society of american foresters western … areas (rmas) of 50, 70, or 100 2 western forester

BY DR. GEORGE G. ICE, C.F., R.P.F., P.H.

Is it déjà vu allover again? For morethan 50 years therehas been an ongoingdebate about howriparian forestsshould be managedin the Northwest toprotect water quality and fish habitat.This issue of the Western Forester pro-vides a quick update for foresters onwhere we are in this debate, whatresearch activities are testing the effec-tiveness of riparian managementactivities, and what other efforts areunderway to enhance riparian forests.This article provides an overview ofkey riparian functions, the long historyof concerns in the Northwest, whatregulations are already in place, somecurrent controversies affecting deci-sions about appropriate riparian man-agement practices, and key questionsfor the future.

Key riparian forest functions

First, something everyone can agreeupon. Riparian forests provide key func-tions to adjacent streams. These func-tions include shade from adjacent andoverhanging trees and shrubs that mod-erate water temperatures; vegetativecover, intact soils and litter layers, androots that provide bank and channelstability; large wood recruitment to pro-vide cover from fish predators andstream structure (e.g., pools); a source offine allochthonous (land-based) organicmatter including needles, leaves, and

small branches; terrestrial insects; and acooler, more humid microclimate.Other functions may also be attributedto riparian forests, such as attenuationof flood waves and in-channel masswasting (landslide) events, although thegeometry of the channel/floodplain,and not the forest condition, is oftenmore important for these.

Longstanding concerns abouthow best to manage riparianforests

Concerns about riparian forestmanagement in the United States andits affects on water quality and quanti-ty go back to the beginnings of profes-sional forestry in this country. The

establishment of the National ForestSystem was largely justified by theneed to protect favorable flows ofwater. Concerns about how forestrymight be affecting fish habitat eventu-ally led to paired watershed researchin the late 1950s and 1960s at the AlseaWatershed Study near Toledo, Ore.,and the H.J. Andrews ExperimentalForest near Blue River, Ore.

The Alsea Watershed Study, in par-ticular, showed that negative impactsto water temperature, suspended sedi-ment, and dissolved oxygen concen-trations could be minimized by retain-ing a riparian forest around fish-bear-ing streams. The H.J. Andrews study

Managing Riparian Forests in the Pacific Northwest:An Ongoing Debate about How Much is Enough

S O C I E T Y O F A M E R I C A N F O R E S T E R S

(CONTINUED ON PAGE 2)

November/December 2015 Oregon • Washington State • Inland Empire • Alaska Societies Volume 60 • Number 5

Western Forester

In This Issue: Managing Riparian Forests

PHOTO COURTESY OF GEORGE ICE

A riparian management area adjacent to a small- and medium-sized stream inthe Oregon Coast Range.

confirmed much of what was observedat the Alsea, but also showed that forsome events such as landslides origi-nating outside the riparian area, ripari-an management could not avoid allnegative impacts. Other measures,such as improved road construction

methods, were needed to complementbuffers and other riparian practices.

After these early studies new con-cerns and research emerged. Duringthe Alsea Watershed Study concernswere raised about how fresh slash couldimpact dissolved oxygen concentra-tions in streams. This finding and con-cerns about fish passage were used tosupport sometimes excessive streamcleanout of wood. The need to resupplylarge wood to forest streams was high-

lighted in two conferences held atOregon State University in 1975 and1977 (Debris in Streams I and II). Basedon these changing perspectives andresearch findings there have been aseries of revisions to the forest practicesact rules for every Northwest state.These changing perspectives, rules,research, and ongoing debates havebeen addressed in past Western Foresterarticles. Key archived issues coveringthis subject include those fromSeptember/October 2002, March/April2005, November/December 2010, andJanuary/February 2013 and are avail-able at www.forestry.org/northwest/westernforester/.

Comparison of state riparianforest rules

A full comparison of riparian rulesfor Northwest states is beyond thescope of this article, but all four stateshave detailed riparian rules governingforest management near streams andother waterbodies.

Alaska’s rules tend to provide moreprotection for streams with anadro-mous fish and low-gradient or uncon-fined channels. A riparian managementzone of 100 feet can be required for themost protected streams with a no har-vest zone of 66 feet. For streams withoutanadromous fish, special water-qualityprotection measures are required for awidth of 50 to 100 feet around a water-body including retention of low-valuetimber within 25 feet of the water.Additional BMPs for harvesting, yard-ing, and timber-felling apply if there areunstable slopes near streams.

Idaho has established 75-foot-widetree retention buffers around fish-bearing streams with two basicoptions based on relative stockingdensity. Relative stocking is a compari-son of the actual stand density to thebiological maximum for a forest type.The 60-30 option requires more treesbe retained within the first 25 feet ofthe stream, with 60% of the biologicalmaximum being the target in thiszone. The 60-10 option retains thesame target within the first 50 feet butallows harvesting to 10% of relativestocking in the next 25 feet.

Oregon requires riparian manage-ment areas (RMAs) of 50, 70, or 100

2 WESTERN FORESTER ◆ NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015

Next Issue: Fuel Treatments

Managing RiparianForests in the PNW(CONTINUED FROM FRONT PAGE)

Western ForesterSociety of American Foresters

4033 S.W. Canyon Rd. • Portland, OR 97221 • 503-224-8046 • Fax [email protected] • www.forestry.org/northwest/westernforester/2015

Editor: Lori RasorWestern Forester is published five times a year by the Oregon, Washington State,

Inland Empire, and Alaska Societies’ SAF Northwest Office

State Society Chairs

Oregon: Matthew Krunglevich, 5286 TableRock Rd., Central Point, OR 97502; 541-664-3328; [email protected]

Washington State: Dick Hopkins, CF,Hopkins Forestry, PO Box 235, Mineral, WA98355; 360-492-5441; [email protected].

Inland Empire: Phil Aune, retired,6249 Gunnar Ct., Nine Mile Falls, WA 99026;509-464-1409; [email protected]

Alaska: Brian Kleinhenz, SealaskaCorporation, One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 400,Juneau, AK 99801; 907-586-9275 (o);[email protected]

Northwest Board Members

District I: Keith Blatner, Professor andProgram Leader for Forestry, School of theEnvironment, Washington State University,Pullman, WA 99164-99164; 509-595-0399 (c);509-335-4499 (o); [email protected]

District II: Ed Shepard, PO Box 849,Newberg, OR 97132; 971-832-3945;[email protected]

Please send change of address to:Society of American Foresters

5400 Grosvenor LaneBethesda, MD 20814

[email protected]

Anyone is at liberty to make fair use of the material in this publication. To reprint or make multiple reproduc-tions, permission must be obtained from the editor. Proper notice of copyright and credit to the WesternForester must appear on all copies made. Permission is granted to quote from the Western Forester if thecustomary acknowledgement accompanies the quote.

Other than general editing, the articles appearing in this publication have not been peer reviewed for techni-cal accuracy. The individual authors are primarily responsible for the content and opinions expressed herein.

Gulley Logging, LLCP.O. Box 690 • McKenna, WA 98558

• Ground base and Cable Harvesting

• Land clearing,Road building, andRoad Maintenance

• Harvest layoutand permitting

• Statewide

Member of WFFAAccredited Master Logger225533--884433--11996644

feet around fish-bearing streams,depending on stream size. All treeswithin 20 feet of the stream or thatlean over the stream must be left.Additional tree retention requirementswithin the RMAs are based on basalarea values designed to achievemature forest conditions and providelarge wood recruitment. Landownersare also encouraged to leave requiredwildlife trees in the riparian area.

Washington’s rules for fish-bearingstreams include three zones: a corezone of 30-50 feet where no harvest isallowed; an inner zone of 10-100 feet,depending on stream size and forestsite potential, where basal area reten-tion is designed to meet DesiredFuture Condition targets; and an outerzone of 22-67 feet with additional tar-geted tree retention. Washington’srules also require some tree retentionadjacent to non-fish bearing reacheswith an emphasis on the first 300-500feet above fish-bearing reaches.

With all these state rules there areconditions and situations that canrequire additional protection.

Current controversies aboutriparian forests

Recent and ongoing research on theeffectiveness of alternative forest man-agement practices is described furtherin this Western Forester issue. Researchresults can’t come too soon. There arenumerous ongoing technical and legaldebates influencing future manage-

ment of riparian forests. Oregon Forest Practices Act rule

revisions: One hot topic is the OregonBoard of Forestry’s (OBOF) delibera-tions on new riparian rules to addressfindings from the RipStream Study andthe Watersheds Research Cooperative(watershedsresearch.org). In Oregon,

compliance with the forest practicesact (FPA) rules is considered equiva-lent to meeting state water qualitystandards. There is evidence that smallchanges in water temperature proba-bly occur as a result of the currentpractices. There is also evidence thatthese changes are benign or even ben-eficial to fish. The OBOF is required tochoose the least burdensome alterna-tive to meet this water quality stan-dard. By statute, the OBOF must alsoensure that the rule benefits are pro-portional to the harm caused by forestpractices (see excellent commentaryby Dr. Paul Adams in the June/July/August 2015 issue of the WesternForester).

Federal legislation and oversight: Nostate operates completely autonomous-ly. Key federal legislation affecting ripar-ian management includes the CleanWater Act (CWA, requiring states todevelop point and nonpoint sourcepollution control programs like the for-est practices acts of Alaska, Idaho,Oregon, and Washington); Coastal ZoneManagement Act (CZMA, providingfunds to states having approved coastal

WESTERN FORESTER ◆ NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2015 3

(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

IMAGES COURTESY OF ARA ANDREA

These figures show the two new Forest Practices Act rules options for Idaho’sforested riparian areas.

PHOTO COURTESY OF DOUG MARTIN

Retention of riparian buffers along salmon-bearing streams in the Eagle Creekbasin on north Chichagof Island in Southeast Alaska. Buffers are a minimumof 66 feet wide; wider areas are buffers associated with adjacent slopebreaks, low value timber, and wetlands.

pollution control management plans);and Endangered Species Act (ESA, whichidentifies species or subpopulationsneeding additional protection to avoid“taking”).

Oversight by federal agencies ofstate programs and regulations can bepowerful. For example, nonpointsource control programs for forestry inthe Northwest have strong similaritieslargely because all four states areadministered by Region X of the UnitedStates Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA). Five current riparian for-est issues are strongly influenced bythis oversight: (1) interpretation ofwater quality standards; (2) the devel-opment of total maximum daily loads(TMDLs) for streams listed as impairedfor water quality; (3) federal assessmentof Oregon’s FPA rules under the CZMA;(4) ongoing listings and assessments ofriparian species under ESA; and (5) newregulations designed to clarify theextent of Waters of the United States.

