pest in Europe.u Early eradication withregistered insecticide58John M. Randall/.The Nature Conservancy.USDA FS archives, .www.forestryimages.orgBalsam woolly adelgidkilled these Fraser fir.KEYltnsuWhen First Detected in U.S.OriginInvasive SpeciesOngoing and Possible ImpactsControl Treatmentsl 1908t EuropeDamage to American chestnut fromChestnut blight, 1943.n Balsam woolly adelgid(Adelges piceae)s Attacks most NorthAmerican true firspecies. Caused dramaticdeclines in Fraser fir inGreat Smoky MountainsNational Park, resultingin understory andwildlife changes.u Use registered systemicinsecticide in springl 1904t AsiaJohn M. Randall/.The Nature Conservancy.n Chestnut blight(Cryphonectria parasitica)s Eliminated American chestnutfrom eastern deciduousforests. Estimated value ofchestnut timber in threestates in 1912 was $82.5million. Caused decline inchestnut-dependent wildlife.u Plant resistant chestnutHemlock woolly adelgiddisguises itself inside acottony ball.John M. RandallSusan Haglel 1920st AsiaWhite pine blister ruston eastern white pine.Giant reed matchesits name.n Hemlock woolly adelgid(Adelges tsugae)s Currently in more than 16 states.Contributing to the decline ofeastern and Carolina hemlock.Alters bird communities andriparian ecosystems where it killseastern and Carolina hemlock.u Use registered systemicinsecticide in spring; releasepredatory beetlesl Late 1800s-early 1900st Asian White pine blister rust(Cronartium ribicola)s Throughout the range ofeastern white pine and insix western states. Killingwhitebark and limber pinesin western high elevationecosystems, eliminatingwildlife forage; affectingsoil stability, snowmeltregulation and succession.u Developing geneticresistancel 1850st Mediterraneann Giant reed (Arundo donax)s Riparian invader in nine states,including national forestsin California and Arizona.Chokes waterways, generatesflammable material, displacesnative vegetation and wildlifelike the federally endangeredleast Bell’s vireo.u Use integrated approach(biological, cultural,silvicultural, physical);avoid burning

Stanislaw Kinelski, .www.forestryimages.org.Adult female sirexwoodwasp on Scotchpine in Poland.l Not yet detectedt Eurasian Sirex woodwasp(Sirex noctilio)s Could cause cumulative30-year tree losses of $760million if established in threecities.u Remove and destroyinfested treesnon - native invasives AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about the threat from invasives?David Cappaert,forestryimages.orgEmerald ash borerl 2002t AsiaC H A P T E R2n Emerald ash borer(Agrilus planipennis)s Currently in Michigan,Ohio, and Indiana. Couldeliminate ash as a street,shade, and forest treenationwide.u Remove and destroyinfested trees; applyregistered pesticidesRobert L. Anderson, .USDA FS, www.forestpests.orgSymptoms of Dutchelm disease onAmerican elm.Linda Haugen,.USDA FS, www.forestryimages.orgCankered stem ofbeech after attackof beech scale andinfection.Hannes Lemmel 1927t Asian Dutch elm disease(Ophiostoma ulmi)s Occurs in most states. Haskilled more than 60% ofelms in urban settingswhere the elm was avalued ornamental andshade tree.u Plant resistant elml 1890 (Nova Scotia)t EuropeEuropean gypsy mothn Beech scale insect(Cryptococcus fagisuga)s Currently from Maine toNorth Carolina and west toMichigan. Expected to spreadthroughout the range ofAmerican beech. Carrier ofbeech bark disease, whichkills more than 75% of largetrees, leaving dense beechsprouts with reduced wildlifeand economic value.u Use registered systemicinsecticidesl 1869t EuropeJoseph O’Brien, USDA.Forest Service, www.forestryimages.org.Symptoms of sudden oak deathon azalea/rhododendron.Tom Heutte, USDA FS,.www.forestryimages.org.Cheatgrassn European gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar)s In 19 states, spot infests 12 more.Annually defoliates millions ofnortheastern and Midwestern forestedacres; suppression costs tens of millions.Record losses in 1981: 13 million acresdefoliated, $3.9 billion (1998 dollars)in losses.u Use registered biological controlsl 1994t Unknownn Sudden oak death(Phytophthora ramorum)s Currently in California andOregon and spreadingrapidly. Has been detectedin diseased nursery stockshipped from California to 22states. Could eliminate oakforests nationwide.u Remove and destroy hosts;quarantine to restrictspreadl Late 1800st Asia and South Americarespectivelyn Cheatgrass (Bromustectorum) and Lehmanlovegrass (Eragrostislehmanniana)s Displaces native bunchgrassesand dies early in the summer,reducing forage qualityand increasing the spreadand severity of fires whenadjacent to forests. Particularhazard to dense westernforests that are susceptible tocatastrophic wildfire.u Use integrated approach(biological, cultural,silvicultural, physical)59

C H A P T E R2non - native invasives AND BIODIVERSIT YWho's responsible for the war on invasives?WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WAR ON INVASIVES?We are all responsible for fighting invasives, but someorganizations are equipped with authority, regulations,and resources to meet that responsibility. Individuals andorganizations make decisions every day that determine theimpacts of invasive species on U.S. forests. Table 2.1 liststheir major activities and influence. Their objectives arevaried and sometimes conflicting.Some agencies have responsibility both forencouraging global trade and minimizing entrance ofexotics. Obviously, this can limit their effectiveness in thewar on invasives. Prevention, detection and managementof invasives require multiple agency coordination, butthe roles and responsibilities of agencies are not alwayswell defined because the statutes/laws that definetheir responsibilities are not clear. Non-governmentalorganizations, like the Nature Conservancy, are joiningcoordination efforts at all the activity levels identified inTable 2.1.The bottom line is that even with organizations,laws, protocols, etc., the threat of invasives is increasing.The task is complicated, and it’s important to note thatthere always will be some uncertainties about invasives,so prevention is never 100% effective. Effective actionagainst invasives requires flexible approaches in whichforest practitioners, managers, and public agencies sharea common understanding of the threat and have access toinformation so they can respond to the unexpected. Thenext page describes three strategies that can make the waron invasives more effective.Table 2.1 Groups, organizations, and government entities responsible for invasive species.Organization, Group, Law, etc.Major ActivityInternational National Regional State LocalInternational Plant Protection Convention T - - - -North American Plant .Protection Organization T - - - -Montreal Process S S - - -Forest Certification Programs S S S S STimber and Paper Industries S, M, C S, M, C S, M, C S, M, C S, M, CHorticultural Industry C C C C CIndustries involved in international trade .using wood packaging materials C - - - -USDA Forest Service S, M S, M, P S, M, P S, M, P S, M, PUSDA Animal & Plant Health .Inspection Service T, P P, Q P, Q P, Q -State Agencies .(forestry, natural resources, agriculture) - - - M, P, Q M, P, QPrivate Forest Landowners - - - M MLocal Governments - - - - M, PLegend:C responsible for commercial shipments of wood products,wood packing materials or plants that might be or becomecontaminated by invasive pestsM responsible for forest managementP responsible for implementing large-scale control programsfor invasive speciesQ responsible for interstate regulation and quarantines offorest pestsS responsible for developing sustainable forestry principles,criteria, indicators, objectives, and performance measuresT responsible for international trade agreements, protocols,regulations, and quarantinesUSDA United States Department of Agriculture60

non - native invasives AND BIODIVERSIT YWho's responsible for the war on invasives?C H A P T E R2There are three strategies to counter invasive .species (Fig. 2.1).1 identify and block pathways for introduction andspread of new invasives (Prevention)2 detect and eradicate invaders that escape prevention(Detection and Early Intervention)3 develop Long-term Management strategies for .well-established invasive species.Figure 2.1 illustrates how each strategy is linked to thesource of the invasive species, their means of transportationto the United States, the location of initial infestation, andhow invasives spread and impact sustainable forestry. Eachstrategy works to minimize not only future invasions but alsothe spread and impact of well-established invaders. All threestrategies may be needed to control a single pest. Effortsagainst the European gypsy moth, for example, involvepreventing introduction of the moth’s Asian counterpart intothe United States, detection and early eradication of spotoutbreaks in new states, and long-term management aimedat containing and managing current infested areas.Figure 2.1 Three strategies for reducing impacts of invasivesare identified in the left column. All three are designed tominimize future invasions and the impacts and extent ofalready-established invaders.STRATEGIES FORREDUCING INVASIVESSOURCE TRANSIT NEW INFESTATIONSPREAD, INCREASE,AND IMPACTS1. PREVENTION2. DETECTIONAND EARLYINTERVENTION3. LONG-TERMMANAGEMENTEstablish internationalagreements that balancetrade with risk pathwaysMinimize risk pathwaysand species transfersUse preventive management for forests at riskDetect, identify, and eradicate populations of high-risk speciesDevelop large-scale, long-term controlprograms that target high-risk species andforests at risk of invasionManage already infested forests to minimizeimpacts of invaders on ecosystems61

C H A P T E R2non - native invasives AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat can we do about invasives?WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT INVASIVES?The key to success against invasives is prevention, earlydetection and rapid response/eradication at all levels. TheWeed Bounty Hunter program is a local example (see box).Effective early detection depends on better informationaccessible to practitioners, managers and policymakers.Knowing that, what can be done to:s improve the link between invasive species andsustainable forestrys provide better information resources for practitioners,forest managers, and policymakerss provide new scientific toolss provide better cost estimates to inform policy andmanagement decisionss improve prevention and management at differentlandscape scales (from local sites to states, regions andcontinents)?How to Link Invasives with Sustainable ForestryThe Montreal Process and Forest Certification are toolsbeing used to evaluate and document sustainable forestpractices, yet they are nearly silent on the role that invasivesplay in affecting the outcome of forest management. Forexample, more than a decade ago, 12 nations, including theUnited States, agreed to the Montreal Process. Surprisingly,none of its indicators measure the threat to sustainableforestry posed by invasive species. In its recent report onhow the Montreal Process is being implemented in theUnited States (National Report on Sustainable Forests – .USDA FS 2004), the USDA Forest Service included no dataabout the economic or ecological impacts of invasive specieson U.S. forests. Nor was there information comparinginvasive species to other sustainable forestry threats, or anyevaluation of the effectiveness of policy and managementactions on invasives.Forest certification programs, like SFI (SustainableForestry Initiative) and FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) canand do have influential effects on policy and managementof forestland by government agencies, timber companies,and other forest owners, but they haven’t addressed thesubject of invasives any better than the Montreal Process.For example, measurements of invasive species in SFI or FSCassess only the extent to which participants minimize therisk of exotic tree planting and monitor and manage foreststo prevent and minimize outbreaks of pests, diseases, andinvasive plants and animals. Granted, this is a start, butthese measurements don’t reflect the magnitude of thethreat of invasives on sustainable forestry.What can be done to improve the Montreal Process andforest certification programs with respect to invasives andtheir threat to sustainable forestry?First we must determine whether the correct metrics forassessing the threat of invasive species have been identifiedand whether they adequately measure the participants’implementation of the three strategies (described in Fig 2.1).This should be done through the internal review processof the Montreal Process and certification programs. It shouldinclude scientists and technical experts.The ultimate goal should be to track whetherparticipants:s eliminate pathways that spread invasive speciess manage forests in ways that reduce new invasionsincluding minimizing ground disturbance that opensnew areas to invasions monitor to detect new invasions and implement rapidresponse measuress suppress established invaders by participating in largescale monitoring and management effortss consider how eradication strategies will affect otheraspects of forest ecosystems and sustainability.At a minimum, reporting should track the social,economic, and ecological impacts of invasive species.How to Build Better Information ResourcesTable 2.1 identifies the people and organizationsinvolved in decisions about invasive species in the UnitedStates. Unfortunately, there’s no information infrastructureto enable policymakers to make consistently informedchoices. Yes, there are online databases and informationsources, but the invasives information system is incompleteand fragmented, and access to and analyses of the data areweak. Global invasive-species databases are no better. Mostdatabases are not widely used by the private landownersand local governments that own more than half of U.S.forestlands. Detailed information on the distribution andimpacts of some of the most devastating forest invaders is62

non - native invasives AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat can we do about invasives?C H A P T E R2Weed Bounty Hunters – Warring Against Invasives at the Local Level – An ExampleWhere: Lower Grande Ronde River, .Wallowa County, OregonWho: Wallowa Resources, formed in 1996, is a .non-profit organization designed to bring peopletogether and blend the ecological needs of the landwith the economic needs of the community. .(www.wallowaresources.org)What: The Lower Grande Ronde River Watershed is ata high risk of degradation from noxious weeds partlydue to its mixed ownership pattern (Bureau of LandManagement, United States Forest Service, PrivateRanches) and the fact that it is divided between twostates, four counties, and two national forests. Threemajor target weeds include: Meadow Hawkweed,Rush Skeletonweed and Leafy Spurge.Short-term priorities:s coordinate and implement integrated weed .management treatment projects across jurisdictionalboundaries for high priority weeds along the .river corridors inventory and map target weeds across .the watersheds private landowners along the river corridor areinvited to participate but must pay for part of thecosts of control efforts.Long-term priorities:s coordinate weed treatment across all properties in .the watershed and provide “seamless treatment” ofnoxious weedss all stakeholders participating in design and treatment,contributing to costs with either financial contributionsor in-kind service.Invasive weed treatments include:s physical, chemical, biological and cultural methods ofcontrol as well revegetation of treated areass exploring new techniques.Bounty Hunter Program:Anyone finding a “new” invasive weed site within .the watershed can win $200. Maps are provided on .the website to help hunters find areas that need .searching. Access to private land requires permission.Tips are provided for identification, best time of year tosearch and how to handle noxious weeds safely.Program Expansion:The Wallowa Canyon Lands Partnership has beenformed and addresses noxious weed issues in both theGrande Ronde and the Imnaha River Watersheds.Figure 2.2 Bounty hunterslocated this Scotch thistle(Onopordum acanthium L.)infestation and Oregon YouthConservation Corps membersdisposed of it. Native toEurope and eastern Asia, thisaggressive plant can formdense stands, impenetrableto livestock.Mark Porter63

C H A P T E R2non - native invasives AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat can we do about invasives?not readily available. There are no anticipatory systems forpreventive action that would routinely identify emergingpathways, probable new invaders, or ecosystems vulnerableto future invasions. What’s needed is baseline informationabout what exotics are in our forests, where they are, theirrate of spread, and the size of their population.What’s available?s The USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis(FIA) database is a grid of inventory plots across all theforests of a state. It reports on habitat and how invasivespecies host trees are distributed across the landscape.This database would be more useful for identifyingareas at risk of invasion if it included more informationon alternative hosts (e.g., understory plants) and betterlinks to sites with climate, soils, and high-risk locations(e.g., where host plants are sold in nurseries or boughtby timber companies).s The USDA Port Interception Network (PIN) identifiesport interceptions. At present, PIN includes only pestsof “quarantine significance” rather than all interceptedspecies, and access to PIN is restricted. It could be usedto identify high-risk pathways by comparing the initialoccurrence of a known forest pest with variables thataffect pathways, such as the volume of trade, type ofcommodity, or shipping and packing materials.s Both the National Agricultural Pest Information System(NAPIS) and the Exotic Forest Pest Information Systemfor North America (EXFOR), report on establishedinvasive species.s Other databases and links to policy and managementtools include web sites maintained by the NationalInvasive Species Council, the National BiologicalInformation Infrastructure, the Plant ConservationAlliance, the Nature Conservancy, the USDA NaturalResources Conservation Service, the Environmental LawInstitute, and the Global Invasive Species Program.Even with the growth of online information sources,this information still needs to be translated into actionableknowledge. What’s missing is a coordinated reportingsystem that could speed public and private responsesto growing invasive threats. A solution is a nationalclearinghouse that allows state agencies, tree-carecompanies, forest managers, landowners, and others tovoluntarily report verified sightings of invasives.New Scientific Tools and ConceptsUnfortunately, it’s not always easy to identify an invasivespecies. Physical characteristics can be subtle and difficultfor non-specialists to distinguish. Taxonomy information isnot always complete for pathogens and insects. Pathogenidentification is more difficult if the pathogen causesdifferent symptoms on various hosts or mimics symptomsidentical to those caused by other pathogens (i.e., SOD).Identification of invasive insects and plants often dependson catching larvae or collecting seeds and spores that don’thave the distinguishing features of later life stages.Scientific tools from molecular biology, biotechnology,and digital imaging that hold promise for new and easierways to detect and identify invasive species include:s DNA/RNA technologies that can detect plant pathogensin nursery stock could be used to assay for knownpathogens of particular hosts at ports of entry duringpre-shipment certification.s A microchip that can screen samples for the .presence of 250 potato pathogens is being tested in theUnited Kingdom.s DNA microprobes have potential to identify .insect larval stages and eggs found within cargo .and packing materials.s Expert systems that automate risk identification at portsof entry could improve import screening. Such a systemcould integrate data on imports (e.g., product records,receiving ports, containerized freight destinations)with United States habitat distribution (e.g., climate,soils, forest types), and pest distributions in originatingcountries. This could automatically target inspectionstoward commodities or other vectors known to harborhigh-risk species or those that come from countries thatpreviously were sources of contaminated cargo.Tracking the advance or retreat of invasives across largeareas is another difficult problem. The information mustbe comprehensive yet sensitive, and it must be collectedfrequently enough to encounter small populations ofinvaders when they’re easier to eradicate. It’s possiblethat remote sensing, which includes techniques fromaerial photography to satellite imagery, could be used toidentify the distribution or impacts of invasive pathogens,insects and plants. For example, the pattern of defoliation,crown dieback, and tree mortality, as detected by remote64

non - native invasives AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat can we do about invasives?C H A P T E R2sensing, can help monitor certain invasive species. Thiskind of analysis can pinpoint high-risk locations that canbe confirmed by ground surveys. Digital “sketch mapping”techniques are being tested that provide aerial survey resultswithin days after aerial flights rather than waiting for weeks.Invasive species can alter ecosystem processes, so theymust be better integrated into the concept of ecosystemmanagement. We know that spatial patterns of physical andbiological processes across forests can impede or promotespecies invasions and could be managed to reduce invasionrisks. Here are some examples:s Roads, railways, vehicles, and foot traffic providepathways for the spread of pests.s Contiguous populations of host plants and alternativehosts can enhance the spread of invasive pathogens .and insects.s Adjacent land uses, the size of habitat fragments, andthe edge-to-interior ratio of forests all affect invasions(described in Chapter 3).s Disturbances can open up habitat for invaders or disrupttheir dispersal.s Fire suppression can intensify pathogen outbreaks byaltering stand dynamics.s Severe wildfires after years of fire suppression can helpspread invasive plants.s Silvicultural practices affect vulnerability to and recoveryfrom pathogens and insects, as well as the relativeabundance of non-native understory plants.s Some invasive species alter fire frequency, hydrology,and other ecosystem processes in ways that may favorfurther invasions by the same species or others.We need to take what we know about how landscapestructure and ecosystem condition affect invasions anduse it in management prescriptions. They can be testedand improved through adaptive management (a processwhere research results are continually brought forward andmanagement practices are continually reassessed as newinformation becomes available, see Chapter 8). The objectiveshould be to eliminate invasion pathways and minimizeimpacts where invasives are established. We should examineforest management practices such as patterns of timberharvest and thinning, fire suppression and burn frequency,revegetation after disturbance, road building, and huntingand recreational uses, as well as natural disturbance regimes.Possible mitigation approaches should be identified. Forexample, we need to know whether closing logging roadsafter harvest reduces invasion risks or whether interplantingdifferent species or establishing buffers can slow the spread ofhost-specific invaders.How to Improve Invasive Cost EstimatesAlthough existing information about past and projectedcosts generated by species invasions in U.S. forests isinadequate, we know that such information has affectedpolicy when it was available. For example, it was used tojustify the Animal and Health Inspection Service’s rules fortreatment of solid wood packing materials.We need better cost-benefit or cost-effectivenessanalyses of past and projected costs of species invasions.That would strengthen decisions by legislators and agenciesand help weigh alternative policy and management actions.But quantitative information should go beyond timberlosses and pest suppression expenses. It should includenon-market environmental and social values that maybe degraded by invasives, such as watershed protection,biodiversity, aesthetic, and other amenity values. This won’tbe easy. Even with good information on environmentalimpacts, economic techniques that assign dollar values tonon-market goods and services are costly and controversial.It’s easier to estimate values for human health and aestheticprotection than for carbon sequestration or climateregulation. And it’s also tough to justify expenditures todayfor invasive species, when the benefits may not accrue untilsome future time. The fact is that the benefits from avoidingharm by preventing or controlling invasives often comedecades later.65

C H A P T E R2non - native invasives AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat can we do about invasives?OPTIMAL TIMING FOR SUCCESSHand-pulling invasivesINVASION PROCESS CURVETIMEDECREASING CHANCEOF ERADICATION & CONTROLFigure 2.3 As an infestationbecomes larger and theinvasion curve begins topeak, more aggressivetreatment techniques areneeded. Most invasivespersist at low densitiesbefore their rapidexpansion. Those small,dispersed populationsare difficult to detect.Often their economic andenvironmental impact isuncertain. Governmentagencies are unable tostep in and regulate theirmovement, and forestmanagers may be unwillingto implement eradicationprograms. But this is themost effective time forquarantines, eradication,and control.Better cost and benefit estimates would also improvepest suppression programs. The speed with which decisionsare made and management actions are taken during abiological invasion greatly influence effectiveness; yetinvasive species can confuse timely decisions as shown inFigure 2.3.Rapid-response decision rules could help resolve thedilemma illustrated in Figure 2.3 by providing standardprocedures for agencies to follow in times of emergency.At present, agencies develop assessment methods for eachnew situation, and that takes time. Decision rules wouldprovide a clear rationale for efforts to fund rapid responses.Such rules would assess the risks of a new species invasion,the potential costs and benefits of responding at differentpoints along the invasion process curve (Figure 2.3), andthe best time to switch from eradication to suppression.Scenario analysis is one approach to making decisions evenwhen uncertainty is great. It examines the cost-effectivenessof early eradication under various risk scenarios and sets athreshold risk level that triggers rapid action.How to Prevent and Manage Invasives at VariousLandscape ScalesSpatial computer models offer another approach forunderstanding how landscape structure affects invasions.Time-series scenarios of the spread of gypsy moths undervarious management strategies now guide multistate gypsymoth suppression and could be applied to other large-scaleinvasives programs. If we integrate better cost estimateswith spatial population models, we could optimize controlstrategies by distributing resources where and when aspecies is most invasive and harmful, the treatment costs arelowest, or the chances of success are highest.66

non - native invasives AND BIODIVERSIT YSummaryC H A P T E R2SUDDEN OAK DEATH(SOD) RISKVery HighHighModerateLowVery LowSUMMARYIn the long run, invasives are one of the biggest threatsto the integrity of forest ecosystems. In a world wherenon-native invasive species are jumping bio-geographicbarriers, we need new approaches to identifying andblocking invasion pathways and to detecting emerginginvasive populations early and eradicating them rapidly.We need greater ability to intervene and manage overthe long-term. We have identified better tools for tacklinginvasive species at large spatial scales, and we need to usethem aggressively. We need to translate online informationsources into actionable knowledge. Action that respondsto the priorities identified in this chapter should benefitsustainable forestry and reduce harmful impacts of .invasive species.To Learn More About This Topic, See Appendix, page 167.(Reproduced from Sonoma State UniversityGeographic Information Center)Figure 2.4 SOD risk of establishment and spread in Californiabased on climate variables and distributionof host plant species.Ultimately, effective management of invasive speciesacross large forested areas will require participation bylandowners and managers with different goals, cultures,and reasons for their actions. The more we know aboutthis variation, the more it could help develop processes,incentives, or policies that encourage cooperationand accept and adopt necessary control technologies.Techniques like GIS predictive mapping could helplandowners understand the susceptibility of their propertyto invasive species. The map of sudden oak death (SOD) inCalifornia is an example (Figure 2.4). It predicts the risk ofestablishment and spread of the SOD pathogen and raisesawareness about risks in currently non-infested areas.67

C H A P T E R3FR AGMENTATION AND BIODIVERSIT YWhy is this subject important?Why IS This Subject Is Important?While most of us see the forest from ground levelor watch it go by from the seat of a vehicle, it might beeasier for us to understand forest fragmentation if oureveryday view was from above, because fragmentationis a landscape phenomenon. It changes large contiguousareas of relatively homogenous forest into a mosaic .of undisturbed forest “patches” and a “matrix” of .disturbed lands. With a bird’s-eye view of the landscape,we’d see a pattern of patches and matrix (Figure 3.1), alandscape of older forests next to younger forests next .to no forest at all. Fragmentation science is all about .the size and spatial arrangement of habitat patches,characteristics of the disturbed matrix lands, and theeffects of that change on biodiversity and ecologicalprocesses and functions.Simply stated, forest fragmentation is the .conversion of a continuously forested landscape intoisolated patches of forest. Two things are clear from thisdefinition. First, fragmentation is about landscapes onlarge spatial scales, and second, the visible results of .fragmentation are changes in the pattern of forestsacross a landscape. We’ll define and describe theseelements in more detail below, but it’s important torecognize that while fragmentation is the result of bothhistorical and contemporary land use, it’s not just aphenomenon influenced by humans. Avalanches, fires,hurricanes, and other natural disturbances (described inChapter 1) also contribute to forest fragmentation. .However, there’s a difference between human- andnaturally-caused fragmentation. Human actions often aremore frequent, less random, and more permanent thannatural disturbances.Figure 3.1 From a landscape view, the fragmentedpattern is a mix of forest patches and matrix.The matrix might be recently logged areas, earlysuccessionhabitats, aquatic and riparian habitats,corridors and other land uses such as agriculture,highways and development.Today, land-use conversion or “forest loss” .contributes to increasingly fragmented forest landscapes,leaving patches adjacent to or surrounded by houses,highways, parking lots, and shopping malls. This pointsto a distinction between fragmentation associatedwith forest loss and fragmentation associated withforest harvest and regeneration. Forest loss often leavesremaining habitats indefinitely degraded within a matrixthat has little value to forest species. On the other hand,forest harvesting may result in a temporary reductionin habitat for species that rely on mature forests whilecreating new habitat for species that rely on young,early-succession forests. Differences between harvestedmatrix lands and undisturbed patches gradually becomeless pronounced over time through the processes ofregeneration, growth, and succession.Forest fragmentation is an important environmentalissue. It was identified in the Montreal Process as an .indicator of biodiversity (Chapter 5, page 115). The .developers of the Montreal Process recognized the .importance of fragmentation and separated it from otherbiological diversity measurements such as forest extentand protected status. They saw a relationship betweenbiodiversity, fragmentation, and ecological processes.National assessment reports (The 2000 RPA Assessment68

FR AGMENTATION AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about forest fragmentation and biodiversity?C H A P T E R3of Forest and Range Lands, The State of the Nation’sEcosystems, and The United States Roundtable onSustainable Forests) all cite the relationship betweenbiological diversity and landscape structure in .fragmented forests. All of these assessments supportthe notion that the composition, extent, and layout .of land cover have the potential to affect forest .ecosystem goods and services.Given the international and national recognitionof fragmentation, it was surprising when an NCSSFsurvey revealed that forest owners don’t share theseviews. Survey respondents never mentioned .fragmentation when describing their use of biodiversityindicators (Chapter 5, Page 116). We can onlyspeculate about why it wasn’t mentioned, but onereason might be perspective – we’re not accustomedto a fly-over view of forest landscapes. However, thatlimitation is quickly becoming a thing of the past withremote sensing and geographic information systems(GIS), tools that help us see patterns of fragmentationand better understand its effects. As we’ll learn in thischapter, another reason may be that fragmentationscience has limitations. It’s based on theory, establishedlong-standing theory, but theory nevertheless. It’salso based on spatial models (e.g., GIS, paper maps,relationships described in mathematical equations, .and diagrams) that sometimes make it difficult to .see practical implications. True, there is scientific .field evidence, but because designing fragmentationexperiments is complicated, the results of those .experiments have had limited application to on-thegroundsituations.For these reasons, the Commission sponsored acomprehensive review of fragmentation science andwhat is known and not known about its effect on .biodiversity. The review described current efforts to .assess the effects of fragmentation, identified .information gaps, and provided some practical .implications for its use in forest management. Butthere is a caution. As you will see in this chapter, theimpact of fragmentation on biodiversity depends onwhat particular plant or animal species we are .concerned about, how it moves across the landscape,and the degree to which the landscape is fragmented.Despite our understanding of its process, theoreticalunderpinnings, and effects, we still don’t know thethresholds at which landscape-scale movements ofplants and animals become inhibited by fragmentation.However, what we do know should encourage allpractitioners, landowners, managers, and policymakersto be aware of its effects.What Do We Know About ForestFragmentation and Biodiversity?This is merely an introduction. Even the NCSSF reportthat provides the basis of this chapter is just a start. Webriefly review the process of fragmentation, the underlyingtheories, and its effects on landscape pattern, biodiversity,and ecological processes. Because fragmentation science isthe study of habitat alteration (either through forest loss orharvest/regeneration) and the isolation of forest patches, itasks these kinds of questions:s What are the effects of fragmentation on plant andanimal species?s Can plants and animals survive fragmentation?s What are the effects of fragmentation on other forestfunctions and ecosystem services?Before describing those effects, let’s look briefly at theorigins of this science and its process, because both provideinsight into how our understanding of fragmentation hasdeveloped over time.As early as the 1950s, scientists were raising concernsabout how human actions were altering landscape .patterns and leading to species extirpations and extinctions.A study in 1956 drew attention to the spatial aspects offragmentation by showing changes in forest cover in CadizTownship in southern Wisconsin from 1831-1950, roughlycorresponding to the time of European settlement (Figure3.2). The study documented the process of fragmentation,which begins with dissection and perforation of forestcover (1882 map), proceeds to fragmentation of forestpatches (1902 map), and finally results in attrition, whereremaining patches shrink in size and become more isolated(1950 map). This process of shrinking size and changes inthe spatial relationship of forest patches to one another(distance between patches) is described next.69

C H A P T E R3FR AGMENTATION AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about forest fragmentation and biodiversity?183118821902 1950Figure 3.2 A 1956 study by Curtis of Cadiz Township,Wisconsin, is a classic but not unique example ofdeforestation and forest loss to agriculture anddevelopment. In 1831, essentially the entire township(23,040 acres/9324 ha) was forested. By 1882, manyforest patches were still intact (half the township).By 1902 there were fewer, smaller, and more widelyseparated patches. By 1950, only 55 small, scatteredpatches of forest remained.We’ll use the Cadiz Township study to describe thestages in the process.Dissection is a beginning stage. Early forest .management activities, agricultural development, or humansettlement can contribute. Dissection can start with buildinga road, trail, or power transmission line into a landscape.Fragmentation science is interested in the extent to whichthese activities block the movement of plant and animalspecies. For example, consider a highway with a high70

FR AGMENTATION AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about forest fragmentation and biodiversity?C H A P T E R3concrete curb or lane dividers. They may stop less mobileanimals like turtles and amphibians, while other animalssuch as small mammals and ground beetles are able to crossthe highway, but may be unwilling or are subject to highmortality. Dissection usually acts as a filter, meaning thatsome individuals cannot or will not cross, but others do.A road might stop a mature turkey from leaving its homerange, but at the same time be no problem for a youngturkey intent on dispersing into new territory (more aboutbarriers, filters, and dispersal below).Perforation is the next stage. It usually includes .converting part of the landscape into agricultural lands .and/or settlements (essentially forest loss as shown in the1882 map of Cadiz township). These openings may notbe large enough to act as barriers to species movement,because most species can migrate around them if they .can’t cross them directly. The most significant effect of .perforation is the creation of edges (areas where .ecosystems come together). We’ll pick up on the subject ofedges below, and we’ll see that they can have an effect onthings like bird nesting success and increased predation ofreptiles and small mammals.Fragmentation follows. As perforations and dissectionsgrow larger and extend further, they coalesce, leavingforest patches isolated from one another. At this stage thedefinition of fragmentation becomes a reality (1902 map).A fragmented landscape can restrict animal migration,especially non-flying animals. Problems begin to appear inthe smaller isolated populations of plants and animals leftin the remaining patches (discussed in more detail in themetapopulation section below).Attrition picks up where fragmentation leaves off. Inthis stage, more patches are disturbed, and the remainingpatches become smaller and more distant from one another(1950 map). At this point in the process, connections(corridors) between patches are cut off with increasingeffects on the viability of plant and animal populations.Attrition is most likely to occur with very extensiveagriculture and urban-suburban development. Plant andanimal populations occupying the small, isolated patchesare more likely to become extinct, and it’s difficult for themto emigrate and recolonize other patches due to distance.From this brief look at the stages of fragmentation, twomajor effects of the process are clear. There’s a reductionin the total area of forest (referred to as sample and areaeffects and described below) and increased isolation anddistance between the remaining forest patches (referred toas isolation and edge effects and described below).As ecological concerns about the effects of fragmentationgrew during the mid- to late-twentieth century,scientists explained its effects by borrowing from thetheories of island biogeography, metapopulations, andsource-sink dynamics. These theories became the basis forestablishing nature reserves designed to maximize speciesdiversity and protect critical habitat for endangered species.Next we’ll review these theories and their contribution tothe science of fragmentation.What is Island Biogeography Theory?This theory says that the number of species living on anoceanic island is a function of island size and isolation. Largeislands near the mainland maintain the greatest numberof species due to their size and proximity to colonization(immigration) sources. There’s less chance of extinction andgreater chance the habitat is heterogeneous (variable overspace and time). In contrast, small, isolated islands havethe fewest species due to their distance from other islands.Here there’s greater chance of extinction and less chance ofarrival of potential immigrant species.Scientists applied island theory to terrestrial landscapesand drew parallels between islands and fragmentedterrestrial forest patches. The idea that species richness(the number of species present in an area) varied with theamount of area was already a well-established scientificprinciple. However, the importance of patch isolation andespecially the quantification of connectivity to a potentialcolonizing source population was a new concept. Asmentioned, island biogeography principles were used indesigning nature reserves to protect critical habitat forendangered species. The goal was to maximize speciesdiversity, and the thought was that biodiversity would behighest in larger, less isolated reserves.The application of island biogeography theory toterrestrial habitats requires stepping back from the idea ofdiscrete habitat islands surrounded by unsuitable matrix(like an island surrounded by water) and recognizing thatmatrix lands can take on a variety of forms, contain a rangeof habitat qualities, and change over time through plantsuccession and changing land uses. However, the basictenets of island theory remained relevant while attentionturned more toward the role of matrix lands (as we’ll seebelow). Fragmentation science began to focus more onhabitat quality, not only in patches, but also in surroundingmatrix ecosystems. Spatial structure in matrix lands wasrecognized as having a critical part in the movement ofgenes, individuals, populations, and communities. Theoriesassociated with metapopulations and source-sink dynamics(described next) and models of population dynamics and therole of corridors for connecting fragmented landscapes haveall grown directly out of the concept of isolation that wascentral to island biogeography theory. Another consequencehas been interest in landscape metrics – measurements thatcapture not only area effects but also isolation effects infragmented landscapes (described later).71

C H A P T E R3FR AGMENTATION AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about forest fragmentation and biodiversity?What are Metapopulations andSource-sink Dynamics?Metapopulation theory helps us understand the effectsof fragmentation on plant and animal populations. Theconcept has to do with interactions among populations; forexample the movement of plants and animals within andbetween forest patches and across the matrix. Figure 3.3depicts a metapopulation of freshwater fish. Part 1 shows anunfragmented landscape and Part 2 a fragmented landscape.In the unfragmented landscape (Part 1), four subpopulationsof the same fish species are outlined. Taken together,these four subpopulations make up a metapopulation (apopulation of populations) that exists at a larger spatial scale.So a metapopulation consists of subpopulations of a species,linked to one another by migration.In Part 2, altered by land uses (dams, roads, logging,bridges and culverts), the subpopulations have become moreor less isolated from one another and interbreeding is morerestricted. Some subpopulations are more restricted thanothers in their ability to disperse and migrate into other areas.Under these circumstances there’s a possibility that one ormore of the isolated subpopulations could become extinctover time due to the loss of genetic variation, demographicchange, or environmental fluctuations, all of which .become more important as subpopulation size decreases.From this theory, it’s apparent that there is a relationshipbetween fragmentation, habitat loss, and the potential forpopulation extinction.Figure 3.3 Part 1 Part 1 is an unfragmented landscape withfour subpopulations of fish outlined.Now let’s add the concept of source-sink dynamicsto Figure 3.3. Consider the subpopulation in the upperleft corner of Part 1. It’s possible that this is poor qualityhabitat and the population cannot be maintained withoutimmigration from nearby populations. If a dam preventsimmigration, this subpopulation may disappear. Thepotential for recolonization is based on the size andsuitability of neighboring subpopulations, as well as thedistance (isolation) from potential emigrating subpopulations.In the theory of source-sink dynamics, a source is apopulation in which births exceed deaths and emigrationexceeds immigration. A source area is a net exporterof individuals. Individuals emigrate from a source toneighboring areas with no or lower populations and moreresources. Conversely, sinks are habitats in which deathsexceed births and immigration exceeds emigration. Habitatquality in a sink area is so poor that its population willbecome extinct if it does not receive new individuals fromoutside the area. Source populations serve as a rescue effectto sink populations, and in the absence of immigration,sink populations disappear. In Part 2, a land-use barrier (adam) isolates that upper left subpopulation, creating a sinkarea without a source, where subpopulations can becomeextinct. Part 2 also illustrates other fragmentation exampleswith the potential to impact the overall metapopulation.72

FR AGMENTATION AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about forest fragmentation and biodiversity?C H A P T E R3Figure 3.3 Part 2 Part 2 shows the same subpopulations,isolated by various land uses.From this example we see that fragmentation can resultin small, isolated populations that may be more vulnerableto random natural events that can reduce their viability overtime. There are dispersal mechanisms that encourage themovement of individuals into new areas. If connections aremaintained among subpopulations, and individuals are .able to disperse between them, the probability thatmetapopulations remain intact over time increases. One .way to help the dispersal of less mobile species in alandscape is to ensure a network of suitable areas andcorridors (more about this below).There are two important points about metapopulationtheory and source-sink dynamics. The first is that thedefinition of an area as a source or sink is both temporallyand spatially scale dependent. Second, just like islandbiogeography, source-sink dynamics and metapopulationtheory in general fails to fully consider differences in matrixhabitat. There is a difference between suitable matrixhabitat that provides some, but not all the needs, unsuitablematrix habitat that may simply slow plant and animalmovement, and matrix habitat that acts as a completebarrier – essentially non-habitat. While early ecologicalresearch focused on species in patches, later evidencehas shown that more focus is needed on processes in theintervening matrix (more about this below).What are the Primary Effects of Fragmentationon Biodiversity?Based on the principles of island biogeography,metapopulation models, and source-sink dynamics,scientists have identified four major effects of forestfragmentation on the loss of biodiversity. We will describethem within the context of forest management activities .in contrast to other land uses that result in forest loss. .The effects are associated with landscape patterns and arereferred to as sample effects, area effects, isolation effectsand edge effects.Sample effectsWhen a forest is cut (Figure 3.4), most of the individualplants in the cut area are lost and the animal habitat ischanged. The plant and animal populations in the uncutpatches are only a “sample” of the original populations.They may not represent the pre-cut populations in numbers,genetic diversity, density, age, or distribution of structure.The sample populations may also lack interactions such aspredation, competition, and mutualism (when two or morespecies benefit in growth rate and population size by theirassociation).73

