2015 Joint Stewardship Meeting Monitoring Modeling Mapping Marc Barnes Integrated Resource Management

Presentation Outline Review goals proposed in last years annual meeting Brief Summary of FY2014 projects o Biophysical Accomplishments o Project Highlights o Economics Monitoring database upgrades and standardization of reporting Overview of ArcGIS Online Siuslaw Stewardship Web Map – Laura Hoffman presenter Stand Modeling and Silvicultural Pathways

Goals for FY2014 Monitoring Continue with monitoring and reporting of all three project types: o IRTC Contracts o On Forest Retained Receipts Projects o Off Forest (Wyden) Retained Receipts Projects Modify & standardize annual reporting of bio-physical accomplishments Standardize terminology for all project types Link monitoring and accomplishment reporting to spatial data to enable it to be displayed interactively on a web based map. Provide easier access to stand exam data for both analysis and visual display.

FY2014 Biophysical Accomplishments 876 acres of commercial thinning Total of 11.9 MMBF of timber harvested 2,113 snags created 1,191pieces of dead wood created 440 acres of noxious weed control 28 acres of upland site preparation and under planting 6 miles of road decommissioning 16 Culverts replaced

FY2014 Biophysical Accomplishments On & Off Forest Service Retained Receipts Projects Vegetation Management Projects o 135 acres of Site Prep o 29 Acres of Meadow Planting o 330 acres of mowing o 20 Snags created Invasives Control Projects 2365 acres of Riparian Treatment 32 acres of Upland Treatment Stream Lake or Wetland Treatment 35,346 trees or shrubs planted 13 culverts replaced 605 logs placed Road Work 2.8 miles of road decommissioning

Fiddle & Morris Creeks Riparian Restoration Siuslaw Stewardship Group Seth Mead, Watershed Conservationist Siuslaw Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) Siltcoos Lake Watershed Accomplishments o Improved fish passage to ¾ mile of stream o Placed 120 pieces of Large Woody Debris o Re-established 11 acre of riparian habitat with native vegetation o Built 1000’ of livestock exclusion fencing

Fiddle & Morris Creeks Riparian Restoration Pre Treatment

Fiddle & Morris Creeks Riparian Restoration Post Treatment

Fiddle & Morris Creeks Riparian Restoration Before Culvert Removal

Fiddle & Morris Creeks Riparian Restoration After Culvert Removal

Fiddle & Morris Creeks Riparian Restoration Adult Coho Utilizing Morris Creek LWD

Fiddle & Morris Creeks Riparian Restoration Juvenile Coho Utilizing Morris Creek LWD

Bower Creek Culvert Replacement Hebo Stewardship Group Alex Sifford -- Project Manager Nestucca-Neskowin Watersheds Council Tributary to the Little Nestucca Accomplishments o Improved passage to 1.5 miles of spawning and rearing habitat

Bower Creek Culvert Replacement Before

Bower Creek Culvert Replacement After

FY2014 Economic Impacts 153 Full Time Equivalent Jobs Created $7,396,583 in wages paid $665,692 paid in state income taxes

Monitoring Database Upgrades Purpose: Ensure accomplishments are reported in a standardized and consistent method for all three project types: o IRTC Contracts o On Forest Retained Receipts Projects o Off Forest (Wyden) Retained Receipts Projects o Facilitate the data entry of the accomplishments to minimize errors in reporting o Facilitate annual reporting o Enable streamlined export of the monitoring stand exam data for use in the Forest Vegetation Simulator growth model (FVS).

Monitoring Database – New GUI

Monitoring Database – New Input Form

Monitoring Database – Stand Exam Data to FVS

Stand Modeling and Silvicultural Pathways Characteristics common to Old-growth Douglas-fir Forests: 18 or more very large live trees (>30” DBH) High variation in tree diameters Large snags and down logs Trees with dead and broken tops Diverse conifer, hardwood, shrub species High amounts of basal area

© Robert Van Pelt How did old growth stands develop those characteristics?

Old Growth Reference Stand 225 Years Old Diverse diameter and height distributions Large trees (some very large) Multiple tree species Notice reverse “J” shaped Diameter Distribution

Old Growth Reference Stand 400 Years Old Much different stand but same characteristics Notice reverse “J” shaped Diameter Distribution

Do we really need to thin these stands? Won’t they get to our DFC by themselves? Are the commercial thinnings driving the stands towards our Desired Future Condition? Is one thinning enough – can we walk away? Lets look at some real data ……

No residual trees or snags from the previous stand so they are starting out in a condition unlike what would have happened under natural disturbance (fire or windstorm) Very few hardwoods or conifer species other than Douglas-fir as a result of intensive earlier stand management; o Slash-burning o Spraying o Single species planting (DF) o Pre-commercial Thinning – eliminated spatial diversity The high health and vigor of the stands lends them to be highly resistant to disturbance (windthrow, root disease, etc), preventing natural opening which would allow the recruitment of new cohorts. What problems are we facing when we try to move plantations to mature/old growth forest?