Anti-degradation standards forwater quality: EPA provides guidanceand ultimately must approve state-

adopted water quality standards. Onerequired component of water qualitystandards is an anti-degradation ele-ment designed to protect high-qualitywater that would otherwise meet bio-logically-based criteria. The ProtectCold Water Standard (PCWS) inOregon is such a standard. It prohibitshuman activities from increasingwater temperatures by more than0.3°C even if the water would other-wise meet temperature criteria.

The dilemma for the OBOF,described earlier, is how to respond tosmall, temporary changes in waterquality that rapidly decrease down-stream when fish populations seem toeven benefit from this level of distur-bance. Foresters recognize that distur-bance is essential to maintain desir-able forest conditions and this conceptof a cycle of disturbance and recoveryneeds to be factored into riparianmanagement rules and even waterquality standards applied to forests.Two options have been proposed:(1) adopting state policies where small,brief, and infrequent exceedances of

water quality standards do not triggerclassifications of water bodies asimpaired (currently the policy in Idahofor certain conventional pollutants liketemperature); and (2) characterizingforest management impacts, not justfor immediate response, but over thefull rotation or cutting cycle.

Total Maximum Daily Load assess-ments: Under the CWA, states arerequired to develop TMDL assess-ments for streams and other water-bodies identified as impaired for waterquality and not protecting beneficialuses (like fish or drinking water).TMDLs are designed to calculate thepollution loads from point (e.g., facto-ries) and nonpoint source (e.g.,forestry or agricultural) activities anddetermine what reductions are neces-sary to protect beneficial uses. Basedon TMDL calculations, additional reg-ulations beyond FPA rules may berequired in certain watersheds. As anexample, the 2012 Addendum to theSouth Fork of the Salmon River TMDLfinds subbasins not meeting tempera-ture water quality standards, largelydue to recent forest wildfires. Targetshade levels are set for individualreaches as part of this TMDL adden-dum and could affect future riparianmanagement until recovery occurs.

Coastal Zone Management Act:States receive financial support fromEPA to encourage the development ofapproved pollution control manage-ment plans under CZMA. EPA Region Xhas not fully accepted Oregon’s coastalprogram. While EPA lists several ele-ments of concern, the adequacy of theOregon FPA rules for riparian areas iscentral to this debate. EPA has madecomparisons between the riparianrules under the FPAs for Oregon,Washington, and California, suggestingthat the OFPA rules are less than thosefrom other states. There is a “law ofdiminishing returns” with buffers, sothe biggest benefits come immediatelyadjacent to the stream. Argumentsshould be about how to effectively andefficiently protect water/fisheriesresources and not which states havestricter riparian rules. A more convinc-ing argument would be that trout andsalmon populations from forestlandsin Oregon show declines compared toCalifornia and Washington, but thisdoes not seem to be the case.


ESA listings: Special managementmeasures can be required to avoid inci-dental taking of species listed under theESA. As an example, in May the Centerfor Biological Diversity filed a notice ofintent to sue the National MarineFisheries Service (NOAA) over thatagency’s actions to recover the OregonCoastal Coho Salmon EndangeredSpecies Unit. This notice specificallytargeted forest practices and cited aNOAA assessment that logging opera-tions are “likely to reduce stream shade,slow the recruitment of large woodydebris, and add fine sediment.” A num-ber of riparian forest species includingthe Cascade torrent salamander andColumbia torrent salamander wererecently identified for possible listing(See http://1.usa.gov/1jy9qRi). TheWashington FPA and program are thekey components of a statewide HabitatConservation Plan for ESA-listed fishspecies on state and private forests inthat state.

Waters of the United States: There iscurrently an ongoing technical, legal,and political debate about the extent ofWaters of the United States (WOTUS)under the CWA. EPA has just release

new rules stating that streams, no mat-ter how small or ephemeral, are cate-gorically WOTUS. This rule could influ-ence forest riparian management byapplying water quality standards andforest practices regulations to headwa-ter reaches, even when the downstreamconnections are weak and ephemeral.For additional information on theWOTUS rule visit: www2.epa.gov/cleanwaterrule/final-clean-water-rule.

Key questions for the future

There will always be new challengesand information needs about how tomanage riparian forests. Some keyquestions we need to address include:

• What stream/forest characteristicsare important to fit riparian manage-ment regulations to unique site-specif-ic conditions?

• How do we maintain favorableriparian forest conditions in both theshort and long run?

• Can we manage riparian forests toenhance fish populations?

• Can active management practiceslike wood placement be used effective-ly to meet stream needs such as woodrecruitment?

• Can we develop incentives to pri-vate landowners to actively manageriparian forests?

• How much is enough when weestablish riparian managementdimensions, including the width,extent of the stream network, andpractices allowed?

• What is practicable and least bur-densome?

Comparing research results from his-toric and current studies, it is clear thatwe have made tremendous progressreducing water quality impacts fromforest management. Riparian manage-ment rules are a large part of thatimprovement. But we are in an ongoingcycle of monitoring, research, anddebates about forest riparian manage-ment practices and the most efficientway to achieve environmental andsocial/economic goals. ◆

Dr. George G. Ice is NCASI Fellow(retired), National Council for Air andStream Improvement, Inc. in Corvallis,Ore. An SAF Fellow, he can be reachedat 541-752-8801 or [email protected].



BY MARYANNE REITER

“The current concern about theimpact of logging on water and fishis not new, as many people wish tobelieve.”

—G.W. Brown, 1972, early researcheron the Alsea watershed studies

hile concernover the impact

of logging practiceson water and fishwas not new in 1972,what was new at thetime was theapproach the AlseaWatershed Study used to examinethose concerns. The study was done atthe watershed scale, not just on asmall reach, and it examined loggingeffects on water and fish at the sametime instead of in isolation. Thisapproach allowed the scientists to startlinking physical effects with biologicalresponses—a method we still use over50 years later.

Since the original Alsea Watershedstudy, forest practices and the instru-mentation and techniques to measuretheir effects have changed dramatical-ly. Several studies initiated in the pastdecade have examined a range ofpractices including timber harvest,road construction, and site prepara-tion (e.g., herbicide application) aswell as a broad range of responsesfrom sediment to water quantity tofish. This article provides a briefoverview of studies on working forestlandscapes of the Pacific Northwestthat are measuring how riparian pro-

tections affect aquatic ecosystems andfocuses on a few key stream responsesto management.

Overview of research efforts onprivate forestland: Who is doingwhat where?

The multitude of stream studiesbeing conducted range in size fromlarger watersheds that may have small-er watersheds within them, to smallbasins and down to the reach scale.The scale of the study depends on thequestions being asked, and of course,the resources available to answer thequestions. Larger, nested-watershedstudies are needed to evaluate whetherlocal practices have downstreameffects. But if the question involvesunderstanding the variability of a prac-tice across a large area, then a reach-scale study is appropriate since theyare generally smaller and can be imple-

mented more widely. The followingdescribes the current studies inOregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaskathat are evaluating aquatic ecosystemresponse to forest management.

Cooperative, multi-disciplinarylong-term watershed scalestudies

Four major watershed scale studiesare being conducted by universities incooperation with landowners andagencies (see Table 1). The goal of thesewatershed studies is to examine theeffects of contemporary forest prac-tices on water quantity and quality(e.g., sediment, temperature, nutrients,etc.) and aquatic biota (e.g., periphy-ton, macroinvertebrates, amphibians,and fish) across intensively managedforest landscapes. Many of these stud-ies evaluate both local responses (har-vest unit or road crossing) as well aswhether effects are transported down-stream in order to explore any offsiteimpacts. These watershed studies arecritical to understanding actual biolog-ical responses and the underlyingprocesses that govern those responses,which is key to predicting long-termand widespread management effectsrather than just assuming a biologicalresponse from a single parameter

PHOTO COURTESY OF EMILY ROSKAM

Amphibian researchers in the Trask Watershed study.

Aquatic Ecosystem Response to Managementin Riparian Areas of Pacific NorthwestWorking Forests

W

Connecting Forest Landowners withSeedlings, Services and Contractors

DISCOVER Our Interactive Websitewww.forestseedlingnetwork.com

BUY/SELL SEEDLINGS • FIND VENDOR SERVICES & CONTRACTORS • VALUABLE RESOURCES

response such as temperature. In Oregon, three of the contempo-

rary watershed-scale studies havebeen organized under the WatershedsResearch Cooperative at Oregon StateUniversity (watershedsresearch.org/).These studies include collaboratorsfrom research organizations, includingOregon State University, state and fed-eral agencies, and landowners (Table 1shows more detail on the various stud-ies). In northern Idaho the Mica Creekexperimental watershed (www.web-pages.uidaho.edu/micacreek/index.htm) began collecting long-termdata in 1991. The study was done incooperation with Potlatch Corporationand the University of Idaho.

These four watershed studies gen-erally used a nested, paired design,meaning there were small watershedswithin the larger watershed and that

some of the study basins were not har-vested so they could be used as a refer-ence. The studies measured ecosystemparameters before harvest to compareto post-harvest response, which istermed a before-after/control-impact(BACI) design.

Agency studies

State forestry departments alsosponsor and conduct research andmonitoring efforts to evaluate the effi-cacy of their forest practices rules. InOregon, the Oregon Department ofForestry (ODF) conducted a multi-yearstudy across the Coast Range to exam-ine the effects of forest harvest onstream temperature and large woodrecruitment; the results of that studyhas led to a re-assessment of small andmedium stream buffers on privateforests (www.oregon.gov/ODF/Board/Documents/RFPC/RipStreamProject.pdf).

In Washington, the state ForestPractices Board established theCooperative Monitoring, Evaluationand Research Committee (CMER) toprovide the science needed to supporttheir adaptive management program.CMER currently has several studiesfocused on the effects of riparian man-agement for both non-fish and fishstreams (http://1.usa.gov/1KbE0pd).

A similar effort has been ongoing inAlaska where the effectiveness of theforest practices act for protectingaquatic ecosystem characteristics hasbeen evaluated over the last 18 years.Participants in this monitoring pro-gram include private landowners, theAlaska Department of NaturalResources, and Department ofEnvironmental Conservation.


Resources

In addition to the information on the study websites indicated in the article,below are some other sources of recent information.

Alaska Research Reports: http://forestry.alaska.gov/forestpractices.htm#eff

American Fisheries Society 2015 Meeting Session: Effects of Contemporary ForestManagement Practices on the Physical, Chemical, and Biological Characteristics ofHeadwater Streams: https://afs.confex.com/afs/2015/webprogram/Session3474.html

Washington Stream Temperature Research:https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1203020.html

(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

Table 1. Selected studies examining the effects of contemporary forestpractices on aquatic ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest.