C H A P T E R3FR AGMENTATION AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about forest fragmentation and biodiversity?Figure 3.4 The sample effects of fragmentation. After atimber harvest, a “sample” of the original populationsremains, often in steep inaccessible areas, riparian areasand wetlands.Area effectsThe area of patches affects population size, variety ofhabitat, natural disturbances, and species interactions in thefollowing ways:s A reduction in habitat area leads to smaller populations,which may be vulnerable to extinction. According toisland biogeography theory, species extinction rates arehigher on small islands (Figure 3.5).s A reduction in the variety of patch habitat results infewer species. According to island biogeography andmetapopulation theory, the area of a patch affects itsrecolonization because recolonizing species can locatelarger patches more easily (right patch versus left inFigure 3.5). Patch size may also affect the presence oflarge mammals and some birds, which may require largerpatches for grazing, nesting, and mating. If the patch sizecannot support their needs, it may not serve as a vectorto other patches.s Patch size and shape may also affect wind disturbances;smaller patches with certain orientations will have lessdrag on wind that may more easily loft seeds above andaway, increasing dispersal.s The patch area can affect the type, extent, frequency, andeven intensity of natural disturbances. For example, smallareas may be more subject to wind destruction or altereddisturbance regimes that affect the biodiversity of species.Small fragments may be more likely to completely burn iffires occur. They may lack predators to control herbivoreoutbreaks, and they tend to be less productive.s Reductions in forest area affect species interactions,especially trophic (food chain position) effects. Forexample, species at higher trophic levels, such as topcarnivores, tend to require more area. A large carnivoremust cover a larger fragmented territory to capture itsprey. If the sample effect (described above) leaves topcarnivores on small patches, they are likely to becomelocally extinct if those patches are too isolated to allowfor inter-patch movement. Competition is also affected.For example, some species may be released from naturalcompetition by the local extinctions of other species.Isolation effectsThe isolation of forest patches has several .important effects:s Animals can be more vulnerable as they move amongpatches. As a habitat becomes fragmented, patchescan become separated by relatively inhospitableterrain. Wildlife attempting to cross between patchesbecomes vulnerable to predators, harsh environmentalconditions, or starvation.s The immigration rate (rate at which plants or animalsmove) will be lower to an isolated patch than to anequal patch of the same size that is surrounded bycontiguous similar habitat.s The degree of isolation of a patch depends on thedistance to nearby patches and how seriously thematrix habitat restricts movement. Some species in apatch surrounded by homogenous habitat must bemaintained by continual immigration. More isolatedpatches will have less immigration and their populationsmay have a greater risk of extinction.74

FR AGMENTATION AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about forest fragmentation and biodiversity?C H A P T E R3Figure 3.5 The area effects of fragmentation. Two patchesremain, one large the other small.s Corridors (connections between patches, such as theriparian areas in Figure 3.4) are thought to be beneficialfor reducing isolation and maintaining biodiversity (moreon corridors below).s Isolation also affects disturbance regimes. For example,isolation from fire or pests can protect a patchpopulation and lower the disturbance frequency byreducing the number of times a disturbance that beginsin another area spreads to the isolated remnant. Isolationcan also affect recovery after a disturbance by limitingthe recolonization of a patch.s Isolation effects may alter interaction among species. Forexample, species that could interact because they werepreviously in a contiguous area may no longer be able todo so because of isolation. Individuals may be in a patchwithout a primary predator or competitor. The extent towhich these changes in interaction occur may result insome local extinctions.The photo captions at right describe examples of .isolation effects.Edge effectsFragmentation creates edge habitats along the marginsof patches. Patches are affected both by edges and the effectof edges on patch interiors in the following ways.s Edges create changes in microclimate (the climateof small areas). Depending on latitude, age, andthe direction the edge faces, more light reaches theunderstory in an edge than under a canopy. More lightcreates higher temperatures, providing a source ofenergy for certain plant species that can use full sunlight.Figure 3.6 Red-backed vole.Red-backed voles (SouthernClethrionomys gapperi) inPacific Coastal forests arehabitat specialists that donot cross large areas of nonforesthabitat. Research hasshown that their geneticdiversity is greatest in anintact landscape, least in alandscape of isolatedforest fragments, andintermediate in a fragmented landscape with corridors.The implication is that corridors can moderate the effectsof fragmentation (more about corridors on pages 81-83).Figure 3.7 Deer mouse.In contrast to red-backedvoles, the geneticvariation of deer mice, ahabitat generalist in coastalforests, is unaffected byfragmentation. Thedifference between the twospecies is attributed to theresponse of generalist andspecialist species tothe matrix.s Wind speed is higher in an edge understory than in thepatch interior understory, so the potential evapotranspiration(the conversion of water into water vapor byevaporation or plant transpiration) at an edge is higherthan in the interior, and conditions for plant growthmay be drier. Since trees slow wind, the lack of trees inedge environments results in higher wind speeds in theedge understory than in the patch interior understory.Robert J. Erwin/Photo ResearchersPhil Meyers, Animal Diversity Web75

C H A P T E R3FR AGMENTATION AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about forest fragmentation and biodiversity?s Early-succession plant species are often adapted toedge microclimates. For this reason, the overall diversityof a patch may actually increase as these species areadded to its edge.s Interior patch species respond in various ways to edgeconditions. Some are unable to survive.s Non-native invasive species may be helped by edgehabitats. Many invasive plants are abundant seedproducers that thrive in higher light conditions and .have widely dispersed seeds. These traits make themmore likely to establish and thrive in edges than .patch interiors.s Edges are more susceptible to human disturbance, buttheir effect declines from the edge to the patch interior.Human pressures include light, noise, pets, hunting,and other activities, and depend on the nature of thematrix (described below).s Edge effects change species interactions by increasinginteraction among edge and interior species. Forexample, as noted in the perforation stage of fragmentation,many forest-nesting birds avoid edges becauseof the increased risk of predation, nest parasitism,inhospitable temperature and moisture conditions, orinsufficient food (see box). Note: Most research hasfocused on forest/agriculture edges. More research isneeded in the edges of perforated forest landscapes,because initial studies have not shown predation/edgeeffects to be very serious.The Nest ParasiteInterior forest birds that are forced to nest near edgescan become victims of the brown-headed cowbird. Thisbird never builds its own nest. Instead, the female laysher eggs in the nests of otherbirds, as many as 40-50 eggsin one breeding season. Sincecowbird eggs often hatch first,and young cowbirds grow faster,they often push other eggs oryoung out of the nest, and areraised by the adoptive parentswho raise no young of their own(Figures 3.8, 3.9, 3.10).Edge-adapted birds like the yellow warbler (Figure3.11) can deal with the cowbird. Too small to push acowbird egg out of her nest, the warbler buries the .cowbird egg under a newly constructed nest, sometimesat the expense of her own eggs. Then she tries again.One warbler was observed building a six-story nest.Figure 3.8 The brown-headedcowbird thrives with more edge(male pictured).Johann Schumacher/CLOTom UlrichFigure 3.10 A youngcowbird has emptied thenest of all competition.Figure 3.9 Acowbird eggwith chippingsparrow egg andbaby sparrow.Tom UlrichFigure 3.11 The yellow warbler is adapted to life in edges.The cowbird is a classic example of nest parasitismin edges, and its negative effects have been documentedin forest fragments in eastern forests. Cowbirds typicallyfeed in grasslands or agricultural areas and venture intoforests to parasitize the broods of other birds. In easternforests, matrix habitats often differ markedly from .forested patch habitats, but in western coastal .forests matrix habitats are less open and less favorable .to cowbirds making cowbird parasitism less of an issue .in western forests.Brenda Oviatt76

FR AGMENTATION AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about forest fragmentation and biodiversity?C H A P T E R3s Smaller patches have proportionately high amounts ofedge habitat. Long, narrow patches have little or nointerior habitat.s The amount of edge habitat increases at the expense ofinterior habitat. Species dependent on interior habitatsuffer, while edge-dependent species, including invasivespecies and predators, thrive. Highly fragmented forestscannot provide the food, cover, or reproduction needsof interior forest species. Predators such as crows .and raccoons and nest parasites like the brown-headedcowbird may find target nests more easily in edgehabitats.s Most of the species found in edges are common in thelandscape, have generalist habitat preferences, andtolerate frequent disturbances. Edges often have highspecies diversity. In fact, wildlife managers advocatedincreased development of edges as early as the 1930s,because many game herbivores are found at higherdensities in edges than in patch interiors.Many questions remain about edges. The answersare complicated and depend on the individual speciesof interest, because edge effects are notoriously speciesspecific.Continued research is needed. These questionsinclude:s How far do edge effects reach into the patch?s Do edges block the movement of animals and plants?s Do corridors enhance population movement or makeedge effects worse for species within the patch?s Do edges encourage non-native invasives?We can’t finish our discussion of fragmentationeffects without mentioning scale, because much of ourunderstanding of forest fragmentation depends on scale(whether we’re describing a watershed or a region). Sample,area, isolation, and edge effects all have scale-relatedaspects. As a forest becomes fragmented, there is a rangeof habitat destruction. Initially, there may be no noticeableeffects in the patches except for some local edge effects.However, the effects increase as the fragmentation processcontinues, and their rate of increase seems to be linear,increasing in direct proportion to the increase in fragmentation.However, at some point nonlinear responses (largedrops in biodiversity and/or function) occur with smallincreases in fragmentation, and these responses are difficultto predict.The Importance of the MatrixUp to this point we’ve focused on patches. Nowwe’ll describe the function and diversity of the matrix,the area around the patch. The matrix can influence theeffects of fragmentation in many ways, so it’s important tounderstand matrix concepts. The effect of the matrix .on patches and the whole landscape depends on itssimilarity to patches and how well it supports connectionsbetween patches.One function of the matrix is habitat. The ability offorest species to live in and use the matrix as alternativehabitat will affect their populations and the way in whichthe landscape functions. In terms of the rate of movementof animals, plants and energy between the matrix andpatch, the matrix can act as:s a conduit that allows the movement of speciess a filter that allows some selective movement of speciess a source for individuals that immigrate into patchess a sink that imports more individuals than it exportss a barrier that blocks all movement.The following discussion builds on fragmentation theoryand the four fragmentation effects – sample, area, isolation,and edge. We’ll see that the matrix can modify thembecause the matrix can affect:s resource availability (food, structure, etc.)s population subdivisions disturbance regimess microclimatess invasivess human pressure on patches.This brief discussion is offered with the understandingthat the extent of these effects on patches depends onprocesses in the matrix itself.Effect on resourcesDifferences between the matrix and the patch may alterthe available resources for different species, depending onwhether they’re habitat specialists (red-backed voles andflying squirrels) or generalists (mice or deer). Some speciesexperience little difference between patch and matrix .(deer mice), even if they differ in structure, while others(red-backed voles) respond to even minor differences.77

C H A P T E R3FR AGMENTATION AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about forest fragmentation and biodiversity?78Effect on population subdivisionIsolation effects on population subdivision depend onthe area and sample effects. We learned that metapopulationdivision into smaller subpopulations leads to more localextinctions of species that often cannot be rescued if isolationis high. This isolation effect on population subdivision will bereduced if the matrix isn’t a barrier. For example, some plantpopulations may be able to persist in small areas within thematrix. Seeds may be carried by wind in multiple steps acrossa matrix into a patch sink.Effect on disturbance regimesAs noted above, the effects on area and isolation in .turn affect the size, frequency, and intensity of disturbancessuch as windstorms and wildfire. If isolation is low, patchestend to function as a whole. However, the matrix can alterdisturbance regimes by modifying the degree of isolation.Whether or not a matrix operates as a barrier, filter, orconduit will vary with the type of disturbance. In addition, thematrix can have completely new disturbances that were not apart of the pre-fragmentation landscape but can significantlyaffect patches in the fragmented landscape.Effect on microclimateThe degree to which the matrix differs from the patch instructure and evapotranspiration will modify the microclimateand the plants that grow in edges. The matrix can reduce theeffect of small size and edge on microclimate if the matrix’salbedo (reflectivity) and structure are similar to those of theremnant forest.Effect on invasivesThe matrix can serve as a habitat, conduit, barrier, orfilter for invasive species just as it does for native species. Infact, the edge itself may be a better habitat and/or conduitfor invasive species than a contiguous forest. The matrix mayhave the greatest effect on the degree to which edges aresuitable and accessible for invasives.Effect on human pressureWhere clearing is done for forestry or agriculture orroads, increased human pressures may come from hunting.Unless the patches are small, the edges will have morehuman activity than the interior. Where forests are clearedfor housing, human pressures (light, noise, pets, and localrecreation) will depend on the distance to patches. If thematrix allows humans to live close to the patches, it mayserve as a conduit through which they can easily approachpatches. With greater distance, the matrix can act as a filterthat impedes movement or even as a barrier to the impactsof human pressure.Measuring Fragmentation (Landscape Metrics)Fragmentation is a spatial process, and it’s importantthat we try to quantify it. Efforts to quantify fragmentationuse remote sensing and GIS, tools that have becomevery sophisticated over the past twenty years. Spatial andlandscape-level data on land use and land cover have alsoimproved. These tools and data allow scientists to documentfragmentation patterns at scales ranging from watersheds toregions, nations, and the globe. Various ways of measuringfragmentation have been developed. Commercially availableGIS and remote sensing software can calculate basiclandscape measures such as patch area and perimeter. .More specialized software provides metrics for landscapequantification and fragmentation.Most metrics fall into three groups, according towhat aspects of landscape structure and pattern are beingmeasured. These aspects include:s the composition of the landscape (the amount ofdifferent cover types found in the landscape)s the configuration of the landscape (how patches ofthe same or different cover types are arranged in thelandscape in relationship to each other)s the shapes of patches and characteristics of edges .in the landscape.There also are more detailed fragmentation metrics,including isolation and proximity of cover types, diversity andevenness of patterns, connectivity, and contrast. Within eachof these, there are metrics that can be grouped accordingto the spatial scale of interest, from patch-level metrics(calculated for each individual patch in the landscape), toclass-level metrics (average values calculated for each covertype in the landscape), and finally to landscape-level metrics(calculated for the landscape as a whole). Also availableare metrics that focus on specific variables of interest. Forexample, measures of road density and distance of forestedareas from the nearest road have been used as indicators offragmentation and road effects.National Databases for Assessing FragmentationInterest has grown in developing national and internationalmeasurements and methods that can both map andmonitor forest habitat loss and fragmentation. In the pastdecade, national and global maps from satellite imagery havemade it possible to assess land cover at national and internationalscales and conduct preliminary assessments of forestloss and fragmentation. Here is a listing of the databasesavailable for the United States.

FR AGMENTATION AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about forest fragmentation and biodiversity?C H A P T E R3s The National Land Cover Database (NLCD) is a 21-classland cover database available on a state-by-state basis.s Global Land Cover Characteristics Database (GLCC)is a broader spatial scale database released in 1997.It provides continent-by-continent land cover data. Itwas developed by the U.S. Geological Survey’s EarthResources Observation System (EROS) data center.s Global Land Cover Facility (GLCF) Databases at theUniversity of Maryland is funded by NASA and .develops and distributes remotely sensed satellite .data and products.s The National Gap Analysis Program is designed toidentify the degree to which native animal species andnatural communities are represented in our current mixof conservation lands. Species and communities notadequately represented are considered conservation“gaps.” The program provides geographic informationon the status of species.s Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding andReferencing (TIGER) is a database of road networksproduced by the US Census Bureau.One thing to be aware of is that land-cover mapsindicate only the location and types of forest. Further dataprocessing is needed to quantify and map forest fragmentation.In an effort to do that, several studies have used thedata sources listed above to document patterns of fragmentationacross the United States. They include:s The Forest Intactness Databases The Heinz Center’s “State of the Nation’s Ecosystems”s Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources .Planning Acts Riiters’ Fragmentation Indexs How Far to the Nearest Road?More information about these databases and .fragmentation studies can be found in the appendix .(page 167).All of these assessments reinforce the national concernover forest fragmentation. They confirm that it is possibleto use high-resolution maps to assess forest fragmentation,even if the results are preliminary and contingent on thequality of the data. The studies vary in their incorporationof roads versus land use, spatial data resolution, scale ofanalysis, and landscape structure. Another weakness isthat there is little analysis of change over time, due mostlyto the lack of long-term data. However, these studiesprovide needed impetus for making improvements in thenext round of national assessments. Support is growing formore thorough measures of fragmentation and landscapepattern.What’s Still Needed in Fragmentation Metrics?Some major issues that still need to be addressed are:s the fact that landscape-scale metrics of fragmentationsuch as edge density and inter-patch distance havevalue as general indicators of disturbance rates butare often poor predictors of species richness and othermeasures of biodiversity in forest patchess the need to clarify the way fragmentation interactswith habitat loss to affect biodiversity and ecologicalprocessess the need for a better understanding of nonlinearrelationships between landscape structure, fragmentationeffects, and landscape metricss the need for ways of dealing with the speciesspecificnature of fragmentation effects and usingfragmentation metrics in the development of forestmanagement and monitoring planss the need to develop additional metrics that recognizethat most fragmented landscapes are dynamic mosaics,composed of habitats that vary in quality rather thandiscrete patches of habitat and non-habitats the need to recognize that the interpretation of .fragmentation metrics with respect to effects on .biodiversity and ecological pattern and process remainsopen-ended.What We Know About FragmentationWe understand the general forces and impacts of .forest fragmentation. However, there have been relativelyfew experimental tests of fragmentation theory and models.This is because experiments at the landscape scale aredifficult to perform and different species respond .differently to fragmentation. As a result, the application .of our knowledge to particular cases is limited. For .conservation purposes, here’s what we do know:s As forest declines in extent and quality, impactsaccumulate nonlinearly. Nonlinear responses are oftenseen as thresholds, and our ability to identify thosethresholds in term of management decisions is stillunknown.79

C H A P T E R3FR AGMENTATION AND BIODIVERSIT YSome practical implications of fragmentation science80s Conservation efforts need to take into account thematrix and its characteristics. The degree to whichthe matrix can serve as habitat or partial habitat oras a conduit between patches is variable and stillunpredictable.s There are various degrees of fragmentation, and .what is suitable for some species may be inhospitablefor others.s Forests can be temporarily fragmented into smallerunits by harvesting that changes the age classes andspecies composition of the next forest.s Larger patches generally support more species thansmaller patches of the same forest type.s Populations in smaller patches are at greater risk ofextinction due to variability in environmental conditionsand population levels.s As patches become smaller and more isolated, adverseimpacts of fragmentation increase and are likely to begreatest for species that are limited in their ability todisperse. However, short-lived patches in a dynamiclandscape that is continuously forested but withdifferent age classes moving spatially over time donot function in the same way as forest adjacent toagriculture or urban development.s Even isolated forest patches have biodiversity valuesthat would disappear if they were converted to .non-forest uses.What More We Need to Know About Fragmentations Local populations in patches are strongly affectedby the characteristics of the surrounding matrix. It isimportant to understand how fragmentation altersflows of energy, matter, and species – includingdispersal and spread of non-native invasive species anddiseases – across the matrix and thus affects forestsuccession, sediment movement, nutrient cycling,carbon sequestration, and other key community andecosystem processes.s Determining thresholds is an important areafor fragmentation research. Models and theorydemonstrate that habitat destruction has little effecton plant and animal movement until a threshold orcritical point is reached or when a gap wide enough tointerrupt dispersal is created. If such thresholds can beidentified, managers can begin to plan their activitiesaccordingly.Some Practical Implications ofFragmentation ScienceMaking use of what we know about fragmentation inforest management activities is not easy because the effectsof fragmentation:s are specific to certain groups of plants and animals,spatial scales, and ecological processess vary according to the type of landscape and thestructure of that landscapes can be difficult to distinguish from effects of historicalland use and habitat loss per se.Nevertheless, as we manage forests and harvest timber,we need to balance those activities with other functionsthat forested habitats provide. We should try to incorporatethe concepts of fragmentation to sustain forest resourcesand protect susceptible species and ecosystems.It’s also important to remember that a forestfragmented by agriculture or urban development maybe different from a forest with mature and regeneratingstands that result from timber harvesting. The first situationrepresents a habitat that may be modified indefinitely witha matrix that has little or no habitat value for forest species,while the latter can be viewed as a shifting mosaic in whichamounts and spatial patterns of forest habitat types arechanging constantly in response to management activitiesand natural processes. The techniques described next mayalter the effects of fragmentation.Logging Systems That Might Alter the Effectsof FragmentationNew silvicultural systems need to be designed andimplemented for managers who want to increase thehabitat value of matrix lands. Current harvest systems,whether based on clearcutting, shelterwood, or selectioncuts, create different forest patterns across the landscapeand have different fragmentation effects. Logging systemsthat reduce the impact of one fragmentation effect mayincrease the effect of another. For example, selection cuttingmay result in reduced area effects but may increase isolationeffects by creating a more extensive transportation network.Recently, there’s been interest in the use of structuralretention harvesting (Chapter 1, page 45), a techniquethat maintains structures from the original stand. Structuralretention may contribute to biodiversity conservation by:s maintaining plants and animals on a harvested site bykeeping essential habitat elements such as snags, largedown logs, and small patchess adding structural heterogeneity to the harvested standand allowing organisms to return more quicklys modifying the microclimate after the harvest to make itmore suitable for certain speciess making it easier for species to move through .harvested areas

FR AGMENTATION AND BIODIVERSIT YSome practical implications of fragmentation scienceC H A P T E R3s complementing protected zones such as riparian areaswithin the matrix.Within the context of forest fragmentation, retentionharvesting may:s reduce the area effect by increasing the habitat qualityof the matrixs reduce the isolation effect by facilitating movementthrough the matrixs potentially reduce the edge effect by limiting the .number of abrupt edges in a landscape.However, the extent to which these elements areenhanced depends on the structures that are retained, theamount that is retained, and their spatial pattern, and theinfluence of each of these factors is not well understood.Research on the economics of retention harvesting is alsoat an early stage. Some public agencies acknowledge thatthey are using retention harvesting because it is consideredsocially acceptable and that they are still in early stages ofgathering data on the benefits and costs of changing theirsilvicultural regimes.All of this points to the fact that the effects of .fragmentation on new and traditional silvicultural strategiesare not well understood. Better information is needed aboutquantitative relationships between structural features ofstands and the requirements of forest-dependent plants andanimals. There is also a need for research on costs and .benefits of alternative conservation strategies such as .variable retention, use of mini-reserves in intensively .managed areas, corridors, adjacency constraints, and .restrictions on harvest unit sizes.Figure 3.12 Corridors can connect a streamside riparian areaand a ridgeline.The Demonstration of Ecosystem Management Options(DEMO) Study, a large-scale, long-term experiment onstructural retention harvests in the Pacific Northwest, isinvestigating some of these questions. It is designed toexamine the responses of diverse groups of plants, animals,and processes to various amounts and/or patterns of livetrees retained in harvests. There is information about thisexperiment in the appendix.Using Corridors and Stepping-stones to Alter theEffects of FragmentationOne important way to promote connectivity betweenisolated patches is to create corridors of land that connectpatches but differ from the surrounding matrix (Figure 3.12).One example of maintaining connectivity across highways isshown in the box on the next page. Some of the potentialadvantages of corridors are:s They may increase the movement of animals amonghabitat patches, promote genetic exchange, and help torecolonize suitable habitat patches.s They may reduce mortality by assisting species in theirmovement between patches. Species that seem tobenefit most from corridors are those that avoid openmatrix habitat and species that require a suitable kind ofhabitat for dispersal.s They can provide additional habitat area, increasethe foraging area for species that require large areas,and serve as refuges (Chapter 1, page 44) from largedisturbances.81

C H A P T E R3FR AGMENTATION AND BIODIVERSIT YSome practical implications of fragmentation scienceConnecting Habitat Across Major HighwaysThe metapopulation model described earlier indicatesthat subpopulations are generally located in areas ofsuitable habitat, and that it’s important that animalscan move across landscapes between subpopulationsto sustain their viability and alleviate isolation. We knowthat landscapes are not uniform, but instead consist ofhabitat patches often interspersed with various barriers.The term “landscape permeability” indicates the amountof resistance that animals perceive when moving acrossbarriers from one habitat to the next. For example,natural barriers like rivers and steep topography are nobarrier to river otters and mountain goats respectively.Land-use barriers act in a similar way. A deer may cross asubdivision, but for a wolverine that subdivision becomesa permanent obstacle. Major highways can act as barrierstoo, affecting landscape permeability. Researchers aredesigning ways to increase their permeability, makingthem a conduit or filter and improving animal movement.Researchers in the Pacific Northwest who are studyinghighway permeability for grizzly bears, wolverines, greywolves, and lynx point out that roads can:Figure 3.13 The two examples above show how habitatscan be separated that otherwise would be availablefor wildlife movement. Wildlife crossing structures arebeing planned in locations with high-quality habitat andlittle human access off the roadway. The goal is to designstructures that benefit the widest range of wildlifespecies. Some may be oversize culverts for movement ofsmall species like rodents and amphibians, while othersmay be tunnels or vegetation-covered bridges.s block movement and dispersal of animal populationss isolate and fragment populationss provide human access and development into .wildlife habitats contribute to vehicle-animal collisions.Using GIS and other techniques, researchers canidentify areas along highways with the best wildlifehabitat and locate linkages between them. They findwhere animals are most likely to cross highways anddesign wildlife crossing structures that improve highwaypermeability and minimize the problem listed above. Theprimary challenge is finding the correct structure for eachspecies (Figure 3.13).82

FR AGMENTATION AND BIODIVERSIT YSome practical implications of fragmentation scienceC H A P T E R3There is debate about corridors. Although they arein use, there are questions about their ability to increaseconnectivity for many species and their effectiveness forconserving biodiversity. The benefits of corridors are speciesspecific,making it difficult to provide general guidelinesfor their use. Whether corridors are effective depends on arange of factors specific to individual cases, including:s the length and width of corridorss the suitability of habitat within the corridor and theadjacent matrixs the demography of the patchess characteristics of the species being helped, includingtheir method of dispersal.Studies are needed to document not only whethercorridors assist the movement of species across thelandscape, but how their movement differs from the waythey move without corridors, recognizing that matrixcharacteristics are important. Studies are also needed thataddress the willingness of species to use corridors, crossgaps,and cross-matrix structures. It may be that the beststrategy to enhance connectivity for some species is tomanage for or improve structural conditions in the matrixrather than investing in corridors.Another kind of dispersal technique being investigatedis the use of stepping-stones, patches that allow speciesto “hop” from one patch to another. The movement ofFenders’ blue butterfly in the Willamette Valley of Oregonis an example of the stepping-stone technique (Figure3.14). Historically, lupine patches, which served as suitable“source” habitat for this butterfly, were less than 0.5 kmapart. This distance was easily within the 2 km dispersalpotential of Fenders’ blue butterfly across non-lupine “sink”habitat. However, fragmentation has left lupine patches thatare isolated by 3 to 30 km, dividing metapopulations intonon-interacting subpopulations. Scientists have suggesteddeveloping stepping-stone lupine patches to reconnect thepopulations, rather than corridors, because stepping-stonesare more like the historical landscape structure. Continuedresearch is needed on other species that might benefit fromthis technique.Figure 3.14 Kincaid’s lupine patches (Lupinus sulphureusssp. kincaidii), a threatened plant, located at properintervals, can act as stepping-stones, for the Fenders’ bluebutterfly (lcaricia icarioides fenderi), an endangered insectlisted under the federal Endangered Species Act. Lupine isthe primary larval food for the butterfly.Developing Management Plans that Recognize theEffects of FragmentationHere are three suggested principles to use in .forest management plans that recognize the effects offragmentation on biodiversity.Principle 1: Promote connectivityConnectivity can be improved by not only creatingor reserving habitat corridors, but also by using steppingstonesthat help the movement of species across alandscape. Other ideas include retention harvesting, minireservesin intensively-managed areas, adjacency constraints,and restrictions on harvest unit sizes. It may also be possibleto manage the matrix to increase its suitability as habitatand increase its permeability. Where the matrix consistsof agriculture or residential development, parks, land-useplanning that conserves open space and greenways, andpassageways across major highways may reduce the effectsof fragmentation.Principle 2: Maintain structural complexityStructural complexity includes:s the variety of stand structures present in natural forestsalong with stand ages and size classess snags and large down logss variation in canopy gaps and canopy layers.Principle 3. Spread the risk of doing the wrong thingBecause it is difficult to identify how changes in forestextent or connectivity associated with fragmentation affecteven a single species, the adoption of multiple strategies atmultiple scales increases the probability of providing suitablehabitat, connectivity and stand complexity in at least someparts of the landscape. For example, if the corridor strategyis ineffective, then another strategy, such as stepping-stonesor structural retention, will be in place to protect elementsof the landscape. This approach reduces reliance on a singlestrategy and spreads the risk while research continues toclarify the science of fragmentation.To Learn More About This Topic, See Appendix, page 167.83

C H A P T E R4OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YWhy is this subject important?WHY IS THIS SUBJECT IMPORTANT?This chapter revisits the five regions described inChapter 1, focusing on old-growth (OG) forests. Eachregion’s OG story is different, influenced by its naturaland land use history. We will learn that in some regionsOG is nearly nonexistent, while in others it’s rare anddisappearing. In regions where OG is more abundant, .it’s susceptible to catastrophic disturbances, but managementcan help sustain OG across the landscape.Regardless of the region, science confirms one .prominent message – OG is an important stage in thedynamic development of any forest (Figure 4.1). Thatdoesn’t mean that OG is more important than otherstages of development, but it does recognize that itscomplexity is vital to biodiversity and that it’s the rareststage of forest development in every region. Researchconfirms the need to conserve existing OG in all regionsand develop strategies to grow more.The term OG refers to forests in the late stages ofstand development. It occurs after a forest has grown forlong periods of time, often centuries, with low to moderatelevels of disturbance. OG includes the mature stage,where trees reach their maximum height and crowndiameter although they still lack some of the structureand composition of OG (Figure 4.1). The mature stageis included in OG because it may become the OG of thefuture. Recently, researchers have used the term “olderforest” when referring to the mature and OG stages, andthat term will be used in this chapter.In the eastern United States OG is rare and its futureis questionable. In the Northeast for example, less than1 percent of the forest is OG, while mature forests areslightly more abundant but rapidly disappearing (detailsbelow). In the Southeast, what’s left of the remaining OGamounts to approximately 0.5 percent of the total forestarea. In the Lake States, the supply is even shorter. Giventhese conditions, NCSSF-sponsored researchers in theseregions offer conservation strategies aimed at growingmore OG. In the west, where old growth is more abundant,forest policy has focused on protecting existing OGforest reserves in the Pacific Northwest and deciding howto manage them. In the Southwest the focus is on howto manage OG in frequent-fire landscapes. Long-termstrategies are being developed in all regions to ensureOG has a place in the landscape, whether that landscapeis subject to wildfire, fire suppression, invasive species,pathogens, or other disturbances.OG is known by various names: old forests, heritageforests, ancient forests, virgin forests, pristine forests,and late-succession forests. Whatever the name, this .forest stage provides habitat for many organisms, someof which show a preference for OG conditions. SomeOG supports endangered species: the spotted owl .in the Pacific Northwest, the red-cockaded woodpeckerin the longleaf pine forest, and the rediscovered ivorybilledwoodpecker in bottomland hardwoods of thesoutheastern coastal plains. Other regions may lack charismaticspecies but still have species that are dependenton OG remnants that often are rapidly disappearing. Oldforests themselves are an important element of biodiversity.Their size, structure, and spatial characteristics makethem a fascinating part of the earth’s biota, and oneworth preserving in its own right for both scientific andaesthetic reasons.This chapter highlights regional differences in OG;describes its extent, condition, and major threats; .addresses the question of how much is enough; and .offers strategies to enhance OG. It explains environmental,social, and economic issues in each region, focusingon the following general points:s Old forests are more than just old trees.s There’s a connection between biodiversity and theneed to retain and grow more old forests.s Threats to OG go beyond logging and include .development, invasive species, and unnatural .disturbances resulting from fire suppression.s If we want more OG, we must do more than simplypreserve what we have; it will require managing andrestoring younger forests.Older forests provide functions and processes thatare vital to forest biodiversity. Their functions includeproviding large living trees, large standing snags, andlarge down logs (biological legacies, Chapter 1, page44), all of which young forests need after stand-replacementdisturbances. Their processes include the ecologicalforces leading to their development and maintenance,such as gap formation, regeneration, nitrogen fixation,low-severity fire, productivity, and decomposition. .These functions and processes, along with the varietyof organisms that OG forests protect, all contribute tobiodiversity.84

OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YWhy is this subject important?C H A P T E R4Because OG is a natural part of many forests, .practitioners, landowners, managers and policymakersneed to accommodate them in their forest managementactivities. While public lands should bear most ofthe burden of supplying OG, private landowners shouldbe encouraged to grow older forests too, especially inregions that have little public land. The NCSSF-sponsoredresearch featured in this chapter offers managementstrategies that can accommodate the social and .economic goals of private landowners and the public. Itoffers creative ideas for conserving old forests that aretailored for each region.Figure 4.1 Pacific Northwest Douglas-fir is shown asan example of forest development. The start of OGbegins in the mature stage (5) and progresses throughstructural and composition stages (6, 7, & 8), each withcharacteristics that serve a role in conservingbiodiversity (details in Chapter 1, page 43).Stage 1. A stand-replacementdisturbance thatleaves legacy structuresStage 2. Early cohortestablishmentStage 3. Canopy closureStage 4. CompetitiveexclusionStage 5. Maturity,the start of OG(80-120 yearsof age)Stage 6. Verticaldiversificationtypically occursat 150-250 yearsof age. OG treesare more than 39inches in diameter,with lower andmidstory shadetoleranttrees andlarge dead trees.Stage 7. Horizontaldiversificationtypically occurs at150-250 years ofage. Large downlogs, a variety offoliage heights,the patchy distributionof canopygaps and understoryvegetationall characterize OGforests.Stage 8. Pioneercohort loss (finalstage of OG)85

C H A P T E R4OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about OG in the Northeast?WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT OG INTHE NORTHEAST?Overall, the Northeast is more forested today thanit was 150 years ago (Chapter 1, pages 8-23), buttoday’s forest cover has not reached the OG stage .because most of the northeastern forest was .converted to agriculture and pasture (except for thefar northern states). At the same time that forests arebecoming more mature, the Northeast is generallylosing forest cover to development in the southerntier of states. In the far northern tier of states, whichwere never deforested and converted to farmland, theforests have more old forest qualities, but because ofthe emphasis in the last 30 years on managing timbermore efficiently, most of the remaining mature forestis rapidly being removed from the landscape (moreabout this below).John Hagan John HaganFigure 4.3 Big Reed OG Reserve in Northcentral Maine.Figure 4.4 A tip-up mound in OG northern hardwood forest, Maine.Jerry and Marcy MonkmanFigure 4.2 OG Red Pine in Maine.John HaganFigure 4.5 Researcher John Hagan and OG Ash inBig Reed OG Reserve.86

OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about OG in the Northeast?C H A P T E R4Figure 4.6 In northern hardwood (birchmaple)and softwood (spruce) stands,OG develops at approximately 200 years.However, even in 100-year-old stands,OG characteristics can be seen. Theproblem in the Northeast is that existingmature stands (100-200 years old) are beingrapidly harvested, because it’s costlyto hold them beyond the economicallyoptimum age of 50-75 years.Forest Age (Years)Figure 4.7Based on fieldreconnaissancein Maine, NCSSFsponsoredresearchers havefound stands thatcontain trees inthe 100-200 yearage class, butthey are rapidlydisappearing.Victor Brunelle87

C H A P T E R4OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about OG in the Northeast?Forest ownership is critical to any discussion of OGin the Northeast, because most forests are private (Figure4.10). The vast majority of private forestland is in the handsof family forest owners, but there are large private ownershipsas well. The opportunity to retain existing OG in theNortheast lies primarily on public lands, and public ownershipof forestland varies between 5 and 15 percent acrossthe Northeast states. With such a small portion of the forestin public ownership, it’s necessary to encourage privateowners to grow OG. They will be key to any OG conservationstrategy in the Northeast (more about this below).What’s the Current Condition and Extent?There’s no clear point at which Northeast forests .become OG, but as the forest development diagram inFigure 4.6 shows, stands 100-200+ years old are consideredolder forest.An inventory of OG in the Northeast is needed but .has not been done; this is what is known. Less than 0.1 .percent of any Northeastern state is OG older than 200years. What little remains is primarily on public lands andhas been protected because it is so rare. Individual statesestimate the following amounts of OG:s Maine – 0.17 percents New Hampshire – 0.41 percents Vermont – 0.05 percents New York – 0.70 percents Pennsylvania – 0.06 percents Connecticut – 0.01 percent.In contrast, mature forest 100 to 200 years old ismore abundant but is being harvested because of the costof holding it (more about this in “threats to OG” sectionbelow). Mature forest is estimated to occupy less than 5percent of the forested landscape. In northern Vermont,New Hampshire, and Maine, where forests were not clearedfor agriculture but were managed for timber for more than150 years, remnants of mature forests remain, but they aredisappearing with concentrated harvesting. In the state ofMaine for example, there was a net loss of mature forestbetween 1982 and 2003. The amount of mature northernhardwoods declined from 3.93 to 1.1 million acres(1,587,720 to 445,154 hectares) (Figure 4.7).John HaganJohn HaganFigure 4.8 This 150-year-old sugar maple is covered with oldforest mosses and lichens. Due to its harvest history, thestand is not OG, but it contains OG trees with OGdependent species.Figure 4.9aThis OG moss(Neckera pennata),tightly associatedwith older sugarmaple trees, isevidence of the needto retain maturehardwood stands.Figure 4.9bThe epiphyte (lichen)Lobaria quercizansis another speciesdependent on olderforests in Maine.John Hagan88

OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about OG in the Northeast?C H A P T E R4In the southern tier of states, where European settlerscleared the landscape for farming and grazing, mature .forests are returning. In Pennsylvania today, approximately20 percent of forest cover on state-owned lands is in themature stage (100+ years). Forests have also recovered inMassachusetts, but forestland is now being lost to .development, and the prospects for retaining mature .forests are uncertain (strategies are being proposed and .are described below).Are There Old-growth Adapted Species?In contrast to other forest regions, such as the PacificNorthwest and Southeast, The Northeast has no charismaticwildlife species that depend on OG. However, some mosses,lichens, and fungi are dependent on older forests (Figure 4.8and 4.9A and 4.9B).Threat toOlder Forest:conversionThreat to Older Forest:Forest ManagementPrivate ForestPublic ForestNon-forestFigure 4.10 Northeastern states vary between 5 and 15percent public ownership. Timber harvesting on large,private commercial forestland threatens much of theremaining mature forest in northern Vermont, NewHampshire and Maine, due to financial considerations.It’s just too costly to hold these stands to ecologicalmaturity. At the opposite end of the Northeast region,the primary threat is development and the conversion offorest to non-forest uses.What are the Major Threats to OG in the Northeast?While the small amount of OG that exists in the .Northeast is protected, threats to mature forests are differentfor various locations in the region. In the north, mature .forest will steadily decline due to harvesting. In the south,development is the threat (Figure 4.10).Other threats to older forests in the Northeast comefrom acid rain, invasive species, and an overabundance ofdeer. While there has been some reduction in acid rain inrecent years, the chronic leaching of calcium from the soilcontinues to stress some tree species, especially shade-.tolerant, long-lived sugar maple. Invasive species includechestnut blight that eliminated American chestnut, beechbark disease, and hemlock wooly adelgid (Chapter 2, pages58-59). Overabundant deer prevent regeneration in olderforests in New York and Pennsylvania and interfere with themaintenance of existing mature forests.How Much OG is Needed to Maintain Biodiversity?NCSSF-sponsored researchers say there’s not enoughtime or money to answer this question because most remainingmature stands are scheduled for harvest in the next1 to 5 years. It’s estimated that 4 to 6 percent of the totalforest in Maine might qualify ecologically as mature forest,but there is no information on how much mature forestremains in all of the Northeast. Field observations suggestthat it would not take large set-aside areas to maintain thesensitive species found in mature forests. Rather, it’s possiblethat setting aside many small, very high-quality areas mightbe the best strategy to maintain well-distributed populationsof mature forest species. Just how that might be done isdescribed below.How Does Society View OG in the Northeast?Surveys indicate that the general public values old forestand wilderness areas and wants them maintained in theregion. What’s unclear is how much is wanted and howit should be distributed. Unfortunately, the public is notcurrently involved. There’s been no public discussion aboutolder forests in the Northeast – the public is more concernedabout forest conversion to development than about oldforests. However, researchers are exploring ways to involvethe public in dialogue about old forest.89

