The Southern Oregon Forest Restoration CollaborativeStrategy for Southwest Oregon Forests

A Framework for Recommendations to the BLM IDT for

Western Oregon Resource Management Plans

Attn: Mark Brown, Richard Hardt, Dayne Barron, Mary Smelcer

May 1, 2013

---------------

The Southern Oregon Forest Restoration Collaborative and partners have been working to develop a common sense strategy and analytical framework to identify forest restoration need and opportunity in the Rogue Basin. This work is intended to inform federal forest management objectives, generate recommendations for federal land managers, build public support for forest restoration and improve implementation efficiency and effectiveness.

Broad goals for the strategy include:

! • Restore a diverse mosaic of healthy, resilient forests;! • Conserve habitat with special attention to species at risk; and! • Support regional forest products and associated workforce capacity.

We provide information to contribute to alternative development in the formulation of Resource Management Plans for the Western Oregon Bureau of Land Management, as that process addresses the unique forests of SW Oregon, notably those managed by the Medford District Bureau of Land Management.

Technical Team:Ed Reilly - Retired USFS, BLM Planner/AnalystMax Bennett - Forestry/Natural Resources Agent, OSU Extension ServiceTerry Fairbanks - District Silviculturist, Medford Bureau of Land ManagementKerry Metlen - Southwestern Oregon Forest Ecologist, The Nature Conservancy

Contact Information:George McKinley

Executive Director, Southern Oregon Forest Restoration Collaborativecollaborative@jeffnet.org

541.482.6220

1

Context

The Northwest Forest Plan identified the Oregon Klamath Province as one of four dry forest provinces in the range of the Northern Spotted Owl. These forests developed and were maintained by frequent low and mixed-severity fires, and in the topographically diverse terrain of southwest Oregon, a patchy mosaic of dense and open stands prospered.

Fire suppression, past forest management, land use decisions and other forest stressors have generated dense overcrowded stands, leading to tree stress and low vigor, and placing the oldest and most structurally valuable trees at risk of uncharacteristic wildfire. Younger stands are also impacted by density and moisture competition; at their current densities few will be able to develop into mature stands dominated by large trees with large limbs. In general, forest heterogeneity has been reduced at both the landscape and stand scale.

Over many years, collaboration has been a critically important process in building shared understanding and community support for active management to address current conditions and promote forest health and resilience in southwest Oregon. The Southern Oregon Forest Restoration Collaborative and diverse stakeholders have produced guidelines for forest management and on-the-ground projects like the Medford District Secretarial Pilot Project have helped to advance understanding and support. Within the context of community-based collaboration, improved federal interagency coordination and cooperation has also been demonstrated.

Balance

The strategy outlined here is intended to integrate economic, ecological and social goals for federal forest management consistent with the Productive Harmony Guidelines of the Southern Oregon Forest Restoration Collaborative. Under these Guidelines, desired social, economic and ecological outcomes are given equal importance.

In contrast to past emphasis on timber production as the primary goal, this strategy generates forest products and associated economic outputs through treatments specifically designed to achieve a broad range of ecological outcomes, as well as a broad range of social benefits, such as fuels reduction prioritized by a local fire plan. Goals and outputs for individual projects and planning landscapes will by nature vary. However, the overall goal is a balance of social, ecological, and economic objectives.

Landscape Emphasis Areas

Central to this strategy is the identification of landscape emphasis areas designed to guide prescription development based on identified conditions and need. Using ecological forestry principles and practices grounded in the plant communities of southwest Oregon, a set of mapped landscape objectives have been defined for four areas. Treatments to achieve structural objectives are expected to be largely

2

mechanical, but maintenance with periodic fire is a desired strategy for long-term resilience.

Landscape Emphasis Areas include:

1.! Complex Forest Habitat2.! Fuels Management3.! Riparian Systems4.! Ecosystem Resilience and Forest Productivity

Proposed management recommendations for these areas outline compositional and structural goals that allow agency managers flexibility to employ site specific actions as project and forest plans require.

Complex Forest Habitat Areas identify the landscape best suited for maintenance and promotion of dense multistory forest habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl, and other species and values consistent with older, complex forest. Existing owl habitat will be maintained and locations with high relative habitat suitability will be designated for future high quality habitat. Sites where the development of high quality complex forest habitat is unlikely to develop and persist will be recommended for other management emphasis. Treatments to improve habitat function may generate timber products, but production is subordinate to habitat goals.