Agency/University Studies

Cooperative Watershed Scale Studies

State, study name, Experimental Harvest treatments What was and landowners design and riparian buffer measured

widths (each side) instream?*

Idaho: Mica Creek - Nested, paired Clearcut, partial cut. A, F, M, N, Potlatch Corporation watershed; BACI Non-fish: 30 ft equip. SF, S&T, T

exclusion. Fish streams:75 ft.

Oregon: Hinkle Creek - Nested, paired No overstory A, F, M, N,Roseburg Forest watershed; BACI buffers on non-fish SF, S&T, TProducts streams; up to 100 ft

on fish streams

Oregon: Alsea Paired watershed; Small fish-bearing C, DO, F, M, Watershed Study - BACI stream 50 ft buffer N, SF, S&T, TPlum Creek

Oregon: Trask Nested, paired Non-fish streams: A, DO, F, M, Watershed Study - watershed; BACI 0 ft to 25 ft. N, OM, P, SF, ODF, BLM, and S&T, TWeyerhaeuser Co.

Alaska: Riparian Stream reach; Fish streams: 65 ft CHN, LW, TManagement BACI and studies standard or 100-220 ftEvaluation in Coastal where there are for wide buffersWorking Forests - no control Martin and Shelly, reachesMartin Environmental

Oregon-RipStream - Stream reach; Fish streams: 50 ft to LW, TODF, various Coast BACI 70 ft on private sitesRange landowners.

Washington-Type N Small watersheds; Non-fish streams: 0 ft A, F, LW, M, and F Buffer BACI to 50 ft; fish streams N, OM, SF, Effectiveness Studies - (eastside): 75 ft S&T, Tvarious private for shadelandowners

* A=amphibians, C=chemicals, CHN=channel/habitat, DO=dissolved oxygen, F=fish,LW=large wood, M=macroinvertebrates, N=nutrients, OM=organic matter, P=periphyton,SF=streamflow, S&T= sediment and/or turbidity, T=temperature

Findings on various topics

The following is a brief summarywith a focus on the biological responseof the results and initial findings fromthe various research and monitoringefforts (see sidebar for additionalinformation).

Fish. Fish response to managementvaried with proximity of the harvesttreatment to the stream reaches wherefish were present. At Hinkle Creek,harvest along headwater streamsresulted in no change in density orbiomass of age 0 and age 1+ cutthroattrout and no detectable changes inhabitat. Subsequent harvest withbuffers along fish-bearing streamreaches resulted in increases in fishsize and growth.

The cutthroat trout in the Alseastudy showed increased biomass, andabundance after timber harvest, whichwas largely a result of the increasednumber of young fish. This study alsofound that harvest effects are localized(proximal to streamside harvest). TheAlsea age 0 trout also showed no evi-dence of treatment effect on abun-dance or biomass but mean forklength declined somewhat after har-vest. The Alsea coho salmon showedno evidence of a management effecton abundance, biomass, mean size,distribution, or condition. For bothHinkle and Alsea there were also very

few measurable changes in habitat asa result of timber harvest with buffers.

Trout one year and older in MicaCreek showed the greatest post-harvestincrease in density response immedi-ately downstream of the clearcut water-shed, with lesser increases below thepartially harvested reach. Mica Creekresearchers speculated that fish densi-ty increased in the harvest units rela-tive to the reference streams due toincreased primary productivity, moreflow, and earlier season increases inwater temperature.

Amphibians. Three of the studiesexamined the response of amphibiansto timber harvest (Hinkle, Trask andCMER Type N). The species examinedincluded Pacific giant salamanders, tor-rent salamanders, and coastal tailedfrogs, depending on the site. Responsesvaried among studies, species, andbuffer treatment. For example, prelimi-nary findings in the Trask study indicatethat there was no response to harvest inPacific giant salamander density but aconsistent increase in growth rate. Incontrast, the Washington Type N studyfound a decrease in density of thatspecies at sites with a 50-ft no-touchbuffer for 50% of the stream length, butno change at sites with a 50-ft buffer for100% of the stream length or at siteswhere no overstory buffer was retained.In Hinkle Creek there was no apparent

response of Pacific giant salamandersto harvest treatments.

The response of the other amphib-ian species studied in Washington, i.e.,coastal tailed frogs and torrent sala-manders, varied depending on treat-ment. For streams with no overstorybuffer retained there was no change indensity of coastal tailed frog larvae, anincrease in coastal tailed frog adults,and an increase in torrent salaman-ders. For the streams with a 50-ft no-touch buffer over 50% of the treatmentreach length there were positive densi-ty responses in tailed frog larvae butno change in the tailed frog adults andtorrent salamanders. At sites with a 50-ft buffer along 100% of the channel,tailed frog density increased but theother species did not change.

Macroinvertebrates. The CMERstudy in Washington found that therewas no significant change in macroin-vertebrate drift and no large shifts incommunity composition in the har-vested watersheds (all riparian treat-ments) relative to the reference water-sheds. This is similar to the resultsfound in Mica Creek where functionalfeeding groups and species diversitywere relatively unresponsive instreams below areas that experiencedroad construction and timber harvest.

For the small, non-fish headwaterand mainstream fish-bearing sites inHinkle Creek, changes in macroinverte-brates after timber harvest included adecrease in taxa richness; an increase inthe percent of some species; and anincrease in the rate of adult aquaticinsect emergence. These changes wereobserved adjacent to harvest activitieswith no changes in macroinvertebratesdetected downstream.

Similarly, initial results from theTrask study indicate that macroinver-tebrates have a local response follow-ing harvest with the degree of changerelated to the degree of ripariancanopy removal.

Temperature. Temperature respons-es of small, non-fish streams varied bystream, harvest, and riparian buffercharacteristics. Riparian overstorybuffer requirements for this class ofstream ranged from 0 to 50-ft wide,depending on state rules and studydesign, with harvest treatmentsincluding clearcut and partial cut.

Results from these studies indicate


Jackson and Prochnau, Inc.Since 1954

Feasibility Studies & Investment Analysis World Wide.Inventory, Appraisals, Engineering, Management, Log Marketing

www.jacksonandprochnau.comAlbany, OR Tel: 541-926-3320

[email protected], WA Tel: 360-352-9680

that changes in temperature forstreams without a riparian overstorybuffer ranged from a 1.6°C decrease toa 3.6°C increase in daily maximumtemperatures. The lack of temperatureresponse in some small streams waspotentially due to increases in stream-flow following harvest as well as resid-ual shade from low shrubs or slash.

For studies measuring stream tem-peratures downstream of these smallheadwater streams, there were no sig-nificant increases in fish-bearingreaches as a result of upstream har-vest. For example, at Mica Creek ripar-ian buffers effectively ameliorated anyupstream harvest effect on summertemperature since no changes indownstream temperatures wereobserved. An Oregon fish-bearingreach study with 50-ft to 70-ft widebuffers found that average daily maxi-mum temperature increased 0.7°C.Average daily maximum temperaturesfor fish-bearing reaches in easternWashington, where all available shademust be maintained within 75 ft of thechannel, the average increase was0.2°C. In Alaska, while temperatureswere significantly higher in the studyreaches, the increases were very small(<1.0°C).

Summary

In the last decade numerous long-term studies have been initiated thatfocused on quantifying the effects ofcontemporary stream protection prac-tices on aquatic ecosystems in thePacific Northwest. These ongoingstudies have examined small- to large-stream systems in order to understandthe interaction of aquatic ecology andwatershed-scale management acrossthe working forest landscape. Whatthey have found is that contemporaryforest management effects are dramat-

ically different than historic practicesand are often within natural back-ground variability. The initial resultsfrom studies examining fish dynamicshave indicated that there is no appar-ent downstream fish response toupstream harvest of non-fish streams.Timber harvests along fish-bearingstreams have generally shown a posi-tive response in growth and/or densi-ty. Likewise, preliminary data showsthat amphibians and macroinverte-brates had little immediate responseto harvest even in streams where nooverstory was retained. Stream tem-perature response varied from no

change or a decrease to an increase ofa few degrees.

These studies, taken together, indi-cate that while there are detectablechanges in physical parameters, cur-rent riparian and upland managementpractices do not appear to negativelyimpact the aquatic ecosystems of theworking forest landscape streams. ◆

Maryanne Reiter is a hydrologistfor Weyerhaeuser Company inSpringfield, Ore. She can be reachedat 541-988-7527 or [email protected].


LORENZFORESTRYCHUCK LORENZ, CF 1770

Forest Management Planning &Operations, Inventory, Valuation

for over 40 years

[email protected]

360-951-0117

BY DEANNA (Dede) H. OLSON

ne hop and Ican cross the

stream at many ofmy managed-foreststudy sites. Theseheadwaters mayappear insubstantialin comparison to therushing waters downstream, but after20 years of research the complexitiesof these small streams and theiradjoining riparian zones are beingrevealed. In western Oregon headwa-ter streams, I have been conductingstudies of the effects of alternativeriparian buffer widths withupland forest thinning onaquatic and riparian habitatsand animals.

A wealth of knowledge con-tinues to emerge from thiswork, with many different con-ditions and processes at playaround the edges—specificallywithin 50 feet of the streamedge and 50 feet from theupland buffer edge toward thewater. A 50-ft minimum bufferwidth with upland thinning isgaining support for retaining orrestoring a host of aquatic-riparian conditions. For me,that’s about 16 steps upslope.For some organisms, it’s hometerritory for a lifetime.

I am part of an interagencyteam implementing the DensityManagement and RiparianBuffer Study of western Oregon(see Figure 1). In 1993, we con-sidered what forestry informa-tion might be needed in 20years’ time and envisioned theneed for more science on theefficacy of different bufferwidths around small streams toretain aquatic-riparian valuesin the context of upland thin-ning. This need rang true giventhat much of the moist forestlandscape was in earlyclearcuts, small streams were

numerous, and there was uncertaintyabout exactly what the key ecologicalvalues were in those headwaterdrainages. My contribution has beento design the riparian buffer compo-nent and focus on studying the aquat-ic habitats and vertebrates in thosemanaged headwaters before and aftertwo upland thinnings.

Pre-treatment, we characterizedstream habitats and inhabitants at themanaged-forest study sites wherestands were 30-80 years old, naturallyregenerated after clearcutting. Wefound 15 aquatic-dependent verte-brates in and along banks of ourstreams, each with unique habitatassociations, and most streams were

spatially discontinuous, going subsur-face for short distances. An uplandthinning treatment reduced denseoverstories to 80 trees per acre, withskips and gaps for added structuralheterogeneity. Along streams, 1 of 4no-entry buffer zones (see Figure 2)were delineated: the one and two site-potential tree-height buffers of the fed-eral Northwest Forest Plan, and twoalternatives—a 50-foot minimum-width buffer that varied in width withsite conditions (unique trees, steepslopes, seeps) and a 20-foot bufferdesigned to retain streambank stabili-ty. Also, no-harvest control units weredesignated, yielding a before-after-control-impact study design imple-mented at 13 sites from Mount Hoodto Coos Bay. Today, 8 sites have persist-ed through the second thinning (~12years after the first thinning), reducingthe largest overstory trees to 30 trees

per acre. In this region, the den-sity of the largest trees in late-successional and old-growthforests can be less than 30 treesper acre. At this entry we aimedto retain accelerated treegrowth of under- and over-storytrees.