C H A P T E R4OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YHow can knowledge of OG be used in management strategies on public and private forestlands?How can knowledge of OG be used inmanagement strategies on public andprivate forestlands?While there is little Northeast-based scientific informationto explain what species or processes will be lost withthe disappearance of older forests, researchers assume thatmany species, especially mosses, lichens, fungi, and insects,will be threatened. Current efforts to conserve older forestare deadlocked between those who call for immediateconservation strategies and those who think more science isneeded before taking action. Researchers suggest four strategies(the “Four Rs”) to conserve and manage old forests:s reserves – no-harvest areas used to maintain and .grow OGs structural retention – leaving old trees after harvest tomaintain OG characteristicss restoration – accelerating development of old forestcharacteristics in younger standss longer rotation – grow trees longer before harvest.The state of Pennsylvania has developed an OG reservepolicy. Overall, its forests are mostly in the 80- to 100-yearoldage class, so older forest acreage will come from stateownedland where 20 to 25 percent will be designated asOG. That goal will be met through the use of reserves, longrotations, and retention strategies. Efforts to encourage OGon private lands will be voluntary.In Massachusetts, a proposal called “Wildlands andWoodlands” would use reserves and easements to protectforest cover, including old forests. The goal is to establish2.25 million acres (909,000 hectares) (45 percent of thestate) as “woodlands” and 0.25 million acres (100,000hectares) (5 percent of the state) as “wildlands.” Woodlandswill be managed for timber, and development will not bepermitted. Wildlands will be off-limits to timber harvestingand development. “No-development” easements will beused to accomplish the woodland goal. The wildland goalwill be accomplished by designating existing public lands.In Maine, researchers are proposing a combination ofstrategies to conserve older forests, depending on landownergoals (family forest, public forest, or commercial forest).They acknowledge that extending rotation length conflictswith economic reality, but they believe a new managementstrategy that balances economics and OG conservationcould accommodate landowner goals. With a growinginterest in conservation among family forest owners, theysuggest buying rotation length. The objective would be topurchase rotation length using a new type of easementthat compensates landowners for the cost of continuing togrow stands beyond the financially optimum rotation length(50 to 70 years) into the mature and OG stage. The cost ofadded rotation length can be calculated and would be paidfor through easements, the same way owners are currentlycompensated for development rights.Along with these conservation strategies, researchershave developed new tools to help foresters manage for OG.One is an index that screens stands for OG content. TheLate-Successional (LS) Index is a field tool that can be usedin northern hardwood and upland spruce-fir stands. It recognizesOG by measuring certain characteristics and scoringthe results. It’s based on large-tree density and the densityof trees with one or two lichen species. Tree size is closelyrelated to stand age, and the identity of certain lichens helpsto assess the ecological history/age of the stand. Together,these two characteristics can identify OG. The index scorehelps foresters recognize an older forest when they see it. Itcan screen stands prior to harvest, after a harvest to determinehow much OG was retained, or to build an inventoryof OG stands by using the stand score in a GIS database.Given the complicated and rapidly changing characterof northeastern forest ownership, and the economic pressureto harvest stands that are beyond financially optimumage, each of these strategies (reserves, retention, restoration,and rotation length) will be needed to conserve olderforests and their biodiversity.90

OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about OG in the Lake States?C H A P T E R4WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT OG INTHE LAKE STATES?Forests in the northern Lake States (Minnesota, .Wisconsin, and Michigan) are very different from theregion’s historic forests (Chapter 1, pages 24-29). Today’sforests are still recovering from the cutover of the late .19th and early 20th centuries (Figure 4.11).So little OG remained after the cutover era that thechallenges facing this region are recovery and restorationrather than preservation of OG. It’s estimated that less than1 percent of the pre-cutover era OG remains, and far lesshemlock, yellow birch and white pine remains (details .below). There’s a serious need to restore ecological .complexity to the regional landscape, and older forests areone important component. What’s needed is a full spectrumof forest stages across the landscape. Older forests deserveimmediate attention, not because they’re more importantbut because they have a complexity that is most threatenedby current land management activities. They cannot simplybe protected in reserves while the majority of forest is .managed on short rotations for biomass.Figure 4.11 By 1890 the supply of white pine in the lakestates was exhausted. Timber companies moved on tohemlock and hardwood species including maple, birch, ash,basswood, elm, cedar and fir. After harvesting, widespreadfires created “stump pastures,” an unsuccessful attempt atagriculture on the sandy, unproductive soils.Wisconsin Historical Society, Image ID #399191

C H A P T E R4OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about OG in the Lake States?Craig LorimerCraig LorimerFigure 4.12 Old-growth hemlock-hardwood,Porcupine Mountains WildernessState Park, Michigan.Figure 4.14 Managed uneven-aged northern hardwood forest,Wildcat Creek, Nicolet National Forest, Wisconsin.Craig LorimerFigure 4.13 Old-growth eastern white pineand yellow birch, Sylvania WildernessArea, Michigan.NCSSF-sponsored researchersbrought together a group ofexperts to develop an OG conservationframework for the region.It’s briefly described here withmore detail in the answers to thequestions below. Its ideas, principles,agreements and rules arean outline that can be filled out inthe future. What’s most importantis that the framework be able tocross regional boundaries, allowingstates to work in partnership.1 There must be consistent .definitions and reliable .inventories of existing olderforests.2 There must be targets andgoals for protecting existingolder forest remnants. Manyexisting OG stands have noprotection and must be locatedand measured.3 The goal of forest managementmust be a more ecologicallycomplex forest landscape,and OG must be part of restoringecological complexity.4 Monitoring must be tied toadaptive management .(Chapter 8). Without monitoringit’s impossible to knowhow regional forests are .responding to pests, .pathogens and invasive .species. Adaptive managementallows for response to .changing conditions identifiedby monitoring results.5 There must be cross-bordercooperative strategies that:• encourage active managementon private lands tokeep land in forest cover• include working forests tomaintain the wood .products industry• reform state forest laws• encourage forest restorationon private lands.92

OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YHow can knowledge of OG be used in management strategies on public and private forestlands?C H A P T E R4What’s the Current Condition and Extent?No inventory exists of older forests in the Lake States.What’s needed is an inventory and assessment of older .forests on both public and private lands. In the meantime,here are best estimates.s Less than 1 percent of the pre-cutover era OG remainss Less than 0.2 percent of hemlock/hardwood remainss Less than 0.5 percent of white pine/red pine remainsAssessments should include mature forests, not just .forests currently in OG condition, because future OG .requires identifying, protecting and restoring mature stands.Are There Old-growth Adapted Species?There are no OG-dependent vertebrate species in theregion. However species groupings and parts of the forestlandscape that are being lost are needed to maintain forestresilience in the face of rapid future change.What are the Major Threats to OG in the Lake States?Major threats include the following social and .ecological changes:s fragmentation and parcelization from development,especially second-home developments changes in large-scale disturbances, particularly due .to fire exclusions increasing demand on watershed servicess invasive species and their probable impact on someforest types in the region. Current control efforts areaimed at the wrong invasives, such as the gypsy mothrather than the hemlock woolly adelgid (Chapter 2).s climate change and new diseases and epidemics thatare likely to occur.How Much OG is Needed to Maintain Biodiversity?The question of how much of the landscape should beOG (1 percent, 10 percent or 25 percent) is not simply ascientific decision, but something that should be answeredthrough public discussion and agreement. Whatever thetarget amount, the region is nowhere near it. It’s importantto get started. Lack of inventories and targets is being usedas an excuse for inaction while existing OG is converted todevelopment or replaced by aspen.The question of how much OG has been answered in .Minnesota, and that model could be useful in other states.In 1991, Minnesota developed and implemented a .statewide OG policy to identify and protect the highestquality remaining OG forest. There were several steps:s inventory all lands statewide for OGs set statewide targets for OGs develop new forest management structures, projects,and databases for OG.Since 1991 Minnesota has gone from 0 to 40,000 .acres (16,000 hectares) of designated OG and learned thefollowing lessons:s establish an interdisciplinary management system withclear management authoritys set quantity targets for OG, as well as indicators, withstakeholder involvement (Chapter 5)s develop a standardized inventory, evaluation and .database systems resolve stakeholder conflict through strong leadership.How Does Society View OG in the Lake States?In spite of Minnesota’s public-involvement experience,Wisconsin and Michigan have not had a public conversationon OG. There is a need to educate the public about OG andfoster that conversation across the region.How can knowledge of oG be used inmanagement strategies on public andprivate forestlands?The same NCSSF-sponsored group that developed .the OG conservation framework described above also .developed the following strategies.Protect Existing OGMany existing OG stands on both public and privatelands have no protection. All existing OG on public landsshould be protected immediately. Those few stands with120-year-old trees should be protected first. Mature standsnearing OG should be next. Easements, purchases, taxincentives, and exchanges should be used to protect OG onprivate land.93

C H A P T E R4OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YHow can knowledge of OG be used in management strategies on public and private forestlands?Figure 4.15 Many even-aged young standsare uniform, with closed canopies and fewsnags, down logs, saplings, large trees,or hemlock, yellow birch and white pine.Variable-density thinning could be used inthis even-aged, 70-year old sugar maplestand (Chequamegon NF, Wis.) to mimicnatural small-scale disturbances, forminggaps and introducing other species.Craig LorimerSecond-growth Management StrategiesSecond-growth areas on public lands should be .managed using extended rotations. They occur in even-agedforests and where older cohorts of trees exist in multi-agedforests. Variable density thinning (Chapter 1, page 47) andprescribed fire may speed the development of older .forest characteristics in these areas. Where second- or .third-growth forests on public lands are being managed fortimber production, researchers recommend managementthat increases biodiversity and ecological complexity at allforest development stages. The goal is not to manage theseareas for OG but to incorporate adequate amounts of .biological legacies (large decadent trees, snags, and largedown logs) and other structures (Chapter 1, page 44).Future OG can be created by using active management inyounger even-aged stands or former plantations as well asuneven-aged stands with a few large trees (Figure 4.15).Caution: heavy thinning can delay the onset of OGstructure in older uneven-aged stands with numerous legacytrees. However, there are ways to decide which standsmight benefit from these techniques.Other Public Forest Management StrategiesFor most second- and third-growth public forest, .management practices should increase biodiversity and .ecological complexity while providing timber products.Stands dedicated to timber production should incorporatesome structural composition and complexity characteristicof OG stands because complexity is needed in all stages ofstand development.Monitoring and AdaptiveManagementMonitoring and adaptive managementare necessary to determine how forestswill respond to climate change, new pestsand pathogens, and invasive species.Agencies must fund monitoring, alongwith adaptive management (Chapter 8).Monitoring and flexibility will make it .possible to respond to changing .conditions that are difficult to predict. .In Minnesota, for example, government agencies built .adaptive management into their OG reserve policy. Ifmonitoring indicates that the actual amount of OG is overor under the targets by 10 percent or more, stakeholdersautomatically re-evaluate management practices. This kindof adaptive flexibility provides safety measures and alsodevelops trust among stakeholders.Cross-boundary CoordinationA coordinated approach should include state foresters,the Council on Forestry Directives, and professional .societies that can help move the process along. The .conservation framework described above must cut acrossregional boundaries to allow states to work together inpartnership.Deal with Invasive Species, Pests, and PathogensExotic species can impact all stages of forest developmentand could have significant impact on older forests inthe region. If nothing is done, they could devastate olderforests within the next 20 to 50 years. A multi-state .approach to regulation, research, monitoring, and control .is needed.Control efforts for exotic species should focus on themost dangerous pests, but that isn’t happening today. Twoexotic pests – the hemlock woolly adelgid and the Asianlong-horned beetle – could devastate the remaining OGhemlock-hardwood forests. The group of experts felt thatmore attention should be focused on these pests and lesson the gypsy moth, which is a less serious threat to forestsbut is widely regarded as a public nuisance. The public .demands that gypsy moths be controlled because theycause highly visible damage in urban neighborhoods. Thisdemand should be changed with education that focuses onolder forests that are at much greater risk from the hemlockwoolly adelgid and the Asian long-horned beetle.94

OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YHow can knowledge of OG be used in management strategies on public and private forestlands?C H A P T E R4Deer are another major threat to OG recovery and .restoration. High deer populations affect hemlock, whitecedar, yellow birch, maple, and white pine regeneration(Chapter 1, pages 14 and 27). Hunting is on the decline inthe Lake States, and any effort to encourage hunting accessin the forest could bring more invasive plants and pests fromthe use of ATVs. A publicly funded bounty system mightwork to control deer, wild boar, and other invasive species.Biotechnology techniques, tree breeding, or insertingresistant genes into susceptible species should be considered.Such approaches are effective with American chestnutand may be better than waiting and hoping for the best.Reintroduce FireFire is needed to maintain pine and oak forests, butthere are major social and economic constraints. Social .attitudes about fire need to be changed with outreach andeducation. There’s a lack of ecological understanding aboutthe role of fire in the region’s forests. Experiments comparingthe effects of fire could help resolve these concerns.Agencies need to make a commitment to personnel andresources for the job, because fire is an important tool in theeffort to provide a diverse complex forest landscape acrossthe region.Restore ComplexityTo protect OG, land managers should focus on restoringcomplexity to the entire forested landscape using the tools,techniques, and principles of ecological forestry such as:s including biological legacies in harvest prescriptions(Chapter 1, page 44). For example, retain a hardwoodcomponent in a conifer-dominated stand, retain bothcommercial and non-commercial species, and retainspecies with special abilities, such as nitrogen-fixingplants. Retain some live trees across one or more rotations,allowing long-lived species to live out their naturallife span. In appropriate locations, reintroduce missingor depleted species such as eastern white pine (Chapter1, pages 27-29). Use these techniques in both evenagedharvest practices and in prescriptions for multicohortstands subject to tree- or gap-based disturbanceregimes, such as OG northern hardwood ecosystems(Chapter 1, page 18). Use marking guidelines that .include goals for maintaining old and large trees andtheir snags and large down logs as part of the stand.s mimicking natural stand development processes usingintermediate treatments that create, restore, and maintainstructural complexity. For example, thinning canpromote development of large trees, snags, and largedown logs. Planting, seeding and protecting establishedpopulations of eastern white pine can introduce andconserve stand composition diversity. Prescribed fireand other site preparation or control methods can beused to establish certain species. Timber stand improvementcan be used to encourage yellow birch and whitepine saplings. Appropriate thinning from below canspeed development of large-diameter high quality trees.Variable density thinning (Chapter 1, page 47) mimicssmall-scale disturbance or gap-formation, contributingto greater stand structure.s extending rotations to allow older cohorts to develop.Commercial stands often lack legacy structures and treespecies diversity because short rotations exclude shade .tolerant species from establishing and growing into .intermediate or co-dominant positions in the canopy. .By extending rotations, these natural stand components .can be integrated into commercial forests.Provide New Silvicultural GuidesLake States foresters currently use silvicultural guidesthat concentrate on timber growth and yield, but theyneed information focused on ecosystem sustainability. Earlyresearch results are available to help foresters understandforest dynamics, but they must be presented in a form thatworking foresters can use on the ground. Demonstrationsites are needed to validate these strategies.Reform State Forest LawsTo encourage OG restoration on private lands, ManagedForest Law (MFL) programs in the region should bereformed. Originally developed to increase reforestation,provide a continuous timber supply, and allow public accessto forestlands, these programs do not encourage OG restorationand protection. In exchange for developing a forestmanagement plan for their property, landowners are givena tax break that increases if the landowner allows publicaccess for hunting. Currently, MFL allows only 20 percentof a forest to be classified as “nonproductive forest lands”– a category that includes all values other than traditionalsustained-yield forestry. The percentage of forest classifiedas nonproductive should be changed to 50 percent to allowfor restoration and protection of older trees. Extending theMFL contract length beyond 20 years would encourage .ecological values and make it more difficult to back out ofthe programs. Requiring owners to give 10 years advancenotice would discourage landowners from selling in orderto cash in on a real estate boom. Other MFL changes areneeded to encourage cross-boundary cooperation and allowmultiple landowners to coordinate forest plans that havea landscape emphasis. A single forest plan would simplifymanagement and encourage local landowners to .collaborate on harvests and management plans.In the Lake States, a lack of regional policy, social .agreement, agency capacity, financial resources, and testedsilvicultural techniques hinders the conservation of older .forests. However, the strategies developed by the NCSSFsponsoredgroup of experts and described here offer aframework to overcome these obstacles and achieve .that goal.95

C H A P T E R4OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about OG in the Southeastern Coastal Plain?WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT OG INTHE SOUTHEASTERN COASTAL PLAIN?Julius AriailFigure 4.16 Fire plays an important role in forests of theSoutheast Coastal Plain. Longleaf pine forests occupythe upper end of the fire-frequency continuum with anunderstory fire frequency of approximately 1-4 years.Shaped by humans for thousands of years, older forestsin the Southeastern Coastal Plain have influenced theculture, economic development, and ecology of the region.NCSSF-sponsored researchers chose to focus on two OGforests at opposite ends of the fire-frequency continuum – .longleaf pine and bottomland hardwoods (Figures 4.16 .and 4.17).Historically, longleaf pine dominated uplands in muchof the Southeastern Coastal Plain and provided a conduitfor frequent fire into neighboring forests (Chapter 1, page35). In contrast, bottomland hardwood and cypress-tupeloforests experienced the lowest fire frequency in the .Southeast. What complicates the story of these two OGforests is that both produce valuable wood products andare located in a landscape dominated by private land. Anymanagement strategy that encourages older longleaf andbottomland hardwood forests must recognize these .economic realities if these forests are to be sustained inways that serve conservation (more about this below).Figure 4.17Bottomlandhardwoods andcypress-tupeloforests representthe low end of thefire-frequencycontinuum withan understory firefrequency ofapproximately3-100 years.Gary Boyd96

OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about OG in the Southeastern Coastal Plain?C H A P T E R4What’s the Current Condition and Extent?OG forest inventory data for the entire Southeast is .rudimentary, but 424 sites in 10 southeastern states .(Virginia, N. Carolina, S. Carolina, Georgia, Florida, .Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas) havebeen identified. They represent an estimated 274,000 .hectares (677,000 acres), or approximately 0.5 percent .of the total forest area in the Southeast. Much of this .total is located in the Appalachian Mountains – not theCoastal Plain.Specifically for the Coastal Plain, OG data identify 67cypress/tupelo and bottomland hardwood sites, locatedprimarily on public ownerships (61 percent). Their locationalong the major rivers of the Southeast made them .susceptible to extensive harvesting in the late 19th and early20th centuries. In Louisiana alone, 51 percent of the .acreage of forested wetlands at the time of European .colonization was eliminated by 1974. Almost all forestedwetlands and bottomland hardwoods have been harvestedat least once since the 19th century.Data on OG longleaf pine in the Coastal Plain indicatesa total of approximately 12,355 acres (5,000 hectares). Thisrepresents 0.013 percent of the original historical area of91.9 million acres (37.2 million hectares) of longleaf andlongleaf-oak forests. Longleaf pine coverage at the time ofEuropean settlement was estimated to be 60 percent of theupland forest area in the coastal plains. Today, there are only29 well-known OG longleaf pine sites (Chapter 1, page 30).Like the bottomland hardwoods, most are in public .ownership (74 percent), and only one of the tracts is morethan 1,000 acres.Researchers stress that even with this dramatic andnearly complete loss of older bottomland and longleaf pineforests from the landscape, these small remnant stands stillsupport critically important components of biodiversity.Are There Old-growth Adapted Species?Almost two-thirds of all species of concern in theSoutheast Coastal Plain (those that are in danger of .extinction, threatened to become endangered, or are rareon the landscape) make their preferred home in mature .longleaf pine forests that have been frequently burned .for a long time. Two endangered woodpeckers – the .red-cockaded woodpecker (Figure 4.18) and the recentlyrediscovered ivory-billed woodpecker (Figure 4.19) – havedrawn attention to OG in the Coastal Plain. Other unusualplant and animal species combinations contribute overallspecies richness and unique biological diversity of these .OG forests.Todd Engstrom/CLOJames Tanner (courtesy of Nancy Tanner)James Tanner (courtesy of Nancy Tanner)Figure 4.18The red-cockadedwoodpecker (Picoidesborealis) depends onOG longleaf pine forcavities but oftenforages in youngernearby forests.Figure 4.19 (ABOVE AND LEFT)The ivory-billed woodpecker(Campephilus principalis),rediscovered in the Big Woods ofArkansas after disappearing for70 years. These historical photos,two of the few available, weretaken in 1938 in Singer Tract,Louisiana. The photo above is anadult male with a female peeringout the cavity entrance. Left isa rare color photo (zoom lenseswere not available in 1938).Researchers are trying to gathercurrent photographic evidence.97

C H A P T E R4OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about OG in the Southeastern Coastal Plain?Even though OG longleaf pine and bottomland .hardwood forests are scarce and have been fragmented – .putting some plants and animals at the brink of extinction – .researchers identify numerous characteristics that are .valuable to their unique biodiversity.s Older largediameter legacytrees in thecanopy. Theheartwood ofpines older than100 years providesthe structurenecessary forthe endangered .red-cockadedwoodpecker(RCW). Thesebirds excavateheartwood fornesting androosting cavities(Figure 4.20).They prefer toforage for insectson the largest, .oldest treesFigure 4.20 Cavity in longleaf pine.available. Theold trees offer cavities for roosting and den sites formany other birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, andinvertebrates. In bottomland hardwood forests, morethan 50 species of old trees provide for an even greaterdiversity of arthropods (insects, arachnids, centipedes,and crustaceans). With age, the trees develop largedead branches and tops that provide additional wildlifehabitat. The ivory-billed woodpecker appears to requirelarge old trees for its cavities and dead trees or parts oftrees for foraging.s Dead and dying large-diameter trees. Snagsand large down logs provide cavities for foragingand escape cover for animals. Many bird species usestumpholes and down logs for protection from .predators. Bird abundance depends on snags and downwood In bottomland hardwoods, dead and dying woodsupplies beetle larvae for the ivory-billed woodpeckerand basking habitat for many reptiles. Amphibians,reptiles, and mammals also use stumps.s Intact ground cover. Undisturbed, frequently burnedground cover in longleaf pine ecosystems (Figure4.21) supports higher species diversity than historicallyplowed or grazed understories. Wiregrass (Aristidastricta) dominated ground cover is most important.Julius AriailJulius Ariails A history of appropriate disturbance (either a fireregime for uplands or flooding regime in bottomlands).Frequent fire in uplands results in more light on the .forest floor and encourages understory diversity. Firealso controls the abundance of arthropods, particularlyants, the primary diet of RCW. In bottomland .hardwood understories, where regular flooding andscouring make herbs sparser, there is still a variety ofrare and endemic plant life.s Minimal forest area and fragmentation.Depending on habitat quality, a small RCW population(20 clusters) requires approximately 800 to 2000 .hectares of upland pine forest. Approximately 40 hectaresof fire-maintained habitat is necessary to sustain50 gopher tortoises (Chapter 1, page 37), a minimal .viable population size based on home ranges. Thehome range for a single male Sherman’s fox squirrel is .approximately 40 hectares of mature pines or mixedpine and hardwood stands. The area necessary to .support a viable population of the rediscovered ivorybilledwoodpecker is open to question. Historically,individual territories were as large as 17 square miles.s The connection between pine uplands and hardwoodwetlands. Pine uplands provide a corridor forfire into hardwood wetlands. The Apalachicola Riverarea in Florida and the Altamaha River and OchlockoneeRiver areas in Georgia are places where uplandand riparian OG occur together and where large-scaleconservation could be developed.Figure 4.21 Native grass cover and dead wood.98

OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YHow can knowledge of OG be used in management strategies on public and private forestlands?C H A P T E R4James H. Miller, USDA Forest Service, Bugwood.orgFigure 4.22 The non-native plant kudzu(Pueraria Montana (Lour.) Merr.) is aclimbing vine that grows over, smothers,and kills all other vegetation includingtrees. Native to Asia, it was introducedin America in 1876 and planted throughoutthe east in an attempt to controlerosion.What are the Major Threats to OG in the Southeast?Major threats include:s Improper fire regime is the greatest managementchallenge to protecting upland OG pine forests on .public lands. A 50-year accumulation of fuel has createdunnatural conditions that can result in mortalityof large trees from smoldering fires when prescribedburns are reintroduced into OG stands. The loss of fire,if mandated by clean air regulations, poses a majorchallenge to the restoration and maintenance of oldlongleaf pine stands.s Changes in hydrology from levees, dams, and otherriver alterations threaten OG bottomland forest. .Some no longer flood as often or as long as they didhistorically, while others flood more frequently. Theresult is altered forest plant communities.s Non-native invasive species in bottomland .hardwoods have caused understory problems (Figure4.22). Examples include Chinese privet (Ligustrumsinense), Chinese tallow (Sapium sebiferum), and .chinaberry (Melia azedarach). Invasive animal speciesinclude zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), nutria(Myocastor coypus), and wild hogs (Sus scrofa).s Development across the Southeast interferes with theneed for frequent fire in longleaf pine and demandsflood control in bottomland hardwoods. Developmentalso contributes to invasive exotic infestations.s Lack of a complete inventory leaves managers ofpublic parks, forests, and preserves unaware of thepresence of OG resources.s Lack of knowledge about OG has led to a failure toappreciate forests that contain OG characteristics orforests that have scattered patches of OG. OG featuresin younger forests should also be protected.s There is no mandate to protect OG on military .or national forest lands unless endangered species .are present.How Much OG is Needed to Maintain Biodiversity?Researchers don’t know the answer to this question,but they do support a large increase in the area of theseforests, saying it would greatly enhance biodiversity in theregion. Setting an acreage target is probably not as .important as acknowledging that the current area is .completely inadequate to maintain the range of potentialbiodiversity in the region. Any efforts to increase the .acreage by organizations like the Longleaf Alliance shouldbe supported to the greatest extent possible.How Does Society View OG in the Southeast?Social values derived from these forests include theirrole in the heritage and identity of the Southeast and theirusefulness as scientific benchmarks for biodiversity. Theireconomic values include recreational opportunities suchas hunting and ecotourism, their unique timber products(heartwood), and the clean air and water they generate.How can knowledge of oG be used inmanagement strategies on public andprivate forestlands?Because OG remnants are so rare, small, and .fragmented, an OG conservation strategy in the Southeastmust first preserve and manage remaining OG stands. Anystands with OG characteristics that might not be consideredOG, but that provide rare and important habitat, also needto be identified. In pine uplands these include:s stands with intact understory plant communities, .because these communities may be the oldest .biological parts of the forest99

C H A P T E R4OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YHow can knowledge of OG be used in management strategies on public and private forestlands?s stands with a long history of frequent burning, becauseof their open canopy and herb communities dominatedby grass, their scattered old individual trees that providestructure, and their snags and large down logs.In bottomland forests these include:s stands with open canopy structure and a few scatteredold, large treess stands with differences in tree vigor, including snagsand trees that can supply large down branches.Managing OG in the southeast is especially difficult .because there is so little public land. Even on large publiclandparcels, OG remnants are small, isolated, and often .surrounded by short-rotation forestry, incompatible .recreational activities, or military testing and training .facilities. In other locations, agricultural lands and suburbandevelopment may border OG. Even with these challengesand the threats described above, researchers have developedcreative strategies to enhance OG. They include:s develop a complete inventory of OG forests on publicand conservation lands, while at the same time searchingfor the ivory-billed woodpeckers protect OG remnants on public lands by practicinglong-rotation forestry on bordering landss help managers recognize gradations of OG so .they can prioritize restoration efforts. Especially .important is helping managers recognize undisturbedOG understoriess test and practice burning prescriptions for long-.unburned OG stands on public lands to avoid excessivetree mortality from inappropriate prescribed fires restore river hydrology wherever possible, returningchanneled rivers to their original meanders and timingdam releases to mimic historical patternss increase education and training for public managers .in the burning of OG longleaf pine stands, the .practice of ecological forestry, and long-rotation timbermanagements develop guidelines for land managers that promote .OG conditionss develop partnerships among agencies with OG thatencourage information sharing about OG restorationand managements inform the public and conservation communities aboutactivities that may impact OG resources on militarylands. These lands, such as Eglin Air Force Base in .the Florida Panhandle, contain more than half of allremnant OG longleaf pine standss establish cooperation among states, federal agencies,and private organizations to acquire future OG .properties as timber companies sell off land holdings.Although OG is located mostly on public lands, thereis some high quality OG on private forestlands. However,changes in the forest products industry and developmentpressures are causing dramatic shifts in land use and ownershippatterns. These trends could severely impact forestconservation if the federal Farm Bill isn’t changed. .Researchers identified the following problems with the .current Farm Bill.s There are no incentive programs helping landownersretain older forests (Chapter 9, page 163).s There is no focus on healthy forests including the use ofprescribed fire and native groundcover.s There is no transparent, consistent way to prioritizerecipients of Farm Bill incentives.s There are no priorities for protection of bottomland .OG forests.s Farm Bill programs are cumbersome and difficult towork with.Among the suggested changes to existing Farm Billprograms are the following:s encourage long-rotation management of longleaf .pine acreage in Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)plantings by adding ground-cover restoration and .long-rotation incentive payments, benefiting bothregional game and non-game speciess prioritize Farm Bill dollars to parts of the landscape .that provide the greatest benefit, such as bufferingconservation lands and watershed protections develop education and outreach efforts to help .identify and educate private landowners whose landsfall within priority conservation areas and help themenroll their propertys establish an upland reserve program to provide .payment to private landowners who have significantforested habitat, streamside buffers, and high-qualitynative ecosystems.Efforts to conserve OG in the Southeast are burdenedwith obstacles, some similar to those in other regions andothers unique. Researchers have identified short-term .strategies that require immediate attention and more .long-term policies that will require public dialogue andagreement.100

OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about OG in the Pacific Northwest?C H A P T E R4WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT OG INTHE PACIFIC NORTHWEST?The Pacific Northwest (PNW) has more OG than anyother temperate forest region in the world, and it offers anopportunity to learn how to maintain large areas of forestwith high natural values in a landscape dominated by .development. Compared to other regions, the PNW has along history of OG science, policy, management, and politics.As early as the 1970s, scientists identified the biologicalimportance of PNW OG. Policy debate began in the 1980sTom SpiesFigure 4.25 Open OG ponderosa pine forest (EasternOregon Cascade Mountains). Before fire suppression policy,the history of frequent surface fire made these forestsrelatively resistant to fire damage due to their tall isolatedcanopies and thick bark.Jon MartinFigure 4.23 OG western hemlock forest. In some cases,these forests can produce more water than young forestsbecause their tall canopies capture and condense waterfrom fog.R. PabstFigure 4.24 OG Oregon white oakTom SpiesFigure 4.26 OG Douglas-fir with hemlock (Western OregonCascade Mountains). OG forests can store several timesmore carbon than young forests.101

C H A P T E R4OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about OG in the Pacific Northwest?Modified and reproduced from USFS referenceswith the threatened northern spotted owl. The debateexpanded to include additional species and the “values” ofOG ecosystems. Attempts to manage OG began with theNorthwest Forest Plan in 1993 (Chapter 7, page 140). .The social debate over OG raged throughout the 1990s, .focusing on wild versus managed forests and forests asreservoirs of nature versus resources for humans. Anddespite the establishment of millions of acres of OG reserveson public lands, debate continues, and efforts to preserve,manage, and/or restore OG remain controversial (moreabout this below). Figures 4.23, 4.24, 4.25 and 4.26, aresome of the different types of OG forest in the PNW.123456789101112WashingtonOlympic PeninsulaWashingtonWestern LowlandsWashingtonWestern CascadesWashingtonEastern CascadesOregonWestern CascadesOregonEastern CascadesOregonCoast RangeOregonWillamette ValleyOregonKlamathCaliforniaKlamathCaliforniaCoast RangeCaliforniaCascadesFigure 4.27 Both medium and large older forest in thePNW are included in this map. The region is dividedamong twelve provinces, each with different ecologicalcharacteristics.179112108512364The general stages of Douglas-fir OG development .illustrated at the start of this chapter (page 85) serve only asan example. Research has confirmed that forests can follow .numerous pathways, and OG forests differ depending ontheir age, geographic location, and disturbance history. .Even within the OG stage, disturbance continues to be anatural and important part of development. For example,fire suppression has resulted in a buildup of fuels in somePNW provinces (Figure 4.32), while in others fire .suppression has had little or no impact on fuels because .fuel loads are naturally high (more about this in Threats toPNW OG). Today’s OG has developed from disturbances .and climate conditions of the last thousand years. One .unanswerable question when designing management .strategies for PNW OG forests is whether or not theircomposition and structure can occur again under modernclimate and disturbance regimes.What’s the Current Condition and Extent?Figure 4.27 indicates the general locations of OG inthe PNW within the range of the northern spotted owl. It’sprimarily concentrated west of the Cascade Mountains.Across the region (including western Oregon, Washington,and northern California), the area of older forest on allownerships is estimated to be about 12.2 million acres (4.9million hectares) out of a total area of 56.8 million acres .(approximately 21 percent). Of that 12.2 million acres, anestimated 3.5 million acres (1.4 million hectares) (about 6percent of the total) falls into the category of largest andmost complex older forest (trees more than 30 inches indiameter with complex canopies). Located on the region’sfederal land (24 million acres or 9.7 million hectares)is most of the medium and large older forest (about 64percent) and most of the largest and most complex olderforest (77 percent). Of the 24 million acres of federal land,7.87 million acres (3.2 million hectares) are older forest. Ofthe 7.87 million, 2.72 million acres (1.1 million hectares)are stands with trees larger than 30 inches dbh (diameterat breast height) and with complex canopies. The remainingold forest in the region is located on nonfederal lands,mostly state owned.Compared to historical conditions, the amount of OGdeclined during the 20th century because of logging andwildfire. The decades-long practice of fire suppression alsohas contributed to the loss of some fire-dependent OGtypes (Provinces 9, 10, 4, 6, and 12). For example, .historically the percentage of OG (more than 200 years old)in the Oregon Coast Range (province 7) was estimated torange between 25 and 75 percent of the area. The CoastRange was a mosaic of open area, young closed-canopy forest,and older stages; never a landscape completely coveredby OG. Today, the amount of OG (forests containing 39.4inch diameter trees and large down logs) is estimated to be .approximately 1 percent of the Coast Range; the remainderis in the medium size class.102

OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about OG in the Pacific Northwest?C H A P T E R4While it may be useful to know the percent range .of historical OG in a province where conservation of .native biodiversity is a major management goal, researchersconcede that it may be impossible to reach those ranges inthe future, given climate and disturbance regime change.An example is the difficulty of predicting the loss of OGto wildfire. Within just the last 10 years, the “overall loss”of older forest on federal land due to stand-replacementnatural disturbances such as fire was 0.18 percent annually,versus a predicted amount of 0.25 percent. However, in thedry provinces (9 and 10), rates of loss of older forest to wildfirewere much higher than the overall average (more aboutthis under “Threats” below). This points to the ecologicaldifferences between the provinces and the need for an OGfire-management strategy (more in strategy section).Are There Old-growth Adapted Species?The species described in figures 4.28, 4.29, 4.30 and4.31 are adapted to older forests in the PNW and show apreference for them. While not confined to OG, they douse OG components (large standing live and dead trees).In addition, some other species are more abundant in OGthan in younger forests – for example, woodpeckers are 10times more abundant. Some salamanders that live only inlarge decaying logs are much more likely to be found in oldforests than young forests. So the biodiversity value of OGcan be traced to both its unique structures and the longtime period that it has existed.Figure 4.28 The northernspotted owl (Strix occidentalis)shows a preferencefor older foresthabitats even thoughit uses younger naturalforests and some second-growthforests atlow to mid elevationsin western Washingtonand Oregon. In youngerforests, the bird isoften associated withremaining older forestpatches.Figure 4.29 The marbledmurrelet (Brachyramphusmarmoratus)nests in OG coniferforests within 30 milesof the pacific coast. It’sa secretive, robin-sizedbird, with sooty brownto black plumage. Inwinter, the bird has awhite belly.Al LevnoMartin RaphaelFigure 4.30 The redtree vole (Arborimislongicaudus) is foundin dense, moist coniferforests with a sufficientnumber of Douglas-firtrees. It spendsits entire life in the treecanopy, feeding almostexclusively on Douglasfirneedles. The vole isbright orange-red tocinnamon on top andsilvery gray underneath,with a tail more than 50 percent of its body length.It’s the prey of spotted and other owls.Figure 4.31 TheJohnson’s hairstreakbutterfly (Callophrysjohnsoni) requiresmid- to low-elevationOG forests similar tospotted owl habitat.This medium-sizedbutterfly has chestnutcolored wings with aprominent white linefollowing the curve ofthe wing about halfway out.More than 100 species of epiphytes (lichens, mosses)are found in OG canopies. Because they disperse, colonize,and grow slowly, they may occur in OG simply becauseenough time has elapsed since a major disturbance. The .Lobaria lichen, an important nitrogen fixer (Chapter 7, page142), is abundant in the canopy of older Douglas-fir forests.In one well studied older forest in Washington, 1 to 1.5 tonsof lichens per acre were measured (half were nitrogen fixinglichens). This lichen/older forest interaction may be importantto the centuries-long maintenance of OG.What are the Major Threats to OG in the PacificNorthwest?Threats differ depending on the OG province andinclude logging, wildfire, and insects and disease. Logging isa threat on lands outside the reserves. Wildfire and insectsand disease are a threat in dry, fire-prone provinces.The Logging ThreatAlthough logging of OG on federal lands has slowedin recent years, about 20 percent of the remaining OG onfederal lands is open to logging. The Northwest Forest Planallowed for logging in matrix lands, but little OG has beenharvested over the first 10 years of the Plan. In addition,older forests on some state-owned lands are still eligible .for harvest.Jeffrey C. Miller Eric Forsman103

C H A P T E R4OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about OG in the Pacific Northwest?The Wildfire, Insect and Disease ThreatOG provinces reflect different disturbanceregimes. For example, OG ponderosa pine(Figure 4.34) on dry sites has a relatively openunderstory that was maintained historicallyby frequent low to moderate intensity fire atintervals of less than 20 years. OG in wetterforests, such as western hemlock (Figure 4.23),has large accumulations of live and deadwood in the understory and has experiencedstand-replacing fire disturbances every 100 to400 years. Between these extremes are otherOG forests that experience “mixed severity”fire regimes, where fire can range from low tohigh severity (Figure 4.32, left map).The greatest threat to OG in dry provincesis fire suppression and the high severitywildfires that have resulted from that policy. Inthe 0-35 year frequency, low severity fire areas(Figure 4.32, right map), fire suppression haschanged naturally open understories to fardenser understories of small diameter conifers,making them susceptible to high severity wildfire.These fires result in the death of OG pineand Douglas-fir trees that probably survivedthe lower intensity fires of the past. Not onlywildfire but insect and disease outbreaks thatcan kill old trees may be more common inthese dense stands.Understanding provincial variation is important for .developing OG management strategies. While the managementof existing OG reserves has been relatively passive sinceadoption of the Northwest Forest Plan, researchers recognizethat active management, including fuel reduction and .restoration, is needed in fire-dependent provinces to reduceOG losses to high-severity fires (Figures 4.33 and 4.34).Where OG has been lost to wildfire in recent years,debate centers on post-wildfire management and salvagelogging. For example, in the areas of the 2002 Biscuit Fire(Figures 4.35 and 4.36) in Provinces 9 and 10, the question is:what management activities are appropriate when OG burns(more about this below).How Much OG is Needed to Maintain Biodiversity?As with other OG regions, the answer to this question ismore social than scientific. While science can inform the .public-policy debate, it cannot resolve it. Science can helpdefine OG, identify processes and stand-level practices toprotect and produce more OG in the future, and clarify .tradeoffs and offer alternatives for specific OG provinces.However, the “how much” question and other related onesmust be answered in the social arena, for example:Figure 4.32How naturalfire frequencyregimes (left)have changed(right) due todecades of firesuppression.s What types of OG management are socially acceptable?s What long-term policies are appropriate?s What are the economic implications of those policies?s How will they be paid for?While the region is relatively rich in OG, recent .scientific assessments indicate that current amounts aremuch lower than desired. For example, the future targetamount of older forest within the range of the northernspotted owl on federal land in Oregon and Washington isabout 7.6 million acres. Currently, the amount is about .5 million acres. Estimates indicate that it will take more than100 years to reach that desired level of old forest. However,the fact that most of the remaining OG is in large acreageson federal and state lands indicates good potential for .strategies to conserve and restore OG.How Does Society View OG in the Pacific Northwest?OG in the PNW goes beyond technical scientific .descriptions and involves other social issues including .logging, recreation, the role of humans in nature, and thespiritual and aesthetic values of forests. To some, OG hasbecome an icon that symbolizes wild, pristine, undisturbednature, while to others it represents productive forests andtimber harvesting. From the standpoint of timber value, oneModified and reproduced from USFS references104

OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about OG in the Pacific Northwest?C H A P T E R4acre of OG could be worth $25,000, and a 50-acre clearcut worth $1.2 million (assuming 50,000 bdft/acre and$500/mbft). For those who see OG as an icon, it representsplaces that are unaltered by humans, where nature lives in“balance.” However, this concept of balance is not reallyconsistent with what research has learned about the role ofdisturbance in OG forests, especially in fire-dependent OG(more detail in fire management below).Public opinion surveys in the PNW indicate a high .recognition of the term old-growth (even if the publicdoesn’t exactly know what it is) and a high value placed onits conservation. One study found that the public preferredthat one-third of the landscape be protected to conserveOG forests. That would be a challenging goal for forestmanagers.Years of debate have produced many OG interestgroups in the PNW, each with different expectations andideas. The result has been OG management paralysis, andthe Northwest Forest Plan is a perfect example. It allows fora balanced approach, including the harvest of OG outsideof reserves, but after more than 10 years of executing theplan, little OG has been cut. Instead, OG has been almostcompletely protected. The result has been more controversy,with some claiming the Plan didn’t provide what was .originally promised.In recent years, “new sources” of knowledge haveadded to the OG debate. No longer are government landmanagementagencies and academic/research institutionsviewed as the sole sources of information and technicalexpertise about OG forests. Today, non-governmentalscientists with access to satellite imagery and technicalinformation resources compete in the marketplace of publicopinion. The Internet has changed the way the public getsits information and whose science they believe. Technologyand knowledge aren’t confined to established institutions.K. Norman Johnson K. Norman JohnsonFigure 4.33 In fire-dependent forests in the eastern CascadeMountains (Provinces 4 and 6), decades of fire suppressionhave created high-severity wildfire conditions. WithoutFigure 4.34 After thinning, fire-dependent OG ponderosa pineforests will require frequent low-severity prescribed fire.active management, including thinning (Figure 4.34) andprescribed fire, OG Ponderosa pine forests are subject tolethal fire.105