Fuels Management Areas are focused on identifying and reducing high severity fire threat to homes and communities in the public/private interface. The primary goal is to reduce loss from fire and create safer suppression conditions by raising canopy base height, and reducing surface and ladder fuels.

Riparian System Areas will be managed for aquatic system benefit as the primary goal. Management can reduce uncharacteristically dense riparian forests and improve long term function. Treatments to improve aquatic systems function may generate timber products, but any production will be subordinate to aquatic system goals.

Ecosystem Resilience and Forest Productivity Areas are broadest related to objectives and landscape. The strategy for these areas advances a variety goals, including:

• Reduce forest lost to fire, insects and drought (increase resistance and resilience);

• Maintain and increase diversity of habitat, species, and stand structures, including those currently underrepresented or threatened;

• Generate products and employment through treatments designed to achieve ecological outcomes;

• Conserve old trees and stands outside and in addition to those protected in complex forest habitat areas;

3

• Establish conditions that allow the use of prescribed fire for stand maintenance; and

• Create and foster conditions which allow for timber production using ecological forestry principles.

Forest stands will be managed using a blend of uneven age and multi-cohort management resulting in continuous forest cover but, overall, reduced density. Openings will be created to foster regeneration of shade intolerant tree species and understory plant diversity, and structural heterogeneity will be promoted at the stand and landscape scales. Our approach recommends initial treatment targets that provide flexibility for future management with fire, maintenance and sustainable harvest, but does not identify future treatment intervals, costs or yields.

Comparison to the Northwest Forest Plan

The proposed strategy is consistent with the objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan, but emphasis areas are intended to reflect ecological need across the landscape. In particular, the mosaic of dense forest patches created and maintained for Northern Spotted Owl conservation is more widely distributed and less reliant on large reserve blocks (LSRs) than in the NWFP. Riparian reserves are based on a one site-potential tree height, consistent with current scientific understanding of aquatic habitat needs. Overall, active management is expected to occur on a larger portion of the landscape than under the NWFP, and the uneven-age, multi-cohort silvicultural approach will maintain forest canopy across the landscape.

Southern Oregon Forest Restoration Collaborative Dry and Moist Forest Strategies

The SOFRC technical team is developing dry and moist forest strategies for southwest Oregon. The above emphasis areas will be found in both dry and moist forests. The dry forest strategy is applicable to the majority of low to mid-elevation plant series in southwest Oregon, has widespread collaborative acceptance and is compatible with the Franklin and Johnson dry forest strategy. The prescriptive approach applies to the frequent low to mid severity fire regimes. The moist forest strategy applies to moist plant series and topographic areas that experienced mixed-severity fires and longer return intervals. The moist forest strategy is somewhat less developed. (see Appendix 1)

Estimating Work: A Model of Desired Stand Condition

For each of the Landscape Emphasis Areas, the SOFRC Desired Stand Condition Model identifies forest restoration need based on current stand density and estimates the amount of material recommended for removal and retention based on density targets by 10 inch diameter class. Prescriptions informed by variables such as site productivity, species composition and size distribution help determine proposed forest management actions. Stand targets are described in basal area and SDI/RDI terms along with composition and structure goals. (see Appendix 2)

4

Implementation Efficiencies

To advance implementation efficiency, the SOFRC strategy has generated a mapped logging systems and access tool. The approach identifies existing roads and barriers such as fish streams, owl cores and major highways to categorize harvest accessibility by tractor, cable and helicopter systems. This sophisticated product takes into account the existing transportation system, topography and systems awareness to inform project design at a level of detail beyond simple distance from road.

Maps can also combine landscape area objectives, recommended stocking levels, and appropriate logging systems to estimate the economics of recommended management for an initial entry. Long term management including growth and yield predictions are beyond the scope of this initial assessment and will require further development. Individual project plans developed by agency staff would provide more detail and establish feasibility.

Need for Maintenance

For the proposed strategy to be successful, periodic stand maintenance is essential. The strategy could be used to design holistic projects that allow the application of prescribed fire to moderate costs currently associated with fuels management and pre-commercial thinning.