The value of the 50-foot mini-mum buffers in the context ofthis dual thinning harvest hasemerged from several relatedstudies. First, we saw a buffereffect on species. Two salaman-ders exhibited reduced counts inand along streams with the 20-foot buffer: Dunn’s salamanders(Plethodon dunni) along streambanks within ~6 feet of water 10years after the first thinning and1 year after the second thinning,and instream torrent salaman-ders (Rhyacotriton spp., Figure 3)1 year after the second thinning.Both taxa had increased countsalong streams with the 50-footminimum buffer and the one-tree buffer after the secondthinning. These salamandersare northwest endemic speciesof concern. Relative to all thespecies in our study, torrentsalamanders were indicators ofdiscontinuous streams in ourheadwater systems and down-stream they appear to be dis-placed by predatory coastal


The Science of 50-foot RiparianBuffers in Headwaters

O

Figure 1. SOURCE: KATHRYN RONNENBERG,US FOREST SERVICE, PACIFIC NORTHWEST

RESEARCH STATION

giant salamanders (Dicamptodon tene-brosus) and fish. Two of the four torrentsalamander species in the region arecurrently under consideration for list-ing as US threatened or endangeredspecies.

Woodland salamanders (familyPlethodontidae) live on the forest floorand never need to be immersed inwater. Studies of this assemblage at asubset of our sites revealed a thinningeffect 2 years after the first thinning at1 of 2 sites, and no thinning effect after5-6 years at 3 sites. Importantly, wefound that western red-backed sala-manders (Plethodon vehiculum) mostoften occurred within 16 feet of water,and Ensatina (Ensatina eschscholtzii)were most often found between 32and 50 feet from streams. In a mark-recapture study, we found more sala-mander movements within ~50 feet ofstreams. The riparian zone within 50feet of streams appears to be a struc-tured salamander metropolis almostlike an I-5 corridor! Centrally nested infood webs, these animals are indica-

tors of a larger community thrivingalong streams. A 50-foot minimumwidth no-entry buffer would benefitthis riparian assemblage.

Instream habitats were retainedwith buffers, with one exception. Moreearly-decay-stage wood was found instreams with the 20-foot buffer. Hence,an expectation that wide buffers wouldprovide down wood by self-thinningover time has not been supported byour study, or at least not yet.

Other “50-foot patterns” haveemerged. Over 80% of our instreamwood that we could trace to sourcetrees came from within 50 feet ofstreams. Our study of riparian treegrowth detected an edge effect of

accelerated growth extending 50-feetinto the no-entry buffer from theupland thinning edge. This means thatriparian forest restoration can beaccelerated by adjacent thinning, forexample, growing larger trees faster forfuture large down wood recruitment.Lastly, microclimate analyses conduct-ed by colleague Paul Anderson of PNWshow that there is a zone ~50-feet widealong streams where the steepest“stream effect” gradient occurs, thezone of cool, moist conditions thatattenuates as you step away fromstreams, and that through two thin-nings, water temperature has not beenaffected with any buffer.

Thus, a 50-foot minimum bufferwith upland thinning retains orrestores several headwater aquatic-riparian values, including animals andhabitat conditions. As a scientist, I amready to test this buffer in differentcontexts—we have moved one stepforward in forest buffer designs and atthis reset point, a few more steps upthat science slope are now needed.

For more reading visit www.fs.fed.us/pnw/lwm/aem/people/olson.html. ◆

Deanna (Dede) H. Olson is researchecologist and team leader, US ForestService, PNW Research Station, inCorvallis, Ore. She can be reached at541-750-7373 or [email protected].


PHOTO COURTESY OF WILLIAM P. LEONARD

Figure 3. After two thinningharvests, fewer torrent salamanders(Rhyacotriton spp.) were found instreams with the narrowest buffer(20-feet wide), and more werefound in streams with the 50-footminimum-width buffer.

SOURCE: KATHRYN RONNENBERG, US FOREST SERVICE, PACIFIC NORTHWEST RESEARCH STATION

Figure 2. Four stream-riparian buffer widths examined with upland thinning.

Seedling Nursery Since 1974

“Serving Many of the Reforestation Needs of the World From This Location Since 1889”

We bring experience with owners that care about their product and customers.

Approximately 10 million seedlings in annual production1 container site (plugs), 2 bareroot/transplant sites (p+1, 1+1)

Contract growing and spec seedlings for forestry and Christmas tree production

LET US GROW YOUR SEEDLINGSDavid Gerdes Mike Gerdes

[email protected]

FORESTERS • NURSERYMAN • SEEDSMAN

SILVASEED COMPANYP.O. Box 118 • Roy, WA 98580 • (253) 843-2246

BY TERRANCE W. CUNDY,DALE McGREER, AND ARA ANDREA

n July 1, 2014,Idaho changed

its streamside man-agement rule for treeretention require-ments next to fish-bearing streams. Thegoal of this article isto provide an over-view of the key pointsin developing thisnew rule. Given ourlimited space, thedetails of the newrule are not providedhere; however, therule in its completeform, along with sup-porting information,is available atwww.idl.idaho.gov/forestry/fpa/shade-rule/index.html.

In Idaho, thesilvicultural BestManagementPractices (BMPs) arestatutorily defined inthe Idaho Forest Practices Act adminis-trative rules (Forest Practices Rules),and the Idaho Department of Lands(IDL) administers these Forest PracticesRules. Revision of the Forest PracticesRules is initiated by the Idaho ForestPractices Act Advisory Committee(FPAAC), an advisory committee con-sisting of nine voting members, whichinclude a fisheries biologist, a nonin-dustrial private forest landowner, twoforest landowners, two forest operators,two informed citizens, and an at-largemember. Non-voting members includea private forestry consultant, USDAForest Service hydrologist, and anIdaho Department of EnvironmentalQuality (IDEQ) manager. IDEQ leads astatewide audit of forest operationsevery four years to monitor overallcompliance with these BMPs. To a less-er degree, effectiveness, completeness,and logical consistency are evaluated.Following each audit, IDEQ generatesrule-change recommendations, then

FPAAC works with IDL to promulgaterule changes to address these recom-mendations.

Concerns regarding the streamsidetree retention rule began in 2000 withthe IDEQ audit. Following the 2004audit, IDEQ provided FPAAC and IDLrecommendations for changing thestreamside tree retention rule. Theshade rule, at that time, was quite sim-ple: “Leave 75% of the current shade…”This rule had been in place since 1976with some minor rewording over theyears. Three concerns with the rulewere identified by IDEQ following thesetwo audits:

1. There was no minimum quantita-tive requirement for shade;

2. There was no clear scientific basisfor the rule; and

3. As written, the rule theoreticallyallowed repeated re-entry to streamsidestands that could drive shade to nearzero.

It is important to note that compli-ance with the shade rule, during eitheraudit, was not an issue. In addition, IDLForest Practices inspectors were notobserving rule abuses of repeated re-entry. Thus, the driving factor for revi-sion of the rule was simply that therewas no minimum requirement for ameasurable amount of stream shade.Obviously, in today’s regulatory envi-ronment, any new rule would need to

address the second concern of having aclear scientific basis. However, the finalimportant factors in developing a newrule are more subtle and include sim-plicity and operational feasibility.Combined, these factors resulted in aprocess that took over 10 years to com-plete and included a number of failedattempts.

Scientific basis of the new rule

The constraints of the new stream-side tree retention rule, agreed upon byFPAAC, were:

• The desired condition for stream-side areas is a relatively mature, healthyforest;

• The rule should explicitly addressthe variety of forest types in Idaho;

• The rule should promote steward-ship of streamside areas, that is, itshould protect stream resources (inparticular shade) and encourage activemanagement; and

• The rule should be simple toimplement.

To meet these constraints and toensure scientific rigor, both field dataand modeling analyses were used. IDLretained outside professional consult-ing for this work.

To address the variety of forest typesin Idaho, existing field data on foresttype and stand tables for streamsideareas were used. The goal was to recog-nize that streams under different forest


Streamside Management Rule—Idaho Experience

O

SOURCE: CRAMER FISH SCIENCES

Figure 1. Modeled shade over streams of three different widths and severaldifferent management intensities. Starting left to right on the figure, the“benchmark” for shade was a 100 foot wide (each side) buffer, with no harvestinside the buffer. The next increment of management was to reduce the bufferwidth to 75 feet (each side), again with no harvest inside the buffer. The thirdincrement was to reduce the buffer width to 50 feet (each side), with noharvest inside. The next increments reflect a 50 foot (each side) buffer, withharvest inside the buffer reducing a relative density score to various ranges.

Terrance W.Cundy

Dale McGreer

Ara Andrea

Unharvested100 ft Buffer

Cleared to75 ft Buffer

Cleared to50 ft Buffer

Thinned55 to 65

Thinned45 to 55

Thinned35 to 45

Thinned25 to 35

100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%

Effe

ctiv

e Sh

ade

(%)


types in different parts of the state havedifferent levels of shade. In the end, fiveforest type-geographical combinationswere identified: north Idaho grand fir;central Idaho grand fir; southern Idahogrand fir; western hemlock and sub-alpine fir; and Douglas-fir and pon-derosa pine.

Model simulations were then com-pleted in which the field-based standtables were “harvested” to variousextents and “re-grown” over time, andeffective shade was calculated overstreams of three different widths.Streamside stands were characterizedby relative density (RD), a metric calcu-lated from stand density index. The sim-ulations were summarized in graphs, anexample is shown in Figure 1.

While not discussed in detail here, itis important to note that the analysesalso evaluated the accumulation oflarge woody debris. The evaluationshowed that for the range of harvestintensities modeled, large woodydebris was expected to increase in allcases. Therefore, the rule making couldsafely proceed based on shade protec-tion only.

Reaching a decision on thenew rule

Armed with information as inFigure 1, the decision for the commit-tee, IDL, and ultimately the legislature,was: “Where do we want to land on thecurve?” This is inherently a value ques-tion, not a scientific question. Everyindividual’s answer reflects a uniqueperception of the balance of risk andreward. Landowners tend to put morevalue on the short-term financial bene-fits from increased harvest; environ-mental advocates tend to put morevalue on reducing short-term risk ofshade reduction and therefore preferincreased retention. This mix of per-spectives is built into the compositionof FPAAC.

