Seminars Colleen Cassady St.Clair, University of Alberta. TBA, behavioral ecology. Thurs April 15 4:00 PM OSN 102. Jeffrey Mosely, Montana State University. Livestock grazing and vegetation management to improve wildlife habitat. April 21, 3:00 PM, Mackay Sciences rm 215.

Outline 1.Goals for forest management 2.Issues and conflicts 3.How can goals be achieved? 4.History of US management policy 5.Example: Managing based on historic variability (Blue River, OR) 6.Healthy Forest initiative

Reading 1. Hartley, M Rationale and methods for conserving biodiversity in plantation forests. Forest Ecology and Management 155: Miller, C., and Urban, D Modeling the effects of fire management alternatives on Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forests. Ecological Applications 10: Suggested: Lundquist, J., and Beatty, J A method for characterizing and mimicking forest canopy gaps caused by different disturbances. Forest Science 48: (copy available to sign out from my office)

Goals of forest management What values do we manage for?

Goals of forest management 1.Timber production 2.Wildlife habitat 1.Economically important species 2.Endangered/threatened species 3.Biodiversity 4.Esthetic and/or cultural values: “wilderness” 5.Recreation 6.Water quality and watershed maintenance 7. Carbon sequestration

Issues and conflicts What factors might complicate management objectives?

Issues and conflicts 1.Herbivory by vertebrates and invertebrates

Issues and conflicts 1.Herbivory by vertebrates and invertebrates e.g. differential impact of spruce budworm and bark beetles on stand dynamics in Blue Mts, OR. Budworm outbreaks tended to “reset stand” as logging or windthrow would Beetle outbreaks had “within stand” consequences

Issues and conflicts 1.Herbivory by vertebrates and invertebrates 2.Competition, other plant species

Issues and conflicts 1.Herbivory by vertebrates and invertebrates 2.Competition, other plant species Example – exotic species.

Issues and conflicts 1.Herbivory by vertebrates and invertebrates 2.Competition, other plant species 3.Microbial community

Issues and conflicts 1.Herbivory by vertebrates and invertebrates 2.Competition, other plant species 3.Microbial community Example – loss of mycorhizzae from Oregon forests and inability to re-vegetate clear-cuts

Issues and conflicts 1.Biotic factors: 1.Herbivory by vertebrates and invertebrates 2.Competition, other plant species 3.Microbial community 4.Soil conditions

Issues and conflicts 1.Herbivory by vertebrates and invertebrates 2.Competition, other plant species 3.Microbial community 4.Soil conditions Sustainability of intensive loblolly pine plantation management Forest Ecol and Management 155: Clearcut and replanting of plantations; concern that resources will be depleted.

Issues and conflicts 1.Herbivory by vertebrates and invertebrates 2.Competition, other plant species 3.Microbial community 4.Soil conditions 5.Natural disasters – windstorms, fire.

Issues and conflicts 1.Herbivory by vertebrates and invertebrates 2.Competition, other plant species 3.Microbial community 4.Soil conditions 5.Natural disasters – windstorms, fire. Examples : Salvage logging. Loss of timber, “resetting” succession.

Issues and conflicts 1.Herbivory by vertebrates and invertebrates 2.Competition, other plant species 3.Microbial community 4.Soil conditions 5.Natural disasters – windstorms, fire. 6.Cumulative effects

Issues and conflicts 1.Herbivory by vertebrates and invertebrates 2.Competition, other plant species 3.Microbial community 4.Soil conditions 5.Natural disasters – windstorms, fire. 6.Cumulative effects Example: Weyerhaueser is secondary harvester on FMA in Northern Alberta; oil and gas exploration removes more timber.

Issues and conflicts 1.Herbivory by vertebrates and invertebrates 2.Competition, other plant species 3.Microbial community 4.Soil conditions 5.Natural disasters – windstorms, fire. 6.Cumulative effects 7.Overexploitation 8.Fire management: burning, removal of biomass to control fire risk? Examples: Ecol. App. 10:85-94, For. Ecol. Man. 105:21-35

Predicting management effects 1.Pacific northwest Douglas Fir and hemlock forest. Historic management, NW Forest Plan (old-growth conservation) and predicted effects of managing for natural variation.

History of forests “Environmental Narrative”: Hessburg and Agee Forest Ecology and Management 178: Fire frequency in inland NW from 1-5 centuries for severe fires, and 30 yrs for low severity fires. Elevational gradient: high severity in high elevations, low in low elevations. Burning by Native Americans affected grasslands and dry grassy forest (P-pine)

1.fur trapping and trading, wildlife values 2.Settlement and introduction of new species 3.Mining, creation of roads and trails 4.Railroads: wood harvest to build ties 5.Fragmentation of use and ownership: land grants 6.Introduction of livestock: cattle and sheep: by 1860, 200,000 cattle in Eastern Washington. Impact on riparian zones and fish habitat by 1900.

1.Exotic plant and insect species : changes in land management, introductions with crop seeds etc (e.g. cheatgrass). Major problem: white pine blister rust – intro in Industrial logging in early 1900’s – private land. Rapid harvest: 0.5 million m 3 timber Reduced to 20% of that in Environmentalism and preservation 4.Urban widerness interface issues 5.Concern for other forest values 6.Switch to ecosystem management approach

Natural Variation 1.Goals: to put forest dynamics into a landscape context (maybe allow ecosystem management goals) 2.Example: Blue River forest; Cissel et al Ecol. App

Background 1.Early 20 th century: USFS focused on forest protection in PNW; much of harvesting occurred on private holdings. 2.After WW2 – sustainable yield of forest products and fire suppression Used dispersed patch clearcutting 3.In 1980s concern about fragmentation; brief flirtation with aggregated clearcutting s – forest management plan after listing of Spotted Owl as endangered. Static reserves, corridors, standard prescriptions for matrix, protection of riparian zones, etc.

Background New idea: use understanding of historic disturbance to maintain dynamic nature of landscape. “These approaches use information on historic and current landscape conditions, disturbance history, and social goals to set objectives for future landscape structures that provide desired plant and wildlife habitat

Study Compare two harvest models: 1.“Interim Plan” based on NW Forest Plan Forest matrix (for harvesting) Scenic areas (reserved) Riparian zones (reserved) Special area reserves (reserved-conservation) 2.Landscape plan: based on natural variability (fire regime) –3 landscape areas with different rotation time, retention levels, and block size based on fire –Aquatic areas (reserved for water quality protection) –Special area reserves (reserved-conservation)

Study Created spatial models to predict landscape structure. Models run for 100 years into future. Landscape metrics calculated (Patch size, edge density, interior habitat area) Interim plan had smaller patches, more edge, less interior habitat. Landscape plan had mosaic of habitats throughout area; interim had old growth along riparian corridors. Question: is this a better approach?

Healthy Forest Initiative December Goals: reduce risk of catastrophic wildfire Components:

Healthy Forest Initiative –Reduce dense undergrowth that fuels catastrophic fires through thinning and prescribed burns; –Improve the public involvement in the review process –Select projects on a collaborative basis involving local, tribal, state, Federal and non-governmental entities –Focus projects on Federal lands that meet strict criteria for risk of wildfire damage to communities, water supply systems and the environment –Authorize the Healthy Forests Reserve Program, to protect, restore and enhance degraded forest ecosystems on private lands to promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species

Healthy Forest Initiative Encourage biomass energy production through grants and assistance to local communities creating market incentives for removal of otherwise valueless forest material; and Develop an accelerated program on certain Federal lands to combat insect infestations.