Douglas-fir plantation (Bridge U2) at age 51, pre - thinning Notice NO reverse “J” shaped Diameter Distribution Clumped diameter and height distributions All Douglas-fir

Douglas-fir plantation (Bridge U2) at age 101—No treatment Letting the plantations grow without any thinning treatments move them from a dense monoculture of small trees to a dense monoculture of larger trees. There is some recruitment of small snags and down wood but the mortality in the smaller diameter classes causes the height and diameter distributions to remain clumped. Clumped Diameter Distribution Remains

So What trajectory are the thinned plantations on?

Douglas-fir plantation (Bridge U2) at age 51—After thinning treatment Diameter Distribution mirrors stand before thinning

Douglas-fir plantation (Bridge U2) at age 101—50 years after thinning treatment Diameter Distribution is similar to un-thinned stand at same age Thinning results in a similar diameter distribution as the un-thinned stand, albeit with larger trees and fewer trees per acre. However, the stand is more vigorous and mortality is reduced, leading to fewer snags and down wood. The thinning is leading us further away from our desired future condition -- a reverse “J” shaped diameter distribution curve.

So the answers to our questions are: Do we really need to thin these stands? Absolutely! Won’t they get to our DFC by themselves? Probably not, maybe never, or not for a very, very long time. Are the commercial thinnings driving the stands towards our Desired Future Condition? Sort of….. Is one thinning enough – can we walk away? No!

What silvicultural practices might we use to increase stand differentiation, and prevent clumped diameter distributions in the future? Preserve spatial heterogeneity within the stands through the use of variable density thinning: Example markings should be used to train timber fallers Free thin – thin across all the diameter classes. Clumps of trees (2-10) should be left to develop at a slower pace. These clumps will also have a tendency to “beat themselves up” in high wind events. Measure spatial heterogeneity pre-harvest and ensure it is at a minimum, maintained and hopefully increased. Timber cruise data (CV of tree counts per plot) can easily be used to determine pre-harvest spatial heterogeneity. Quick plots performed by contractor or TSA can prove compliance. Care should be taken to avoid damage to any advanced natural regeneration – these young trees are critical to stand differentiation. out the stand.

Actively manage for the introduction of new cohorts (GAPS): o Put in small openings (1/2 – 1.5 acres in size) distributed throughout each harvest unit, at a rate of at least 10% of the unit acreage. Skyline corridors are t0o narrow to serve this purpose, and landing openings are not well distributed throughout the units o o Actively manage these gaps to ensure the introduction of different tree species and just as importantly early seral species:  Planting  Tubing  Mechanical release o Gaps provide early seral habitat within the older “matrix” o Monitor the gaps to ensure some trees survive.

Un-thinned areas should be better distributed through out each unit (SKIPS) o SKIPS provide both vertical and horizontal diversity within the unit. o SKIPS should occupy at least 5% of the area of each unit. o Protect and expand on natural openings within the units. o The riparian reserves as SKIPS may provide some diversity at the landscape level, but do little at the stand level.

More thinning will be required in the future to keep the stands moving towards our DFC o Thin sooner than later – probably no more than 20 year interval. o Second and third thinnings should focus on:  Variable Density in “Matrix’  Opening up GAPS created in first thinning  Maintaining existing SKIPS  Adding 1 new matrix SKIP in each thinning

Goals for FY2015 Monitoring Continue with Bio-physical and Economic monitoring: o Work with Cascade Pacific and SNF to further refine and standardize reporting o Re-categorize past data to make it compatible with FY2014 data o Work with the SNF to update the web map:  Stand Exam photos  On and Off forest project photos and reports  Create Web Stories for selected projects o Try to move up the calendar for monitoring so that reporting for the previous year is completed by annual Joint Meeting:  Award annual contract much earlier in the year if possible  Conduct field work and analysis before the crush of the summer field/fire season.

Goals for FY2015 Monitoring -- continued Stand Exam data will be collected more intensively rather than extensively: o Fewer sales sampled o More plots in just a few units o Monitor GAPS – find them and measure them o Belted Line transects to collect data and analyze snag and down wood distribution

Questions ?