In summary, after lengthy discus-sion, FPAAC ultimately proposed a rule

that required high levels of tree reten-tion, generally in the RD 55-65 range.The committee also recommended thatthe rule have two options, which isunique in forest practices rules nation-wide as far as we are aware. The twooptions were largely driven by the dif-ferent management strategies of largeand small landowners. Large landown-ers wanted an option that fit with theirgeneral approach of infrequent stream-side harvest activities coincident withevenaged harvesting of the adjacentupland stand. Small landowners want-ed an option that fit with their generalapproach of more frequent, uneve-naged or salvage harvest activities instreamside areas.

Getting the rule passed

To pass this rule with broad support,IDL and FPAAC committed to makingthe rule processes as transparent aspossible; stakeholder engagement wasintense and targeted, exceeding legalrequirements. IDL conducted numer-ous face-to-face meetings and presen-tations to industrial forestland owners,nonindustrial private forestland own-ers, IDEQ, tribes, EnvironmentalProtection Agency, and conservationorganizations. This key to successfulrule passage—going well beyond thelegally required public rule-makingprocess to engage and educate stake-holders—was made evident by the factthat no public comments were receivedthat formally challenged the proposedrule.

The rule making process took twoyears to ultimately resolve technicaland political concerns. When presentedto the legislature in 2014, smalllandowners voiced two legitimate con-cerns: (1) the rule is fairly complicated;and (2) the rule is very conservative andgreatly restricts timber harvest.

In response to these concerns, IDLadded a request to the legislature tofund additional forester positions toprovide technical assistance to private

landowners. Finally, IDL in partnershipwith IDEQ committed to testing thenew rule in the spirit of adaptive man-agement. Data from the tests couldmove the rule one direction or theother, to higher or lower levels of reten-tion.

Based on these efforts, the proposedrule was approved by the legislature inearly 2014 and it ultimately became lawJuly 1, 2014.

Moving forward

Since the rule went into effect, theIDEQ, IDL, and University of Idahohave developed a partnership to studythe implementation and effectivenessof the new rule as promised to land-owners. We expect that initial data willbe provided to the FPAAC in 2016 and2017, but it will likely take a few moreyears to satisfactorily sample the rangeof forest types and geography. ◆

Terrance W. Cundy is manager, Silvicul-ture,Wildlife, and Environment forPotlatch Corporation in Lewiston,Idaho. He can be reached at 208-748-2032 or [email protected] McGreer is principal at WesternWatershed Analysts in Clarkston, Wash.He can be reached at 509-758-3893 [email protected]. Ara Andrea isTechnical Services Bureau chief (for-merly Forest Practices program manag-er), Idaho Department of Lands, Coeurd’Alene, Idaho. She can be reached at208-666-8662 or [email protected] and Ara are both SAF members.

FOREST RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY• SAF Accredited •

Ron Boldenow, Ph.D., C.F., ForestryRebecca Franklin, Ph.D., DendrochronologyBret Michalski, M.S., Wildlife Science

http://cocc.edu/forestry E-mail: [email protected] (541) 383-7756

CENTRAL OREGON COMMUNITY COLLEGE Bend, Oregon

BY MARK TEPLY

iparian forestsand the terrestri-

al and aquatic organ-isms that benefit fromthem exist and func-tion at the watershedscale. Riparian forestsare shaped not onlyby individual stand dynamics, but alsoby myriad natural processes that workat the watershed scale, including insect,disease, fire, windthrow, mass wasting,and flooding. In an unmanaged land-scape, these processes operate to creatediverse habitats on the landscape thatserve a multitude of species and pro-vide any one species necessary diversityto support many life history stages. Themix of riparian stand conditions in thewatershed is as important as any oneriparian stand.

One size fits all?

So why is it that we have developedforest practices rules that create a nar-row set of stand conditions? Rules pre-scribe fixed width buffer sizes, speciescomposition, and minimum stocking.The prescriptions may vary by factorssuch as stream type, forest type, andsite class. These are important refine-ments, but they are coarse. Overall,forest practices rules tend to drivestands toward a narrow set of desired

future conditions (DFCs).Forest practices rules provide oper-

ational certainty. DFCs are informedby science, of course, but their defini-tion is as much based in science asthey are in policy. DFCs representthresholds that are both scientificallyand socially acceptable. For the timberoperator, DFCs represent a clear stan-dard against which foresters can planand operate in riparian areas. Therules are an agreed approach to permitactive management in riparian areaswhile providing resource protection.This certainty is valuable to both tim-ber and conservation interests.

Forest practices rules tend to be pre-cautionary. The DFCs agreed upon dur-ing the rule-making process usuallyreflect conditions at the upper end ofstocking distribution. Statistical uncer-tainty is often taken into account to adda margin of safety. The result is a set ofrules that provide resource protectionwith great confidence. When faced withthe challenge of making rules to beapplied across large geographical areas,it is understandable why regulators takea precautionary approach. They seek toensure protection in all instances. Theconsequence, however, is that riparianstands are driven toward a narrowlydefined DFC.

This approach to riparian rule mak-ing has implications to forest health.Treatment options to address over-stocking, insects, disease, and fire riskin riparian areas are limited. Yes, theseare natural stand development and dis-turbance processes—something we’dlike to see some of in a watershed. But,

in driving riparian stand conditions tothe upper end of stocking distribution,we run the risk of creating riparianstands across the entire watershed thatare less resilient to disturbance. Thescale and intensity of insect, disease,and wildfire, for instance, could begreater than would otherwise occurwith a diverse set of riparian stand con-ditions in the watershed.

Uncharacteristic disturbanceregimes also have implications tostreams. Wholescale loss of riparianforests (e.g., due to wildfire) couldincrease peak flows, sediment delivery,and stream temperature, which coulddamage stream habitat and aquaticorganisms throughout the watershed. Adiverse riparian landscape could limitthe scale and intensity of riparian loss-es, and in turn, limit the impacts tostream habitat and aquatic organisms.So, besides limiting the ability of ripari-an forests to serve a multitude ofspecies and life history stages as notedearlier, riparian forest practices rulesalso tend to put stream habitat andaquatic organisms at greater risk.

A watershed approach

Creating diversity can be achievedbased on understanding the historicrange of variability (HRV) of riparianstand and stream habitat conditions,and the natural disturbance regimesthat maintained them. This knowledgecan be put to work by designing treat-ments that move the watershed towarddistribution of riparian stand condi-tions that support natural disturbanceregimes. The intent is not to mimic the

A Watershed View of Riparian Management


R

natural disturbance regime, but ratherto restore riparian stand and streamconditions that allow natural distur-bance processes to operate at a land-scape level in a manner that maintainsa distribution of stand conditionsacross the landscape.

There’s nothing novel about thisapproach. It’s an underpinning of forestrestoration ecology and HRV approach-es are in use in terrestrial environ-ments. For instance, the EastsideScreens, an amendment to Region 6eastside National Forest landscapeplans, directs use of an HRV approachfor designing forest treatments at alandscape scale. But, its use is limited toupland situations. Management ofriparian areas on these national forestsis still governed by the Inland NativeFish Strategy (INFISH), which does notuse an HRV approach. Like state forestpractices rules, INFISH provides opera-tional certainty and is precautionary. Tobe sure, the notion of creating openingsin riparian areas would be controversialin national forest planning.

One example where an agency hasembraced the watershed approach isWashington State Department ofNatural Resource’s management of theOlympic Experimental State Forest(OESF). As described in the September/October 2015 issue of the WesternForester, active management of riparianareas is considered at an equal level touplands management. Planning con-siders natural disturbance regimes as away to not only support multiplespecies and life stages, but to also addresiliency to the system. TeddyMinkova, OESF research manager,described the outcome as: “Harvestedareas are interspersed with areas thatare lightly managed (such as riparianforests and wetlands) or unmanaged(such as old-growth forests) to create acomplex mosaic of forest structure andseral stages across the landscape.”

Challenges

Watershed approaches to riparianmanagement aren’t easy and face oper-ational and regulatory uncertainty. Aspast research manager on the OESF Ican speak firsthand about the complex-ity involved in promoting and imple-menting the approach. It is still in the“proof of concept” stage and facesskepticism by both timber interests and

the environmental community. Thewatershed approach requires far morecollaboration with managers and stake-holders than is required under forestpractices rules. It also requires moreeffort than needed in following forestpractices rules. The added work ofunderstanding HRV, disturbanceregimes, and the interaction of water-shed, riparian, and stream conditions,and then translating this knowledge todefensible, operational managementprescriptions is difficult.

But, these challenges, as the OESF isproving, are solvable and there is no rea-son to stop trying. Such attempts proba-bly have their greatest value in validatingthat there are credible alternatives to theone-size-fits-all approach to riparian

management. Even if such watershedapproaches prove so complex and con-tentious that they are economically andsocially untenable, they do at leastacknowledge the ecological importanceof diversity in riparian stand conditionsacross the landscape. That alone is rea-son enough to challenge ourselves thenext time we follow the rules. ◆

Mark Teply is senior scientist forCramer Fish Sciences, an employee-owned natural resource consulting firmwith offices throughout the PacificNorthwest. He is based out of CFS’sLacey, Wash., office and can be reachedat 360-456-4621 or [email protected]. Mark is an SAF member.


503-684-81681-800-783-6818

11825 SW Greenburg Road, Suite 200 Tigard, OR 97223

www.nwforestryservices.com

❑ Professional Forest Management ❑ Appraisals

❑ Timber Inventories and Cruising ❑ Mapping and GIS


BY PAUL W. ADAMS

lthough the con-cept of “cooper-

ative federalism”dates back to the1930s, the CleanWater Act (i.e., the1972 amendments tothe Federal WaterPollution Control Act) helped bring thisapproach into modern environmentalpolicy. Under this landmark 1972 legis-lation, the federal and state govern-ment would become partners in tack-ling water pollution problems that hadgrown very serious throughout the USafter largely state-level water qualityprograms had proven ineffective. Thiscooperation and sharing of responsibil-ities is especially evident in the non-point-source pollution control pro-grams that evolved for forest practices,which today includes more states withvoluntary and quasi-voluntary forestry

programs than states with regulatoryprograms like those so familiar in thePacific Northwest.

The current riparian rulemakingprocess in Oregon is proving to be aninteresting test of cooperative federal-ism given that neighboring Washingtonand California require significantlywider, longer, and more restrictiveriparian buffers than Oregon. Withthese states having “raised the bar” forregulatory restrictions along foreststreams, federal agency representativeshave submitted oral and written testi-mony to the Oregon Board of Forestry(OBOF) in support of comparablerestrictions. Testimony by one agencystaff member prompted my commen-tary (A Red Flag: The Science is Clear)in the June/July/August 2015 issue ofthe Western Forester, and reflects someof the high theater seen and heard atrecent OBOF meetings as variousaspects and rule alternatives have beendiscussed and debated.