C H A P T E R4OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YHow can knowledge of OG be used in management strategies on public and private forestlands?2002 Biscuit FireTom SpiesFigure 4.36 This patchy pattern of mortality after the 2002Biscuit Fire is typical of province 9. Satellite imageryshowed approximately 45 percent of the fire area wasunburned or had low vegetation mortality, 25 percentmoderate and 30 percent severe mortality immediatelyafter the fire.How can knowledge of oG be used inmanagement strategies on public andprivate forestlands?Despite its millions of OG acres, the region is faced withthe fact that OG must be managed, because just like otherstages of forest development, it is part of a dynamic system.Regardless of the notion that it’s “in balance,” OG is .constantly in the process of changing to another stage. .Today’s OG may become the new young forest of the .future, while mature forests today become future OG.Therefore, the region’s OG management comes .down to four major issues (described below):s fire managements developing OG characteristics in forest plantationss landscape-scale planning and OGs OG protection policies.Fire ManagementDesignating OG reserves provides no protection againstloss from high-severity fire and/or the gradual loss ofecological complexity from the suppression of patchy fires,which were important in the development of fire-dependentOG. In Provinces 9 and 10 for example, fires were more .frequent and usually low to mixed severity before fire .suppression policy changed them. Today, reducing thebuildup of understory density and restoring frequent surfacefires are crucial or this OG will be lost in the coming decadesOREGONCALIFORNIAFigure 4.35 The Biscuit Fire (2002) was a standreplacingwildfire that clearly demonstratedthe fire risk in OG and focused attentionon the need for an OG fire-managementstrategy.to more insect outbreaks, disease, and high-severity fires. Arecent example is the 2002 Biscuit fire that burned nearly500,000 acres (Figure 4.35 and 4.36).Farther north in western Oregon and Washington(Provinces 3 and 5), the fire regime is a combination ofsurface and crown fires. OG in these areas is also at risk towildfire, although fires were less frequent than in Province9. Researchers believe that while the last century of firesuppression has had less impact on OG in Provinces 3 and5, if suppression continues for another half century or more,changes will also occur in these OG forests, so active .management is needed there too.In the coastal OG of Oregon and Washington wherethe climate is wetter (Provinces 1, 2 and 7), fires were .infrequent, occurring at 100- to 400-year intervals, butoften more intense. Because these forests are more .productive, a century of fire suppression has not changedfuel levels as much. However, the urban development nowlocated close to these forests makes it impossible to allowfire back into these forests. Still, fire management is neededin the urban-wildland interface of these provinces.The most urgent need for an OG fire-managementstrategy is in fire-dependent provinces 4 and 6. The most .logical strategy recommended by researchers is active .management, including mechanical thinning treatments .and prescribed fire.Modified and reproduced from USFS references106

OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YHow can knowledge of OG be used in management strategies on public and private forestlands?C H A P T E R4How to Develop OG Characteristics inForest PlantationsPlantation forests, originally established on public landsfor timber production, are now expected to develop intofuture OG. This goal is complicated by the mix of plantedspecies and the densities of these stands. However, what’sbeen learned about OG forest development may be usefulin managing plantations. Research supports the idea thatplantation forests can be put on a pathway toward complexOG ecosystems. That restoration includes techniques likevariable-density thinning (Chapter 1, pages 47-48) and .similar practices designed to create structural complexity.But this kind of restoration will require trained workers,adaptive management (Chapter 8), and financial resources.Plantation restoration won’t happen if it’s too costly .or impractical.With both plantations and OG forests dependent onfire and both requiring silvicultural techniques that eithersubstitute for fire or include prescribed fire, managers mustface the fact that this type of management may not .generate economically viable products. A new way ofvaluing non-commodity goods and services will be neededalong with new ways of investing in forests. Both short- andlong-term funding will be needed. Among the new waysof generating income may be fees from recreation, carbonsequestration markets (evidence shows that OG forests storecarbon more efficiently than was once thought), and use ofstewardship contracts. All may be part of getting restorationwork done in plantations and older forests.Landscape-scale Planning and OGSustainable OG forests will require regional planningover long periods of time. With the help of landscape-scaleplanning (Chapter 7), managers can see what it will take tomaintain the diverse forest conditions needed for all habitatsand ecological functions. Landscape planning models likethe Oregon CLAMS model (Chapter 7, page 140), predictthat under today’s federal policies, mature forests (tomorrow’sfuture OG), will decline over the long-term. Thatdecline, when viewed across a landscape of national forestsand private timberlands, will leave two predominant ageclasses – old forests and young plantations. The old forestswill be located primarily on federal lands with young plantationson private and federal lands. Intermediate age classeswill be very scarce.This scenario raises such issues as how much landscapediversity nature will create through fire and other disturbancesand how much landscape diversity will be created bythe use of silvicultural techniques where firefighting reducesthe number of wildfires. The answer to questions abouthow to maintain future diversity in all forest developmentstages across the region will come from a combination ofactive management and natural disturbance. Just as .historical fire regimes differed among OG provinces, so .will decisions about the urgency to apply silvicultural .management techniques differ among provinces.OG Protection PoliciesCurrent federal policies are focused on protecting theregion’s OG, but even protected OG forests will change.Natural disturbances, fire suppression, invasive species, .insect and disease outbreaks, forest succession, and .changing climate will all contribute to that change. .Managers have to decide whether or not these changesare compatible with OG goals. Some of them may not bedesirable, and managers may need to take action. Thoseactions will depend on the variability among provinces andthe role of fire in creating complex ecosystems at stand andlandscape levels.All of this raises the question of whether or not timberharvesting is appropriate in OG after stand-replacementdisturbances. Research indicates that when OG is subject tohigh-severity fire, 100 to 200 years may elapse before thearea returns to old forest conditions. During that time, theecological influence of OG does not end with the death oftrees. OG legacies, including dead trees, surviving live trees,and associated organisms carry over into the new forest andcan persist for many decades as the young forest develops.Researchers find significant amounts of dead wood in .post-fire stands 100 years after fire. Of course, the amountand duration of this legacy wood varies with species,climate, and disturbance regimes, but what’s important isthe recognition that developmental stages are connectedthrough the surviving and decomposing components ofprevious stages.The relative abundance of OG in the PNW and the .fact that it doesn’t exist anywhere else in the world’stemperate forests were pointed out in the opening of thissection. However, as NCSSF-sponsored researchers havedescribed, that abundance carries with it the need to .maintain those large areas of forest with high natural .values in a landscape dominated by development. Thatwon’t be easy.107

C H A P T E R4OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about OG in the Southwest?108WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT OG INTHE SOUTHWEST?The Southwest has three major forest types: mixed .conifer forests, ponderosa pine, and pinyon-juniper .woodlands (Chapter 1, page 49-50). The OG stage of .each forest is pictured (Figures 4.37,4.38, 4.39 and 4.40), but this sectionwill focus on the most widespreadtype, ponderosa pine.While it’s true that ponderosaforests have old trees, NCSSF-sponsoredresearchers in the Southwestpoint out that it’s not just old treesthat make an OG ponderosa pineforest. OG definitions from otherregions are really not relevant to theSouthwest. That’s because undernatural conditions (without overgrazing,logging, and fire suppression),frequent low-intensity fires create anOG landscape that is patchy, almostpark-like, with a variety of openingsand groups of trees that vary in sizefrom tenths of an acre to severalacres (Figure 4.38). These forestshave a rich understory, dependingon whether it is near clumps of bigtrees, in small openings betweenclumps, or in large meadows. Inmany locations, ponderosa growswith Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii),the second most abundant woodyshrub in the ecosystem (Figure 4.40).So while natural frequent-fireponderosa pine never takes on theappearance common to OG in thePNW, after decades of fire suppressionsome older ponderosa pine .forests do have an unnatural .appearance, similar to the PNW(Figure 4.33).The natural OG ponderosa pineforest is a plant community adaptedto low-intensity frequent fire. .Ponderosa pines, along with otherwestern long-needled pines, not onlytolerate this disturbance regime, theyrely on it for long-term survival. .The following adaptations makeponderosa pine perfectly suited:s thick, heat-protected budss needle bundles that open into a loose arrangement,unfavorable to combustions foliage with high moisture contents tree stems resistant to scorchings deep roots.Figure 4.37 This OG mixed-conifer high-elevation forest includes ponderosa pine,Douglas-fir, white fir, limber pine and blue spruce. As a result of fire suppression,ponderosa, once co-dominant in many of these stands, has been replaced by theother species.Figure 4.38 Historically, ponderosa pine OG forests were a mixed landscape of trees,some hundreds of years old, with grassy openings and maintained by frequentlow-intensity fire. In some locations, depending on the soils, there were clumps ofold fire-resistant trees with highly diverse understories. In other locations, trees hadhigher densities, but nowhere near the density of today’s ponderosa pine forests(Figure 4.41).Dave Egan, Northern Arizona UniversityDave Egan, Northern Arizona University

OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about OG in the Southwest?C H A P T E R4Dave Egan, Northern Arizona UniversityDave Egan, Northern Arizona UniversityFigure 4.39 The fire history of pinyon-juniper forests is not well known, but evidencesuggests that the fire regime consisted of infrequent, high-severity fires.Figure 4.40 A group of older Gambel oak (right) in a mixed stand with ponderosa pineafter a prescribed fire.Along with climate and fire,other factors shape the structureand function of ponderosa pine ecosystems:variable soils, bark beetles,woodpeckers, mycorrhizal root fungi(Chapter 6, page 133), humans,mistletoe, cankers, and rust. They allinteract to produce what was historicallya heterogeneous landscapeof grassy openings and old trees(Figure 4.38). Today, remaining OGtrees are important because theyhave survived hundreds of years of .environmental fluctuation, and theirpresence contributes to geneticdiversity.Historical fire suppression hasbeen detrimental to these forests,eventually destroying the OG. Butthe reintroduction of fire into thesedegraded OG forests, along with .appropriate thinning, can restorethese ecosystems (more about thisbelow).The cumulative effects of livestockgrazing, tree harvesting, firesuppression, and climate changehave disrupted and reduced thehealth and resiliency of these .forests. The changes include:s a shift in tree density to shadetolerantspecies and younger,smaller ponderosa treess replacement of grassy andherbaceous understories withwoody and/or invasive speciess decrease in wildlife habitatalong with decreased plant andanimal diversitys increased runoff, erosion, andsedimentation.Without landscape-scale restorationefforts, researchers agreethere will be more increasinglysevere, stand-replacing fires, alongwith increased non-native invasiveplants, increased tree loss to insectsand pathogens, and decreased .wildlife habitat.109

C H A P T E R4OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about OG in the Southwest?George Sheppard, NAU Cline Library, Spepial Collections and ArchivesFigure 4.41 After decades of firesuppression, these forests haveundergone major changes instructure, composition, firefrequency, fire intensity andseverity, and landscape pattern.As a result, unnatural severefire regimes threaten to destroy,rather than renew, the pineecosystem (more details below).110What’s the Current Condition and Extent?Ponderosa pine forests stretch across parts of southernColorado and Utah, northern Arizona and New Mexico,southeastern Nevada, and western Texas. However, the .best data available on ownership come from New Mexicoand Arizona.In New Mexico, the USDA Forest Service oversees 1.8million acres or 64 percent of the ponderosa pine forest.Other public agencies manage 172,000 acres, and familyforest owners (including Native American tribes) own798,000 acres. The majority of this acreage (2.4 millionacres) is in non-reserved status (available for managementfor wood production).In Arizona there are approximately 3 million acres ofponderosa pine. The USDA Forest Service oversees .approximately 2 million acres. Other public agencies .manage 122,000 acres, and family forest owners (includingNative American tribes) own 851,000 acres. In Arizona, .6 percent of the total is protected from harvesting for .commercial wood production.How much is OG? In southern Colorado and NewMexico, less than 5 percent of ponderosa pine stands areclassified as OG. Estimates in the inter-mountain Southwestindicate OG ponderosa pine has declined 85 to 90 percentduring the last century. The amount of OG ponderosa todayis unknown, partly because there’s no agreement about thedefinition of OG in the southwest. But however it is defined,OG is a very small percentage of the existing ponderosa pineecosystem in the Southwest.Figure 4.42 The pygmynuthatch (Sitta pygmaea),a cavity nester,relies on OG structuressuch as large trees.Figure 4.43 The Abert’ssquirrel (Sciurus aberti)needs an entire patchof OG trees to moveeasily and find food.Photo: J.G. Hall, Mammal ImagesLibrary (American Society ofMammologists) .Figure 4.44 The northerngoshawk (Accipitergentiles) requiresOG conditions in alandscape matrix thatcontains a wide varietyof habitats.Tom MunsonRick Kline/CLO

OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YWhat do we know about OG in the Southwest?C H A P T E R4Are there Old-growth Adapted Species?Researchers have identified 135 vertebrates that rely onfrequent-fire OG ponderosa pine forests. Some species areyear-round residents, others use these forests for breeding,wintering or migration (Figures 4.42, 4.43 and 4.44).Some species that rely on OG also play a reverse role,providing a service to other species. For example, hairywoodpecker (Picoides villosus) populations expand after fire,right along with their food source – bark beetles. Since halfof the species that nest in tree cavities in ponderosa pineforests cannot excavate their own cavities, hairy wood-.peckers are important in supporting them. Without surfacefires severe enough to kill or partially kill some trees, hairywoodpecker populations may be low, reducing neededhabitat for other species and resulting in changes to theforest ecosystem.OG ponderosa pine also helps to cycle soil nutrients.Studies have shown that in over-stocked, fire-suppressedponderosa pine forests, nitrogen is mostly in above-groundtissue, relatively unavailable to soil microbes and otherplants. In contrast, most of the nitrogen in more openareas was found in the top 6 inches of soil. Open grassyareas with clumps of large, old trees have more active soilcommunities, supporting both understory species and thelarge trees. Along with soil nutrients, soil water is importantin ecosystem production. Open OG stands intercept lessprecipitation compared to dense, fire suppressed stands,allowing more moisture to reach the soil and providing formore diverse plants and animals.As with OG in other regions, while some mature treesmay have diameters and heights similar to OG trees, they donot have the structures that many wildlife species require,including large gnarly branches, nesting sites created bydwarf mistletoe (witches brooms), exposed dead woodready-made for cavity nest building, and loose bark for batroosts. Where OG trees grow in groups, their closed canopycan provide escape routes for squirrels and other canopydwellinganimals.What are the Major Threats to OG in the Southwest?Threats to the preservation and restoration of OG .ponderosa pine include:s fire suppression that continues to alter the size andseverity of fires, resulting in undesirable consequencesfor both existing and future OGs fire suppression also allows shade-tolerant species toencroach on ponderosa pine ecosystems, causing thedeath of old treess continuing outbreaks of western pine beetle and .dwarf mistletoes non-native invasive plantss both legal challenges and the required use of diametercaps (upper size limits of trees allowed to be cut) byenvironmental groups. While attempting to protect .OG from logging, these groups have hindered .restoration efforts to thin trees in and around OG. Theresult is more inaction, more overstocked pine forestsand eventually more catastrophic fires resulting in theloss of OG.There are also social values that influence the OG issue.They include:s urban development in forested ecosystems that .increases the risk of fires conflict between scenic and recreational values andtimber management activitiess public knowledge that fire has a role in frequent-fireforests but the continuing discomfort about allowingwildfires to burns opposition to logging OG, but no consistent public .opposition to removing some larger trees during .thinning operationss support for mechanical thinning to reduce forest fuelsand restore forest structure.How Much OG is Needed to Maintain Biodiversity?Researchers see OG restoration in the Southwest not asa singular goal, but as part of a larger effort to reduce thehazard of severe wildfire, protect the urban interface, fosterbiodiversity, and provide recreational and watershed valuesfrom the entire ponderosa pine forest ecosystem (detailsbelow). Rather than focusing exclusively on OG, their goalis to restore all stages of forest development. However, theydo think that more OG is needed than currently exists, andthey use pre-European settlement estimates as a point ofreference. For example, older forest probably ranged from17 to 25 percent at pre-settlement, with the remainder beinggrassy openings and younger forests. Research resultsclearly indicate that OG constituted a significant proportionof the Southwest’s forests. For that reason, researchers callfor as much OG as possible. They emphasize that it is relativelyeasy to enhance OG qualities by protecting old treesand thinning and burning forest stands to accelerate thedevelopment of OG characteristics. These restorative .actions are consistent with the larger effort aimed at the .111

C H A P T E R4OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YHow can knowledge of OG be used in management strategies on public and private forestlands?entire system. The problem however, lies with the currentlimited ability to handle all the acres in need of treatmentand the time it takes for OG structure and function .to develop.How Does Society View OG in the Southwest?A brief review of southwestern forest history from the1960s to present is useful in answering this question. .During the past 50 years the public has shown increasingenvironmental concern and has had access to forest andwilderness areas. As a result, OG forests are regarded as .representing an ideal of untouched nature, while harvestedforests are seen as violated or defiled. Early in the period,USFS management moved toward multiple-use and .sustained yield, but it still favored cutting OG and .replacing it with second-growth forests. National legislation(the Wilderness Act, the National Environmental Policy Act,and the Endangered Species Act) along with environmentalorganizations such as the Sierra Club and the WildernessSociety brought an end to OG conversion. More recentpolicies have emphasized restoring natural forests and fireregimes. In the past 20 years timber processing has declinedby over 60 percent, resulting in a waning forest industry. .At the same time, catastrophic fires have raised concernabout public safety, property and ecology. New federalinitiatives and legislation (the National Fire Plan, the HealthyForest Initiative, and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act) allsupport the restoration of frequent-fire forests along withforest research to achieve that goal.With that historical backdrop, surveys indicate the .following public views about ponderosa pine forests.s Society prefers open, park-like forests similar to OGponderosa pine rather than dense pole and/or .sapling-sized trees. Large, mature trees are seen as .an important part of scenic beauty.s Public policy discussions do not focus on OG, but onwildlife, aesthetics, and recreation. With respect to .wildlife, crown fire is seen as the major threat ratherthan logging.s Attempts to use prescribed fire in restoration activitieshave resulted in public concern about smoke.Researchers concede that in order to achieve the goalof healthy OG in frequent-fire forests, the public must beeducated about these ecosystems and persuaded that activemanagement, rather than preservation, is the best course ofaction for the future.How can knowledge of oG be used inmanagement strategies on public andprivate forestlands?While developing OG strategies, researchers point toNative Americans, who lived in ponderosa ecosystems forcenturies prior to European arrival and regularly used fire tomanage the forest. Whether ignited by Native Americansor lightning, those frequent low-intensity fires occurred atintervals ranging from 2 to 35 years. Stand-replacing fireswere rare or non-existent, but they did occur in dry forestsin other parts of the West. The result of frequent, low-.intensity fires was an open stand structure that limited thesize and severity of insect outbreaks and kept dwarf .mistletoe in check. Wildfire research studies indicate a .dramatic decrease in low-intensity fires by the late 1800sdue to exploitation of OG and overgrazing.Given this historical setting, OG restoration strategiescall for thinning to recover ecosystem structure, followed bylow-intensity fire to return the ecosystem to more naturalrates of decomposition, nutrient cycling and productivity,while reestablishing plant and animal communities. But OGrestoration depends primarily on two things:1 the ability to return fire to the ponderosa pine .ecosystem after thinning, so its structure and functioncan be restored2 the ecosystem’s ability to produce OG from .existing trees, once it is thinned and exposed to .low-intensity fires.There are obstacles to this strategy. First, even thoughit’s possible to use small-diameter trees from forest thinningfor wood products and bioenergy, profit from these usesis marginal. Currently, there are no manufacturing facilitiesand no industry plans to rebuild mills, because the industryhas no long-term confidence in USDA Forest Service policy.Second, the manpower and financial resources needed todo restoration work at an acceptable pace and scale aren’tavailable. Third, in some locations successful restoration .may require reseeding or transplanting missing plant .species, raking around old trees before burning (Figure4.45), controlling non-native invasive plants, and regulatinggrazing. Fourth, monitoring is needed to track the progressand modify restoration plans as needed. And finally, thereare key gaps in scientific knowledge. For example:112

OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YHow can knowledge of OG be used in management strategies on public and private forestlands?C H A P T E R4Dave Egan, Northern Arizona UniversityFigure 4.45 Hand-raking around OG prior to prescribedburning prevents heat damage from the long-termaccumulation of needles.s How well will understory vegetation and animal habitatrecover after thinning and/or thinning and prescribedfire, and will it be close to OG conditions?s Will restoration techniques, tested and used in northernArizona ponderosa pine areas, be successful in otherareas of the Southwest?s How different are dry mixed conifer forests from .ponderosa pine forests, and what techniques can beused to restore them?In the meantime, managers have to make site-.specific decisions about OG restoration objectives, treatmentprescriptions, and implementation strategies in frequent-fireforests. Here are some general principles recommended .by researchers.s Retain all trees that pre-date .European settlement becausethey tend to be fire resistant,often provide wildlife habitat, .and have aesthetic benefits.s Retain some post-settlementtrees to replace those that existedbefore European settlement buthave died or been removed. Notethat ponderosa pine frequentlygrows in small clumps. The size,density, number, and location ofclumps affect wildlife habitat andthe future risk of crown fire.s Thin and remove excess trees, .recognizing that some grassy .openings were historically inplace for very long periods oftime. Re-creating these openings,lost to encroaching pines duringfire suppression, provides habitatfor many wildlife species and can reduce the risk of .crown fires.s Rake heavy fuels from the bases of old trees if necessaryto prepare them for safe prescribed fire.s Burn to mimic the natural disturbance regime. .Fire is crucial in cycling nutrients and maintaining .forest structure. Without fire, thinned forests becomedense again.s Reestablish healthy understories with native rather thanexotic species. Besides offering wildlife food and coverthey provide the fuel needed for frequent low-intensityfires that maintain forest structure.113

C H A P T E R4OLD - GROW TH FORESTS AND BIODIVERSIT YSummarySUMMARYFrom this brief overview its clear that the OG resourcesof each major forest region are poles apart as are the strategiesto restore and manage those resources. For example:s In the Northeast, Southeast, and Lake States there arerelatively small amounts of OG.s The Northeast faces the impending loss of its OG.s Little attention is given to OG in the Northeast, .Southeast, and Lake States.s There’s a continuing loss of OG in the frequent-fireforests of the West.Our understanding of OG forests changed during thelate 20th century. It’s become more than just old trees andis now recognized as a complex forest ecosystem. We mustlearn from existing OG and manage for future OG. The .bottom line is that:s Any effort to retain biodiversity depends on havingmore old forest.s Threats to OG go beyond logging and include development,unnatural fire regimes, and non-native invasives.s If we want more old forest we need more than .preservation strategies; we need restoration and .management tools.s Maintaining and growing more OG is not just a scienceissue, it’s a social issue.The major forest regions can learn from one another.While the PNW was the first region faced with the OG issue,other regions have learned from that experience. The PNWhas a richness and abundance of OG unique in the world’stemperate forests. How it is maintained and managed in thePNW may have application to other regions. For example,PNW OG Douglas-fir forests have many similarities to OGwhite pine forests in the eastern United States. What’s stillnot clear is whether there are similarities to boreal forests orthe deciduous forests of the eastern United States. However,it is true that the strategy of increasing structural complexityas forests mature is applicable to all forests.Preserving what OG remains, restoring OG in maturestands, and developing techniques that enable the growthof more OG in the future are the major messages of thischapter. No matter what the region, OG forests are part ofthe forest developmental process and serve a vital role inforest biodiversity.One final word concerning OG: although it has beenmentioned only briefly, climate change is another threat toOG in all regions. Scientific opinion holds that as the climategrows warmer over the next century, the climatic .environment for most existing tree species will shift .northward. It’s assumed that most forest vertebrates willprobably be able to keep up as their habitats shift .northward. However, species that depend on OG, such .as some lichens, mosses, fungi and invertebrates thatdisperse slowly may be at risk. One strategy for biodiversityconservation in the face of climate change may be a systemof OG stepping stones and corridors (Chapter 3, page 83),permitting slow moving species to keep up. This is just .another reason for each region to locate all existing OG .and plan for the development of future OG in strategic .locations.To Learn More About This Topic, See Appendix, page 167.114

selec ting indic ators for biodiversit yWhy is this subject important?C H A P T E R5WHY IS THIS SUBJECT IMPORTANT?Forest practitioners and managers who want tomaintain certain components of biodiversity in the contextof sustainable forestry face some challenging questions:s How to decide what components of forestbiodiversity to maintain?s How will we know if we’re successfully sustainingforest conditions and desired values that supportthose components?s How will we recognize success in sustaining thedesired components of forest biodiversity, giventhousands of plants and animals, the functions theyperform, and the ecological processes they support?A process of selecting indicators and then monitoringthem is essential for answering such questions. Simplystated, indicators are a relatively few measurementsof the forest system that correlate with as many otherunmeasured desired elements as possible. Monitoringconsists of repeatedly measuring change in indicators overtime. So the indicators used in a monitoring program areselected to provide information about the status of thelarger and more complicated forest. Using indicators isthe only practical way to know if we are sustaining whatwe are trying to sustain. And that’s important, becauseit’s not physically or biologically possible to sustain everycomponent of forest biodiversity on every acre all thetime. Nor is it appropriate to try to sustain all componentsof every forest irrespective of their management policy orpurpose. Who owns a forest (public versus private) andthe purpose of the forest (reserve versus managed) arecritical backdrops for sustaining biodiversity componentsthat will enable us to meet overall management goals.In 1995, the Montreal Working Group, whichrepresented 12 countries including the United States,developed the Montreal Process. This process encouragedassessment at country or regional levels to assist governmentsin evaluating their forest policy goals. The workinggroup described seven criteria or goals for conservationand sustainable management of temperate and borealforests, starting with conservation of biological diversity.The members agreed to a framework of 67 inventoryindicators so countries could share information. Of those67, the group identified nine that could be used tomeasure biodiversity.The Montreal Working Group saw the importanceof indicators, and while The Process was useful at largescales (country or regional levels), it was never meantto fit the individual forest or watershed. Meaningfulindicators at those scales should be developed locally,based on relevant state and federal forest and environmentalpolicies and landowner intent.Since then, worldwide efforts by forestry organizationsto use the Montreal Process indicators to evaluatetheir forestry practices have created some confusionamong forest managers and stakeholders (individuals andorganizations that have an interest in the forest).For example:s Who decides what indicators to use?s Will stakeholders or individual landowners beconfident that the best indicators have been chosen?s Who’s responsible for the monitoring necessary tomake indicators meaningful?Science by itself cannot answer these questions,because there are complex and significant trade-offs inefforts to sustain forests for various values and uses thatgo beyond science and involve group decisions. The goalof the NCSSF-sponsored research projects that form thebackground for this chapter was to provide informationand tools for those who are seeking answers, includinga tested framework that engages the public (or in thecase of family, community, tribal, or industry ownedforestlands) appropriate stakeholders, in a group processto reach agreement on indicators relevant to forest goals,that can be applied at a variety of spatial scales, from aforest site to a landscape.INDICATOR SELECTIONIndicators are like your car’s instrument panel, whichlets you assess the current status of major operating systemswith a glance. Repeated monitoring detects changes andindicates system trends. Warning lights indicate a seriouschange that requires prompt attention (next page).Forest biodiversity indicators perform similar functions.They should:s provide a current status reports describe trendss indicate the origin of any problems that exist.Forests are complicated systems, far more complicatedthan an automobile. There will always be a lot we don’tknow about them. So it’s understandable that we’re alwaysin the process of designing or refining an instrument panelfor our forest cruiser. Because forests in different placesand under different ownerships are managed for differentpurposes, we will need a different instrument panel for eachkind of forest. There may be one for measuring biodiversityconditions and trends in forest reserves (managed for asuite of values and uses most likely to be sustained onlyin reserves), another for plantation forests (managed fora suite of values and uses that is led by growing trees forwood products), and still another for multi-purpose andurban forests that typically are managed for a broader andmore complex suite of values and uses than either reservesor wood production forests.15

C H A P T E R5selec ting indic ators for biodiversit yIndicator Selection116How Forest Managers AreCurrently Using IndicatorsInterest in indicators is growing,encouraged by:s principles, criteria, and indicatorsdescribed by the 1995 MontrealProcesss forest certification standards,including those of theSustainable Forestry Initiative(SFI) and the Forest StewardshipCouncil (FSC)s social concerns aboutconservation, preservation, andforest restorations interest in maintaining andre-establishing components ofbiodiversity placed at risk byhistoric land uses.One NCSSF project surveyedmore than 1,500 forest landownersand managers nationwide abouttheir biodiversity practices, asking what indicators they usedfor biodiversity conservation. All levels of forest ownershipwere sampled, from small private woodlands to largeindustrial and public forests. Survey results indicated that:s nearly 60% of respondents felt their forest biodiversityprograms were being implementeds nearly 66% believed their forest management issuccessful in producing desired forest conditions, uses,and values.Here’s what survey respondents said aboutbiodiversity indicators:s Most of them don’t use Montreal Process indicatorsdirectly, but many Montreal indicators are incorporatedwith different names.s At the stand level, timber inventory, tree speciescomposition, age-class distribution, and stand structurewere most often considered important indicators forsuccessful biological diversity programs.s At the landscape level, hydrology and streamprotection were considered the most importantindicators of forest biodiversity.s It was considered important to protect importanthabitats, in compliance with federal and state laws orregulations.s Interestingly, no indicators of fragmentation (Chapter3) were being used. Respondents apparently eitherdon’t consider fragmentation an important indicator ofbiological diversity or don’t know how fragmentationrelates to the components of biodiversity they are tryingto sustain. Fragmentation is one of the nine MontrealProcess indicators for use at regional or national scale.Indicator selection is about building a biodiversityinstrument panel that indicates biodiversity trends andpressure points. It requires the involvement of forestmanagers, scientists and stakeholders appropriate to theforest ownership or purpose.s An implemented biodiversity plan was viewed as themost significant indicator of program success.While the survey showed that land managers are usingbiological indicators, NCSSF project scientists sensed someconfusion because the subject of indicators is relatively newterritory for many practitioners and forest managers. Thatconfusion seems to lie in the selection and application ofindicators. Many of them just aren’t useful for assessingbiodiversity for the following reasons:s An appropriate indicator at a large spatial scale(state or region) may not be appropriate at the forestmanagement unit or stand level.s Indicators that work for one forest type, ownershipor management purpose may not be appropriatefor another.s Indicators are sometimes selected without consideringthe biodiversity component they are intended toindicate (more about biodiversity components below).s Benchmarks or target levels for indicators are almostalways lacking. Once the indicator is measured, it’s notclear what action, if any, should be taken.s Indicators can conflict with each other and that’swhy there’s a need for landscape level indicators. Forexample, if you have an indicator for early-successionhabitats and one for late-succession forest, they couldconflict on the stand level, but across a landscapethey wouldn’t.

selec ting indic ators for biodiversit yIndicator SelectionC H A P T E R5s The indicator selection process needs to be transparent.When public land managers select indicators,stakeholders can become skeptical if they cannot seethat their social, economic, and environmental valuesare being addressed.Selecting Biodiversity IndicatorsGiven the challenges identified above, NCSSF projectscientists set out to develop a four-step group processfor selecting sensible indicators for specific situations andlocations. The steps include:s identifying and prioritizing the desired biodiversitycomponents to be sustaineds identifying condition, pressure, and policy responseindicators for those componentss determining how to evaluate high-priority indicatorss selecting the top indicators.Researchers who conducted group process workshopsshared their observations. The first is this: To insuretransparency and success, the group should consist ofstakeholders, land managers/policymakers, and scientists/technical experts appropriate to the forest ownership andwilling to commit to a seriesof multi-session meetings.If it’s for a national or state BIODIVERSITY COMPONENTforest, the size of the groupand the time required may Forest structurebe more than a companyor family-owned forest. Mature forest habitatYoung forest habitatAquatic & riparianhabitatEcosystem functionFragmentationT&E species & habitatStep 1: Identify and PrioritizeBiodiversity ComponentsThe first step is to identify, define, and organize theimportant biodiversity components for a particular site,forest, or landscape. Because biodiversity is such a mindbogglingconcept – it’s literally all the species and processesthat comprise a forest ecosystem, from the biggest andshowiest to the microscopic and obscure – the first task is tobreak down this complexity into more understandable andmeaningful components. Then indicators can be selected andlinked to these components.But what are biodiversity components?The flipchart in the illustration (below) shows some examplesand their meanings. Biodiversity components vary with forestsand stakeholders, so there’s no correct or universal set.According to researchers’ experience, Step 1 mayrequire a facilitator. There’s potential for disagreement in thegroup because this step identifies “what values are goingto be sustained” in a particular site, forest, or landscape.Group participants come to the realization that biodiversitycomponents that aren’t included at the end of Step 1 maynot be sustained because they may be incompatible with thedesignated purposes ofthe forest in question.WHAT DOES IT MEAN?Includes tree size, snags,large down logsOld forest characteristicsYoung forest characteristicsIncludes water quality,hydrology, species & floodcontrolProductivity, soils, nutrient& hydrologic cyclesAltered forest patternsacross the landscapeProtected by law andthose imperiledIn Step 1, the groupshould try to keepthe number ofbiodiversity componentsto a minimum.The task is to rankeach component forimportance (e.g. high,medium, low) andselect the top-scoring5-10 components.117

C H A P T E R5SELEC TING INDIC ATORS FOR BIODIVERSIT YIndicator SelectionStep 2: Identify Condition, Pressure, andPolicy-Response IndicatorsThis step introduces the group to three different typesof indicators used to support each of the top-scoringbiodiversity components. They are:s Condition indicators that measure the current statusor condition of a biodiversity component.s Pressure indicators that point to where a biodiversitycomponent is headed in the future. The pressureaffecting the condition of a biodiversity component canbe positive or negative (such as a human action thatmay be degrading or improving the condition).s Policy response indicators are management plans orpolicies designed to maintain or improve the conditionof a biodiversity component.These three types of indicators provide differentinformation to policymakers. We’ll use large-diameter snagsto illustrate each one.A condition indicator for large snags might measuretheir density in a forest or an ownership. It describes thecondition of large snags using units of measure (e.g., snagsgreater than 20 inches dbh/ha or acre).A pressure indicator for large snags could be harvestrotation length. If the rotation length is too short for themto develop, there will be fewer large snags in the future,regardless of the current density indicated by the conditionindicator. The fire-management regime for a forest couldalso be a pressure indicator for snags.Here’s an important point: Condition indicators withoutpressure indicators can be misleading. If we rely solely oncondition indicators, evidence of change in a biodiversitycomponent may come too late. Pressure indicators providea warning light on our instrument panel for a future changein condition.A policy response indicator might be a writtenmanagement plan for snags. While condition and pressureindicators are expressed with units of measure (e.g., snags/acre, rotation length in years), policy response indicatorsoften are not. They’re either “yes” or “no” indicators, (i.e.,the plan either describes snag protection or it doesn’t).Table 5.1 describes condition, pressure, and policyresponse indicators for another biodiversity component,mature forest. The boldface terms under each indicatorrequire specific definitions, agreed to by the group, to makethem useful.We know that large-diameter snags are important forthose parts of biodiversity that require snags in manyforest types (Chapter 1, page 44).It’s apparent that condition, pressure, and policyresponse indicators each provide land managers and policymakerswith different information. Ideally, each biodiversitycomponent identified by the group should have a condition,pressure, and policy response indicator.How to Accomplish Step 2Assign a small group of people to identify condition,pressure, and policy response indicators for each biodiversitycomponent from Step 1. Be sure each small group is a mixof scientists, managers, and stakeholders appropriate to theforest ownership (public, private, large or small).118

SELEC TING INDIC ATORS FOR BIODIVERSIT YIndicator SelectionC H A P T E R5Biodiversity condition Pressure Policy ResponseComponent indicator indicator indicatorMature forest1. percent of area inmature condition, byforest type.2. large-tree(greater than ’X’ dbh)density in designatedmature forest stands,by forest type.3. percent or area inmature forestreserves.1. percent of landscape withrotation length shorterthan time required todevelop mature forestcharacteristics (negativepressure).2. percent of acres managedfor timber with matureforest retentionpractices applied(positive pressure).1. written policy forconservation andmanagement ofmature forest.2. tax break, carboncredit, or conservationeasement for timberlandin a mature forestmanagement regime.Table 5.1Example indicatorsfor anotherbiodiversitycomponent(mature forest).Boldface termsneed precisedefinitions.Step 3: Evaluate High-Priority IndicatorsUse the following five criteria to evaluate indicators.Although this step is seldom included in indicator selectionprocesses, it helps stakeholders understand why oneindicator was selected over another. Evaluation criteriainclude:s Scientific merit. Is there scientific support for theindicator and the biodiversity component? For example,a commonly used indicator is the amount of area byforest type and age class (a Montreal Process indicator).Science recognizes that various species depend ondifferent forest types and age classes, so this indicatorhas high scientific merit. What science still doesn’tknow is how much of each forest type and age classis needed to successfully maintain each component ofbiodiversity in any geographic area. So setting targetlevels for an indicator is both a social and scientificquestion (i.e., how much do we want?)s Ecological breadth. Does the proposed indicatorcorrelate with other biodiversity components that aren’tbeing measured? An example is the density of largeliving trees. Large living trees correlate with and aregood indicators of mature forest epiphytes (mosses andlichens), raptor nesting habitat, and future large snagsand down logs.s Practicality. An indicator is practical if it’s not tooexpensive to measure, doesn’t require special skills tomeasure, and doesn’t require complicated analysis. Ifthe cost of the indicator is too high, its scientific meritusually doesn’t matter.s Utility. Can a forest manager use the indicator tomake a decision? If there are targets for a biodiversitycomponent, the indicator has high usability if it informsthe manager whether the system is above or below thetarget so action can be taken. Often targets aren’t set insustainable forestry because target setting is so conten-tious among stakeholders. Science can help set targetsbut is often inadequate for answering the question“how much is enough?” especially when “enough forwhat, and whom, and where?” hasn’t been addressed.s Relevance. How well does the indicator representthe stakeholders’ or owner’s biodiversity values? Sinceindicators are used to inform whether forest sustainabilityis being achieved relative to certain forest valuesand uses, they must be linked to stakeholders’ or forestowner’s values.How to Accomplish Step 3Use volunteers from the full group to create a scienceworkgroup (scientists/technical experts) and a managerworkgroup (managers/policymakers). The science grouprates each indicator for scientific merit and ecologicalbreadth. The manager group rates each indicator forpracticality and utility. The workgroups should present theratings to the full group. Then stakeholders appropriate tothe ownership rate each indicator for how well it reflectstheir values. This ensures transparency and recognizes thestrengths and weaknesses of each indicator.Step 4: Select the Top IndicatorsFinally, the group selects the top scoring indicators tobe used. In this step the group sums the evaluation scoresfor scientific merit, ecological breadth, practicality, and utilityfor each indicator in Step 3. Compare the summed scoreswith the stakeholders’ score for the indicator. Indicatorsthat score poorly for stakeholders should be eliminatedif group discussion does not lead to modification of thestakeholder score. Researchers admit that practicality usuallywins out in the final set of indicators, because finances arealways limited.119

C H A P T E R5SELEC TING INDIC ATORS FOR BIODIVERSIT YSummary120Cautionary Observations About the Four-Step ProcessResearchers who tested the four-step process made thefollowing cautionary observations:s Before selecting indicators, be sure the group knowshow they’re going to use them once they are measuredand how the data will be collected. Researchers suggestanswering the following questions:• What resources are available to measure theindicators and analyze data?• Who’s responsible for measuring the indicators?• How often will the data be reported, and to whom?• How will decisions be made in response to whatthe indicators indicate? Who will be included inpolicy-making?• What actions might be taken if indicators suggesta problem?• How will stakeholders participate in discussion andevaluation of results?Unless these questions are dealt with, stakeholders canbe frustrated because they don’t see how indicators will beused to make forest decisions that protect their values.s Stakeholders, forest managers/policymakers, andscientists/technical experts have discrete roles in theindicator selection process. Stakeholders identify theforest values they want sustained; scientists/technicalexperts identify potential indicators that best trackthose values; and managers/policymakers ensure theindicators will be practical and useful in policy-making.Scientists can participate as stakeholders or as technicaladvisors, but not both. Be sure the indicator selectionprocess includes all three groups. Avoid giving atechnical team responsibility for leading and selectingindicators and then presenting them to stakeholdersafter the fact.s A trusted group of leaders is needed. Establish astakeholder/scientist/manager leadership team to guidethe larger group.s Indicator selection can be contentious, since it reflectsvalues that people want to sustain, and only a finitenumber of indicators can be measured. Participantswith different values must be able to work together.It may be necessary to invest in building social capital(the ability of people to work together) before selectingindicators. If it’s carefully organized and facilitated, thefour-step indicator selection process can be effective atbuilding social capacity.s Establish targets for each biodiversity component, butnot necessarily numerical targets. An example of anon-numerical target might be “to maintain representationof all natural forest types and age classes in everycounty or forest district.” While qualitative, it’s stillinstructive for policy-making. If a forest type or age isn’tpresent, or is rapidly disappearing, a policymaker canact to maintain the target.s Be clear about the spatial scale at which the indicatorsare to be applied (watershed, community, state,or national forest level). If they are to be used at alandscape or regional scale, be sure that owners ofprivate property within the spatial scale are informedand engaged. They are naturally going to be concernedabout the implications of the indicators for their policymakingrights.s Be aware of other indicator efforts going on at otherspatial scales. Coordinating indicators among differentscales can provide insights that are otherwise notpossible. However, stakeholders within each spatialscale legitimately have their own values to track withindicators, and not all indicators will be relevant atall spatial scales or even similar scales between twodifferent landowner types (e.g., national forests vs.private commercial forest).SUMMARYThe questions raised at the start of this chapter arebeing answered. NCSSF-sponsored researchers havefield-tested a four-step framework for selecting biodiversityindicators for forests at different spatial scales. The toolremoves much of the confusion that may have previouslyhampered this process. It provides a way for any landowner(public or private) to decide what indicators to use and howto use them once they’re selected. It offers a deliberate,transparent group process where stakeholders can haveconfidence that the best indicators have been chosen andthere’s a way to recognize success in sustaining the desiredcomponents of forest biodiversity. In addition, specificcautionary observations are noted that can avoid potentialproblems. For information on biodiversity monitoringprograms, check Participatory Inventory and Monitoring onpage 169 of the Appendix.To Learn More About This Topic, See Appendix, page 167.