Realistic Expectations

Forest management projects typically include a mix of service work, stewardshipcontracts and timber sales. Receipt-generating timber sales must be balanced with investments in young stand treatments to achieve long term forest habitat, health and production goals. In general, it is recommended that projects be designed to at least pay for themselves and minimize reliance on future federal subsidies.

Economic benefits will include timber receipts for county government, employment and tax revenues associated with harvest, production and forestry support, and less tangible benefits like recreation and quality of life. In addition, treatments will create more fire-resistant forests, resulting in reduced fire suppression and rehabilitation costs as well as reduced loss of forest and property to wildfire.

The SOFRC strategy recognizes the importance of federal lands in providing these and economic contributions to communities in SW Oregon. However, expectations must be tempered by reality. Compared to many Northwest Oregon moist forests, Southwest Oregon stands are much lower in productivity. Steep ground, low volume and difficult access characterize the area. High volume stands are typically complex forest habitat needed for Northern Spotted Owl conservation and other high volume stands were

5

harvested in the past. As a result, it is unrealistic to expect federal forests to generate the level of timber harvest receipts or contributions to county budgets enjoyed during years of peak harvest and associated with current Secure Rural Schools offset funding.

Building Confidence

At the same time, the recommended ecological forestry strategy should generate more timber volume and economic activity than in recent years for several reasons. First of all, the approach identifies a broader federal land base open to active management. Second, the approach is likely to increase social acceptability and build support for transparent planning and implementation leading to reduced litigation. While absence of litigation is not always a reliable gauge of project merit, implementation of this strategy can also help identify frameworks, efficiencies and sideboards for administrative rule-making and/or legislation that may serve to make more efficient and effective future project planning and implementation.

Outreach for Awareness and Support

The Southern Oregon Forest Restoration Collaborative advances this proposed Ecological Forestry Strategy for consideration in the BLMʼs Western Oregon Resource Management Plan alternative formulation process. The Collaborative and partners welcome the opportunity to provide additional information to the IDT and agency leadership as requested and as helpful in clarifying, detailing and strengthening the strategy. The Collaborative is committed to building public, agency and political awareness and support for the strategy and will expand outreach in this regard.

In conclusion, the outlined strategy is also presented as a framework of opportunity to increase the current pace and scale of federal forest restoration. The BLM RMP process is important and welcomed, but in the interim, this strategy provides a path forward.

6

Appendix 1: Comparison of Strategies

7

Appendix 2: Southern Oregon Forest Restoration Collaborative Ecological Forest Strategy Modeling Approach.

The SOFRC model identifies forest restoration need across the Rogue River Basin, predicting treatable acres, potential volume and acres where service work is needed. The model uses existing vegetation condition in 2006 data from the Integrated Landscape Assessment Project (ILAP). Desired future conditions address a set of four major landscape emphases mapped at 30m x 30m pixel scale. The first landscape emphasis identifies Complex Forest based on the dense forest needed for conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl and other species reliant on these habitats. For this, we mapped existing NSO habitat (no treatment needed) and potential treatments in near-term potential NSO habitat (<50 years to develop complex forest character) and long-range potential NSO habitat (>100 year to complex forest character). The Fuels Management emphasis is mapped where fire hazard concerns are paramount. An emphasis on stream function is reflected in a Riparian Systems map for treatment consistent with aquatic conservation objectives. The emphasis for remainder of the regions is on general Ecosystem Resilience (Figure 1). Once the landscape desired condition has been identified, stand structure objectives are used to calculate target basal area by diameter class to achieve the desired outcomes.

Figure 1:

8

This prescriptive approach draws on the historic range of fire severities, with which these forests developed (Table 1), acknowledging that fire frequency, and perhaps fire severity, are likely to increase with climate change. The general prescription for each landscape emphasis area specifically addresses existing and desired stand structure and allocates growing space throughout the stand diameter distribution to promote a diverse and functional landscape (Table 2).