As of this writing in early October,the OBOF is expected to consider twomajor packages of new riparian rulesthat are distinctly different, althoughboth alternatives would significantlyincrease restrictions on timber harvest-ing along small and medium streams inwestern Oregon where salmon, steel-head, or bull trout are found. The morerestrictive rule package would require90-foot, no-cut buffers or 100-footrestricted harvest buffers, and withboth of these options the buffers wouldextend 1,000 feet upstream of wherefish use ended. An analysis required byOregon law of the economic impact ofproposed rules showed an estimatedvalue of the leave trees within 90-footno-cut buffers in western Oregon to be$76.8 million on industrial lands and$112.7 million on private nonindustriallands, for a total of $189.5 million.

The high economic stakes of morerestrictive rule packages have notmissed the attention of industrial andnonindustrial forest owners in westernOregon, and both groups have beenactive in attending and offering informa-tion and comments at meetings of theRegional Forest Practices Committeesand the OBOF. It is important to note,however, that social science researchsuggests that nonindustrial landownersmay be as concerned about maintain-ing their private property rights as theyare about the economic impacts. And,even as Oregon’s population hasbecome increasingly urban, the pas-sage of ballot measures 37 and 49shows that voters are supportive notonly of private property rights but alsoof landowner compensation when reg-ulations become overly restrictive.

Both state and federal officials haveacknowledged landowner concernsabout economic and other impacts ofvarious rule proposals that have beendiscussed by the OBOF in recentmonths. The more restrictive rule pack-age now under consideration includesan exemption for nonindustriallandowners with an as-yet unspecifiedmaximum acreage or riparian percent-age. And in the notes that accompanythe less restrictive package, the follow-ing statement appears [emphasis

Raising the Bar in Riparian Forest PolicyOregon Experience Shows High Stakes, High Theater, Low Vision

A

More Science to the Rescue?When public debates arise about forest resource policies, forestry professionals

often stress the need for more technical facts and figures (“science”) related to theissue of concern. The expectation is that if everyone has more technical data andknowledge, a policy solution also will become more apparent.

But will more science, research, or technical analysis provide an obvious policyanswer? Not necessarily, especially if there is substantial disagreement about thetrade-offs or priorities of the values that are embedded in the policy choices. When keystakeholder groups have different values or significantly different priorities amongthose values, the policy solution more likely will come from a political process (negotia-tion, compromise, voting, etc.) or, in especially difficult situations, a major court deci-sion or a charismatic leader who can effectively distract people from their differences.

Nearly a half-century ago two social scientists (Thompson and Tuden 1959) pro-posed a model for identifying where a solution to a public problem was most likely tobe found based on its complexity and whether there is agreement on the key facts andvalues involved. The illustration here is adapted from that model and suggests (espe-cially given the strong and continuing debates about forest laws/regulations, as well asthe many lawsuits andappeals on public forests)that “more science” onlycomes to the rescue whenwe are dealing with a rela-tively simple issue, i.e.,where there is already gen-eral agreement on the keyvalues and prioritiesinvolved. At this point intime, riparian forest policy inthe Pacific Northwest is any-thing but a simple issue.


added]: “Maintaining 50-foot and 70-foot RMA widths and separate stan-dards for Small and Medium SSBTstreams will reduce the risk of Measure49 claims and keep landowners and ourRegional Forest Practices Committees inthe game…as teammates, rather thanadversaries. That will also make volun-tary implementation of new prescrip-tions for some distance upstream of theend of SSBT use more likely.”

Yet acknowledging landowner con-cerns is not the same as supporting cre-ative solutions to protecting andenhancing fish habitat, particularly withfederal agencies that largely operate in a“command and control” culture wherecooperative federalism typically stopswith state regulatory agencies and rarelycultivates relationships with individuallandowners. This culture apparentlyalso supports a limited, numeric-stan-dard centric view of policy options, i.e.,one that seems fixed in a simplistic,1970s approach to resource “protec-tion,” rather than a rigorous applicationof a 21st century understanding ofwatershed ecology and management.What else might explain the apparentdismissal of encouraging results fromrecent studies of the water quality andfisheries effects of current forest prac-tices (i.e., the Watersheds ResearchCooperative’s paired watershed studiesin western Oregon)?

Thus, perhaps it is time to truly“raise the bar” with a more enlightenedriparian policy approach that carefullyconsiders not only the diverse, dynam-ic, and complex nature of riparian andaquatic resources but also the similarattributes of the human species thatowns and manages these resources. Ofcourse, such a holistic approach wouldbe very challenging, but it could alsorelease some of the great, positivepotential that exists among the thou-sands of landowners and managerswho would welcome the opportunity towork in an indisputably cooperativemanner to maintain and improve ournatural resources. ◆

Paul W. Adams is chair of the OregonSAF Policy and Legislation Committee.An SAF Fellow, he can be reached [email protected].

Riparian Restoration: Lessonsfrom the Field

BY JON A. SOUDER

uccessful riparianrestoration is

often more challeng-ing than the typicalrevegetation thatforesters are comfort-able and experiencedwith. Landownerobjectives and strategies differ, requiringa larger number of decisions and trade-offs; there are typically more constraintson site preparation and post-establish-ment activities, and while many factorsthat adversely affect survival and growthof the plantings are similar, some areunique to riparian areas. This article willfocus on afforestation of cleared agricul-tural areas based on my experiencesof over 15 years as executive directorof the Coos Watershed Association inCharleston, Ore.

The Coos watershed (Coos) is 630square miles on the south-centralOregon coast and contains the largestestuary on the Oregon coast. The estu-ary is of the “drowned river valley” type,with fringing tributary sloughs that his-torically had tidal wetlands at theirmouths and streams flowing throughnarrow river valleys above their heads-of-tide. The estuary is also fed by a larg-er river system that drains approxi-mately 60% of the watershed. Tideextends upriver 20 miles and the valleyfloor is a broad alluvial terrace, oftendiked, with adjacent pasture lands.Valley slopes tend to be steep and thesandstone lithography leads to highlevels of landsliding, especially whenvegetation is removed. Land uses arepredominantly agriculture and ruralresidential homesites (0.5 to 5 acres) inthe valleys outside the urban areas sur-rounding the estuary, with both non-industrial and industrial forest on theslopes and ridges.

Traditionally, reforestation has had asimple objective: get a stand of treesestablished at the least cost and man-age them to grow as fast as possible.Riparian restoration is different. Land-owners in the Coos have a diverse set ofobjectives ranging from regulatory

compliance for buffer strips, fencing,shade, and future large wood recruit-ment; streambank protection, particu-larly when hardened banks are expen-sive or prohibited; aesthetics, such as apark-like grove or flowery trees andshrubs that attract bees and other polli-nators; and increasingly, participationin an incentive payments program suchas the USDA’s Conservation ReserveEnhancement Program (CREP), for car-bon sequestration, or through a conser-vation easement. Understandinglandowner objectives is the critical firststep to designing effective riparianrestoration projects since this will guidesubsequent choices. The best exampleof this is a landowner we worked withwho didn’t want to plant any Douglas-fir because he didn’t want any attrac-tion to harvest in the future.

Once the objective has been deter-mined, there are generally multiplestrategies that can be employed.Perhaps the most fundamental choicerelates to planting densities and thecommitment to maintenance until theplantings are “free-to-grow.” This canbe thought of in the traditional evolu-tionary strategy of “r selection,” wherelots of offspring are produced, but eachas a low probability of survival; versus“k selection,” where fewer offspring areproduced but more care is invested ineach. The r approach is to plant dense-ly, scrimp on maintenance, and thenexpect that the survivors will be suffi-cient to meet your objectives; in con-trast, the k approach is to plant at adensity closer to the desired final sur-vival and invest the resources needed toensure this outcome. While I know ofno study that has directly compared thetwo riparian restoration strategies, myexperience is that planting fairly denseand then protecting and maintainingthe project for at least five years will besuccessful.

Along with determining density, theselection of species is a concern.Decisions include whether the speciesare native or introduced (we’ve hadhybrid poplar and apples requested).Some landowners have strong opinions

S

(CONTINUED ON PAGE 23)

Optional Pre Conference Field Trip to JBLM: Introduction and History ofJBLM Forest Management - Field Stops to learn and discuss–Aaron Fox,Forestry Branch Chief/Installation Forester, US Army

PNW Forestry Leadership Conference Welcome–Mayor TBD and JohnEhrenreich, DuPont former City Council Member

Disc Leadership Exercise–John Walkowiak, WSSAF Chair

Tricks of the Trade: Writing Effective Email Communications–CarrianneLane, Write Words

Lunch Provided (Noon)

Luncheon Speakers: Keith Blatner, District 1 SAF Board Representativeand Ed Shepard, District 2 SAF Board Representative.

Inspiring Involvement–Bob Alverts, SAF Immediate Past-President

Membership Engagement Roundtable:

Increasing Use of Social Media–Candra Grimm (invited), WFPA, and NickSmith, Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities

State Society Executive Committee Meetings (4:15 PM)

Dinner On Your Own

Start with WHY & How it Can Work for You–John Walkowiak, WSSAF Chair

Membership Recruitment and Retention Tools–Corey Ruple, SAFMembership Services Director, Bethesda, MD

Documenting and Sharing Success Stories–Steve Wilent, Editor, TheForestry Source

Engaging Members in Making Policy–Paul Adams, Policy Chair, OregonSAF, and Harry Bell, Policy Chair, WSSAF

Northwest SAF Office: Using it to Engage Membership–Lori Rasor,Manager/Editor, SAF Northwest Office

Closing remarks from WSSAF, OSAF, AKSAF, and IESAF

Lunch Provided (Noon) / Adjourn (1:00 PM)


PNW SAF Forestry Leadership ConferenceFebruary 4-6, 2016 – Liberty Inn, 1400 Wilmington Drive, DuPont, WA 98327

REGISTRATION FORM – 2016 SAF PNW Leadership ConferenceFebruary 4-6, 2016 – Liberty Inn, DuPont, WA • Registration includes all materials and Friday and Saturday lunch

Name SAF Chapter

Address City/State/ZIP

Email Day Phone

List any special dietary needs

$ $95/person: Professional Conference Registration by January 20

$ $40/person: Student Conference Registration by January 20

$ $30/person: Field Trip Registration by January 20

$ $15/person: Late Fee after January 20

$ $5/person: if paying by credit card to cover fees

$ TOTAL ENCLOSED

METHOD OF PAYMENTCheck (enclosed) Credit Card (Visa/MasterCard)

Purchase Order #

Number:

Expiration Date: Sec. Code:

Make checks payable toWashington State SAF

A new year offers state society and local chapter leaders a fresh start to address professional member recruitment and retention. The WashingtonState Society of American Foresters (WSSAF) is inviting forest natural resource managers and students from Washington, Oregon, Alaska, andInland Empire to participate in the Leadership Conference. This year’s program will provide participants the opportunity to learn about practicalleadership principles, communication techniques, and member engagement. An optional pre-conference field trip is available to nearby JointBase Lewis McCord (JBLM) Military Reservation. All SAF members are invited to participate and will gain insights from this conference.