BIODIVERSIT Y IN MANAGED FORESTSWhy is this subject important?C H A P T E R6WHY IS THIS SUBJECT IMPORTANT?What are some things that I should considerif I’m interested in enhancing biodiversity in mymanaged forest? Many industrial and family landownersare asking this question as public recognition of theimportance of forest biodiversity increases. This chapteroffers some answers based on NCSSF-sponsored researchthat examined:s biodiversity enhancement in forest plantations,using loblolly pine and Douglas-fir as exampless biodiversity enhancement in family forests, based ona study of Florida ownerss pre- and post-wildfire strategies for enhancingbiodiversity, based on research done on public landsin the western United States.The ideas presented here are intended for managedforests, both naturally regenerated and artificially planted.The ways they are applied will depend on the managementobjectives of individual owners. As we will see,research results clearly show that biodiversity enhancementin managed forests can have significant economiccosts. If the costs are more than private forest landownersare able or willing to pay, and private forests continue tobe converted to other uses, society will have to decidewhether government should partner with owners toprovide economic incentives to enhance biodiversity. Ifthe answer is yes, then new ways must be developedto establish and support such partnerships (Chapter 9,pages 165-166).HOW TO ENHANCE BIODIVERSITY INPLANTATION FORESTSIn general, planted forests do not have the same levelof biodiversity as naturally regenerated forests (more detailsbelow). However, there’s growing interest in developingstrategies that increase biodiversity and non-timbereconomic values in planted forests while also growingwood products.Planted forests are common in the coastal plains andpiedmont of the Southeast and in the Pacific Northwest,particularly west of the Cascade Mountains. They haveexpanded dramatically in the Southeast. For example, in1953 there were about 2 million acres (809,900 hectares)of planted pine in the Southeast. By 1999 there were morethan 32 million acres (13 million hectares), and thatnumber could double by 2040. The primary plantedspecies are loblolly pine in the Southeast and Douglas-fir inthe Pacific Northwest.Despite their differences, loblolly pine and Douglas-firplantations have some overall similarities (Figure 6.1).For example:s They’re artificiallyplanted, often withgeneticallysuperior treeseedlings.Figure 6.1 Planting,vegetation control, andmechanical harvesting– the typical shortrotationmanagementcycle for plantations.s Herbicides maybe used tocontrolcompetingvegetationduring seedlingestablishment.s Thinningand other practicesare used toimprove woodproduction.s They usually followa relativelyshort clear-cutrotation pattern.s Despite theirlack of structuraldiversity (detailsbelow), they provideforest coverfor wildlife.s They support greater biodiversity than agricultural landsor urban development.s The conversion of plantation forestlands to other uses,especially in areas of urban growth, indicates thateconomics plays a large part in their long-term futureand sustainability.There are differences in the level of biodiversity betweennaturally regenerated forests and loblolly pine andDouglas-fir plantations. Chapters 1 and 4 provide greaterdetail, but here’s a brief overview – first loblolly and thenDouglas-fir.121

C H A P T E R6BIODIVERSIT Y IN MANAGED FORESTSHow to enhance biodiversity in plantation forestsCraig HedmanFigure 6.2This uneven-agedlongleaf pine-wiregrassstand represents thestructural goal thatresearchers envisionfor loblolly pineplantations. Its open,park-like structure andherbaceous understoryprovides habitat for avariety of wildlifespecies.Robert LoganFigure 6.3 Mature Douglas-fir forest.www.forestryimages.orgFigure 6.4 Overstory shade in the stem-exclusion stage ofthis loblolly plantation reduces biodiversity and eliminatesunderstory forage and wildlife habitat.122

BIODIVERSIT Y IN MANAGED FORESTSHow to enhance biodiversity in plantation forestsC H A P T E R6NCSSF-sponsored researchers used mature, naturallyregenerated longleaf pine in the Southeast Coastal Plains(Figure 6.2) as a structural goal for loblolly pine plantationsbecause longleaf is recognized for both high levels ofbiodiversity and economic values that include:s open, park-like conditions that allow light to reach theforest floor, creating a rich, herbaceous understorys high levels of plant and animal diversitys frequent, low-intensity fires that prevent denseshrub layers from developing and stimulate understoryvegetation.s income from saw-timber and hunting leases.In the Pacific Coastal region, Douglas-fir plantations alsodiffer from mature, naturally regenerated forests (Figure 6.3),which have the following characteristics:s vertical structural diversity (multiple canopy layers)s horizontal diversity (large live and dead trees along withcanopy gaps)s lower stand densities that allow for larger tree diameterss a more vigorous understory shrub and herb component.While loblolly pine and Douglas-fir plantations generallylack the structural diversity and more mature forest componentsof naturally regenerated forests, there are stand-levelmanagement practices that can contribute greater biodiversity.They are described next, starting with loblolly pine.Enhancing Biodiversity in Loblolly Pine PlantationsIt’s possible to increase biodiversity in loblolly pineplantations and move them toward the longleaf pinestructural model described above and shown in Figure 6.2.A primary objective is to minimize the stem-exclusion stagein which shade from a closed canopy eliminates understoryvegetation (Figure 6.4), and instead create a more openoverstory, allowing development of a diverse understory thatcan provide forage and wildlife habitat. However, there aretradeoffs, as noted in the recommendations below, such asthe effect on wood quality when planting at wider spacing.While it’s true that maximum production of total woodvolume is achieved in dense, fully-stocked stands, here aresome things that can be done to enhance biodiversity inloblolly pine plantations:s Plant at wider spacing (12 feet). This delays canopyclosure and maintains a more diverse tree establishmentphase for a longer period. It also allows for disking ormowing between tree rows to maintain a moreproductive understory. The disadvantage of wide spacingis a reduction in wood quality from larger branch knots.An alternative is to plant close and follow up with earlyand frequent thinning. This minimizes the stem-exclusionstage, allows light to reach the forest floor and increasesbiodiversity.s Begin commercial thinning at age 15, with subsequentthinning every five years. The disadvantageof thinning is that it allows understory hardwoods todevelop a midstory, creating heavy shade and reducingunderstory vegetation. Thinning can also result in understoryvine and shrub growth that shades out herb andgrass vegetation. In general, a hardwood midstory isundesirable for most wildlife, and without hardwoodcontrol (burning or herbicide treatments describedbelow), thinning can result in a less productive anddiverse understory. On the other hand, maturehardwoods such as oaks are desirable because theyprovide mast – acorns, nuts, and seeds – an importantfood source for many wildlife species. When controllingmidstory hardwoods, individual mature trees should beretained, along with occasional clumps of hardwoods,especially those growing in bottomlands and drainages,which are typical hardwood sites.s Use prescribed burning. Historically, frequent lowintensityfire in naturally regenerated pine standscontrolled the hardwoods and maintained an open standstructure and a diverse understory. Prescribed burning, incombination with thinning, can mimic those conditions.It is recommended at 3 to 6 year intervals once pine treesare 15 feet tall. Burning should be done in patches ratherthan evenly, to provide nesting cover. Avoid annual burningbecause it can eliminate all hardwoods and reducebiodiversity. Coordinate burning and thinning. Thin afterburning because it avoids the problem of too hot a firefrom thinning slash.s Use herbicides as an alternative to prescribed burningfor hardwood vegetation control. They are generally notdirectly toxic to wildlife and their effects last longer thanburning or mechanical hardwood control.s Use less intensive site preparation for vegetationcontrol at the time of planting. Intensive site prepreduces the availability of fruit for wildlife. Mechanicalsite preparation, in contrast to herbicides provides moreunderstory production. Burning may also be an optionfor site preparation vegetation control.s Fertilize, but keep in mind that fertilization has a mixedeffect on biodiversity in pine plantations. It can improveunderstory food production in thinned stands, but it canalso speed canopy closure and offset wildlife benefits.Fertilization used to benefit both diameter growth andwildlife habitat is best done along with thinning.s Retain snags, large down trees, and mature livetrees. Streamside management zones, wetlands,and other special habitats in pine plantations cancontribute to biodiversity by providing wildlife corridors(Chapter 3, pages 81-83) while at the same timeprotecting water quality.123

C H A P T E R6BIODIVERSIT Y IN MANAGED FORESTSHow to enhance biodiversity in plantation forestss Extend rotations. All of the biodiversity enhancementpractices noted above will be more effective if rotationsare extended. Rotations of 40-100 years ensureolder forest conditions and long-term wildlife forage,hardwood mast, snags, and cavities. However, longerrotations have an economic impact, depending on pulpwoodand saw-timber prices, and can affect the rate ofreturn acceptable to landowners.Enhancing Biodiversity in Douglas-fir PlantationsThere are stand-level management practices that canincrease biodiversity in Douglas-fir plantations. The objectiveis to promote both vertical and horizontal structuraldiversity (multiple canopy layers, large live and dead trees,and canopy gaps). As with loblolly pine plantations, thereare tradeoffs, and they are noted in the recommendationsbelow. Here are some of those practices:s Since Douglas-fir plantations typically are plantedwith 435 trees or more per acre, thinning is a way toincrease the structural diversity in stands. As in loblollyplantations, thinning opens the stand, allowingdevelopment of herbaceous plants, understory trees,and shrubs, which provide wildlife forage and createmultiple layers of vertical diversity. Thinning should beheavy and frequent because large conifers developmature forest conditions faster with heavy thinning.s The type of thinning is important. Instead of uniformthinning, variable density thinning is suggested(Chapter 1, page 47). This type of thinning leavesunthinned areas and gaps that contribute to structuraldiversity. Variable density thinning attempts to mimicnatural processes.s A mix of different species, especially naturallyoccurring shade-tolerant species should be maintainedwhile thinning. Hardwoods are important habitat forwildlife, especially small mammals, and retention ofsome hardwoods is recommended.s Biological legacies such as mature hardwood clumps,snags and down logs should be retained (Chapter 1,page 44).s It’s important to maintain and manage streamsidemanagement zones, wetlands and special habitats.These are areas of high diversity and can help meetlegacy retention needs.s Underplanting, the practice of planting or sowingseed in canopy gaps or under-thinned areas, can createmultiple layers.s Fertilizing individual plants or groups of plants canpromote vertical diversity.s Early branch pruning and thinning creates space forbirds to fly inside the stand.s Final harvest, using variable retention (Chapter 1,page 45) is a way to leave structural diversity for thenext rotation. However, variable retention increasesharvesting costs, and the retained trees can impacttree growth in the following rotation, decreasing woodproduction.s Rotations longer than those commonly used inindustrial forests are needed to improve wildlife habitatfor a number of species. Even with thinning, it takes100 years to develop old-forest characteristics, andtypical Douglas-fir plantation rotations are 30 to 50years. Longer rotations are costly because they delayharvest revenues while management costs continue torise. However, Douglas-fir can grow and produce woodefficiently over long time periods, up to and sometimesexceeding 100 years.Thinning in both loblolly and Douglas-fir plantations canaccelerate development of mature forest structures that arecomplex, support a variety of species (some dependent onthem), and are in short supply and difficult to replace on thelandscape. However, just creating structures doesn’t makeplantations suitable for old-growth dependent species, suchas lichens or fungi. That takes time. Thinning can createthese structures and shorten the time for their use by oldforest species (Chapter 4).While these practices enhance biodiversity at theplantation stand level, they are also important at thelandscape scale (Chapter 7). The size, shape, and spatialarrangement of stand structures and age classes should bespread across the landscape to ensure a range of biodiversity.This is easier to do where landowners control largeracreages than it is where landscapes are split among multipleowners. However, multiple landowners who use thesepractices at the stand level are also supporting increasedbiodiversity at the landscape level.Ultimately, all of these biodiversity practices have a cost,and if that cost is too high they are unlikely to be used onprivate forest plantations. For landowners and managerswho are interested in supporting greater biodiversity in theirplantations, NCSSF researchers developed actual managementstrategies for loblolly pine plantations and analyzedtheir costs using computer simulations. Details concerningthose costs are available in the Appendix (page 167).In summary, plantation forest systems have beenwidely adopted by landowners in the Southeast and PacificNorthwest. Estimates indicate that high-intensity plantationmanagement has increased southern timber yields as muchas 65% over standard site preparation and planting and100% over naturally regenerated forests. But, along withtheir increasing prevalence, there’s growing interest instrategies that can increase biodiversity in these forests.There are several stand-level management practices describedabove that can support increased biodiversity. Thekey is providing structural diversity. While they are simplified124

BIODIVERSIT Y IN MANAGED FORESTSHow to enhance biodiversity on family forest ownershipsC H A P T E R6management systems, plantation forests still support morebiodiversity than other land uses such as development andagriculture. With the very real threat of plantation conversionto development in the Southeast and Pacific Northwest,landowner incentives are needed to counter forestland conversionand support biodiversity conservation in plantations.Chapter 9 (Policy that Encourages Biodiversity) addresses theneed for incentives.HOW TO ENHANCE BIODIVERSITY ONFAMILY FOREST OWNERSHIPSFamily forest owners, who control 58% of thetimberland in the United States, have adopted intensiveplantation management practices over past decades,especially in the Southeast and Pacific Northwest. But familyforest owners are different from industrial owners. First,they are more diverse and more often have values otherthan timber production as major objectives. Second, it’smuch more difficult to meet the information needs of familyforest owners because there are so many of them and theyare so diverse.Reduced wood production from public forestlands sincethe early 1990s has made these owners and their forestsmore important than ever. However, family forests are farmore than just sources of forest products. Society dependson them for wildlife habitat, water quality protection, andother ecosystem services. In this section we consider the rolethat family forests play in conserving biodiversity and reviewthe biodiversity-compatible forest practices recommended inChapters 1 and 4. Then we look at Florida, where NCSSFsponsoredresearchers identified specific practices for familyforest owners in their state.Biodiversity-compatible Forest Practices forFamily-owned ForestsFigure 6.5, on the next page, identifies biodiversitycompatibleforest practices that are considered importantin each of the five major forest regions. More detailedscientific justification for the practices in each region canbe found in Chapters 1, 2 and 4. This illustration makes iteasy to see recurring recommendations that reach across allregions, such as:s adopting the use of prescribed fire whereverappropriates emphasizing harvesting techniques that maintainlegacy structuress looking to streamside zones and wetlands as placesto maintain legacy structures, such as large live trees,snags, and large down logss being aware of and controlling non-native invasivess encouraging longer rotations.Guidelines for Biodiversity Conservation inPine Ecosystems in the State of FloridaNCSSF-sponsored researchers in Florida identifiedspecific biodiversity-compatible forest practices for familyforest owners in that state. Their approach can serve as anexample of how other states might develop detailedguidelines for their landowners, if such guidelines aren’talready available.From the outset, researchers recognized the value ofvoluntary best management practices (BMPs) in Florida, butthey also acknowledged that BMPs alone may or may notpromote proactive management of wildlife habitat. So theydeveloped a list of biodiversity-compatible forest practices,without regard for their cost or potential for adoption byfamily forest owners. Once these practices were identified,the researchers analyzed their impact on family forestowners’ economic returns.The most serious concerns that researchers found withrespect to biodiversity conservation on forest ownerships inFlorida were:s conversion of longleaf pine-wiregrass ecosystems toslash or loblolly pine and its detrimental effect onwildlife (Chapter 1, page 33)s the need to restore fire in fire dependent forests tocontrol invasive speciess the need for uneven-aged management and longerharvest rotations in longleaf and other pine forests inthe Southeasts recognition of the role of stream and wetland riparianhabitat for biodiversity.Given these scientific concerns, the researchers, alongwith a team of forest and wildlife professionals, identifiedsome practices that enhance wildlife habitat and promotebiodiversity in pine ecosystems in Florida. The purpose ofthese practices is to ensure mature trees and dead wood,both important elements for improving wildlife habitat.They include the following:s delay the timber harvesting ages encourage uneven-aged managements expand the width of streamside managementzones (SMZs)s improve ground cover management withcontrolled burnings restore native understory vegetation, especiallywiregrasss control non-native invasive speciess use thinning techniques that provide an open canopy.125

C H A P T E R6BIODIVERSIT Y IN MANAGED FORESTSHow to enhance biodiversity on family forest ownershipsFrom the list, the team ranked the four most importantpractices in this order:1 uneven-aged forest management2 prescribed burning and invasive species control3 increasing the rotation length4 increasing SMZ widths.Next, the researchers analyzed the financial effectthese practices would have on landowners, by calculatingthe opportunity cost values foregone when these practicesare adopted. During this analysis, many forest ownersindicated that uneven-aged management, the highestranked practice, would be economically unfeasible for them.As a result, researchers decided to drop this practice fromfurther consideration. The opportunity costs of the otherpractices were determined as follows:s The average land expectation value (LEV) under thetypically used management scenario of a 26-yearrotation is $729 per acre or $28 per acre per year.s The cost of adopting prescribed burning and invasivespecies control (second-ranked), along with the practiceof increased SMZ width (fourth-ranked), would be$25.32 per acre per year. The LEV under this managementscenario would drop to $6 per acre per year.s The practice of delaying harvesting, taken alone,decreases LEV by $11 per acre per year. The cost ofadopting the two practices described above, plusdelaying timber harvest up to 50 years (third ranked),would be $33.00 per acre per year. The LEV under thismanagement scenario would be minus $5 per acre peryear, resulting in a negative financial return forthe landowner.From this analysis it’s clear that biodiversity conservationcan involve significant costs to landowners. If the publicwants private forestland to provide this larger suite of socialvalues, public support will be needed to retain these landsas forest. Without public support in the form of financialincentives, a majority of family forest owners are unlikely toadopt these practices at the necessary levels to produce thedesired wildlife habitat results.The question then is: since the costs of biodiversityconservation accrue to landowners and the benefits arespread to the entire society, who should pay? Are thereincentive programs for family forest owners that encouragethese practices? If not, what additional steps can be takento support the adoption of biodiversity-compatible forestpractices by family forest owners? Answers to thesequestions are discussed in Chapter 9, where policiesand incentives that encourage biodiversity are explained(pages 163-166).Southwest Colorado Plateau• Reduce the density of forestsand woodlands• Promote forest legacystructures• Restore grasslands fromencroaching trees and shrubs• Control non-native invasivesPacific Coastal Forests• Move toward variableretention harvesting inplace of clearcutting• Use young plantationtreatments that mimicsmall-scale disturbanceprocesses• Restore riparian forestsand stream systems• Control non-nativeinvasivesFigure 6.5 Biodiversity-compatible forest practices for eachof the major forest regions in the United States.126

BIODIVERSIT Y IN MANAGED FORESTSHow to enhance biodiversity on family forest ownershipsC H A P T E R6Lake States Forests• Restore white pine where appropriate• Move from a preponderance of early-successionaspen/birch forests• Move toward longer-rotation northernhardwood/conifer forests• Incorporate retention harvesting techniques• Control non-native invasivesNortheast Northern Hardwoods• Shift from even-agedto uneven-agedmanagement over time• Promote more legacystructures• Control non-nativeinvasivesVTMENHNYMARICTNortheast Transition Hardwoods• Reintroduce prescribed fire where it’scompatible with adjacent land uses• Promote structural legacy using retentionor irregular shelterwood techniques• Avoid unsustainable high-grading of oakand pine• Control non-native invasivesPAMDDENJNortheast Pine Barrens• Use prescribed firewhere it’s compatiblewith adjacentland uses.• Otherwise, usemechanicaldisturbance toperpetuate pinebarrens• Control non-nativeinvasivesSoutheast Coastal Plain Forests• Promote prescribed fire whereappropriate• Restore longleaf pine forests• Use longer rotations• Control non-native invasives127

C H A P T E R6BIODIVERSIT Y IN MANAGED FORESTSPre- and post-wildfire strategies for managed forestsPRE- AND POST-WILDFIRE STRATEGIESFOR MANAGED FORESTSWildfire is an important disturbance that influencesthe structure, function, and productivity of manymanaged forest ecosystems. Three NCSSF-sponsoredresearch projects, focused on separate major wildfires inColorado, Oregon, and California, shed new light on preandpost-wildfire management strategies in the westernstates. While the studies were done on public land, this doesnot imply that management practices on public lands shouldbe applied to private land. Rather, the intent here is touncover principles discovered on public land that are worthconsidering by both industrial and family forest owners.s The 2002 Biscuit Fire, the largest recorded fire inOregon, was started by lightning and resulted in375 fires that grew to approximately 494,000 acres(200,000 hectares) on the Siskiyou National Forestand the Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area, one of the mostecologically diverse landscapes in North America.s The 2002 Hayman Fire in central Colorado, the largestin the state’s recorded history, encompassed 138,000acres (55,850 hectares) of the Upper South PlatteWatershed, dominated by ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir,and understory grasses, forbs, and shrubs.s The 2002 Williams Fire swept through the San DimasExperimental Forest, northeast of Los Angeles, CA.in the San Gabriel Mountains, burning 38,000 acres(15,400 hectares) of chaparral forest terrain.The Biscuit Fire burned through several pre-firemanagement treatments including areas that had beensalvage-logged after the 1987 Silver Fire and through 450acres of long-term ecosystem productivity (LTEP) study plotsthat were established in 1992 and had not been burnedsince 1881. The LTEP plots included several different pre-firetreatments: thinning, thinning and underburning (controlledburning under mature forest canopies as shown in Figure6.7), and clear-cutting followed by reforestation withDouglas-fir or a mixture of Douglas-fir and knobcone pine,and high and low levels of retained large down logs.These pre-burn treatments gave NCSSF-sponsoredresearchers the opportunity to examine their effect onBiscuit fire severity and the recovery of the forest ecosystem.They learned that pre-fire management changed how theBiscuit fire burned. For example:s The highest tree mortality was found in thinned standsthat were not underburned (Figure 6.6A) and in young(6-year-old) Douglas-fir plantations.s Fine fuel (foliage litter and small dead twigs) was theonly type of fuel that correlated with crown scorch.s Stands with mid-story hardwoods appeared to have lessfire damage to overstory conifers.s Plant biodiversity did not dramatically increase after thefires; there was a slight increase in LTEP control plots,but biodiversity decreased in severely burned areas.Bernard Borman, USDA PNWFigure 6.6a Thinning without underburning.Bernard Borman, USDA PNWFigure 6.6b Thinning with underburning.128

BIODIVERSIT Y IN MANAGED FORESTSPre- and post-wildfire strategies for managed forestsC H A P T E R6Bernard Borman, USDA PNW FSFigure 6.7 Underburning after thinning was essential toreduce fuels.The findings imply the following tentative conclusionsabout pre-wildfire management strategies:s Thinning alone may not adequately reduce firedamage to mature trees. Underburning in thinnedstands is required to adequately reduce fuels in matureforests (Figure 6.6B and 6.7).s Unmanaged stands subjected to fire suppression willnot necessarily burn severely (Chapter 4, page 106,Figure 4.36, shows the patchy pattern of mortalityafter the Biscuit Fire)s The severe fires in the study area were fueled byfiner material, and large amounts of downed woodare not necessarily a predictor of fire severity. However,questions remain about future fire risk as thismaterial decays.s Hardwoods may actually help reduce fire damage toconifers (Figure 6.8).Bernard Borman, USDA PNWFigure 6.8 Tan oak (left) and madrone hardwoods (right),left during thinning, may reduce fire damage to conifers.Bernard Borman, USDA PNW129

C H A P T E R6BIODIVERSIT Y IN MANAGED FORESTSPre- and post-wildfire strategies for managed forestsThe Hayman Fire gave NCSSF-sponsored researchersa chance to evaluate the effect of one rehabilitationtreatment on the natural regeneration and growth of understoryplants. The rehabtreatment, called seedand-scarify,is designedto minimize immediatepost-fire erosion andsurface runoff. Thetreatment was appliedshortly after the fireto 13,200 of the31,600 acres (5,300 ofthe 13,200 hectares)rehabilitated by theUSDA Forest Service.Researchers wanted toanswer three questions.sssWhat effect didthe rehab treatmenthave onnative species,many of whichregenerate andre-establish afterfire?What effect didrehab have onnon-nativeinvasives, whichcan displace nativespecies, changefire regimesand alter theecosystem?What effect did rehabhave on otherspecies of concern,such as bluegrama (Figure 6.9)and dotted blazingstar (Figure 6.10),plants importantto the threatenedPawnee montaneskipper butterfly(Figure 6.11).High-severitywildfires can produce aFigure 6.9 Blue grama(Bouteloua gracilis)Figure 6.10 Dotted blazing star(Liatris punctata)Figure 6.11 Pawnee montaneskipper butterfly (Hesperialeonardus Montana)water-repellent layer just below the soil surface that reduceswater infiltration into the soil and can increase runoff anderosion in coniferous forests. To minimize flood and erosiondamage, managers often use emergency rehabilitationtreatments including seeding with native or non-nativeBeckie HemmerlingPaula Fornwalt, USDA FSPaul Oplerunderstory species, mulching with straw or other materials,breaking water-repellent soils by scarifying with rakesor machinery and trapping runoff and sediment that mightmove downhill by placing logs or straw wattles on hillsidecontours and in drainages (Fig 6.12 A, B, and C). After theHayman fire, managers used all of these techniques. NCSSFsponsoredresearchers focused on the effects of the seedand-scarifytreatment (Figure 6.13 A and B).Here’s what researchers found when they comparedthe response of understory plants in unburned, burned, andburned-and-rehabilitated sites.s Eighteen months after the fire there was no visible signof the soil scarification treatment, so the treatmenteffect on understory plants could not be determined.s Of the two annual grass species seeded (70 percentbarley and 30 percent triticale), only triticale germinated,providing less than 1 percent cover. While this minimalcoverage was likely due to unfavorable weatherconditions following the fire, it is consistent with otherstudies of seed-only treatments (without scarification)where coverage is often 10 percent or less.s The researchers saw little effect of the seed-and-scarifytreatment on native and non-native species richnessand cover, though there were some effects of the burnin general. Total understory cover was comparableamong the unburned, burned, and burned-and-rehabilitatedtreatments, averaging around 15 to 20 percent.s Most of the dominant understory species common tothe area (9 of 14 species) were tolerant of both thefire and the post-fire seed-and-scarify rehab treatment.Each of the species was able to survive and recolonizeafter the disturbance by sprouting or re-establishingfrom adjacent seed sources.s The fire had no long-term effect on the food source ofthe Pawnee montane skipper butterfly. Blue grama’ssprouting ability allowed it to reach pre-burn levelsquickly, and dotted blazing star was unaffected by theburn or rehab treatment.Two important implications of these findings forpost-wildfire management strategies are:s The Hayman Fire had some short-term effect on theunderstory plant community as a whole and onindividual species, but the seed-and-scarify treatmenthad little additional effect, probably because of thelow treatment intensity and also because many plantshave developed adaptations to survive or successfullyregenerate after wildfire disturbance.s It’s unlikely that the seed-and-scarify post-firerehabilitation treatment met the goals of reducingsoil erosion, but researchers were not willing torecommend whether or not land managers shouldcontinue to use the treatment in the future. Theythought that further study should be done beforeusing the treatment under similar conditions.130

BIODIVERSIT Y IN MANAGED FORESTSPre- and post-wildfire strategies for managed forestsC H A P T E R6Figure 6.12b Strawbale check damson a small channelwithin the Haymanfire.Joseph Wagenbrenner, USFSFigure 6.12a Contour-felled log erosionbarriers on the Hayman fire.Peter Robichaud, USFS Peter Robichaud, USFSFigure 6.12cStraw wattleerosion barriers(straw-filled meshtubes staked onhillslopes wherethere are noburned treesavailable) onthe 2003 Pirafire in SouthernCalifornia.ABPeter Robichaud, USFSFigures 6.13a, 6.13b High severity-burn areas and slopes lessthan 20 percent were scarified using all-terrain vehicles(ATVs) pulling chain-link harrows with 4 inch teeth to breakup the water repellent soil layer and increase infiltrationrates. On steeper slopes hand rakes were used.Peter Robichaud, USFSScarification was followed by aerial or hand seeding. Theseed treatment was a certified weed-free mixture of 70percent barley and 30 percent triticale at a rate of 80 kg/ha(70 lb/ac) or 280 seeds/m 2 (26 seeds/ft 2 ).131

C H A P T E R6BIODIVERSIT Y IN MANAGED FORESTSPre- and post-wildfire strategies for managed forestsThe Williams Fire offered a unique opportunity forNCSSF-sponsored researchers to learn how the undergroundworld of California chaparral responds to fire. Whilethere is considerable knowledge about the above-groundchaparral plant response to fire, little was known about theunderground world before this research. Obviously, post-firemanagement decisions need to benefit both above- andbelow-ground biotic activity.The fire swept through the San Dimas ExperimentalForest, including a research study area where soil lysimetershave been used to examine forestsoils since the 1930s (Figures 6.14 Aand B). (Lysimeters are pits filledwith native soil that are used tomeasure the downward percolationof water and losses of solublematerials leached from the soil bythe percolating water.)After the burn, researchersre-established lysimeter soil-testingequipment and studied how varioussegments of the underground worldresponded to the fire. They used soilmicrobes and macrofauna (animalslarge enough to see with the nakedeye, such as earthworms) asindicators of biological diversityrecovery following the fire. The newinformation, together with existingknowledge about soil microorganisms,emphasizes the role they play Ain nutrient cycling, decomposition,and plant growth. The activity ofmicrobes and macrofauna, such asaltering soil aeration, moisturerelations, nutrient status, andpenetrability, all affect the growthof plants after wildfire.The findings have the followingimplications for post-wildfiremanagement strategies.s It’s important to retain downwood and stumps as part ofpost-fire restoration. This materialcontrols erosion and releasesorganic nutrients throughdecomposition by bacteria andfungi. Re-sprouting stumps arereservoirs of mycorrhizae,associations of fungi and rootsthat assist plants in the uptakeof water and nutrients (seeMycorrhizae Primer box).BFig 6.14a, 6.14b The soil lysimeter study area in the 1930s(A) and shortly after the Williams fire (B). After the fire,native vegetation was planted across the lysimeter areato study the effect of plants on soil water movement andnutrient use. The intense fire left vegetation, soil organicmatter, and soil organisms incinerated or carbonized.Since the fire all the pines in photo B have died and blownover. Regrowth has been good, including pine from seed,resulting in trees that are already eight feet tall. Oak andgreasewood (chamise) resprouted along with Californialilac (ceanothus), which was absent from the lysimeter areafor many years before the fire.Paul Sternberg, UC Riverside Paul Sternberg, UC Riverside132

BIODIVERSIT Y IN MANAGED FORESTSSummaryC H A P T E R6Mycorrhizae PrimerA mycorrhiza is an association of a fungus with the roots of a plant. The fungus enhances the uptake of plantwater and nutrients through its extensive system of mycelia (root-like filaments) and hyphae (threads that make upmycelia). There are two major types: Ectomycorrhizae and Endomycorrhizae.Ectomycorrhizae are referred to as “ecto-” (a prefixthat means “outside”) because they form an externalsheath of mycelium around the plant root tip. Their cellsdon’t penetrate the root cell walls, but may go betweencells in the cortex (the primary tissue of the root). Thereare a large number of these fungi, but only a few plantfamilies have ectomycorrhizae, and these plants arealways trees, such as birch, alder, beech, oak, eucalyptus,pine, and Douglas-fir. The fungus absorbs simple carbohydratesthat the tree produces. The tree appears to producethese carbohydrates specifically for the fungus, asthe tree doesn’t use them. Ectomycorrhizae usually formmushrooms, puffballs, truffles, etc. on the soil surface.Endomycorrhizae don’t have an external sheatharound the plant root tip plant (endo- means “inside”),but the fungus mycelia do penetrate the root cells ofthe host. One variety called vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae(VAM) is found throughout the world. The namecomes from the distinct structures – rounded vesiclesand branched tree-like arbuscules – inside the cells ofthe infected roots. The vesicles and arbuscules containstored minerals that the plant needs; they lie in the rootcells, making minerals available to the plant. VAM don’tproduce large fruiting bodies such as mushrooms.s Mycorrhizal inoculum survives in post-fire soils underre-sprouting shrubs (below the heat of the fire).s Instead of using mechanical techniques such as rippingthat have a negative effect on soil structure, post-firerestoration efforts for soil erosion that use contour logterraces, straw wattles, or silt fences (Figures 6.12 A, Band C) may be more effective.s Considerable research has shown that mechanical techniquesthat disrupt the soil surface can destabilize VAMnetworks (Mycorrhizae Primer box). Loss of VAM mayin turn reduce glomalin-associated soil aggregation (aglue-like compound exuded by mycorrhizal hyphae thatpromotes soil aggregation). It has only recently beendiscovered that VAM release a lot of glomalin. Ectosalso aggregate soils, but the high diversity of ectos andthe tendency for some species to occur in deeper soillayers provides a buffer that makes the ectos as a groupless sensitive to soil disturbance than VAM. Nonetheless,ecto formation on seedlings can be reduced inareas with heavy soil erosion or other forms of excessivesoil disturbance such as mine spoils.s Activities such as stump removal or excessive control ofearly succession shrubs should be carefully considered.They can impede the recovery of mycorrhizal fungi byremoving sources of inoculum.s Seed harvesting ants (Pogonomyrmex) also play a rolein determining the structure and composition of thevegetation after wildfire. Their excavation for nestcavities in the soil may help to redistribute organic andmineral particles in the soil profile.While in most cases, mycorrhizal inoculum is probablyadequate for post-fire plant regeneration, where excessivesoil disturbance (e.g. erosion) or elimination of plant reservoirshas reduced mycorrhizal inoculum, it may be useful toinoculate planted seedlings with mycorrhizal fungi.SUMMARYThese pre- and post-wildfire projects point to a growingbody of knowledge about biodiversity in the recovery offorests following wildfire disturbance. They provide insightinto wildfire strategies for managed forests. For example,thinning without underburning is unlikely to reduce wildfireseverity because fine fuels contribute more to severe firesthan large woody debris. There is evidence that:s leaving midstory hardwoods during thinning may actuallyhelp reduce wildfire damage to overstory coniferss using seed-and-scarify wildfire rehabilitationtreatments are questionable because of their lowrate of effectivenesss fire-adapted native plants are capable of reestablishingtheir role as ground cover following fire.Rehabilitation techniques that disturb the soil surfacecan interfere with what’s happening in the undergroundsoil world, where re-sprouting plants and down woodcontribute to the activity of mycorrhizal fungi. Post-firesoil mechanical disturbance may interrupt these fungalnetworks that are necessary for inoculating emerging plants,transferring soil energy, and stabilizing soil. After a fire it isimportant to look carefully at soil conditions, the potentialto introduce invasives, and the impact of salvage logging.Whether or not to salvage log is a decision dependent onownership management objectives and the personal timehorizon and values of the owner.To Learn More About This Topic, See Appendix, page 167.133

C H A P T E R7L andsc ape-sc ale pl anning and biodiversit yWhy is this subject important?WHY IS THIS SUBJECT IMPORTANT?Biodiversity includes all the living organisms in theforest and the processes that support them: water andnutrient cycling, food webs, energy flows, insect outbreaks,and disturbance regimes. Forestry practitioners,landowners, and managers make decisions every daythat affect biodiversity, while at the same time jugglingthe demands of regulations, forest policy, and changingpublic attitudes.FigureS 7.1 a & b Landscape planning has taken greatstrides in the past decade with the help of increasinglysophisticated computer models called Decision SupportSystems (DSSs), capable of forecasting change,including land use change like the 50-year projectionshown here. The ability to simulate, not just a singletown, but multiple communities across a regionallandscape, decades into the future, with industrial andretail expansion, roads and major highways, residentialgrowth and forest use change; based on realisticprojections and input from stakeholder groups, is apowerful tool. DSSs can help do that, while alsocalculating forest acreage loss and providing insightinto the potential impact on certain wildlife speciespopulations and overall biodiversity.Figure 7.1 aOne NCSSF-sponsored researcher put it this way:“From spotted owls to spotted frogs, from fishers tomushrooms and bats, we have national, state, and localcommitments to keep them thriving in our woods.” Thephrase “keep them thriving in our woods” poses a majorchallenge in terms of both space and time. It means thatmanagers are being asked to maintain biodiversity not onlyat the stand level (which itself is complicated), but also atthe landscape level, and do it over time (for decades in thefuture), and within the land’s historical context.The larger the scale and the longer the time, theeasier it becomes to sustain the native biodiversity of aforest. It is impossible to accomplish this at the standscale over short periods of time because parts of the totalbiodiversity of a forest occur only in early stages of standdevelopment and other parts occur only in old-growth.Obviously, one cannot have both at the same time at thestand scale. Thus the need for landscape-scale planningand management.Landscape is a term that involves scales from smallwatersheds to entire regions. Landscapes are a mix ofvarious types of land cover resulting from naturalconditions, disturbance regimes and human activities134

L andsc ape-sc ale pl anning and biodiversit yWhy is this subject important?C H A P T E R7(Chapters 1, 2, and 3). Managing forests at thelandscape scale often requires collaboration and coordinationof activities across jurisdictions, because speciesand ecosystems do not follow legal boundaries. Considerfor example birds that migrate each year, breeding inNorth America and wintering in South America, or fishthat spawn in forested watersheds, migrate to oceans forpart of their life, and return to the original watershed tocontinue their life cycle. While each forest standdetermines what species can live there, some speciesoccur only because of interactions between stand andlandscape habitat patterns (more about this below).Biodiversity conservation requires both stand andlandscape considerations when managing forest speciesand the processes that support them. All of this demandsplanning at the landscape level and has fostereda relatively new area of forest science that uses computermodels called decision support systems (DSSs) to assessthe impacts of management policies on biodiversity.This chapter begins with a description of DSSs. Itmakes the important point that these analytic tools canhelp managers make decisions but can’t make decisionsfor them. Instead, DDSs help us think about the consequencesof alternative actions. Scattered throughout thechapter are highlight boxes describing case studies whereDSSs have been applied. They demonstrate the varietyof situations where landscape planning is essential. Inaddition, two NCSSF-sponsored projects, one from theOregon Coast Range and the other from the SoutheastCoastal Plain, are offered as examples of what decisionsupport tools can tell us about the effects of forest policyand management strategies on biodiversity. Be advisedthat the results of these examples do not apply directlyto other regions. You are encouraged to find regionallyrelevant models for your area. Some are identified inthe chapter and others can be found in the appendixreferences for this chapter.Landscape-scale planning is important now, and itwill become even more important in the future because,although species and ecosystems are not confinedby ownership boundaries, the management policiesof various owners across a region set the pattern forbiodiversity. If full biodiversity conservation is the goal,stakeholders must be able to examine landscapes acrossownerships and assess the effects of forest managementpolicy over both space and time (Figure 7.1 A and B).Figure 7.1 B135