Please return completed registration form and check made payable to Washington State SAF to:PNW Leadership Conference, Northwest SAF Office, 4033 SW Canyon Rd., Portland, OR 97221. Visa and MasterCard accepted.

Contact SAF NW Office at 503-224-8046 or email Amanda Mattern at [email protected] with questions.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4 (1:00-4:30 PM)

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 5 (9:00 AM-5:00 PM)

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 6 (8:00 AM-1:00 PM)

• Dick Pierson, Golden Member, WSSAF• Dave Cass, WSSAF• Joe Newton, Umpqua Chapter • Steve Pilkerton, Oregon SAF• Jeremy Douse, Alaska SAF

• Student Chapter Representatives invited from:Oregon State • Green River CCUniversity of Washington • GraysHarbor College • Central Oregon CC

LODGING–The Liberty Inn, 1400 Wilmington Drive, DuPont, Wash., is our confer-ence and lodging facility. Lodging rates for Professionals is $79/night single/onebed or $99/night double/two beds. A special Student lodging rate of $69/nightdouble occupancy has been secured. Breakfast is free for guests and there isplenty of free, secure parking. Restaurants are within walking distance for dinneron your own. Contact the Liberty Inn at 1-877-912-8777 and mention theWashington Society of American Foresters (WSSAF) or visit www.libertyinndp.com.REGISTRATION–The registration fee for professional members is $95/person($115 after January 20) and $40 for students ($55 after January 20). This feeincludes two lunches, breaks, and all materials. The registration fee for theoptional field trip $30 for all members and includes a box lunch. No refundsafter January 20.SAF CFE HOURS: CFE hours Category 1 for the Field Day and Category 2 for theLeadership Conference will be available.QUESTIONS?Program: John Walkowiak, 253-320-5064, [email protected]: Amanda Mattern, 503-224-8046, [email protected]

Fuel Reduction on Steep Slopes,Nov. 19-20, Corvallis, OR. Contact: FEI.

Habitat Site Restoration, Dec. 1-2,Anchorage, AK. Contact: NWETC.

Scaling for Non-Scalers, Dec. 7,Wilsonville, OR. Contact: WFCA.

Visualizing and AnalyzingEnvironmental Data with R, Dec. 8-9,Kirkland, WA. Contact: NWETC.

Forest Inventory and AnalysisScience Symposium, Dec. 8-10,Portland, OR. Contact: Sharon Stanton,[email protected],http://fia.fs.fed.us/symposium/.

Introduction to Aquatic Toxicology,Dec. 9-10, Tigard, OR. Contact: NWETC.

International Forest HydrologyScience Symposium, Dec. 10, WorldForestry Center, Portland, OR. Contact:Brianna Beene, [email protected].

ArcGIS 10: Geoprocessing-AdvancedTechniques for EnvironmentalApplications, Dec. 15-17 in Bellingham,WA. Contact: NWETC.

Skyline XL, Jan. 12-13, Corvallis, OR.Contact: FEI.

Cable Logging, Jan. 25-28 in Coeurd’Alene, ID, and Feb. 23-26 in Corvallis,OR. Contact: FEI.

Facilitation Skills for EnvironmentalProfessionals, Jan. 26-27, Tigard, OR.Contact: NWETC.

ArcGIS 10: An Introduction toEnvironmental Applications, Jan. 26-28 in Seattle, WA, and Mar. 22-24 inBellingham, WA. Contact: NWETC.

Sawmilling 101: Introduction toSoftwood Sawmill Operations andFinancial Performance, Feb. 4, Coeurd’Alene, ID. Contact: WFCA.

WSSAF/OSAF LeadershipConference, Feb. 4-6, DuPont, WA.Contact: John Walkowiak, 253-320-5064,[email protected],www.forestry.org/oregon/saf_members/leadership/2016/

Brownfield Site Restoration andRemediation, Feb. 9, Kirkland, WA.Contact: NWETC.

Inland Empire/Montana SAFLeadership Academy, Feb. 26-27,Lubrecht Forest Lodge, Greenough, MT.Contact: Gary Ellingson, [email protected].

Unit Planning and Layout, Feb. 29-Mar. 3, Corvallis, OR. Contact: FEI.

Log Trade Trends: A GlobalPerspective, Mar. 1-2, World ForestryCenter, Portland, OR. Contact: AmandaMattern, 503-226-4562, [email protected], http://logtradetrends.world-forestry.org/.

Basic Road Design, Mar. 21-24,Corvallis, OR. Contact: FEI.

Inland Empire SAF annual meeting,joint with Idaho Forest OwnersAssociation, Mar. 28-29, University Inn,Moscow, ID. Contact: Bill Love, [email protected].

SER Northwest RegionalConference: Monitoring EcologicalRestoration, Apr. 4-8, Portland, OR.Contact: Rolf Gersonde, [email protected], http://restoration2016.org/.

Montana SAF annual meeting, jointwith Montana Forest OwnersAssociation, Apr. 15-16, Red Lion

Colonial Inn, Helena, MT. Contact: GaryEllingson, [email protected].

Oregon SAF annual meeting, Apr. 26-29, Mill Casino, Coos Bay, OR. Contact:Shaun Harkins, 541-267-1855,[email protected].

Washington State SAF annualmeeting, May 12-14, La Conner, WA.Contact: Paul Wagner, [email protected].


Calendar of Events

Contact InformationFEI: Forest Engineering Inc., 3895 NWLincoln Ave., Corvallis, OR 97330, 541-765-7558, [email protected],http://forestengineer.com/.

NWETC: Northwest EnvironmentalTraining Center, 1445 NW Mall St., Suite4, Issaquah, WA 98027, 425-270-3274,https://nwetc.org.

WFCA: Western Forestry andConservation Association, 4033 SWCanyon Rd., Portland, OR 97221, 503-226-4562, [email protected],www.westernforestry.org.

Send calendar items to the editor [email protected].

BY GILBERT SHIBLEY

n my family’sland, located 30

miles southeast ofPortland, Ore., wemanage our 320forested acres formany different bene-fits. We share some ofthose benefits with others and we sharesome of the management decisionswith others. Here I will describe somepractical implications of this complexblend of interests and decisions whereour public creeks meander under ourprivate trees.

Deciding where to cut trees was nothard when the first generation gothere—just cut trees to build shelter andclear stumps for room to farm, all fromthe same stand of trees on the ridge.For me now, in our fourth generation,decisions down by the creek are not sosimple. For those riparian spaces EPAsays to use BMPs and Oregon spells itout in forest practices laws and rules.My dad (eagerly) and my mom (reluc-tantly) jointly decided in 1944 to investin 315 acres of logged-off land next tothe farm, partly because it had a creekfor fishing and swimming. I doubt they

imagined how well the forest could bebrought back and I know for sure theynever guessed how complex its man-agement would be, especially at theinterface of forest and stream.

The goal for that new property wasto help the forest re-establish itself andhope it would return enough income toat least pay the taxes. Now our goals areboth to sustainably harvest timber likeour industrial neighbors do and to pro-vide multiple non-timber benefits likeour federal neighbors do in this samecanyon. I grew up at home in thewoods of this canyon, starting when itdid not look much like a forest. Thecreeks were at the center of my fun andlearning in nature.

Our top goal now is to preserve andperpetuate this family legacy of foresttreasure for the future, in honor of fam-ily generations here before us. We nowmention those ancestors when we hostguests from near or far as we enjoythese rich assets for recreation and sim-ple beauty together.

After 20-plus years of work in educa-tion I arrived back here in the 1970s—along with forest practices rules, landuse laws, and the environmental move-ment. Shared decisions then included avery dynamic mix of social and politicalvalues quite unlike those on the west-

ern frontier settled by an independentbunch of subsistence farmers. The treeshad really grown when I returned, somy forestry knowledge had to growquickly. To keep the land in forest andin the family, my generation also need-ed to help our parents with estate plan-ning, adjusting to new land use and for-est practices rules, getting moreinvolved in small woodland organiza-tions, and generally exploring newideas and opportunities. I had a grow-ing sense of our interdependence withpublic agencies and a responsibility toplay a part. To manage the land I need-ed one boot on the ground and oneunder a meeting table. I found myselfmaking joint management decisionswith fellow citizens as well as with sev-eral generations of my family, somewith ownership shares in an LLC andsome not yet.

I helped to form and later lead ourlocal watershed council. We now coop-erate in their projects, as overseen byODFW, of placing trees in the creek forfish habitat. We also participate in theirstream shade enhancement projects inplaces where we have the worst soil, themost invasives, and the least nativeconifer.

For three years I represented theOregon Small Woodlands Associationon the 20-strong Stakeholder Team in ajoint state/federal planning process forsalmon and steelhead recovery afterESA listings on the Lower Columbiawatersheds. Trained as a biologist, andat the time teaching other familyforesters for OSU Extension Service, Ienjoyed collaborating with folks ofdiverse and even divergent interests aswe helped state and federal agencies intheir work. I was able to help fish biolo-gists understand the costs to my familyof some habitat benefits we both want-ed for the fish. They helped me toappreciate the hardworking conditionsthey face at their computers and in thepublic arena, barely offset by any timethey get with fishing tackle in goodholes on weekends.

I find Oregon’s current stream pro-tection rules are good in intent andflexible enough to fit with our manage-ment plans. In two smaller areas near alarge stream I enlisted the help of chil-dren and grandchildren to measuredbh to calculate basal area for planned


Shared Forestry Decisions:A Family Forest Perspective

O

thinning of the RMA. They learned forlater when they will own the land, and Igot their help reaching an informeddecision within tree retention require-ments.

When it comes to bigger operationsor potential use of alternative strate-gies, I use a consulting forester. Wejointly decide on the site and scope ofany harvest. Near a creek, he does thecounting and calculating for trees toleave and may ask for help in marking.We view this as shared decision makingwith two guys’ boots on the ground. Weshared once in deciding to go for ahardwood conversion project using an“alternate prescription” within Oregon’sriparian rules. We call it our fish-friend-ly clearcut because years later they willbenefit big time.

As manager, I want to fairly balancecosts and benefits for this small familybusiness on behalf of many kinds ofstakeholders. In my practice of familyforestry I try to wisely blend familylegacy and legal obligations, annualcash flow needs, ecologically smartmanagement practices, and good pub-lic relations.

I understand the riparian manage-ment area to be a place where we man-age for water, fish, and wildlife plus theobvious forest health and wealth. Itshould, therefore, be a place for ordi-nary forest management tools and

strategies. Withthinning we canget bigger treesfaster for bothfamily and fish.We use thinningand brush con-trol to reducefuels 50 ft. outfrom our roads,pre-makingwider fire trails. Iam hoping toalso make somestreamside areasinto similar fuel-reduction zones,especially nearour boundarieswith fuel-richBLM land.

Trees andstreams oftenshare the same acre. For that ecosys-tem’s health, our decisions should looklike we share that space and their con-cerns just as if we could hear them. ◆

Gilbert Shibley is part owner and co-manager in both Shibley Family LLCand Forest Home Woodlands LLC, adja-cent tree farms at about 800 ft. eleva-tion in Clackamas County, Ore. He canbe reached at [email protected].

A 2006 patch cut of less than one acre where the ridge drops toward thecanyon. A family homestead corners here on a donation land claim boughtfrom a neighbor in 1870.

PHOTOS COURTESY OF GILBERT SHIBLEY

Below the ridge 360 feet, a large stream at high flowdisplays south bank shade and gets a natural bit of largewood as saturated bank slides in near the swimming hole.

A few years later on the same slopethe logger was on (left), one of ourGen6 (sixth generation) assists withregeneration of the forest.

Norm MichaelsForestry LLC

Forest management tomeet your goals

• Management Plans • Reforestation• Timber inventory • Timber cruising

Over 40 years managing forests inOregon and Washington

[email protected]


OSAF Submits Comments to BLMon New Management Plans. InAugust, OSAF submitted comments tothe BLM on the Draft EIS of its updatedResource Management Plans (RMPs) forits western Oregon lands. The commentsincluded:

As a general principle, Oregon SAF sup-ports legislation, policies, and plans thatallow and promote active management ofmost of the O&C land base by knowledge-able and experienced forestry professionals.Included in such management is, veryimportantly, vegetation management suchas tree harvesting for both ecological andeconomic benefits.We believe that activemanagement is critical to the developmentof forests that are resilient in the face of cli-mate change, wildfire, insect/disease infes-tation, and other perturbations. Givenbroad goals, the expertise and experience oflocal forestry professionals can be used tomake informed management decisions toeffectively meet those goals. In addition,directives for “no-touch” reserves and otherbroad and inflexible restrictions are notsupported by current science and manage-ment experience.

We believe that, to the greatest extentpossible, management plans need to clearlydefine broad goals and then allow local

resource managers to use their professionalexpertise and experience to meet thesegoals.We believe in the integrity and abili-ties of agency resource specialists and spe-cialists, and that, given clear goals, they canplan and oversee effective actions to meetmultiple and diverse forest resource goals.Consequently, we disagree with RMP direc-tives that are overly prescriptive, unneces-sarily limit the use of expertise and experi-ence of local resource specialists, and do notadequately address site-specific conditions.

In addition, the cover letter stressed:A significant increase in active manage-

ment of federal forest lands can substan-tially improve forest resource and commu-nity health, diversity, and sustainability.Active management, including outputs ofcommercial forest products, represents anopportunity rather than a threat to achiev-ing and maintaining forest health and eco-logical diversity. Forest products arearguably among the greenest of the naturalresources needed to sustain society. Fromthe basis of both existing federal law and avisionary approach to meeting futurehuman needs, federal forest lands have akey role in providing a significant source ofthese products.With relatively few excep-tions, management that includes outputsof commercial forest products is highlycompatible with the maintenance orenhancement of environmental values.

Contact: Paul Adams, OSAF Policychair, [email protected].

OSAF Sends Letter and UpdatedRiparian Forests Position to Boardof Forestry. OSAF sent its updated

position statement on “ManagingRiparian Forests” (see www.forestry.org/oregon/policy/position/) to the OregonBoard of Forestry prior to its meeting onJuly 23, where some key decisions aboutnew rules along small and medium fish-bearing streams were expected. Althoughthe board deferred those decisions untilNovember, in its cover letter the OSAFstressed the importance of active man-agement of riparian forests, as well as thelack of evidence that greater restrictionsin other states are cost-effective in provid-ing desirable resource conditions, e.g.:

Like all forests, riparian areas are local-ly unique, dynamic and ever-changing.Highly precautionary and restrictive poli-cies (e.g., large “no-touch” zones) for ripari-an forests have not consistently produceddesirable environmental results and donot effectively address changing environ-mental conditions.

Current research shows few or no per-sistent, wide-scale impacts to fish popula-tions and general water quality when con-temporary practices and Oregon’s ForestPractices Rules are applied. Conversely,there is little or no evidence that highlyrestricted management in riparian forestsis a cost-effective approach for achievingdesirable resource conditions.

Active management can maintain orimprove riparian forest benefits throughcarefully applied professional forestry, fish-eries, and hydrology expertise and experi-ence. There is growing need to encourageactive management of many of Oregon’sriparian forests, with updated policies anddirection to promote research, education,and incentives that effectively supportdesirable resource conditions.

OSAF members are encouraged to useits position statements to articulate a pro-fessional perspective on forestry issues todecision makers and the interested pub-lic. Contact: Paul Adams, OSAF Policychair, [email protected].

New Trust Land CommitteeFormed. The Clallam County Board ofCommissioners recently created the TrustLand Advisory Committee (TLAC). TheTLAC will investigate and report on thepros and cons for Clallam County tomanage its own trust lands that are nowmanaged by the Washington StateDepartment of Natural Resources. This isa multi-stakeholder group and at leastthree WSSAF members have been recom-mended as members. The committee’sfinal recommendations are due late 2016.Contact: Harry Bell, WSSAF Policy chair,[email protected]. ◆


Policy Scoreboard

related to species: many in the Coos donot like willow because they feel it is dif-ficult to control and their forebearersspent a lot of effort to remove it; we’vefound that alternatives such as red osierdogwood are acceptable and have manydesirable characteristics. If future har-vest is expected, fast-growing species orthose that have unique value will be pre-ferred. Alternately, if the managementobjective is to return ecological func-tions, a broad diversity of shrubs andtrees, conifers, and hardwoods is likelyto be desired. Another approach is utiliz-ing vegetation succession by plantingpioneer species first to capture the site,and then coming back later (10-20 years)to under plant with shade-tolerantspecies such as cedar and hemlock. Myexperience is that if restoring a diversityof plant species is an objective, bothshade-tolerant and intolerant speciescan be planted at the same time withadequate consideration of their needs(watering, shade cards, or cloth); howev-er, growth and vigor of the shade-toler-ant plants will be reduced for at least thefirst 5 years.

The extent of the planting area willbe an important landowner considera-tion. The amount that someone is will-ing to devote to the restoration will beaffected by their overall operation andpotential restoration effects. Too nar-row, and the plantings may not havethe benefits anticipated and the entireproject could be compromised if thestream channel shifts; too wide, andother desired land uses may not beviable. Funders—such as CREP—haveminimum widths, and the amount ofmost incentive payments is based onthe area restored. A minimum rule ofthumb to allow for some channelmigration is that the width should be atleast the bankfull height plus 10 feet; ifpossible, devoting the entire area of themeander belt is safest. The objective formany riparian plantings is to shade theadjacent stream; if this is the case,planting only one bank can be suffi-cient. We’ve had some very successfulprojects in narrow valleys where thelandowner was only willing to providethe minimum width on the south andwest aspects; we’ve had others wherewe miscalculated and lost stretches of

fence to stream channel changes.Establishing desired plantings is just

the first step in a long journey. Similar totraditional reforestation, site prepara-tion is critical. Be prepared becauseclearing competing invasive speciessuch as Himalaya blackberry oftentimesreleases other weeds in the soil seed-bank—we’ve gone through cycles ofblackberry, field bindweed, and finallyJapanese knotweed during riparianestablishment. Planting considerationsare largely similar, but some tools suchas hoedads don’t work well on flatground (shovels are better), while sharp-ened cuttings can be pushed directly inor assisted with a planting bar (whichlooks like a pogo stick). If you’re using ak selection strategy, protecting the stalkwith aluminum foil will control smallmammal girdling and vexar tubes willreduce browsing, which if intense mayeven require fenced exclosures. Ourexperience is that plantings in exclo-sures survive and grow at approximatelytwice the rate of unprotected ones.Since we plant in the winter, we havenot resorted to watering. Most of ourplantings then require at least 5 years ofannual maintenance in the summeruntil they are free-to-grow.

Successful riparian restoration

requires a long-term perspective: thejob is not complete until the expectedbenefits are achieved. Thus, free-to-grow is just a stage, and the risks to therestoration project change over time: wehave had beavers move in and com-pletely decimate a stand of black cot-tonwood (and reducing competing veg-etation during maintenance makes iteasier for them). We’ve had landownersgo bankrupt, and the new ownersdecide not to continue with the CREPcontract; we’ve seen a change in per-spective with new owners wanting amore open, “park-like” riparian zone byremoving established shrubs and decid-uous trees. Riparian restoration, thus,differs from traditional reforestationbecause management objectives maychange with ownership; in contrast withtypical forestland, the riparian stand islikely not the primary reason the parcelwas purchased. Continued communica-tion with landowners is key to ensuringthat the benefits from riparian restora-tion persist over time. ◆

Jon A. Souder is assistant professor ofForest Watershed Extension at OregonState University in Corvallis. He canbe reached at 541-737-8561 [email protected].


Riparian Restoration(CONTINUED FROM PAGE 17)

Tired of Your Old Cruise Gear Fogging Up?The RD1000 BAF scope is the perfect solution to cruisingin wet weather and dark stands. Users see the projectedBasal Area Factor and potential sample trees with crystalclear clarity; even in the dark of winter. Your tree countwill improve and you will cruise faster with the RD1000.

Join hundreds of timber cruisers who use the RD1000to measure heights and diameters (with user inputdistance to tree). It measures diameter any point on thebole. The RD1000 is rugged and built for use in the Northwest.$1,595.00 with Free Training

For information or for trade-ins, contact Jon Aschenbach:

• BAF range: 1 to 127• Works great in dark stands or sun• Battery life up to 1 month on 2AAs• Diameter Range: 2 to 100 inches

• Corrects for slope faster than oldstyle gear

• No more pumping the brake button!

Resource Supply, LLC11607 SW Winter Lake Dr. • Tigard, OR 97223503-521-0888 • videos: www.ruggedready.comwww.resourcesupplyllc.comjon@resourcesupplyllc.com

SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERSWestern Forester4033 S.W. Canyon RoadPortland, Oregon 97221

PRINTED ONRECYCLED PAPER

Non-Profit Org.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDPORTLAND, ORPERMIT NO. 16