C H A P T E R7L andsc ape-sc ale pl anning and biodiversit yLandscape-scale planning and decision support systemsLANDSCAPE-SCALE PLANNING AND DECISIONSUPPORT SYSTEMSThe use of DSSs in landscape-scale planning allowsthe planners to examine policy effects on specific aspectsof biodiversity and provides greater understanding of theconsequences. It gives a context to forest policy – a wayto see how it fits across the landscape and over time. Wewill look at two landscape-planning efforts that evaluatepolicy effects in two major timber regions, a mixed-ownershiplandscape in the Oregon Coast Range and an industrialownership in the Southeast Coastal Plain. But first, here’ssome background information on DSSs.What are DSSs?The term DSS is often used to describe a type ofcomputer software, but in more general terms it could beany system for supporting decisions, whether or not it usescomputers. DSSs are tools that provide help with complexdecisions that involve multiple objectives and uncertainty.Notice the word “help” – a DSS is not a tool that makesdecisions, but it can provide valuable guidance for thepolicymaker. For example, a DSS could give you guidanceregarding the identification of an invasive species problemand the management options for dealing with its controland point to other sources of information that might help.But it would still be up to you to consider all the informationand make a final informed decision.DSS Example 1:Baltimore Reservoirs Forest Conservation PlanTimeframe: 2000 – 2003Spatial size: This landscape analysis covered 17,580acres (7,113 hectares) divided into 836 stands.Fourteen forest plant communities were identifiedalong with many forest habitat structure elements(vertical canopy structure,interior habitat, large downlogs). No individual speciesneeds were tracked andno temporal aspect wasanalyzed (current inventoryonly).DSS Used:NED-1 and ArcView GISDescription: Baltimore citygovernment wanted toanalyze the risks to the longtermsustainability of theirreservoir lands and developand evaluate alternativemanagement scenarios. Maintaining water qualitywas the primary goal but others included maintainingand enhancing the forest habitat to contribute toregional biodiversity.For more information:http://cityservices.baltimorecity.gov/dpw/waterwastewater03/watershed_fcp/cfcp2004.pdfFigure 7.9 The City of Baltimoreowns and manages threereservoirs that supply water toover 1.8 million people.Christine Duce136

L andsc ape-sc ale pl anning and biodiversit yLandscape-scale planning and decision support systemsC H A P T E R7DSSs can be sophisticated computer models, capable ofhandling millions of pieces of information. They have provenhelpful in many fields, including business planning, medicaldiagnosis, and air traffic control systems. In forestry, theywere first used to schedule timber harvests, select silviculturaltreatments, and evaluate insect and disease managementoptions. Over time, they also have been recognized for theirpotential to assist in sustainable management of naturalresources, because they can model complex processes andintegrate knowledge from diverse academic disciplines.Why are They Called DSSs?DSSs consist of three parts: data management,analytical computer models, and a user-friendly interface.They are called DSSs because they:s evaluate alternative options or scenarios (decision)s help to deal with complexity (support)s have a clear, reproducible protocol (system).How DSSs Can HelpManagers are asking questions about sustainingbiodiversity over thousands and even millions of acres. Manyof these questions reach decades into the future. It wouldbe impossible to analyze the information needed to answerthese questions without computers. They can keep track ofand process vast amounts of information, but they must becarefully programmed. An advantage of using DSSs is thatpatterns and processes not immediately apparent to usersbegin to emerge from the results. If what emerges makessense and is believable, then the user has learned somethingnew that may be useful in the final decision.DSSs can also help to organize and guide stakeholdergroup thinking. Let’s face it, group decision-making can bevery complicated, especially if deliberations extend over timeand are difficult. A DSS can help organize the suggestionsof technical experts.A Misunderstanding About DSSsIt’s a mistake to think of DSSs as computer models thattake in your data and crank out answers to your biodiversityproblems. Instead, they should be seen as one step in thedecision process, tools that can enhance the deliberationsabout biodiversity problems. They are also referred to asdeliberation support tools, because they can inform thedebate and deliberation about a problem. They alsoFocus Function acronym & Full Name/organizationBiodiversity Reserve selection CAPS (Conservation Assessmentand Prioritization System)Biodiversity Reserve selection SitesBiodiversity Reserve selection Vista (NatureServe)Biodiversity Population modeling RAMASForestry Activity scheduling HabplanForestry Activity scheduling Woodstock (Woodstock, SpatialWoodstock & Stanley)Forestry Forest growth NEDand managementForestry Forest growth LANDISand managementForestry Forest growth LMSand managementForestry Forest growth VDDT / TELSAand managementForestry Forest growth RMLANDSand managementGeneral Evaluation and EMDS (Ecosystem ManagementprioritizationDecision Support)Regional Forest growth CLAMS (Coastal LandscapeAssessment and management Analysis and Modeling System)Table 7.1 Focus and function of some DSSs examined byNCSSF researcherscan be used as exploratory aids to help people thinkthrough problems and as games to analyze both problemsand solutions. A variety of alternative outcomes may beexamined by repeatedly running a DSS model.Different Categories of DSSs and What They MeanWhile conducting a survey of DSSs, NCSSF-sponsoredresearchers found over 100 systems and screened themdown to 32 that fit one of the following categories:s systems that focus on wildlife and biodiversitys systems that focus on forestrys general-purpose DSSs with application to forestbiodiversity issuess regional assessments that include forest biodiversity asa component.137

C H A P T E R7L andsc ape-sc ale pl anning and biodiversit yLandscape-scale planning and decision support systemsHere’s what the categories mean:1. Biodiversity-focused systems are designed to addressthe problem of reserve selection (finding the most efficientland parcels for conserving specific aspects of biodiversity,based on a landscape in which each parcel is assigned oneor more biodiversity values). Often the analysis includes potentialcosts such as the cost of purchasing the land. Otherbiodiversity DSSs focus on population modeling, estimatingthe size of populations over time, given various assumptionsabout breeding and available habitat (you will see this typeof analysis in the Oregon and Coastal Plain DSS below).2. Forest-focused DSSs fall into two types. The firstinvolves models for scheduling activities. They are similar toreserve-selection models because they try to find efficientpatterns for harvesting timber over time. That efficiency canbe analyzed both in economic and ecological ways.The second type focuses on simulating tree growth andmanagement. These DSSs can simulate either individual treeor stand growth over time and apply silvicultural treatmentsor natural disturbances.3. General purpose DSSs are designed to help withevaluation and prioritization. They provide users with aframework to rate various aspects of a problem andcombine the ratings into an assessment, such as the relativecondition of a number of watersheds or priorities forrestoration (you will see this in the Oregon example).4. Regional assessments are customized applicationsdesigned for use in a specific region. They often involveseveral individual models linked together to provide anoverall conceptual framework (the Oregon model is anexample). While designed for a particular region, themethods and tools can potentially be transferred to anotherregion with proper alterations.Table 7.1 is a handy reference if the world of DSS isunfamiliar territory. It lists some of the DSS examined byNCSSF researchers, according to their focus and function.What DSSs Do and Don’t DoAs mentioned above, DSSs don’t give definitive“answers” that will resolve problems once and for all, butthey can provide insights that assist with negotiation.Many DSSs specialize in predicting the impacts ofsilviculture, fire, and biological threats, but they generallydo not include mechanisms to address the impacts of thesedisturbances on organisms other than trees. One exceptionis NED, which uses simple habitat-species matrices to givelandowners an idea of the types of species their forestmight support.Another significant gap is that they tend to focus ontypes and aspects of trees that are important for timberproduction. There are, of course, many other foreststructural components that could be included in assessingforest habitat, and some DSSs are now integrating downedwood and snags. LANDIS even has the capacity to modeleffects of climate change.Many DSSs can address components of forestbiodiversity, but no single DSS exists that is easily accessibleand can provide a manager with an assessment of theprobable impacts of alternative forest managementoptions on biodiversity. Few DSS options exist forassessing the effects on biodiversity of climate, biologicalagents (pests, pathogens, invasives), or fire.Regional assessment DSSs can model the effects ofsilviculture and land-use change, but none address theinfluence on biodiversity of wildfire, biological threats(pest, pathogens, invasive species), or climate change. It isexpected that future regional assessment DSSs will includeclimate change and wildfire influences. Incorporatinginvasive species is more challenging because of the difficultyof predicting what species might strike and what effectsthey might have.138

L andsc ape-sc ale pl anning and biodiversit yLandscape-scale planning and decision support systemsC H A P T E R7Typical Situations and Relevant DSSsResearchers briefly described the following situationsand suggested useful DSSs.I am a wildlife biologist with an organizationconcerned that current or proposed forestmanagement is not conducive to the long-termviability of a threatened or endangered species.I need to assess the population viability of thespecies. Is there a DSS available?RAMAS is a widely used wildlife-modeling programfor meta-populations (Chapter 3, page 72). It can be usedto predict extinction risks and explore management optionssuch as designing reserves, translocations, reintroductionsand assess human impact on fragmented populations.PATCH, an alternative, models wildlife at the level ofindividuals and is designed to project populations ofterritorial vertebrate species through time.As a consulting forester, I work with family forestowners. They are interested in harvesting timber butoften want to supply habitat for wildlife or protectspecial areas like wetlands. Is there a DSS available?NED is a public domain DSS developed by USDAForest Service. It helps resource managers develop goals,assess current and future conditions and producemanagement plans.LSM (Landscape Management System) uses standardinventory information to predict changes in stands andlandscapes over time.Both NED and LSM use FVS (Forest VegetationSimulator) to project stand growth and both systems arestand based. FVS simulates growth and yield for most majorforest tree species, forests types, and stand conditions in theUnited States.I am part of a conservation organization that isconcerned about the loss of wildlife habitat in ourregion and wants to find areas that are highestpriority for preservation. Is there a DSS?This is a “reserve selection” problem (described above).SITES has been widely used and has been adopted by TheNature Conservancy for ecoregional planning. It enablesusers to specify spatial criteria and display map results.Vista (from NatureServe, page 169) is a successor to SITESand operates as an extension to the newer ArcMap GISsoftware.I am part of a stakeholder group that wants towork on an ecosystem management approach to theforests in our region. We are concerned with fire andalternative mitigation strategies. Is there a DSS?Several forestry DSSs can model the effects of fire onforests. FVS can simulate effects of fire and the potentialfire risks for all trees in individual stands but it does notsimulate the spread of fire. VDDT simulates fire by havingthe user suggest the probability of fire for differentvegetation types. TELSA can locate the fires spatially on alandscape. Woodstock and RMLANDS can simulate fire,but are very complex computer programs.Whether or Not to Use a DSSNCSSF-sponsored researchers are quick to encouragepotential users to carefully consider whether DSSs should beused at all. DSSs tend to make information explicit, and thatcan sometimes lead to highly visible errors. For example, ifa stream segment that is known to be dry gets a high fishhabitat score, some stakeholders may get the impressionthe DSS is an untrustworthy black box. All models arelimited, and the limitations need to be explained to theusers. It is very important that stakeholder participantsare given a chance to learn about the inner workings ofthe DSS. Successful use of DSSs involves small groups ofparticipants who meet repeatedly over an extended periodof time.Are Off-the-shelf DSSs Available?Yes, many have been developed either at universities orfederal laboratories. Some, like RAMAS and Woodstock,can be purchased from commercial businesses that sell thesoftware and also offer consulting services. Someorganizations develop their own in-house DSS.139

C H A P T E R7L andsc ape-sc ale pl anning and biodiversit yLandscape planning and forest management decisions in the Oregon Coast RangeLANDSCAPE PLANNING AND FOREST MANAGEMENTDECISIONS IN THE OREGON COAST RANGELandscape-scale planning using DSSs is a way for policymakers,managers, scientists, and the public to explore newapproaches to forest policy that conserve desired aspectsof biodiversity while providing desired levels of commodityproduction. It enables us to look at forest sustainabilityacross multiple ownerships (public and private forestland,agricultural lands, and urban development). It allows us toanswer such questions as how existing policy strategies andnew approaches will affect forest biodiversity and timberyield in the coming decades.Until recently, such answers were limited to a singleownership (usually public forests) or a specific species(often threatened or endangered). Information was notavailable about policy interactions and their effects acrossdifferent forest ownerships and ecosystems. Instead, mostforest policy assessments focused primarily on economicimplications for timber supplies (how much timber will beavailable?). What was lacking was a broader landscape perspectivealong with a view of time and geographic space.Today, forest policy strategies that require a long and largeview can be matched with technology capable of handlingthe different perspectives. The CLAMS project (CoastalLandscape Analysis and Modeling System) allows us to seeboth the forest and the trees and answer questions such as:s How will reducing the harvest from public lands affectprivate forestlands over the next century?s How will today’s harvest practices affect biodiversity in40 or 100 years?s How will various forest management strategies affectcertain wildlife species?Today’s Oregon Coast Range is a mosaic of majorforest ownerships, both public and private, each havingdifferent management priorities (Figure 7.2). For example,USDA Forest Service (USFS) and U.S. Bureau of LandManagement (BLM) lands provide late-succession andold-growth forest. State of Oregon lands contain a rangeof forest ages and structures, including young forests withlarge legacies of down wood and higher-elevation true firforests. Family forest ownerships contain both young forestsand the greatest abundance of hardwoods. Private industriallands include much of the Coast Range early-successionforest, most of the mixed hardwood-conifer forest, andlarge amounts of legacy down wood.Forest Ownership in theOregon Coast RangeFederalIndustrialNon-industrialStateOREGONFigure 7.2 Forest ownerships in the Oregon Coast Range.NCSSF sponsored part of the CLAMS project. It’s aregional assessment DSS that focuses on forest growth andmanagement and simulates current and alternative forestpolicies and how they affect biodiversity and timber productionin the Oregon Coast Range. CLAMS provides a way forresearchers, practitioners, policymakers, and the public tounderstand the potential consequences of forest practices atbroad scales. One of its objectives is to determine the effectof current forest policy on biodiversity over the next 100years (see box on next page). The forest policies include:s the Northwest Forest Plan for USFS and BLM landss the State of Oregon Management Plans forstate-owned landss the Oregon Forest Practices Act for private lands.140

L andsc ape-sc ale pl anning and biodiversit yLandscape planning and forest management decisions in the Oregon Coast RangeC H A P T E R7Today’s Oregon Coast Range ForestManagement PoliciesIn the 1990s, the Northwest Forest Plan broughtsweeping changes to USFS and BLM management inthe Pacific Northwest, reducing timber sales by almost90%, the result of policies to protect threatened andendangered species, most notably the northern spottedowl. The Plan placed 67-90% of federal forestland inreserves of one kind or another, allowing harvests onlyto achieve ecological objectives such as late-successionforests. Along with the Plan, certain salmon specieswere also listed under the Endangered Species Act,resulting in even more management regulations on allforest ownerships.The State of Oregon Management Plancovers state-owned lands in the Coast Range andassures sustainable timber and revenue while providingfor sustainable forest ecosystems and healthy watersheds.It calls for achieving a variety of forest structuresincluding older conifer forests.Since 1971, the Oregon Forest Practices Act hasset increasingly stringent standards for any commercialactivity involving the establishment, management orharvesting of trees on Oregon’s forestlands. It controlsthose activities on all privately owned forestland.Given the current forest management policies (see boxabove), researchers set out to answer the following questions:1 Where will the timber harvest come from in the next100 years?2 What will happen to ecologically important habitats?3 How will biodiversity change under current policy?4 Will current policies create biodiversity shortages?5 What’s the potential effect of future population growth,housing density, development, and land-use change(Figures 7.1A and B)?6 What’s the role of different ownerships (federal vs.private) in providing habitat?7 How can landscape analysis be used to identify protectedareas as future sources of large down logs for streams?The CLAMS DSS provides answers, including social andecological information, that places people in the landscapeand encourages them to think about their role in creatingthe future. Here are those answers:1 With the current forest policies (see box), what rolewill forest ownerships play in supplying timber inthe next 100 years?Industrial lands managed on 35-to-45 year rotations willsupply most of the future timber, relying heavily on clearcutharvesting and active reforestation that can be sustained inthe future under existing policies. Since two-thirds of theprivate forests in the Coast Range are industrial, theirmanagement will dominate the private forest landscape.Family-forest management is more difficult to predict, buton those ownerships there will probably be few acres withforests over 100 years old.A small volume of timber will come from forest thinningon public lands (USFS or BLM). Timber harvest on federallands will decline in the second half of the century as standsbecome older and are no longer eligible for thinning.2 What will happen to ecologically important habitats?There will be a decline in open forests. Today, theseforests include hardwoods, remnant trees, and a dominantshrub cover, but hardwood acreage will decrease by 85% onall ownerships as conifers overtop hardwoods. Also contributingto this decline are the reforestation requirements of theOregon Forest Practices Act which call for conifer trees to be“free to grow” within six years after a harvest, and supportsthe suppression of hardwood and other vegetation thatcompetes with those conifers.Open forests with remnant trees will decrease by 20%.Most of the “planned” openings will be created on industriallands by clearcuts, and only a minimum number of remnanttrees will be left, the result of requirements by the OregonForest Practices Act. However, openings from wildfire orwindstorms, which are infrequent natural disturbances in theCoast Range, could influence this trend.The most ecologically diverse forests will be on stateownedlands, where the highest management flexibilitycurrently exits.3 How will forest biodiversity changeunder current policy?The CLAMS DSS results indicate that:s Forest acreage dominated by mature and old-growthconifers and associated species will increase by nearly300%. However, that amount is still at the lower limit ofhistorical levels (Chapter 4, page 102).s Habitat acreage for red-backed voles, a focal species(Chapter 3, page 75), will increase by 25%, mostly onpublic lands.141

C H A P T E R7L andsc ape-sc ale pl anning and biodiversit yLandscape planning and forest management decisions in the Oregon Coast Ranges Habitat acreage for low-dispersal canopy lichens (Figure7.3) will double and be concentrated on public lands.s Habitat for spotted owls and marbled murrelets (bothfederally listed as threatened species in Oregon, Figures4.28 and 4.29) will increase dramatically over the next100 years, but whether their populations also willincrease is highly uncertain, as non-habitat factorsappear to be driving population dynamics.s Habitat for western bluebirds, a focal species, willdecline slightly; they need open meadows and earlysuccession habitats.s Habitat for moderate-dispersal lichens, a focal species,will decline and then stabilize.s Habitat for olive-sided flycatchers, a focal species, willdecrease at first then increase later in the century.4 Will current policies create biodiversity shortages?The CLAMS DSS results indicate that:s The increase in older conifer forests will be matchedby a decline in area of other forest types that providebiologically diverse and unique habitat on federal lands,Figure 7.3 The lettuceshaped,nitrogenfixinglichen (Lobariaoregana) convertsatmospheric nitrogen toa form useable by bothterrestrial and aquaticplants. It’s more commonin conifer standsthat are at least 200years old and is limitedto the Pacific Northwestcoastal region.Robert Logannamely early-succession and mixed-species stands. Thiscould be an undesirable change.s The increasing contrast in habitats and reduced habitatdiversity across and within ownerships could restrict themovement of some species.s The decline in hardwoods will affect the speciesdiversity associated with those forests.s The decline in early-succession forests with openings,remnant trees, snags, and dominant shrubs will affectspecies associated with them.s Middle-age forests (50-150 years) will declineand not be replaced through any planned action onfederal lands.5 What are the potential effects of future humanpopulation growth, housing density, developmentand land-use change?The CLAMS DSS results indicate that:s The majority of Coast Range forest will remain intact aslong as markets exist for wood from private forests.s An expected 60% increase in Oregon’s population willmostly be felt at forest edges, particularly in theWillamette Valley and around the cities of Portlandand Salem.s There will be a projected 10% reduction in industrialforests available for timber harvesting and a 33%reduction in family forest ownerships over the next100 years, with the most vulnerable forests nearurban-growth boundaries.These answers indicate that the CLAMS DSS goes wellbeyond the level of analysis previously available to landmanagers. It can also help to develop and evaluate alternativepolicies that could lead to more effective forest managementDSS Example 2:Chesapeake Forest PlanTimeframe: 1999 - presentSpatial size: The Chesapeake Forest is 58,000 acres(23,466 hectares) on the eastern shore of Maryland.In 1999 the state of Maryland acquired the landsalong with a sustainable forestry management planand an ongoing contract with consultants formanagement.DSS Used: Tree growth simulator plus HABPLANDescription: A DSS was used to analyze trade-offsbetween timber production and endangered Delmarvafox squirrel habitat, over a 50-year period.But when the process was opened to the public,access to hunting for other species became thedominant issue. The result was a process that focusedon the values involved in the hunting debate.For more information: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/chesapeakeforestlands.aspConservation Fund/Chesapeake Forest LandsFigure 7.10 Marshyhope Creek, the Rosedale Powerlineand other land uses (pictured) contributed to thecomplications in developing the Chesapeake Forest Plan.142

L andsc ape-sc ale pl anning and biodiversit yLandscape planning and forest management decisions in the Oregon Coast RangeC H A P T E R7in the Coast Range. For example, what if the Oregon ForestPractices Act required private landowners to retain five largelive trees per acre? Realizing that this was a way to retainwildlife habitat after a harvest, researchers wanted toknow what effect it would have on certain species if it wereused across the entire Coast Range landscape. Here’s whatthey found:s The policy would result in increased habitat forred-backed voles, western bluebirds, and moderatemobility lichens.s It would require landowners to leave valuable treesin the forest.s If the practice were to become policy, privatelandowners could experience a 5-7% reduction inharvest that would cost millions of dollars each year inreduced wood available.Forest management restrictions to protect threatenedand endangered salmon encouraged researchers to lookat fish-habitat quality in the Coast Range. They found thatit correlated with forest ownership. For example, streamreaches best suited for steelhead trout occur primarily onpublicly owned forestlands. That’s where smaller, highergradient streams most suitable for steelhead reproductionare found. In contrast, stream reaches best suited for cohosalmon occur on privately owned lands. Coho salmonoccupy low-gradient, valley-bottom streams flowing mainlythrough private agricultural lands that were forestland,wetlands, or meadows at one time. CLAMS found that overthe next century, it’s likely that these lands will be subject tomore intensive land management than steelhead streams,with implications for coho populations.While CLAMS takes a broad look at the landscape,it can also be practical at very small scales. For example,land managers who are trying to determine where streamrestoration should occur often don’t have much informationabout where it might be most effective. CLAMS cantell them how well a landscape can support a threatenedspecies such as salmon. In the case of coho, CLAMS candescribe the potential for valley-bottom streams toproduce coho habitats. CLAMS researchers also developednew riparian-protection strategies base on the potential forhillslopes and headwater streams to deliver sediment andwood to fish-bearing streams. They learned that it might bepossible to develop more effective riparian policies based onproviding disturbance processes that maintain fish habitatcomplexity. And they identified key headwater areas wherethe most wood could be provided to streams for the leasttotal area in protected status.In summary, landscape-scale planning, like that inthe Coast Range using the CLAMS DSS, demonstrates thatforest management policies can have a strong affect onbiodiversity. It shows how policies might effect biodiversityacross all ownerships and allows for evaluation ofalternative policies that can lead to more effective forestmanagement in the region.Stickeen PhotographyDSS Example 3:Sandy River Basin Anchor Habitats ProjectTimeframe: 2004-2005Spatial size: The Sandy River is a tributary of theColumbia River, draining 508 square miles.The river’s mouth is within 20 miles of Portland,Oregon. Approximately 75 percent of thewatershed is in public ownership and 25 percentprivate. The river supports several species ofanadromous salmon, including spring and fallChinook, coho and winter steelhead, all of whichhave experienced declines during the last centuryand have been listed as endangered under eitherstate or federal Endangered Species Act.Figure 7.11 Gordon Creek, Sandy River BasinDSS Used: EMDSDescription: The goal was to develop a basin-widewatershed restoration strategy for the Sandy RiverBasin by identifying anchor habitats – streamreaches that are critical for the maintenance ofhigh quality habitat for four species of salmon andsteelhead – than the greater river system. Anchorhabitat stream segments were identified and cannow be used to guide habitat restoration planningactivities.For more information:http://www.oregontrout.org/images/8success/Sandy%20Habitat%20Report.pdf143

C H A P T E R7L andsc ape-sc ale pl anning and biodiversit yLandscape planning and forest management decisions in the Southeast Coastal PlainsLANDSCAPE PLANNING AND FOREST MANAGEMENTDECISIONS IN THE SOUTHEAST COASTAL PLAINSLike forest practices in the Oregon Coast Range, thosein the Coastal Southeast are directed by regulations andguidelines designed to protect habitat values such as:s riparian-zone widths regeneration and harvest methodss retention areass set-asidess harvest area size.NCSSF-sponsored researchers in the Southeast developedDSS tools that can evaluate the tradeoffs associatedwith some of these forest regulations and guidelines.These tools (see Quantitative Habitat Models box) allowlandowners to simulate various landscape strategies andcompare tradeoffs between biodiversity protection andwood production.This landscape-scale project consisted of two parts.In the first part, the researchers developed models thatdescribed the relationship between elements of biodiversityin the southeast, (communities of birds and herpetofaunasuch as salamanders, frogs, toads, turtles, lizards, andOuachitaMountainsMeadWestvaco Wildlife andEcosystem Research ForestWoodbury-Giles BayAshley-EdistoDistrictQuantitative Habitat Models andWhat They Can DoAny successful landscape-scale approach to sustainingbiodiversity will depend on our understanding of therelationship between landscape patterns such as standages and forest types and the abundance (richness) ofvarious species or species guilds (groups of organismsthat use the same forest resource in a similar way). It’sessential to quantify these relationships. For example,while it’s obvious that the cavity-nesting bird guilds needtrees that provide cavities, this doesn’t tell us how muchof this habitat is required to sustain viable populations, orhow to balance the needs of this group with the needsof other bird guilds that may require different habitats.Today, researchers have quantitative habitat models thatallow exploration of landscape strategies and their ecologicaland economic tradeoffs (see A Misunderstandingabout DSSs, page 137).Here’s an important point: most studies of birdcommunities and their dependence on forest structurehave been done at the forest plot or stand level. Unfortunately,stand-level relationships rarely extrapolate wellto broader landscape scales. That’s because the actualdistribution of individual bird species (how they selecthabitats, their foraging and mating behavior, and theirpopulation dynamics) may be taking place on a muchbroader scale than the plots or forest stands where theywere measured. For this reason, habitat models must beresponsive to space if they are going to be used tosimulate effects of various landscape managementstrategies or to test the effects of spatial regulations suchas harvest area size restrictions or requirements forretention areas or set-asides. Before 1995 there wereno quantitative models capable of relating speciesabundance to landscape patterns at various scales.Since then such models have been developed, and thisNCSSF-sponsored project produced one of them.144Figure 7.4 Landscape planning databases came from a broadarea in the Southeast, giving researchers confidence inmaking region-wide application of the results.snakes) and major factors that potentially affect them, suchas landscape patterns at various scales, forest structure, andbiomass. The researchers wanted to evaluate these relationshipsin forested landscapes managed for commercial forestproducts. They gathered data on bird communities andlandscape and forest structure from managed forestlandscapes in Arkansas, South Carolina, and West Virginia,and collected data on herpetofaunal communities from onesite in Arkansas (Figure 7.4).

L andsc ape-sc ale pl anning and biodiversit yLandscape planning and forest management decisions in the Southeast Coastal PlainsC H A P T E R7Figure 7.5Acadian flycatcher(Empidonax virescens) isa neotropical migrant.Figure 7.6Blue-gray gnatcatcher(Polioptila caerulea) is aneotropical migrant.Figure 7.7Common yellowthroat(Geothlypis trichas) is aneotropical migrant.Figure 7.8Eastern wood-pewee(Contopus virens) is aneotropical migrant.Greg W. Lasley/CLOMichael J. Hopiak/CLO Isidor Jeklin/CLOJohn Dunning/CLOIn the second part of the project, the bird-habitatmodels were combined with a harvest schedule model(Habplan, Table 7.1) to develop management scenarios fora large industrial forest (Ashley-Edisto District, Figure 7.4) inSouth Carolina. It’s located in the Outer Coastal Plain MixedProvince, south of the town of Summerville.The vegetation of the Ashley-Edisto District includesloblolly pine on upland sites and interior swamps ofwater tupelo, swamp tupelo, and bald cypress. Many of theupland forests contain isolated wetlands with hardwoodand/or pine overstories. The bird-habitat models measuredhabitat suitability for overall bird richness and richness ofselected guilds, including:s canopy nesterss cavity nesterss shrub-associated birdss neotropical migrants.They also used models specific to vulnerable birds in theregion that need conservation actions to ensure sustainablepopulations such as the:s Acadian flycatcher (Figure 7.5)s blue-gray gnatcatcher (Figure 7.6)s common yellowthroat (Figure 7.7)s eastern wood-pewee (Figure 7.8).These guilds and species were selected to represent arange of habitat requirements.The researchers simulated five forest-managementscenarios that involved constraints on harvesting, including:s Unmanaged (no harvest, complete protection)All stands were allowed to age over the 40-yearplanning period.s Set-aside A do-nothing regime was assigned to allpine and hardwood stands older than 40 years at thestart of the simulation. This gave about 24% of theforest area to set-asides. Most were hardwood standsthat continued to age over the 40-year planning period.The intent of this scenario was to mimic guidelines thatcall for part of the landscape to be managed underextended rotations.s Harvest adjacency restrictions Three scenarioswere simulated: unrestricted, 180-acre, and 120-acremaximum harvest size.145

C H A P T E R7L andsc ape-sc ale pl anning and biodiversit yLandscape planning and forest management decisions in the Southeast Coastal Plainss Road closure All roads were planted with pine at thestart of the simulation allowing them to age over the40-year period. This scenario removed the effect ofroads from the analysis.s Riparian guidelines These guidelines were testedusing a 50-meter management zone on each side ofthe major streams. The riparian zones were unmanagedhardwoods that were allowed to age over the 40-yearsimulation.Throughout the simulations, there was an even flow ofharvested acres and wood volume, preventing a largeharvest at the end of the 40-year period. All harvestedwood was considered to be pulpwood. The total harvestedwood volume was calculated for each scenario.What was the Response of Birds to the Five ForestManagement Scenarios?The unmanaged scenario yielded the greatestimprovement in overall species richness. It resulted in anincrease in canopy nesters, cavity nesters, neotropicalmigrants, and the eastern wood-pewee. In contrast, shrubassociatedbirds decreased over time along with the Acadianflycatcher, common yellowthroat and blue-gray gnatcatcher.Of course, all of the increases also came at the expense ofany harvested wood volume over the 40 year modelingsimulation. Obviously, this is not an economically viablescenario for commercial forests.The set-aside scenario was most striking because itbenefited bird richness as a whole and many of the guilds,probably through increased landscape heterogeneity and amodest increase in the availability of older forest. In all casesit produced bird habitat benefits that were greater thanthe other managed scenarios (described next) and reducedharvested wood volume by 14%. Researchers speculatedthat smaller set-asides would likely produce a lesser, but stillnoticeable wildlife benefit.The harvest adjacency restrictions scenario had asmall benefit for some groups, but at considerable cost,because these restrictions prevented some larger standsfrom being harvested. In contrast to expectations, thisscenario did not generate significant benefits. While harvestblock size restrictions may meet aesthetic objectives, theydon’t appear to meet some biological objectives.The road closure scenario did not have a largeimpact, indicating that edges caused by roads, at least inthis study, did not influence diversity, nor did roads causeeither a positive or negative effect overall.The riparian buffer scenario (50-meters) had aneutral effect. It did not benefit any of the individualspecies or guilds, except the Acadian flycatcher (a ripariandependentbird).Taken together, the harvest adjacency restrictions,road closure and riparian guidelines had a negative effecton total bird richness, canopy nesters, cavity nesters,neotropical migrants, and the eastern wood-pewee. Theyhad a neutral or positive effect on shrub-associated birds,Acadian flycatchers, common yellowthroats, and blue-graygnatcatchers.Research SurprisesResearchers were surprised at the high benefit/cost ratioof setting aside a small portion of the landscape or managinga small portion on an extended rotation. Even more surprisingwas the fact that all bird species and guilds benefitedat least to some degree compared to the other managementscenarios. These results support recommendations toset aside some portion of the landscape or manage it on anextended rotation and suggest that in at least some casesthe cost in wood production is relatively low. Set-asidesmight be done at no cost when sufficient noncommerciallands, such as parks, are combined with commercial forestlands,but each case must be evaluated on its own merit.Also, set-aside costs can be reduced when these areas aremanaged for long-rotations and high quality wood. Riparianzones could also function as set-asides.Another surprise was that the other managementscenarios provided little benefit to breeding birds. Theharvest-adjacency restrictions (requiring smaller harvestunits) provided no benefit. Riparian zones benefited onlythe Acadian flycatcher, a bird associated with riparian areas.However, only one riparian width (50 meters) was tested,and results may vary with different zone widths, agestructures, or vegetation composition. Researchers alsopointed out that the Outer Coastal Plain Mixed Provincelandscape includes many small water bodies (ponds,swamps, etc.), which may have caused simulation confusionin classifying riparian versus upland habitat.The researchers caution that the study looked only atbirds and acknowledge that results could be different forother animals such as amphibians. They also point out thatthe results are limited by the strength of the bird habitatDSS models (there’s always room for improvement) and theextent to which birds are representative of overall biodiversity,especially less mobile organisms. The results are specificto the area modeled. However, this kind of analysis showsthe value of landscape-scale planning and the insight thatDSSs provide for testing alternative management strategies.SUMMARYThis brief look at landscape-scale planning in theOregon Coast Range and the Coastal Southeast indicatesthat DSSs can help managers understand the effects offorest policy on biodiversity and sustainable forestry. Intoday’s Coast Range, the various forest ownerships eachplay a role. Federal forestlands are being managed asnatural forests, and over time they will provide predominantlylate-succession old-growth, with relatively littleearly-succession habitat. In contrast, private industrialforestlands will provide most of the timber supply and will146

L andsc ape-sc ale pl anning and biodiversit ySummaryC H A P T E R7DSS Example 4:Summit County(Colorado)Lower Blue SubbasinMaster PlanTimeframe: 1995-2000Spatial size: The analysislooked at 178,400 acres(72,178 hectares) andthe maximum “buildout” estimate under ninedifferent developmentscenarios. Biodiversityconsisted of fourmeasures: rarevegetation types, habitatfor species of specialconcern, neighborhoodspecies richness andeconomically importantspecies habitat.DSS Used: custom GIS application (System forConservation Planning – ScoP)Description: Summit County, CO is home to themountain resorts of Breckenridge, Vail and Keystoneand has been one of the fastest growing in thenation. 80 percent of the county land area is TheWhite River National Forest. Researchers at ColoradoState University helped county governmentFigure 7.12 Lower Blue Subbasin, Summit County, CO.and stakeholders integrate biodiversity informationinto county-level planning and understand the impactof development regulations on biodiversity byprojecting the landscape to maximum alloweddevelopment density.For more information:http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art5David Theobalddo it sustainably for at least the next 100 years if local woodmarkets hold.The Southeast Coastal Plains study describes anapproach to evaluating costs and benefits of forestmanagement guidelines in commercial forest enterprises,by measuring biodiversity (multiple bird species and guilds)with spatially explicit wildlife response models.Findings of these studies indicate that:s Landscape planning with DSSs is relevant to forestmanagement everywhere.s Forest-management policies create landscape patternsthat strongly influence biological diversity. It is importantto assess policy effects at the landscape scale when consideringbiodiversity and sustainable forestry practices.s Landscape-scale analyses are needed in other forestregions to assess the effects of forest managementpolicies on biodiversity. Cross-ownership simulations areimportant. The problem of forest sustainability is thatspecies and ecosystems do not follow legal boundaries,but policies of forest owners do set the direction forbiodiversity in a region. Unless it is very big andcontiguous, a single ownership doesn’t provide acomplete picture of the changes in a region, andpolicies developed ownership-by-ownership can resultin loss of diversity or declines in some habitat types.However, landscape analyses within single ownershipsalso provide information about biodiversity andguidance for sustaining it.s When estimating biodiversity effects of regional policies,it’s important to recognize stand-level characteristicssuch as tree growth after thinning and the number andsize of wildlife legacy trees. In some cases relativelyminor changes in stand practices can have landscapeand regional impacts on biodiversity.s Spatial analysis can identify parts of the landscape thatare crucial to biodiversity conservation and can reducethe cost of achieving that biodiversity (for example,salmon habitat protection and older forest set-asidesfor birds).To Learn More About This Topic, See Appendix, page 168.147

C H A P T E R8ADAP TIVE MANAGEMENT AND BIODIVERIST YWhy is this subject important?WHY IS THIS SUBJECT IMPORTANT?Today more than ever, forest managers and policymakersface uncertainty. There’s uncertainty about howto manage the complex and dynamic ecosystems forwhich they are responsible. There’s uncertainty aboutthe global markets in which they compete. There’suncertainty about the societal values they attempt tosatisfy. There’s uncertainty about future climate change.And there’s uncertainty about the regulatory environmentthat dictates their actions. But even with all thisuncertainty, forest managers must still make decisionsbased on forest capabilities, their goals, and the bestavailable science, accepting that there are limits to ourknowledge of ecosystem-based forest management.It’s in this kind of uncertain environment that adaptivemanagement (AM) is most valuable. Forest managersand policymakers are discovering that AM is a way tolearn how to deal with uncertainty by deliberately designingand practicing management actions as experimentsand learning from them. AM combines research andmanagement, making management more scientificallyrigorous and research more policy-relevant. The wordAM Example 1:Adaptive Management ofPine-Lichen WoodlandsWhere: British Columbia(Canfor Corporation)The Problem: Find silviculturalmethods that maintain andenhance terrestrial lichensfor woodland caribou aftertimber harvest.Timeframe: Ongoing for 5years. The slow growthrate of lichen requiresseveral years to followlichen response to standmanagementpractices.Caribou occupy forests withabundant lichens.Kevin LandKevin LandWhite reindeer lichen is caribou winter food. Lichens grow slowly andmature clumps are as much as 100 years old.Experimental design: Ninereplicated treatments, approximately100 hectares (247 acres)each, replicated 3 times. Treatmentsinclude a variety of timberharvesting systems evaluated bymonitoring pre- and post-harvestlichen abundance.Expected results: Best managementpractices that result in policyimprovements.More Information:www.wildlifeinfometrics.com148

ADAP TIVE MANAGEMENT AND BIODIVERIST YWhat do we know about adaptive management?C H A P T E R8adaptive implies a need to adjust or continuouslyimprove forest practices, based on better science, thelessons of experience, and changing public expectations.In fact, AM may be essential for achievingsustainable forestry, because it can help managersadapt to changes in environmental conditions,economic markets, scientific knowledge, experience,technology, and social values.Chapter 1 described how managers in variousregions of the United States are trying silviculturalapproaches modeled after natural disturbanceregimes. The purpose is not to precisely mimic naturaldisturbance and stand development, because that’salmost never possible, but rather to achieve ecologicalgoals. However, it’s a challenge to silviculturally mimicnatural disturbance in order to restore ecologicalcomplexity. Managers need tools that lead to bothrestoration and maintenance of ecological complexity,while at the same time meeting timber-managementobjectives. No one can say for certain that theseapproaches will result in biodiversity conservation andsustainable forestry, but AM can be used to test theseapproaches, monitor their effects, and adapt to whatwe learn.AM is valuable because it forces managers tokeep asking the correct questions and to look beyondtraditional science. AM encourages scientists andmanagers to engage with stakeholders or shareholders,those who have legitimate roles in policy-makingconcerning forest use and management. AM is aboutlearning while doing. It does not postpone actionuntil “enough” is known, but instead acknowledgesthat time and resources are too short to defer action,particularly action to address problems of decliningbiodiversity.Despite its problem-solving potential, examples ofsuccessful AM initiatives are not common. While it’s alogical and compelling approach – learn from whatyou do and change practices accordingly – experienceshows that AM has fallen short on delivery. For thatreason, NCSSF sponsored a project to explore AM anddescribe what it is, how it’s different from traditionalmanagement, and how to use it more effectively.NCSSF wanted to know what factors make AM worksuccessfully and what factors inhibit its success. Thischapter describes the findings of that project. It startswith background information, identifies AM enablingfactors, and provides insight from AM practitionersabout how to use it successfully in forest management.Scattered through the chapter are boxes thathighlight on-the-ground examples of AM.WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUTADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT?What is AM?Here are some important characteristics of AM:s It is a form of learning. It deliberately uses managementactions as a source of learning to inform subsequentmanagement policy or actions.s It is a systematic process for continually improvingmanagement policies and practices by learning fromthe outcomes of operational programs.s It is the careful combination of management, research,and monitoring to gain credible information and allowmanagement activities to be modified by experience. Itacknowledges institutional barriers that need to changeand designs ways to overcome them.s It is a rigorous approach for learning throughdeliberately designing and applying managementactions as experiments.AM was first formally developed in the 1970s (trialand error, its common-sense, less rigorous counterpart, hasbeen around for a very long time) and has been applied toresource and ecosystem management problems throughoutNorth America and elsewhere. It’s been applied to attemptsat salmon rehabilitation in the Columbia River Basin whileproducing hydroelectric power, management of acid rain inthe eastern United States, and management of water in theFlorida Everglades. It’s also been applied to forest managementissues. For example, it has been attempted mostlywithout success in Adaptive Management Areas in thePacific Northwest, with better outcome in the ClayoquotSound of British Columbia and in Alberta, where theAlberta-Pacific Forest Industries have adopted AM as theguiding principle for their operations.As mentioned above, AM seems so logical – learn bydoing. Yet, as our list of its characteristics pointed out,AM adds a deliberate and formal dimension to framingquestions and problems, undertaking experimentation andtesting, processing the results, and reassessing policies inlight of new knowledge. As shown in Figure 8.1, AM is anapproach to management that involves:s synthesizing existing knowledge about aproblem (Step 1)s exploring alternative actions and making predictionsabout their outcomes (Step 2)s selecting one or more actions to implement (Step 3)149

C H A P T E R8ADAP TIVE MANAGEMENT AND BIODIVERIST YWhat do we know about adaptive management?s monitoring to see if the outcomes matchthose predicted (Step 4)s comparing actual outcomes to forecasts(Step 5)s using the results to learn and adjust futuremanagement plans and policy (Step 6).The Six Steps in AMSome of the steps in AM overlap. Othersmust be revisited over time. Some may requiremore detail than others. All the steps needto be planned in advance, though it may benecessary to modify them later. All six steps areessential to AM. Omission of one or more willhamper the ability to learn from managementactions. In addition, documenting each stepand communicating the results are crucial tobuilding knowledge, especially for projects thatextend over a long time.Step 1, problem assessment, framesthe problem by forcing the right questions. Forexample, in the controversy over what managementstrategy was appropriate for salmonrecovery in the Pacific Northwest, it was crucial to identifythe underlying cause of salmon decline. Fisheries managerssaid it was habitat loss, fishermen pointed to predators,and others said it was water pollution, hydropowerdams, harvests or hatcheries. Most likely, all of these factorscontribute to population conditions. The challenge in AM isto test each possible factor in a complex, dynamic, interactingecosystem where all the other factors may be at work.Step 1 also emphasizes the social and political aspect ofAM. It’s a process of “working through” the problem, andis often done in a facilitated workshop. All stakeholders (orresponsible parties in a private sector setting) most likely tobe affected by the policies being implemented need to beinvolved in defining the scope of the management problem,synthesizing existing knowledge, and exploring the potentialoutcomes of alternative management actions. Forecastsneed to be made about the potential outcomes in order toassess which actions are most likely to meet managementobjectives. During this exploration and forecasting process,key gaps in understanding (those that limit the ability topredict outcomes) are identified.Step 2, design, involves designing a management planand monitoring program that will provide reliable feedbackFigure 8.1 Adaptive Management is a cycle and successfulAM requires completion of all six steps. One cycle oftenleads to new options and continual cycles of improvement.about the effectiveness of the chosen actions. Ideally, theplan should yield information to fill the key gaps in understandingidentified in Step 1. Proposed plans or designsshould be evaluated on the basis of costs, risks, informationgained, and their ability to meet management objectives.Step 3, implementation, puts the plan into practice.Step 4, monitoring, monitors indicators (Chapter 5) todetermine how effectively actions are meeting managementobjectives and to test the hypothesized relationships thatformed the basis for the forecasts.Step 5, evaluation, compares the actual outcomesto forecasts and interprets the reasons underlying anydifferences.Step 6, adjustment, adjusts practices, objectives, andthe models used to make forecasts to reflect new understanding.Understanding gained in each of these six stepsmay lead to reassessment of the problem, new questions,and new options to try in a continual cycle of improvement.150

ADAP TIVE MANAGEMENT AND BIODIVERIST YWhat do we know about adaptive management?C H A P T E R8How is AM Different?It’s true that natural resource management has alwaysdemonstrated an ability to build on previous actions andoutcomes and change its management policies in light ofpast performance. It’s also true that some learning takesplace regardless of the management approach; even trialand error has been one way to learn and adapt byexperience.But what distinguishes AM is its purposefulness, itsagreed-upon goals and objectives that are used as abaseline for measuring progress and lessons learned. AMmimics the scientific method by identifying uncertainties,specifying and evaluating hypotheses, and designing actionsthat test those hypotheses in field applications. It replacestrial-and-error learning with learning by careful tests. Itacknowledges uncertainty about what policy or practice is“best” for the particular management issue. It encouragesa thoughtful selection process of the policies or practicesthat should be applied. There is careful implementation of aplan of action designed to reveal knowledge that is currentlylacking. There is monitoring of key response indicators.The management outcomes are analyzed considering theoriginal objectives. And finally, the results are incorporatedinto future decisions.AM is a sociopolitical approach as well as atechnical-scientific undertaking. It’s about changingrelationships between scientists, resource managers andthe public, relationships that are basic to the idea of sociallearning. The adaptive approach encourages learning, alongwith open forums that identify problems and ongoinglearning and informed debate about alternatives, options,and consequences.Figure 8.2 shows a major distinction of AM. It isjuxtaposed between managers (conventional forestmanagement) and researchers (basic scientific research). Inthat position, it requires dialogue and collaboration betweenmanagers and researchers because it addresses the interestsand objectives of both groups. Typically these two groupshave operated independently. For example, conventionalforest management tends to focus on meeting objectives,with less interest in learning about cause/effect relationshipsbetween management actions and outcomes. There’s littleinterest in systematically learning whether these actions areactually effective in achieving the desired outcomes. Basicforest research, on the other hand, tends to focus onlearning objectives, but often for areas, scales, or topicsthat have little direct relevance to managers. AM bringsthe two together, focusing both on management andlearning objectives.HighconventionalmanagementFigure 8.2 Adaptivemanagement bringstogether the strengthsof conventionalmanagement andbasic research.Focus onManagementObjectivesadaptivemanagementLowLowbasicresearchFocus on LearningHigh151

C H A P T E R8ADAP TIVE MANAGEMENT AND BIODIVERIST YWhat do we know about adaptive management?Bill Besse, Western Forest Products, Inc.AM Example 2: Coast Forest Strategy(originally the Forest Project)Where: British Columbia (Western Forest ProductsInc.) on 2.7 million acres (1.1 million hectares).The Problem: Conflict over clear-cutting and thedesire to conserve old-growth forests in coastalBC, led to a corporate decision by MacMillanBloedel to adopt an adaptive management strategyto balance ecological, social, and economicgoals in their forestland management. They setout to answer the question: How can we sustainbiological diversity in managed forests?Timeframe: From November 1997 to the present.Group retention harvesting (Franklin River, VancouverIsland, BC) is one strategy that was adopted in thisAM project while phasing-out clearcut harvesting over5 years (see Chapter 1, page 45, Variable Retention).Goal of the project: Sustain biodiversity or nativespecies richness and its associated values.Results: Among many, one came from monitoringground beetles, amphibians, and birds, andresulted in a decision to increase retention patchsize from 0.6 to 1.2 acres (0.25 hectares to 0.5hectares), along with more flexible spatialdistribution of patches.More information: http://www.forestbiodiversityinbc.ca/forest_strategy/default.htm152

ADAP TIVE MANAGEMENT AND BIODIVERIST YEnabling successful AM in forest managementC H A P T E R8What Factors Enable or Inhibit AM?NCSSF-sponsored researchers used three separateapproaches to identify the factors that enable the successof AM. First they reviewed earlier studies of AM. Next, theyconducted a written/telephone survey with AM practitionerswho had recently carried out AM projects. And finally, theybrought together some of the interviewees in a workshopdesigned to gather practical ideas about the relativeimportance of the enabling factors. Twenty AM projectpractitioners participated in the survey. Thirteen projectswere led by public agencies, six by private forest managementorganizations, and one by a non-governmentalorganization. The projects (four are highlighted in the boxes)were distributed across nine states and two Canadian provinces.They ranged from plot to watershed scales and froma few hundred to seven million dollars in project costs. Mostof the AM projects had positive outcomes. Fourteen of thetwenty projects led to changes in policies or future managementactions.The ten factors identified as potentially enabling AMare listed in Figure 8.3. Of course, these same factors caninhibit AM success if they are not handled properly. AMpractitioners attending the workshop suggested organizingthe ten factors into a hierarchy, indicating that some maybe more important than others, or at least need to beaddressed very early on. That doesn’t mean, however, thatthe other factors are less important, because each AMsituation is unique. An AM initiative, led by either the publicor private sector, will be unique in terms of agency or corporateculture or structure, relationships with other stakeholders,and the scale and focus of the initiative. The importanceof each enabling factor needs to be assessed in the contextof an emerging AM initiative.The enabling factors were organized into three tiers:s The top enabling factor is the historical and currentcontext of the problem that is driving the need forexperimental management. This factor motivates theneed for AM.s The second tier includes four factors: leadership,executive direction, problem definition, andcommunications/organization structure. Each isessential for enabling AM to get started, but none issufficient alone. They represent different elementsnecessary to gain and maintain a broad level of supportfor the AM initiative and achieve clarity for its focus.s The third tier includes community involvement,planning, funding, staff training, and the conductof science. All are important elements needed tosupport AM.HistoricalContext Drivingthe ProblemLeadershipExecutive DirectionProblem DefinitionCommunications/Organizational StructureCommunity InvolvementPlanningFundingStaff TrainingHow AM Science is ConductedFigure 8.3 The three tiers of AM enabling and/orinhibiting factors.ENABLING SUCCESSFUL AM INFOREST MANAGEMENTIf you or your organization is considering usingAM in your forest management operations, this sectionshould be useful. It discusses each enabling factor inmore detail, highlighting the practical suggestions andexperiences of successful AM practitioners, starting withthe top enabling factor.Historical and Current ContextBoth the historical and current contexts supply reasonsfor an AM initiative. A problem or driving force is neededto get an AM project started. For example, without thespotted owl there would not have been a Northwest ForestPlan (Chapter 7, page 141). It’s also important to pay specialattention to understanding the nature of relationships (researchvs. management vs. stakeholders) in the place wherethe initiative will occur. In other words, is there communityledsupport or is there an existing relationship between theresearch community and land managers that supports theAM initiative? In contrast, is there an adversarial relationshipthat should be explored rather than ignored with the hopethat the AM initiative will somehow overcome the situation?The important thing is to honestly appraise the social issuessurrounding the place where the AM initiative will occur.Once the need for an AM approach is recognized,leadership, executive direction, problem definition, andcommunications/organizational structure all play a part inthe decision to proceed, and they all will help sustain theproject throughout the AM cycle.153

C H A P T E R8ADAP TIVE MANAGEMENT AND BIODIVERIST YEnabling successful AM in forest management154LeadershipLeadership is needed to get support to begin an AMinitiative and sustain it over time. One person needs tobecome the project advocate, selling it throughout theorganization. In a government agency that person (theforest supervisor, for example) can make all the differencein the world. In the private sector, the landowner, chiefforester, or regional manager might be that person. To gainsupport, an AM initiative requires legitimacy in the organizationand an understanding among employees about whythe initiative is needed. The leadership role may changeas the initiative moves through the AM cycle. An initiativeproposed at an executive level (described below) may endup being led at a program or project level.When AM projects are initiated from the top down, itis important to enable success by providing the necessarystaffing and budgets to secure support at lower levels ofthe organization. It’s also important to tie the organization’sperformance measurements to the initiative so it is part ofeach individual’s performance at the field level.Leadership is essential but not sufficient for success. Akey part of leadership is effective communication that gainssupport throughout the organization (described below).Executive Direction (Corporate Culture)Current institutions are not designed to carry out AM asa formal endeavor. Therefore, a clear executive commitmentis necessary for success. For example, in the developmentof the British Columbia Coast Forest Strategy (box on page152), senior corporate management decided that a newapproach was needed to the way forests are managed. Thatapproach was defined as AM by managers at the projectmanagement level. Executive direction was then critical tomoving the company to action. It’s important to note that ina later change of ownership, new executives did not showthe same support for AM, and support from other levelsin the organization began to erode. As with leadership,executive direction/support can erode over time as personnelchange, so incorporating the goals of the AM initiativeinto the organization’s performance measures may be animportant means to help maintain support.Remember, it takes time to transform an establishedinstitutional culture to one that is willing to embrace the uncertaintyof AM, and it’s important to develop educationalprograms that train personnel to manage that uncertainty.Definition of the ProblemCorrectly defining the AM problem is critical becauseit establishes the focus of the work. Take time to get thisright at the start and revisit problem definition throughout,because it is likely to change as you learn more (checkexample problem statements). If you don’t do this you willbe in trouble all the way through the cycle. Failure to clearlydefine the problem leads to later trouble maintaining aneffective focus. It may be better not to set the focus as a“problem” at all, but to express it positively as a goal. Besure to ask the question, “is this really the problem, or is it amanifestation of a larger problem?” If the “problem” doesnot capture the larger context, but only reflects a piece ofit, there’s a danger it will not be “durable” and the focuswill be lost with a shift toward crisis management as otheraspects of the real problem emerge over time. Determiningthe “durable” questions should be the responsibility of theorganization and should not be left to scientists alone.Scientists will rarely see the whole picture that managersmust face because their strength is their expertise on theparts they know best. Expressing the problem as a goal isconsistent with AM because it is really a tool for helpingmanagers achieve management goals in the face ofuncertainty. Coming to grips with uncertainty is a keyfeature of AM and an important element in the process ofproblem definition. Keep in mind that recognition ofuncertainty can lead to resistance to taking an AM approachby the organization, but facing it head on is the onlyeffective way to deal with it.When dealing with uncertainty and establishing thefocus for AM, it’s important to make predictions about theexpected outcome. Making predictions forces you to thinkclearly about what is known and not known and identifyhypotheses that can be explored. Be willing to admit worryabout uncertainty. Recognize that we do not have all theanswers and that AM is a tool to help move into anuncertain world.Communications/Organizational StructureCommunication needs to be two-way. It’s not justcommunicating the need for the initiative. It’s also abouta mutual understanding of how AM may affect the needsand interests of others in the organization. Organizationalstructure can either help or inhibit communication. It’s importantto get to the right people, but some organizationalstructures can make that difficult. For example, if there’snot a venue to get executives, managers, and researcherstogether, create one by meeting in the forest. It’s a neutrallocation that encourages effective communication. Keep inmind that:s Academic disciplines have their own language.s Academic disciplines may see the world differently.s Biologists may want to work within a system.s Engineers may want to restructure the system.s Researchers tend to focus on what they don’t know.s Managers tend to focus on what they do know.While cross-discipline communication can be achallenge, so can the barriers between researchers andmanagers. Traditionally, managers have been told theyare not allowed to do research. However, AM promotescooperative management and research in the quest to learnand adapt to new knowledge. Develop a team atmosphereamong biologists, foresters, social scientists, and others bymaking it clear that each brings something valuable tothe table.

ADAP TIVE MANAGEMENT AND BIODIVERIST YEnabling successful AM in forest managementC H A P T E R8AM Example 3:Greater FlagstaffForests PartnershipWhere: Coconino NationalForest, ArizonaThe Problem: With the lossof traditional loggingactivity, and in an atmosphereof confrontationand public distrust, managersrecognized a needto develop harvestingstrategies that would puta 180,000 acre (72,800hectare) landscape on apath representative ofstand structures presentprior to European settlement.Managers wantedto find an ecosystemrestoration approach toforest management whileprotecting communities Complex forest structure is the goal of restoration treatments.from catastrophic wildfireand harvesting small diameter timber.Timeframe: From 1998 to presentGoal of the project: Restore the composition,structure and function of degradedponderosa pine forests, manage wildfirefuels, protect communities and developrestoration techniques. Re-establish andmaintain the historical range of stockingvariability during stand restorationtreatments. Emphasize ecosystemstability above fiber production and createstand structures resilient under naturalfire regimes.Preliminary Results: Treatments have beenrefined as lessons learned from earlierprojects are incorporated into new projects.More Information: www.gffp.orgExisting forest conditions contribute to catastrophic wildfire.Steve Gatewood, USFS Steve Gatewood, USFSEffective communication must continue throughout theAM cycle, in an effort to close the loop so that useful resultsget integrated into policy. Remember that AM is not simplyabout research at a management scale – the focus has to berelevant to management decisions. Be sure you understandat the beginning what key advice policymakers need, thentarget their needs specifically. Regularly report the findingsof AM within the organization. At the end of the AM cycle,the strategy is to get people to use the findings. Incorporatethose findings into guidelines. If you get buy-in from operationspeople, policy recognition often will follow. Finally,here are two keys to good communication:s Learn the concerns of the people you are trying tocommunicate with. Be curious about why they thinkthe way they do. Be a good listener.s Be aware of how people are responding to the AMprocess. Are they engaged? Are all sides contributing?Some people learn best in the field, others around atable, so communicate in both venues.155

C H A P T E R8ADAP TIVE MANAGEMENT AND BIODIVERIST YEnabling successful AM in forest managementNext comes community involvement, planning, funding,staff training and how AM science is conducted. Each has apart in AM success.Community InvolvementCommunity involvement depends on the AM initiative,and it mostly applies to AM cases on public lands.Community involvement is needed when there’s a clearpublic investment in the issue being addressed or when lawsor regulations mandate it. Local community knowledge canbe valuable for scoping and designing the AM initiative. Ifthere are interested parties who can either stop or assistan initiative, they should be involved. Interested privatelandowners may offer their property for participation or asa reference site. Involve the community early so they cancontribute to problem definition. If the people of thecommunity don’t want to be involved, try to find out why.It may be that they don’t understand the initiative or it couldindicate resistance to it. If it’s lack of understanding, keepthe door open for later involvement.When engaging the public, be clear about what you’reinviting them to do. Some community participants will makevaluable contributions about values and acceptable alternativesbut may not want to be involved in the technicaldetails. It may be useful to have two committees: a consultativecommittee and a technical committee. This does notmean keeping the public and technical people separated,because they need to exchange views, but it does meankeeping the focus of discussions clear – not confusing discussionsof values with those of technical issues.A small corporate AM initiative on a plot or stand scalemay not need community involvement. But keep in mindthat people who could be affected by the outcome, if it’sincorporated into future policy or management actions, maybe important to help close the loop of the AM cycle.PlanningA distinction needs to be made between planning theAM initiative and how that initiative is carried out in theorganizations existing system of forest managementplanning. Let’s look first at AM initiative planning. Oncethe problem/focus of the initiative is set, planning shouldcenter on designing and implementing the managementintervention and monitoring program. This also involveshow you want to use the findings and how you want toincorporate them into the policy-making process. There willprobably be some adjustments later, but plans for how all ofthis might occur will help with success.Next is how the AM initiative will be carried out in thecontext of existing forest management planning systems.Be aware that where the regulatory environment is highlyrisk-averse, existing planning systems can interfere withtaking an AM approach. This is because acting on the basisof existing knowledge is always less risky than conductinga management experiment to help resolve uncertainty.Many existing planning systems tend to be rule-based, theopposite of AM initiatives that are designed to explore theconsequences of different approaches, not just to followthe rules. So be prepared to focus effort on how to conductAM within the context of forest management planning.Note that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) canwork either for or against AM. Learning is part of the NEPAmodel, so there is no reason an AM approach cannot betaken. However, you may need to convince people who areused to working within a planning system that is counterto AM.FundingSome people think that AM can be done simply andcheaply, but the opposite is true. It’s also true that havingadequate funding to complete the AM cycle is importantto success, but it won’t guarantee success. It may be thathaving or not having the necessary funds is an indication ofexecutive support. Even with strong executive support it’simportant to recognize that there are other constraints onfunding cycles that may make funds available at a futuretime if they are not currently available. This is where supportfor the AM initiative from outside the organization may helpto provide access to grants or other funding sources. Sometimesa lack of funding can stimulate other creative ways toget things done, but it’s naive to think you can do the workwithout sufficient funding.Staff TrainingAM means doing things differently from the waysthey’ve been done before. Embracing AM can require a shiftin corporate culture, such as shifting from a risk averse/rulebasedculture to one that acknowledges uncertainty andseeks to reduce it. That’s why staff training is so relevant toAM initiatives. Initial training should be in the basic conceptsof AM and the broad goals and approaches of an initiative.This is related to the discussion above about organizationstructures/communication. And this training isn’t just forstaff at lower levels in an organization; it’s important for alllevels of management. Subsequent training has to do with156

ADAP TIVE MANAGEMENT AND BIODIVERIST YEnabling successful AM in forest managementC H A P T E R8Michael McClellan, USFSMichael McClellan, USFSOne technique being tested to develop understoryvegetation is thinning without slash treatment.AM Example 4:Tongas-Wide Young-GrowthStudies (TWYGS)Where: Tongas National Forest, AlaskaThe Problem: Following clearcutting,western hemlock and Sitka spruceregenerate naturally. As those standsmove into the stem exclusion stage(25-100 years old), they are nearlydevoid of understory vegetation, withnegative consequences for wildlifeand fish. Is it possible to minimize thelength and severity of stem exclusionby developing understory standstructure (herbs and shrubs) thatsupports wildlife while retaining woodproduction?Timeframe: From 2001 to present.Experimental design: Four silviculturaltreatments are being tested,including artificially regenerating alder in stands lessthan 5 years old, precommercial thinning (15-25year old stands), precommercial thinning andpruning (25-35 year old stands) and thinningwithout slash treatment (stands over 35 years old).Understory biomass, nutritional quality, a deerforage supply model, and a stand growth modelare all being used to assess the usefulness of thesetreatments for understory forage and timber quality.Results: Eventually the results will be used in the TongasNational Forest 10-year management plan.More Information: Forestry Sciences Laboratory,Juneau, AKStem exclusion stage of Western hemlock/Sitka sprucewith little or no understory vegetation.details of the initiative itself. If the initiative covers alarge area with many different people involved in themanagement prescription, training is essential to consistentimplementation. Final training has to do with theknowledge gained through the AM initiative that will beincorporated by staff into policy and future managementpractice. Depending on the scale of the AM initiative, someor all of this training may be done by hands-on engagementof the staff in the initiative.How AM Science is ConductedEarlier, the point was made that AM is a combination ofresearch and management in order to learn from managementexperience. To enable AM, both research and managementhave to be transformed so management becomesmore scientifically rigorous and research becomes morepolicy-relevant. How can this be done? First, recognize thatlarge-scale AM cannot be as scientifically rigorous as small,controlled research experiments. There is a tradeoff. Theremust be a reasonable balance between the rigor of the scientificmethod and the costs imposed by that rigor, becausethis issue can become an impediment to using the AMapproach. Don’t let science hang up the process by thinkingyou can only do AM when you have teams of researchers.157

C H A P T E R8ADAP TIVE MANAGEMENT AND BIODIVERIST YSummaryHere is where the distinction between passive andactive AM is important. With passive AM a single “bestbet”management alternative is used together with carefulmonitoring to evaluate its effectiveness. With active AMmore than one management alternative is used at differentplaces and/or times, together with monitoring in an effort tolearn from contrasting results. Active AM offers more rigorand more rapid learning. However, risk-averse regulatoryenvironments, concern from groups opposed to proposedactions, and concerns about costs can make active AMmore difficult than passive AM, because active AM makesall the uncertainty about management completely open.Deciding between active and passive AM requires beingclear about what is already known and what new knowledgeis needed. This must happen by engaging scientistswith management at the problem-definition stage. Theimportant thing is to bring together people with the necessaryexpertise who can provide correct answers. It’s possiblethat what is needed is the application of existing knowledgerather than an AM initiative. Or what might be needed isactive AM at a smaller scale combined with passive AM on alarger scale. The level of rigor needed is linked to the stakesof the outcome.An Inhibiting FactorWhile each of the enabling factors, if not handledproperly, could turn out to be inhibiting, AM practitionersat the NCSSF-sponsored workshop identified one additionalfactor that may be inhibiting – the lack of instruction in howto do AM. Because AM is not currently being taught eitherin academic institutions or in most public and private forestmanagement organizations, managers and researchers haveto gradually learn from experience. Given the fact that thereare no governmental organizations whose current culture,policy or budget is designed to support AM, managers andscientists find themselves trying to shift corporate culture.Education is important for dealing with this situation.SUMMARYDespite the challenges of AM, the findings of thisNCSSF project show that it can be and is successfully beingapplied to solve problems with various levels of complexityat different scales. There is no single formula for enablingAM, but the suggestions provide valuable insight for helpingfuture AM initiatives. The simple act of engaging in AM mayin itself be sufficient to create a shift in corporate culturethat is more accepting of the need to manage in the face ofuncertainty. Acceptance of AM requires acknowledginguncertainty and dealing with it. It requires people whoaccept the fact that forest ecosystems (including humansocioeconomic systems) are constantly changing, eventhough regulations are often fixed. Regulatory risk aversionmay make it infeasible in many forest regions to engage inactive AM on large landscape scales. In such cases, it maybe more feasible to use well-monitored passive AM at alandscape scale to assess effectiveness, combined with thelimited application of active AM to assess cause-effectrelationships at smaller, safer, and easier scales suchas stands.To Learn More About This Topic, See Appendix, page 168.158

POLIC Y THAT ENCOUR AGES BIODIVERSIT YWhy is this subject important?C H A P T E R9WHY IS THIS SUBJECT IMPORTANT?How forests are treated can impact their ability toprovide habitat for rare, local or sensitive animal andplant species. Poor forest management or the loss offorests to developed land uses can cause these species tobecome threatened, endangered or extinct. Well-informedforest management, on the other hand, can sustaincritical habitat and even contribute to the recovery ofthreatened species.Forest owners are often unaware of the presence ofsensitive species, and those who are aware often do notknow which forest management practices are or are notcompatible with continued habitat protection. Technicalassistance and financial incentive programs aimed atimproving forest management may or may not reflectthe best available science regarding biodiversity conservation.Existing policies aimed at promoting biodiversityconservation may or may not serve as an adequate basisfor supporting biodiversity-compatible forest practices,particularly on private lands.The Commission is committed to helping developpolicies that encourage biodiversity conservation and thischapter focuses on that need.The first section of this chapter offers ideas developedfrom Commission sponsored research over a periodof six years. Some of the ideas embrace guidebook topics.Others raise concerns that reach beyond the guidebook.All are meant to stir interest in future forest policy actionand establish a forum for discussion. They should beparticularly useful to policymakers involved in forestryincentive programs.The second section examines biodiversity incentiveprograms that are currently available for private forests.It answers the question: Do current incentive programsencourage biodiversity-compatible practices? Sinceprivate forests account for more than 70 percent of thenation’s forestland, they provide important public conservationbenefits that would be difficult or impossible toreplace if they were lost. The Commission believes thatpublic policy that encourages biodiversity, especially onprivate forests, is urgently needed.The final section offers policy ideas to help privateforest owners adopt biodiversity-compatible practices.In Chapter 6 (Biodiversity in Managed Forests), Floridaresearchers identified several high-priority biodiversitycompatibleforest practices for the 257,000 private forestowners in their state. They calculated the opportunitycosts for owners likely to adopt those practices and determinedthat biodiversity conservation costs can be significant(Chapter 6, page 126). Since the costs accrue tolandowners and the benefits are distributed throughoutsociety, researchers raised the question: Who should pay?The Commission believes that the answer lies in sociallyresponsible forest policies like those described in the newsocial contract with rural America (see Karl Stauberreference in the Appendix).POLICY IDEAS FROM THE COMMISSIONWhile identifying gaps in biodiversityscience and sponsoring research to bridgethose gaps, the Commission recognized anumber of issues and concerns. They arelisted in this first section, not in anypriority order, to promote discussion andfocus on needed action. As a backdrop tothese ideas, it’s important to review thethree broad principles that governed theCommission, described in the Introduction(page 6). Those principles include therecognition of a forest continuum, theimportance of public permission, and theneed to keep forests as forests.Changes in United States Forests and ForestryThe Commission policy ideas are prefaced by thefollowing major changes that are expected over the nextseveral decades:s The next 15-20 years will witness the largest intergenerationaltransfer of family forest ownership in thenation’s history. What the next generation of woodlandowners will do with these forests – and how much of itwill be given over to development and other nonforestland uses – is an immense source of uncertainty overthe future of more than half the nation’s forests.s The United States population is expected to increase by100 million in the next 35 years, mostly in the Southand West and mostly in urban and suburban areas.159

C H A P T E R9POLIC Y THAT ENCOUR AGES BIODIVERSIT YPolicy ideas from the Commissions Along with this will come increased demand for landdevelopment, water, recreation, and green space, withan urban influence extending far beyond areas actuallydeveloped.s Markets for traditional wood products are notprojected to grow significantly, but wood consumptionfor renewable energy production is expected to morethan double over the next two decades.s The shift of timberland ownership in the United States,from industry to financial investors is now nearlycomplete and is expected to level off. Returns fromtimberland investments are expected to decline duringthe next 10 to 15 years, however. Many of theseforestlands will be sold for development. Others will betransferred to new forest owners whose managementgoals and objectives have yet to be identified.Forest History is ImportantThe historical record - both ecological and social –provides a context for today’s forests. It tells us how andwhy our forest ecosystemscame to be whatthey are: the result ofnatural disturbances(fire, wind and flood)and human uses (thetreatment of forestecosystems and whathumans think aboutforests). Forest historyis a starting place, astep toward restorationof forest processesand the preparation offorests for the future (Chapter 1). The question is whetherforest history is useful in managing for biodiversityconservation in the future? Whileknowledge of forest history cannotbe understated, climate change,human population growth, nonnativeinvasives and fragmentationmay be moving today’s forestsin a direction quite different thananything in the past.Along with forest history, whatmay turn out to be just as importantis the social acceptability of landscape conditions andmanagement practices. For example, modern society, forobvious reasons, is notwilling to allow the fullreintroduction of naturaldisturbances (forestfires are not allowed toburn unchecked and rivers are regulated to prevent floods).However, society does accept “let burn” policy for lightninginducedforest fires in some forests and the reintroductionof disturbance through prescribed fires or prescribed flooding(via dam releases). Society also accepts fuel reductiontreatments, as demonstrated in the Southwest (Chapter 4,page 112), and historical fire regimes as guides in the timingof prescribed fire in the Southeast (Chapter 1, page 33).In the future, what will be most important are society’sobjectives for the conservation of forest biodiversity in lightof given land use and development changes, populationgrowth, invasives and climate change. Forest practitioners,landowners, managers and policymakers will all be calledupon to help society understand dynamic landscapes (howforests change over time), and develop management plansthat achieve society’s objectives.Non-native InvasivesIntroduced species of trees and other plants,insects, and diseases are a steadily increasing threat tonative biodiversity in forests, but effectively addressingthis issue is exceedingly difficult. Movement of non-nativespecies is facilitated by the global mobility of people andforest products around the world. New diseases and insectpests are appearing each year that attack or out competenative species in every region of the country. This calls forgreatly enhanced monitoring capabilities to prevent entryof invasive non-native species, the discovery of new invasivespecies promptly so that they can be contained, and combatthose that are already established. More cost-effectivemonitoring strategies are needed at the national, state andregional scales.160

POLIC Y THAT ENCOUR AGES BIODIVERSIT YPolicy ideas from the CommissionC H A P T E R9Old-growth DynamicsThe role of old forests in the preservationof biological diversity is wellrecognized, but the dynamic nature of oldforests and the role of younger forests ineventually producing biodiversity-friendlyolder forests are lesswell known. To adequatelypreserve andprotect the habitat andfunctions of old forests,the entire forest lifecycle must be consideredand managed.The extent and role ofold forests varies withland-use history andthe natural environment,and their managementguidelinesmust be region- and even locality-specific. Policymakers willremember from Chapter 4 that the proportion of remainingold-growth varies by region, and the cost of protectingmore old-growth will be significant.IndicatorsTools and processes have been developed to facilitateand enhance decisions about the objectives and appropriatesystems of managing forests for biodiversity and otherpurposes. No single set of biodiversity indicators serves allsituations and objectives, but there are processes for selectingindicators that are highly relevant and useful (Chapter5). However, none of these tools and processes are trulyfunctional unless they are employed in an intelligent “socialconversation”that brings mutualunderstandingand generalagreement onforest valuesand forestconditions thatare importantto maintain oravoid.Managed ForestsIntensively managed forests, including planted forests,generally are not as biologically diverse as forests that aremanaged under more “natural” systems with greater varietyof overstory and understory species. However, managedforests are much more diverse than typical agricultural andurban landscapes, and in the context of the total forestlandscape they can add elements of biodiversity that wouldnot otherwise be present (Chapter 6). Leaving legacy componentsduring harvests can significantly improve long-termbiodiversity in managed forests. The increased productivityof managed forests can relieve harvesting pressures on highconservation value forests, and create new opportunitiesfor protecting landscapes where biodiversity values are thegreatest. However, most private landowners depend on theeconomics of forest ownership to keep forestland as forestand provide biodiversity legacies. The reality is that there isa cost to providing biodiversity and currently those costs accrueto private landowners while the benefits are spread toall of society.The Role of FireMany forest ecosystemsare, to varyingdegrees, dependentupon natural disturbancefrom periodicfires. Understandingthe role of naturalfires in a given forestecosystem is key tomaintaining naturalspecies diversity. Inthe West, for example, it is vital to manage understory fuelloads to maintain natural fires regimes, and minimize largecatastrophic wildfires that have negative ecological effectsas well as unacceptable social and economic impacts. In theSouth, maintaining the traditional role of fire in pine forestsis increasingly challenging, with significant implications forfuture biodiversity. Air-quality regulations must be modified161

C H A P T E R9POLIC Y THAT ENCOUR AGES BIODIVERSIT YPolicy ideas from the Commissionto accommodate prescribed fire if we are to sustain biodiversityvalues and avoid future increases in catastrophic wildfires.In those landscapes where the barriers to prescribedfire are insurmountable, alternative approaches must befound to replicate the essential ecological functions of fire.Decision SupportSystems and theConcept of ScalePolicymakersfaced with choicesthat affect forests andbiodiversity need betterdecision supporttools. At the sametime, they must keepin mind that complexmodels are effectiveaids to policy-making,but they do not make decisions by themselves (Chapter 7).All decision support system models are abstractions thatcan, at best, only approximate the complex web of biologicalinterrelationships that exist in the forest as a communityof organisms. Decisions about the whole forest need to bemade through social processes aided by models and otherdata sources. Properly used, decision support systems caninform the social debate about desired future conditionsand help find a path to accomplish these objectives.The degree to which biodiversity is enhanced or diminishedby forest management decisions depends upon theresults at both the stand and landscape scales. In the past,silviculture has tended to focus on individual stands andecology has focused on the landscape, with the result thatan integrated view of the effects of management is rare. Inaddition, with forests being converted to non-forest usesat scales ranging from stands to landscapes, the effects ofland-use policies and patterns can often overwhelm theeffects of forestry treatments. Decision support systems canhelp the policy-making processwhen managers consider scale.Uncertainties and TradeoffsDecisions on sustainableforest management ofteninvolve tradeoffs. Theexact nature of thesetradeoffs is not alwayswell understood, dueto limitations inscientific understandingor thepolicymaker’s levelof knowledge.Forestry and biodiversity conservation require that landmanagers and policymakers make choices among objectivesand methods based on imperfect information. Therefore anadaptive (learning) approach to management for biologicaldiversity values is necessary and must go beyond “trial anderror” or “learning by doing.” Formal learning designs needto be understood and implemented by teams of scientistsand managers (Chapter 8). A critical role for science isproviding reliable information about the feasibility and consequencesof achieving objectives; and about the benefitsand costs of alternative methods of pursuing objectives.Experience shows that scientific information is often mostuseful to policymakers when it is structured as an analysisof tradeoffs among competing objectives with importantsources and consequences of uncertainty clearly identified.Changes inForest Ownershipand DemandForests are dynamicin terms of ownershipas well as biology andare subject to the goalsand values of differentowners. Changes in therelationship betweenforest management andbiodiversity conservationcan be expectedas ownership changes,and biodiversity conservation strategies must be tailored tochanging ownership patterns. Similarly, as markets forforest products change with the global economy, patternsof forest use can be expected to change markedly, andthese changes must be factored into plans for biodiversityconservation. Social costs imposed on landowners canadversely affect the retention of forestland as forest unlesspolicies are provided that offset the pressure of conversionto so-called “higher and better” use.Forests and Energy, Climate, and Water PoliciesForests traditionally have been viewed mostly as asource of wood, and forest policies are only now beingdeveloped to address the full range of ecological, economicand cultural values that forests represent. Forests are key tothe wellbeing of human populations, and should be consideredwhen developing policies in other areas such as energy,climate change mitigation and clean water. Forests affect,and are affected by major natural systems. They are, forexample, the major on-land carbon sink, sequestering, orstoring, large amounts of carbon, countering the effects ofcarbon dioxide emissions from other sources. They are alsomajor reservoirs of on-land biodiversity. As the world seeksto move away from its unsustainable reliance on fossil fuels,162

POLIC Y THAT ENCOUR AGES BIODIVERSIT YDo current incentive programs encourage biodiversity-compatible practices?C H A P T E R9forests can provide avariety of carbon-neutralsubstitutes. Traditionaltechnologies forusing wood for heator electrical powergeneration are evolving quickly to become far more efficientand produce far less air pollution. Emerging technologies forproducing wood-based liquid fuels such as cellulosic ethanolcould become an important replacement source for petroleum-basefuels for the transportation sector. Forests areimportant generators of oxygen, a byproduct of photosynthesis,and forests are the nation’s primary source of cleanwater, and water is already in short supply in many regions.Need for an Integrated National Forest PolicyForest laws, regulations, and incentives must be part ofan integrated national policy that reflects all forest uses andvalues. Many forest laws, enacted 30 or more years ago,are outdated and no longer fit current conditions. Americansociety and forests have changed immensely since a largenumber of our forest policies, laws, and regulations wereformulated and implemented. Some are contradictory,others address past needs but not current issues andconcerns (Chapter 4, pages 95 and 100). Many regulationsthat apply to private forests have nearly an opposite effectfrom what was intended, and many “incentives” no longermotivate contemporary forest owners. Unless forestpolicies are relevant, even the best forest science goesunused because the conditions are lacking to implementit. An integrated policy on forests is needed. At the core ofthat policy should be regulations and incentives aimed atminimizing the further net loss of forests throughconversion and development, and ensuring that the mostbiologically diverse forests are protected and sustainablymanaged.DO CURRENT INCENTIVE PROGRAMS ENCOURAGEBIODIVERSITY-COMPATIBLE PRACTICES?The Commission recognized the need for an in-depthevaluation of forest policies, laws, regulations, andprograms to assess whether they will be rational in theworld of forests and people that will exist in comingdecades, when conditions will be very different from thosethat prevailed even two decades ago. It sponsored anexamination of existing government incentive programsto evaluate awareness and knowledge of these programsamong private forest owners and to assess how manyactually participate in them.The federal government has provided financial incentivesto private forest owners since the 1940s. The initialobjective was to encourage owners to become active timbermanagers and contribute to the nation’s timber needs. Earlyincentives focused on tree planting and pre-commercialthinning practices. Thousands of forest owners wereFederal incentive programs that are available toprivate forest owners include:s Taxation of harvest income as capital gainss Forest Stewardship Program (FSP)s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)s Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)s Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP)s Conservation Security Program (CSP)s Forest Legacy Program (FLP)s Landowner Incentive Program (LIP)s Southern Pine Beetle Prevention and Restoration(SPBPR) available only in the South.s Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)s Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP).State incentive programs that are available to privateforest owners include:s various types of preferential property tax for privateforest owners in all statess forest cost-share programs in some states to helpfund timber management, wildlife enhancement,riparian area protection, and conservationeasements.Other incentives are offered by the forest industry,land trusts, and conservation organizations.163

C H A P T E R9POLIC Y THAT ENCOUR AGES BIODIVERSIT YDo current incentive programs encourage biodiversity-compatible practices?encouraged to follow intensive forest management models,with the help of financial assistance provided through incentiveprograms. During the 1990s, the sustainable forestryconcept emerged, emphasizing water quality protection,biological diversity, and the maintenance of other publicconservation values derived from public, industry, andfamily forests (see box). Today the question is: Haveincentive programs kept pace with that concept and arethey flexible enough to address these needs?The NCSSF-sponsored research revealed that mostfederal and state incentive programs play only a limitedrole in promoting sustainable forestry practices on privateforests. Although these incentives offer support forsustainable forestry, the researchers found that they are onlya minor part of the decision-making process that privateforest owners use in managing their land. The reasons mostfrequently offered are:s Funding is inadequate, particularly for federal financialincentive programs. For example, of the $17 billion inconservation funding authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill,99.4 percent was devoted primarily to farmers and0.6 percent primarily to private forest owners. Yetprivate forest owners control about the same amountof rural land as farmers – even more in the easternUnited States.s Eligibility requirements for federal incentive programsvary among the states. In contrast, both state-fundedand privately sponsored programs were rated morefavorable in terms of program stability and effectivenessin encouraging land conservation and qualityforest practices.s There aren’t enough available forestry professionalswith whom landowners can discuss the range ofmanagement options on site.s Inflexible federal assistance programs don’t addressregional differences in forest characteristics and ownerobjectives.When researchers interviewed private forest ownergroups in Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Oregon, and SouthCarolina about incentive programs, they learned that:s The most widely used incentive programs werepreferential property tax assessment at the state leveland capital gains treatment for income from timberharvesting at the federal level.s Private forest owners’ participation in other incentiveprograms was substantially lower.sssThe type of incentive forest owners wanted wastechnical assistance (one-on-one access to a forester orother natural resource professional) that can walk theland with them. This type of incentive was preferred overfinancial incentives.The majority of forest owners acknowledged not havinga written forest management plan for their forest.Owners expressed frustration with incentive programsthat had inconsistent administration and implementationand were slow and bureaucratic.To understand more about private forest owners, theresearchers asked them to describe sustainable forestry. Theylearned that many owners have a long-term managementperspective and see the concept of sustainable forestry asattractive. In spite of that, current practices on many privateforests do not reflect the broader principles of sustainability.While many owners see it as appealing, its meaning is oftenmisunderstood. Most owners described sustainable forestryas similar to sustained yield (the amount of wood a forest canproduce indefinitely on a regular basis). Sustained yieldmanagement implies continuous production, planned toachieve a balance between the growth of trees and their harvest.In contrast, sustainable forestry specifically includes theconcept of other forest values, goods, and services, includingbiodiversity conservation.Four things are clear from these findings:1 One-on-one access to a natural resource professionalis a high priority among private forest owners acrossall regions.2 Differences among forest regions must berecognized with respect to how incentive programsare administered and how closely they align withowner objectives because those interests stronglyinfluence forest owners’ participation in the programs,and thus their effectiveness.3 The benefits of incentive programs must be betterpromoted because existing federal and state programsplay only a limited role in promoting sustainableforestry on private forest ownerships. Many landownersare unaware of these programs, and among thosewho are aware few actually participate in them.4 Incentive programs should include a strongeducational component that emphasizes thescientific rationale for biodiversity conservation.164

POLIC Y THAT ENCOUR AGES BIODIVERSIT YWhat policies will encourage prIvate forest owners to adopt biodiversity-compatible practices?C H A P T E R9WHAT POLICIES WILL ENCOURAGEPRIVATE FOREST OWNERS TO ADOPTBIODIVERSITY-COMPATIBLE PRACTICES?Most national policy efforts aimed at private forestshave been directed at family forest owners, essentiallyignoring industrial forest owners. That should change. Whileeach group may need different tools to provide biodiversitycompatibleforest practices, policymakers need to listen towhat owners say and provide what they want.In the case of family forest owners, research indicatesthat the key is foresters and natural resource professionalswho can provide necessary information when they “walkthe land” with landowners and give one-on-one assistance.These professionals must be able to explain sustainableforestry and biodiversity conservation practices while stillconsidering the economic goals of landowners.This strongly suggests the need, particularly at thefederal level, to strengthen direct landowner assistanceprograms that provide on-site consultation, even if thisrequires reallocating budget resources from financialincentive programs. Financial incentive programs aregenerally regarded as unstable and unreliable, in terms ofboth eligibility requirements and appropriated funding.Issues of distribution equity among states further cloud thereliability of these federally funded programs. Forest ownersconsistently expressed a need for greater access to directconsultation with a natural resource professional (publicservice or extension foresters rather than private consultantswhose compensation typically is based on a portion ofreceipts from timber sales). This means that funding forpublic service forestry and forestry extension should be ahigher public policy priority along with new or expandedfinancial incentive programs.The evaluation and redesign of existing forestlandowner assistance programs should take into accountthe following recommendations that emerged fromthe research:s Programs should be designed to put forest ownersin direct contact with a natural resource professionalas early as possible, with the development of a forestmanagement plan as an explicit objective.s Participation in landowner assistance programs shouldbe linked to accomplishing agreed-upon objectivesand outcomes for biodiversity conservation and othervalues, rather than simply adopting a particular set offorest management practices. Priorities for participationin incentive programs should be determined on thebasis of measurable environmental benefits, rather thana “first-come, first-served” basis.s Incentive programs should be monitored and evaluatedin terms of their biological effectiveness and economicefficiency. Monitoring should be aimed at answeringsuch questions as:• Are incentives really achieving biodiversityconservation?• Are incentives keeping up with dynamicenvironmental and ecological problems?• Is there a more appropriate incentive mechanism?sFinally, programs should be designed with a singlepoint of contact for forest owners. These contacts,whether at a state agency or university-based extensionoffice, should be equipped to provide informationand coordination with other relevant state agenciesas needed, for wildlife management, water quality,wetlands protection, biodiversity conservation, andpermitting of facilities, transportation systems andother forest management-related activities. The primarycontact can also serve as a source of information toforest owners who need the services of resourcemanagement specialists in one of these areas.165

C H A P T E R9POLIC Y THAT ENCOUR AGES BIODIVERSIT YSummarySUMMARYPrivate forests account for nearly 70 percent of thenation’s forestland, and they provide important publicconservation benefits. Yet each year the United Statespermanently loses an estimated one million acres annuallyto development, and many more acres suffer fromfragmentation and unsustainable forest practices.NCSSF-sponsored research has brought into focus theshortcomings of current incentives for forestland protectionand sustainable management. Private forest owners,for whom the programs are intended, identify importantopportunities for improving the effectiveness of incentiveprograms in promoting sustainable management.Simply putting more funding into nonfunctionalprograms will not help. Effective approaches should beaugmented, and approaches that are failing should bereduced or eliminated. A more comprehensive review andevaluation of current landowner assistance policies andprograms is needed if we are to reverse the currentdisturbing trends in the loss of private forestland and forestmanagement that falls short of its potential for protectingconservation values.No society that has destroyed its forests has survived.The Commission encourages the development of a newpublic consensus on how our society views and valuesforests. The United States has a remarkable legacy offorest recovery over the last century, but much of that ispotentially jeopardized by population growth, urbandevelopment, and lack of understanding or appreciationof the true value of forests for wood, water, wildlife andbiodiversity, recreation, green space, carbon sequestration,oxygen and carbon dioxide exchange, and otherecosystem functions. Forest biodiversity cannot beconserved in a vacuum where other forest attributes arenot recognized. The rationale of “higher and better use”for real estate development of forestland only recognizesimmediate, short-term financial values at the expense of allother explicit and implicit forest values. In reality, the highestand best use of a forest to society is its continued existenceas a forest. “Keeping forests as forests” in the face of all ofthe pressures to convert them to other uses is becoming anew national imperative.Responding effectively to this imperative will require:s Engaging the public and stakeholders in new types ofmeaningful and collaborative social dialogue thatcreates a bold, new vision for U.S. forests andestablishes agreed-upon management objectives,key indicators for preserving biodiversity and a sharedresponsibility for the concept of who pays andwho benefits.s Bringing the human dimensions (the understanding ofpublic values, attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors) ofsustainable forestry to the forefront of forest andbiodiversity management and policy planning.s Establishing public-participation strategies that buildlong-term trust, support, and community and nationalleadership on behalf of sustainable forestry.s Recognizing the difference that words can make andthe necessity of creating innovative and effectivecommunication programs. Although the publicgenerally supports protecting biodiversity, most peopledon’t have a consistent or meaningful understanding ofthe concept and are likely to support decreases whenput in the context of social and economic tradeoffs.s Changing the focus of “educating the public” to amulti-objective approach focused on educatingmanagers and scientists as well as the generalpublic – an approach that recognizes the public as anequal partner in conserving biodiversity and keepingforests as forests.To Learn More About This Topic, See Appendix, page 168.166

TO LEARN MORETo learn more about the chapter topics, additional research and organizations involved in forest biodiversityTo Learn More About the Chapter TopicsBeneath each chapter are the research projectsand additional references. Unless noted, all of thereferences can be found on the NCSSF website:www.ncssf.orgChapter 1Forest History and Biodiversity1. Project B1.1: Land Use History Impacts on Biodiversity –Implications for Management Strategies in the NortheasternU.S., including the Lake States, John Litvaitis:The University of New Hampshire.2. Project B1.2: Land Use History Impacts on Biodiversity –Implications for Management Strategies in theSoutheastern U.S., Josh McDaniel: Auburn University.3. Project B1.3: Land Use History Impacts on Biodiversity –Implications for Management Strategies in The WesternU.S., Gary Nabhan: Northern Arizona University.4. Project A6: Evaluation of the Role of EcosystemRestoration on Biodiversity, Robert J. Mitchell:Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center.5. Project A7: Identification of Biodiversity Research NeedsRelated to Forest Fragmentation (Chapter 5), John A.Kupfer: University of Arizona.6. Woodlands in Crisis: A Legacy of Lost Biodiversity onthe Colorado Plateau, Nabhan, G.P., Coder M. & Smith,S.J. Bilby Research Center Occasional Papers No. 2,Northern Arizona University, 2004.(Not available on the NCSSF Website)Chapter 2Non-native Invasives and Biodiversity1. Project A1: Synthesis of Key Science Needs to Reducethe Threat Posed by Invasive Diseases, Insects, andWeeds to Sustainable Forestry, Elizabeth Chornesky:Conservation Science and Policy.2. Science Priorities for Reducing the Threat of InvasiveSpecies to Sustainable Forestry, Chornesky, E.A,BioScience, April 2005, Vol.55 No. 4.(Not available on the NCSSF website)Chapter 3Fragmentation and BiodiversityProject A7: Identification of BiodiversityResearch Needs Related to Forest Fragmentation,John A. Kupfer: University of Arizona.Chapter 4Old Growth Forests and Biodiversity1. Project C10.1: Northeastern Late Successional/OldGrowth Workshop, John Hagan: Manomet Center forConservation Sciences.2. Project C10.2: Northwest Old Growth Workshop,Tom Spies: Pacific Northwest Research Station.3. Project C10.3: Southwest Old Growth Workshop,Wally Covington: Northern Arizona University.4. Project C10.4: Great Lakes Old Growth Workshop,Nancy Langston: University of Wisconsin.5. Project C10.5: Southeast Old Growth Workshop,Robert Mitchell: The Jones Center.6. Northwest Forest Plan, The First 10 Years (1994-2003),Status and Trend of Late-Successional and Old-GrowthForest. General Technical Report, Pacific NorthwestResearch Station. PNW-GTR-646, November 2005.(Not available on the NCSSF website)7. Northwest Forest Plan, The First 10 Years (1994-2003),A Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results.General Technical Report, Pacific Northwest ResearchStation. PNW-GTR-651, October 2006.(Not available on the NCSSF website)Chapter 5Selecting Indicators for Biodiversity1. Project A3: Survey the Lessons Learned aboutManaging Forests for Biodiversity and SustainabilityBased on Practical Experiences, Steven R. Radosevich:Oregon State University.2. Project A8: Identification of Core Biodiversity Indicatorsto Apply Sustainable Forestry, John M. Hagan:Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences.3. Biodiversity Indicators for Sustainable Forestry:Simplifying Complexity, Hagan, J. M. & Whitman,A. A., Journal of Forestry, April 2006.(Not available on the NCSSF website)Chapter 6Biodiversity in Managed Forests1. Project C1: Templates for Forest Sustainability onIntensively Managed Private Forests, Kevin Zobrist:Rural Technology Initiative.2. Project C1: A Literature Review of ManagementPractices to Support Increased Biodiversity in IntensivelyManaged Douglas-fir Plantations, Kevin Zobrist:Rural Technology Initiative.3. Project C1: A Literature Review of ManagementPractices to Support Increased Biodiversity in IntensivelyManaged Loblolly Pine Plantations, Kevin Zobrist:Rural Technology Initiative.4. Project C1: A Template for Managing Riparian Areas inDense, Douglas-fir Plantations for Increased Biodiversityand Economics, Kevin Zobrist: Rural TechnologyInitiative.167

TO LEARN MORETo learn more about the chapter topics, additional research and organizations involved in forest biodiversity5. Project C1: Management Templates for IncreasedBiodiversity and Economics in Intensively ManagedLoblolly Pine Plantations, Kevin Zobrist: RuralTechnology Initiative.6. Project C3: Conservation Context of Forestry:Identification and Assessment of ConservationCompatible Forest Practices on Non-Industrial PrivateForest, Janaki Alavalapati, University of Florida.7. Project C4.1: Soil Ecosystem Indicators of Post-FireRecovery in the California Chaparral, LouiseEgerton-Warburton, Chicago Botanic Garden.8. Project C4.2: Using Remote Sensing to EvaluateBiodiversity Indicators: Implications for Biscuit Post-FireRestoration, Bernard Borman, PNW Research Station.See also the following website: www.fsl.orst.edu/ltep9. Project C4.3: Short-term Effects of Fire and PostfireRehabilitation on the Forest Understory: A Case Studyfrom the Colorado Front Range, Paula Fornwalt, RockyMountain Research Station.10. The Possibility of Plantations: IntegratingEcological Forestry into Plantation Systems. Reportfrom the National Wildlife Federation, May 2006.(Not available on the NCSSF website)Chapter 7Landscape Scale Planning and Biodiversity1. Project A5 (East): Assessment of the Scientific Basis ForStandards/Practices at the Stand, Management Unit,and Landscape Levels in the Eastern United States,T. Bentley Wigley: National Council for Air and StreamImprovement, Inc.2. Project A5 II (East): Assessment of the Scientific BasisFor Standards/Practices at the Stand, ManagementUnit, and Landscape Levels in the Eastern United States,T. Bentley Wigley: National Council for Air and StreamImprovement, Inc.3. Project A5 (West): Assessment of the Scientific Basisfor Standards/Practices at the Stand, Management Unitand Landscape Levels in the Western United States,Thomas A. Spies: USDA Forest Service.4. Project A5 II (West): Assessment of the Scientific Basisfor Standards/Practices at the Stand, Management Unitand Landscape Levels in the Western United States,Thomas A. Spies: USDA Forest Service.5. Project A10: Decision Support Systems for ForestBiodiversity: Evaluation of Current Systems and FutureNeeds, Sean Gordon, Oregon State University.6. Project A10 II: Conserving Creatures of the Forest:A Guide to Decision Making and Decision Models forForest Biodiversity, K. Norman Johnson, Oregon StateUniversity.Chapter 8Adaptive Management and BiodiversityProject D1: Enabling Adaptive Forest Management,David R. Marmorek, ESSA Technologies Ltd.Chapter 9Policy that Encourages Biodiversity1. Project C2: Existing and Potential Incentives forPracticing Sustainable Forestry on Non-industrial PrivateForest Lands, John Green: USDA FS, Southern ResearchStation.2. Project C5: Assess Public Knowledge, Values, andAttitudes toward Biodiversity and Sustainable Forestry,Michael Manfredo: Colorado State University.3. Why Invest in Rural America – And How?A Critical Public Policy Question for the 21st Century,Karl N. Stauber.www.kc.frb.org/Publicat/Exploring/RC015tau.pdf4. Incentives for Biodiversity Conservation: AnEcological and Economic Assessment. Casey, F;Vickerman, S; Hummon, C; and Taylor, B.Defenders of Wildlife, 2006.To Learn More About Other NCSSF ResearchTopics Not Included in the GuidebookNontimber Forest Products (NTFP) and BiodiversityNCSSF sponsored research looking at the relationshipbetween forest management practices, non-timber forestproducts and biodiversity. Researchers developed an onlinedatabase of over 1300 current or historically harvested species,an online bibliographic database, interviewed harvestersand surveyed US Forest Service and state forest managers.In addition, an interdisciplinary curricula was developed forforestry schools and management training programs thatdescribes the ecological, cultural and economic importanceof NTFPs and the role of NTFPs in ecosystem management.1. Project A4: Assessment of Knowledge aboutNon-Timber Forest Products (NTFP) ManagementImpacts on Biodiversity, Rebecca McLain: Institute forCulture and Ecology.2. Project A4 II: Non-Timber Forest Products Curriculum,Kathryn Lynch: Institute for Culture and Ecology.3. Online NTFP species database available atwww.ifcae.org/ntfp/4. Online NTFP bibliographic database available atwww.ifcae.org/ntfp/5. The Relationship between NTFP Management andBiodiversity in the US. Submitted to NCSSF, Jones,McLain, Lynch, March 2004. (Revised August 2005).Available at www.ifcae.org/projects/ncssfl168

TO LEARN MORETo learn more about the chapter topics, additional research and organizations involved in forest biodiversityParticipatory Inventory and MonitoringEfforts to conserve NTFP could be helped withinventory and monitoring programs. Inventories wouldindicate commercial quality and quantity. Monitoring wouldindicate sustainable harvest levels.1. Project C8: Guidelines for Participatory BiodiversityInventory and Monitoring of Sustainable Forest Management,David Pilz: Institute for Culture and Ecology2. NTFP Inventorying and Monitoring in the US: Rationaleand Recommendations for a Participatory Approach.Available at www.ifcae.org/projects/ncssfl3. Workshop Guide and Proceedings: HarvesterInvolvement in Inventory and Monitoring of NTFP.Available at www.ifcae.org/projects/ncssflChanging Forest Ownerships and BiodiversityProject C11: Changing Forestland Ownership Patternsin the Northern Forest and Implications for Biodiversity,John Hagan: Manomet Center for ConservationSciences, ME.Forest Ecosystem Rapid Assessment ScorecardThis is a ready-to-use forest monitoring system thatmeasures forest ecosystem function. NCSSF sponsored itsdevelopment to explore a monitoring system focused onmeasuring forest functions rather than counting species.Project A9: Evaluation of Indicators of EcosystemFunction Applicable to Forest Management,Daniel Markewitz: University of GeorgiaCarbon Trading: A Primer for Forest LandownerCarbon trading is intended to help mitigate the increaseof CO 2 in the atmosphere. Businesses (power generators orother manufacturers) that emit CO 2 to the atmospheremay want to balance their emissions through carbonsequestration (purchase carbon credits). Businesses thatmanage forest or agricultural lands might sell carbon creditsbased on their ability to accumulate carbon in trees oragricultural soils. This website, developed by NCSSFresearchers at DB Warnell School Forests Resources, isdesigned for forest landowners who want to learn moreabout how to enter the carbon trading market. The URL ishttp://www.carbon.sref.info. It includes a carbon calculatorand some of the current carbon sellers.To Learn More About OrganizationsInvolved in Forest BiodiversityThe Commission encourages forest practitioners,managers, landowners and policymakers to interactwith others skilled in biodiversity managementand innovation.NatureServeA non-profit scientific conservation organization thatprovides information and tools needed to help guide effectiveconservation action. NatureServe along with its networkof Natural Heritage Programs operates in all 50 U.S.States, Canada, Latin America and the Caribbean and are aleading source of information about rare and endangeredspecies and threatened ecosystems. They collect and managedetailed local information on plants, animals, and ecosystems.They develop information products, data managementtools, and conservation services to meet local, national andglobal conservation needs.NatureServe Vista is a DSS that integrates conservationinformation with land use patterns and policies, providingplanners, resource managers and communities with tools tohelp manage their natural resources.NatureServe Explorer is a web application thatprovides an online encyclopedia of plants, animals andecosystems of the U.S. and Canada. Version 4.7 is availableat: http://www.natureserve.org.State Wildlife Action PlansSupported by the State Wildlife Grants Program, createdby Congress in 2000, each state has developed a WildlifeAction Plan. The plans assess an identify species of concern,gather relevant information about those species, anddocument problems or threats to species and habitats.Many of the plans include maps showing biologically uniquelandscapes and habitat quality. All of the plans weresubmitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service for approval.Contact your state Wildlife Resource Agency for moreinformation. For a Review of all the State Wildlife ActionPlans, read the report prepared by the Defenders of Wildlife,http://www.defenders.org169

GLOSSARYadaptive managementthe process of learning as you go, whereresearch results are continually broughtforward and management practices arecontinually reassessed as new informationbecomes availableanthropogenicresulting directly from human activitybiodiversity(biological diversity, natural heritage)the variety and abundance of all life formsin a place – plants, animals, and other livingorganisms – and the processes, functions,and structures that sustain that varietyand allow it to adapt to changingcircumstances. Includes the complexityof gene pools, species, communities, andecosystems at spatial scales from local toregional to globalbiomassthe total quantity (at any given time) ofliving organisms per unit of space (speciesbiomass), or of all the species in a bioticcommunity (community biomass)biotaall living organisms in a givenecosystem, including bacteria and othermicroorganisms, plants and animalsbufferland set aside to block or absorbunwanted impacts to the area beyond thebuffer (set asides next to wildlife habitat toreduce an abrupt change to the habitat)canopya layer of foliage in a forest stand. Oftenreferring to the uppermost layer of foliage,but it can be used to describe lower layersin a multistoried standclimate changethe actual or theoretical changes in globalclimate systems occurring in response tophysical or chemical feedback, resultingfrom human or naturally induced changesin terrestrial, atmospheric, and aquaticecosystemscohorta group of trees developing after a singledisturbance, commonly consisting of treesof similar age. It can also include a range oftree ages from seedlings or sprouts to treesthat predate the disturbanceconservation easementa legal agreement between a landownerand a conservation agency thatpermanently restricts the property’s usesin order to protect its conservation valueconservation strategya management plan for a species, groupof species, or ecosystem that prescribesstandards and guidelines that provide ahigh likelihood that the species, group ofspecies, or ecosystem, will continue to existas a viable populationcorridorusually linear strips of habitat, differingfrom surrounding vegetation, that connecttwo or more similar patches and intendedto facilitate movement or dispersal oforganisms between habitat patches in thehopes that metapopulation dynamics willbe maintained on the landscapecovervegetation used by wildlife for protectionfrom predators, or to mitigate weathercondition, or to reproduce. May alsorefer to the protection of the soil and theshading provided to herbs and forbsby vegetationdemographicrelating to density, age and distribution ofindividuals in a populationdisturbancea specific event that alters ecosystempattern and process by disruptingcommunity structure or changing resourceavailability and allocation.natural disturbancesdisrupt the ecosystem and kill trees, butrelatively small amounts of organicmatter are consumed or removedhuman disturbancescan mimic natural disturbance in termsof effects, but more often contrastsharply with natural disturbances interms of type, intensity, frequencyand sizedisturbance regimethe type, the frequency and intensity offorest disturbance. Disturbance regimescan determine the composition andstructure of tree and other forestcommunitieslow-severity disturbancesmall or low-intensity fires, insect anddisease mortality, floods and sedimentdeposits where tree mortality is lightto moderate.ecological processesprocesses fundamental to the functioningof a healthy and sustainable ecosystem,usually involving the transfer of energy andsubstances from one medium or trophiclevel to another. Three primary processes:• production of sugar compounds fromcarbon dioxide (CO 2 ), water andsunlight performed by green plants• consumption of what’s produced,performed mostly by animals• decomposition of organic materials intoinorganic materials that can be usedagain by plants performed by fungiand bacteria.ecoregiona contiguous geographic area with a relativelyuniform climate, possibly with severalvegetation types, and used as an ecologicalbasis for management and planningedgeplace where plant communities meetor where succession stages within plantcommunities come together. Conceptually,edges have environments significantlydifferent from the interior of adjacentpatches and typically differ in biomass, soilcharacteristics, and species compositionand abundanceedge effectsthe ecological changes that occur atthe boundaries of ecosystems, includingvariations in the microclimate,influences from adjacent communitiesand land uses, and an altered speciescompositionendangered speciesany species of plant or animal definedthrough the Endangered Species Act asbeing in danger of extinction throughoutall or a significant portion of its range, andpublished in the Federal Registerendemic (adjective) endemism (noun)a plant or animal native or restricted to acertain country or areaa disease or condition regularly found in acertain areaepiphytesa moss or lichen that lives on anotherplant, moss or lichen. Old trees may havemany epiphytes. Epiphytes obtain theirnourishment from the air and rainwatereven-age silviculturemanipulation of a forest stand to achievea condition in which trees have less than a20-year age difference. Regeneration in aparticular stand is obtained during a shortperiod at or near the time that a stand hasreached the desired age or size for harvesting.Clearcut, shelterwood, or seed-treecutting methods result in even-aged standsexotic speciesany species growing or living outside itsnatural range of occurrence and purposelyor accidentally introduced into countries orregions where they do not historically occurextantcurrently existingextincta species that no longer exists anywhereon Earthextirpationspecies no longer existing in the wild in acertain area, but existing elsewhereexurbanizationthe migration of urban residents to ruralenvironmentsfiltercoarse filter refers to management ofoverall ecosystems and habitatsfine filter management refers tomanagement of specific habitats orsites for selected individual species170

GLOSSARYforestcontiguous area of 1 acre of more whereforest trees of any size or age comprise10% or more canopy cover. Includesareas where vegetation development,either natural or human aided, willeventually lead to forest but where treesare not yet present or are present in lessthan 10% of canopy coverforest structurethe physical distribution of the componentsof a forest including tree density, treeheights, tree bole diameters, crown layer,shrubs and other non-woody understoryplants, snags (standing dead trees), anddown wood (fallen trees on the forest floor)forest typea category of forest defined by itsvegetation, particularly composition,and/or locality, as categorized by eachcountry in a system suitable to its situation.The broadest general groups are:broad-leaved (hardwoods)coniferous (softwoods)mixed broad-leaved and coniferousfunctionthe flow of mineral nutrients, water,energy, or speciesgeographic information system (GIS)a computer system capable of storing andmanipulating spatial (mapped) datageneralistspecies that can use many differentenvironments and play many different rolesgreen-tree retentiona stand management practice in which livetrees as well as snags and large down logsare left as biological legacies within harvestunits to provide habitat components overthe next management cyclehabitatthe place where a plant or animal speciesnaturally lives and grows and includescharacteristics of the soil, water, andbiologic community (i.e., other plants andanimals). Examples include: riparian areas,bottomland forests, upland forests, andwetlandshabitat diversitythe number of different types of habitatwithin a given areahabitat fragmentationthe breaking up of habitat into discreteislands through modification or conversionof habitat by management activitiesheterogeneousexhibiting dissimilarity among members ofa groupheterogeneityvariation in the environment overspace and timespatial heterogeneityhow stand structure (age, size class,snags, large down logs, canopy gapsand canopy layers) are arranged acrossa landscapehistorical range of variation (HRV)the range of variation in forest attributesthat might be expected in a landscape overtime under a particular disturbance regime(for example, frequency, type, and severity).HRV can be a useful context for understandingthe state of present landscapeshomogeneousexhibiting similarity among membersof a grouphomogeneitywith respect to one or more samplesor populations: the state of beingidentical in some or all parameterslandscapea general term that may imply scales fromsmall watersheds to regionsworking at a landscape scaleintegrating actions across jurisdictionalboundaries, requiring communitycollaborationlandscape connectivitya threshold phenomenon, in whicheven small losses of habitat near thecritical threshold are likely todisconnect the landscape, havingserious consequences for populationdistributionslegaciesbiological pieces such as live and deadtrees, surviving seeds, spores, and animalspecies inherited from the previousecosystem on the sitematrixfederal lands not in reserves, withdrawnareas, or managed old-growth areasmature treestrees that have achieved a substantial partof their potential height growthmodelan idealized representation of realitydeveloped to describe, analyze, orunderstand the behavior of some aspectof it. A mathematical representation of therelations being studiedmonitoringthe process of collecting information toevaluate if objective and anticipated orassumed results of a management planare being realized or if implementation isproceeding as plannedmultistoriedforest stands that contain trees of variousheights and diameter classes and thereforesupport foliage at various heights in thevertical profile of the standmycorrhizaefungi having a beneficial relationship withplant roots (aiding water and certain nutrientuptake and sometimes offering protectionagainst other soil-borne organisms)nontimber forest product (NTFP)any forest product except timber,including resins, oils, leaves, bark, plantsother than trees, fungi, and animals oranimal productsnutrient cyclethe circulation or exchange of elementsand inorganic compounds, such as nitrogenand carbon dioxide, between non-livingand living portions of the environmentold-growthforests in the later stages of standdevelopment after a forest has grown forcenturies with only low to moderate levelsof disturbance. These forests contain largelive and dead trees, a variety of sizes oftrees, and vertical and horizontalheterogeneityoverstorytrees that provide the uppermost layerof foliage in a forest with more than oneroughly horizontal layer of foliageparcelizationa general shift from a few landowners withlarge holdings to many landowners withsmaller holdingspatch or remnanta relatively uniform area of vegetation thatdiffers from its surroundingsplantationforest stands consisting almost exclusivelyof planted trees of native or exotic species,and managed to generally maintain thiscomposition at maturitypopulationa collection of individual organisms of thesame species that potentially interbreedand share a common gene poolpopulation densitythe number of individuals of a speciesper unit areapopulation persistencethe capacity of a population tomaintain sufficient density to persist,well distributed, over timeprescribed firea fire burning under specified conditionsthat will accomplish certain plannedobjectivesprimary or original forestan original forest, usually containing largetrees, that has not been significantlydisturbed or influenced by human activity.May also be areas that remained in foreststhroughout the history of Europeansettlement, but not necessarily old-growthprocessesecological dynamics that lead todevelopment and maintenance of forests.For example, rates of succession, gapformation, low-severity fire, productivityand decomposition.171

GLOSSARYproductive capacity or productivitya potential indicator of soil health, soilmicrobial activity, and nutrient cycling, andcarbon storagea classification of forestland in terms ofpotential annual cubic-measured volumegrowth of trees per unit area at culminationof mean annual increment in fully stockedforest standsrange (of a species)the area or region over which anorganism occursrefugialocations and habitats that support populations(endemic populations) of organismsthat are limited to small fragments of theirprevious geographic rangereservesareas set aside from extractive and intensiveuses such as mining and residentialdevelopment necessary to protect somespecies but insufficient for full biodiversityconservationrestoration (rehabilitation)the use of silvicultural approaches thatsustain native biodiversity by integratingconcepts of ecosystem response to naturaldisturbancesriparian areaan area containing an aquatic ecosystemand adjacent upland areas that directlyaffect it. It includes flood plain, woodlands,and all areas within a horizontal distanceof about 100 feet from the normal line ofhigh water of a stream channel or from theshoreline of a body of waterrotationthe planned number of years betweenregeneration of a forest stand and its finalharvest. The age of a forest at final harvestis referred to as rotation agesecondary forestareas that experienced a transition inland use during European settlement,including clearing for farmland or pasture.Disturbances like plowing and grazingeliminated native vegetationsenescentvery old, with little or no growth occurring,and with decreased ability to resist orrepair damageshade-tolerant speciesplant species that have evolved to growwell in shadesilviculturethe science and practice of controllingthe establishment, composition, andgrowth of the vegetation of forests stands.It includes the control or production ofstand structures such as snags and downlogs in addition to live vegetationspatialhappening or existing across spacespecies richnessa measure of the number of speciespresent in a community, ecosystem,landscape, region, etcstanddistinguishable, contiguous area of treesreasonably similar in age, composition,and structurestand compositionthe mixture of tree speciesstand structurethe complexity or arrangement oftree age/size classesstand developmentchanges in forest stand population/structure as forests age. May or may notbe accompanied by a change in speciescompositionstructurethe various horizontal and vertical physicalelements of the forestsuccessiona predictable development of anecosystem, where one or more speciesreplace each other as the ecosystem growsolder. Generally the species that come laterare more shade tolerant and are referredto as late-succession species, becausethey can regenerate in canopy gaps andmaintain themselves within closed-canopyforests in the absence of stand-replacementdisturbance.succession stagea characteristic of many ecosystemsthat experience a change in structureand/or species on a given site in relationto time since a major disturbanceseral stagesinclude early succession vegetationthrough to later succession stages.In many cases, the succession stagesreflect a shift from the dominance ofshade-intolerant species to that ofshade-tolerant speciessuppressionextinguishing or confining a firesustainable forestrythe suite of forest policies, plans, andpractices that seek to sustain a specifiedarray of forest benefits in a particularplace. Not all forests can be expected to –or are capable of – sustaining the samesuite of benefits at all timesplacecan range from as small as a single tractof forest to an area the size of watersheds,states, regions, nations, or theworld. As the defined place increasesto the scale of a state or nation, thesuite of forest benefits to be sustainedincreases to approach all possible valuesforest sustainabilitythe capacity of forests, ranging fromstands to ecoregions, to maintaintheir health, productivity, diversity, andoverall integrity, in the long run, in thecontext of human activity and usesuite of benefitsmay include various values, uses,products, functions, and servicesfrom forests. May include but are notlimited to wood, recreation, watershedprotection and water quality, nativeand desired non-native species ofplants and animals, spiritual retreats,non-wood forest products, landscapeaesthetics, carbon storage, and nature’sprocesses of energy transfer, renewaland recyclingsustainabilitya path which balances economic, social,and environmental considerationsa process and an aspiration, not a single,immutable end-point or static condition.Goals as well as the process for sustainableforestry change in response to changesin what society values and how scienceand technology inform management andconservationtemporalof or limited by timeviabilitythe ability of a wildlife or plant populationto maintain sufficient size so that it persistsover time in spite of normal fluctuations innumbersvariable density thinninginvolves varying the thinning intensityacross a standvariable retention harvestinga specific harvesting technique that requiresretention of some portion of a stand. Theretained portion is distributed such that theinfluence of forest or residual trees ismaintained over most of the area. Createsa multi-aged stand and patchiness at astand levelwell-distributeda geographic distribution of habitats thatmaintains a population throughout an areaand allows for interactions of individualsthrough periodic interbreeding andcolonization of unoccupied habitats172

INDEXAbert’s squirrel......................................... 110Acadian flycatcher............................ 145, 146Adaptive management.................... 148, 162Area effects................................................. 74Ashley-Edisto District............................... 145Attrition................................................ 69, 71Balsam woolly adelgid............................... 58Baltimore Reservoirs................................ 136Beech scale.................................................. 59Biodiversity components......................... 117Biodiversity-compatible practices........... 125Biscuit fire......................................... 106, 128Blue-gray gnatchatcher................... 145, 146Bottomland hardwoods....................... 96, 98Brown-headed cowbird............................. 76Bullfrog....................................................... 57Cadiz Township, WI.................................... 70Carbon trading......................................... 169Certification programs....................... 62, 116Cerro Grande fire....................................... 53Cheatgrass................................................... 59Chesapeake Forest Plan........................... 142Chestnut blight..................................... 56, 58CLAMS................................................140-143Coast Forest Strategy............................... 152Coastal Plain forests............................. 30, 96Colorado Plateau........................................ 49Common yellowthroat..................... 145, 146Condition indicator.................................. 118Corridors................................................ 81-83Decision support systems (DSSs)...... 136, 162Deer mouse................................................. 75Dissection.............................................. 69, 70Dutch elm disease...................................... 59Douglas-fir development........................... 43Douglas-fir plantations............................ 124Eastern bluebird......................................... 20Eastern wood-pewee....................... 145, 146Edge effects................................................ 75Emerald ash borer...................................... 59European gypsy moth.................... 57, 59, 94Family forest ownerships................. 125, 165Fenders’ blue butterfly.............................. 83Fire.................8, 33, 44, 50, 53, 105, 128, 161Flagstaff Forests Partnership................... 155Forest History........................................ 7, 160Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA).......... 64Fragmentation.............................. 68, 71, 116Gaps............................................................. 18Giant reed................................................... 58Gopher tortoise.......................................... 37Habplan............................................. 137, 145Hayman fire.......................................130-131Hay-scented fern........................................ 15Hemlock woolly adelgid............................ 58Incentives.................................................. 163Indicators.......................................... 115, 161Island biogeography.................................. 71Isolation effects.......................................... 74Ivory-billed woodpecker............................ 97Japanese honeysuckle................................ 57Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly................. 103Karner blue butterfly................................... 9Kincaid’s lupine........................................... 83Kudzu.......................................................... 99Landscape metrics...................................... 78Landscape scale planning................ 107, 134Lake states forests................................ 24, 91Legacy structures............................ 23, 44, 95Loblolly pine plantations......................... 123Longleaf pine....................30, 33, 96, 98, 122Lynx............................................................. 20Managed forests.......................121-124, 161Matrix lands................................................ 77Marbled murrelet..................................... 103Mesa Verde National Park......................... 53Metapopulations........................................ 72Monitoring........................................ 115, 169Montreal Process.................... 60, 62, 68, 115Mycorrhizae.............................................. 133NatureServe.............................................. 169Non-native invasives.......................... 56, 160Nontimber forest products...................... 168Northern hardwoods................................. 17Northern goshawk................................... 110Northern spotted owl.............................. 103Nun moth.................................................... 58Old-growth......................................... 84, 161Olive-sided flycatcher................................. 20Ossipee Pine Barrens.................................. 10Ownership change........................... 159, 162Pacific coastal forests......................... 38, 101Participatory inventory & monitoring.... 169Patches of forest......................................... 68Perforation............................................ 69, 71Pine barrens.................................................. 8Pileated woodpecker................................. 14Pine-lichen woodlands............................. 148Pinyon-juniper forest................................. 50Prescribed fire...........................11, 16, 33-35,Pressure indicator..................................... 118Prater Canyon............................................. 54Policy......................................... 140, 159, 163Policy response indicator......................... 118Port Interception Network (PIN)............... 64Ponderosa pine................................... 49, 108Pygmy nuthatch....................................... 110Quantitative habitat models................... 144Rapid Assessment Scorecard.................... 169Red-cockaded woodpecker................. 37, 97Red-backed vole......................................... 75Red tree vole............................................. 103Red Hills, GA & FL....................................... 34Sample effects............................................ 73Sandy River Basin, OR.............................. 143Sirex woodwasp......................................... 59Snowshoe hare........................................... 20Source-sink.................................................. 72Stepping-stones.......................................... 83Stoddard-Neel............................................ 34Sudden oak death.......................... 57, 59, 67Summit County, CO.................................. 147Tongas-Wide Young-Growth Studies..... 157Transition hardwoods................................ 12Variable retention harvesting....... 28, 45, 80Variable density thinning.................. 47, 124Weed bounty hunter program.................. 63White pine.................................................. 27White pine blister rust............................... 59Wildfire strategies.................... 128, 130, 132Wildlife Action Plans................................ 169Williams fire.......................................132-133Wintergreen (Gaultheria procumbens)...... 9Wiregrass.............................................. 33, 98Yellow warbler........................................... 76173

The Guidebook is dedicatedto the memory ofPhil Janikformer Commission memberand Chief Operating Officer of theUSDA Forest ServiceThe Guidebook was developed for:National Commission on Science forSustainable Forestry (NCSSF)Prepared by:Robert LoganDesigner:Nancy SeilerIllustrator:Ed JenneEditor:Henry LansfordGuidebook Steward:Jim BrownNCSSF Program Director:Chris BernaboPhoto Assistance:Eric AldrichGreg ApletGary BoydBernard BormannChuck BullingtonMichelle BussanJackie CaldwellNils ChristoffersenMarcelle CoderRobyn DarbyshireDave EganPaula FornwaltSteve GatewoodJohn HaganSharon HainesSharon HobriaJeff HoranClark HowellsNorm JohnsonMark McCollisterJason McGeeRobert MitchellRobert PabstJohn RandallJanice ReidSuzanne RemillardBarry RiceSarah Richards-DesaiPete RobichaudEric SpraguePaul SternbergNancy TannerDavid TheobaldFrank VanniFor additional copies contact:National Council for Science andthe Environment1707 H Street NW, Suite 200Washington, DC 20006(202) 207-0007The Guidebook is available as a PDF file at:www.ncssf.org© Copyright 2007, National Council for Scienceand the EnvironmentThe National Council for Science and theEnvironment published this guidebook. All rightsare reserved. No part of this publication may bereproduced, stored in a retrieval system ortransmitted in any form or by any means withoutthe written permission of the National Council forScience and the Environment.

1707 H Street NW, Suite 200Washington, DC 20006(202) 207-0007