The Complex Forest prescriptions promote multilayered forest habitats in existing and developing potential Northern Spotted Owl habitat. The Fuels Management emphasis removes surface and ladder fuels, leaving primarily large fire resilient trees. The Riparian emphasis is supported by a modified riparian reserve system which could include active forest restoration consistent with the underlying landscape emphasis, but only as it benefits aquatic conservation. The Ecosystem Resilience prescriptions are for mixed species of uneven aged forests grounded in ecological knowledge of healthy stand densities and structure, and historical reference to stand structures that were resilient to frequent fire.

Table 1: Assumptions used for developing prescriptions by series or subseries. The seral tree species was used to set the maximum stand density index in calculating target basal area. Proportion of area in low and mixed severity fire regimes is taken from LANDFIRE data for the Rogue Siskiyou National Forest and Medford District Bureau of Land Management.

Plant Series Productivity StrategySeral Tree Species

Maximum Stand Density Index

Low and Mixed Severity Regimes (%)

Jeffrey pine Dry Dry forest Jeffrey 430* 100Ponderosa Dry Dry forest Ponderosa 430** 100Douglas-fir Dry Dry forest Ponderosa 501** 100Douglas-fir Mesic Dry forest Ponderosa 501** 100White fir Dry Dry forest Douglas-fir 530** 100White fir Mesic Dry forest Douglas-fir 530** 99Tanoak/Douglas-fir Dry Dry forest Douglas-fir 530** 99Tanoak/Douglas-fir Mesic Moist forest Douglas-fir 530** 100Western hemlock Mesic Moist forest Douglas-fir 530** 83Pacific silver fir Mesic Moist forest Douglas-fir 530** 92Shasta red fir Mesic Moist forest Shasta red 800* 100Mountain hemlock Mesic Moist forest Shasta red 800* 76* Value from Forest Vegetation Simulator Inland California and Southern Cascades Variant**Value from Organon

9

Relative density index (RDI) is used to assign a flexible target basal area based on maximum stand density index for the seral tree species (Table 1), taking into account the quadratic mean diameter of the largest trees (75th percentile) in the stand (Figure 1). The use of stand density metrics in uneven aged, mixed-species stands is a developing science, but the limitations of the approach are outweighed by the ability to efficiently arrive at reasonable target densities across thousands of pixels. Ultimately, conditions on the ground will determine actual target densities. Unique RDI’s are assigned for each subseries and for warm and cool insolation sites (Tables 3 and 4) resulting in a wide range of target basal areas across the landscape. Once desired basal areas are identified by size class, the amount of material that needs to be removed (or deficit) is determined and subsequent volume or service work is identified. The collaborative strategy does not call for removal of any trees greater than 30 inches at breast heigh

Table 2: Desired post treatment diameter distributions for forests receiving active management. A q-value was not used for determining basal area allocations to diameter classes, but is provided here for comparison to more conventional uneven-aged approaches. The model allocates target residual basal area to 10 inch diameter classes according to stand structural objectives.

Ecosystem Resilience Fuels Management

Complex NSO Habitat

Description in trees per acre Even Mostly large trees Reverse JApproximate q 2.1 0.6 2.6Diameter class (inches at 4.5 feet) Proportion of stand basal area0-10 7% <1 10%10-20 25% 8% 30%20-30 28% 32% 25%>30* 40% 60% 35%*The Collaborative strategy does not call for removal of any trees greater than 30 inches at breast height; proportions of target basal area for this unregulated portion of the stand are provided here for a more complete description of stand structure.

The SOFRC strategy here differentiates a set of forest sub-series considered dry forests that would be included in Dry Forest Strategy (Table 3). Other more mesic sub-series are combined in a set for which SOFRC is developing a “moist” forest strategy (Table 3, Appendix 1). Existing high quality Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat (NRF) will not receive treatment and is not presented here. Similarly, at elevations above NSO NRF (~4,000 ft) functional old growth, as defined by Spies and Franklin (1991), would not receive mechanical treatments under either the dry or moist forest strategies. However, in forests that have been previously managed, treatments designed to promote functional old growth habitat in the short and long range could be appropriate in the moist forests (Table 4).

Proximity to homes and infrastructure drive the Fuels Management emphasis area priority, so removal of surface and ladder fuels is prioritized over NSO and old growth concerns

10

(Tables 3 and 4). Target RDI’s are presented, along with the calculated Stand Density Indexes and a range of target basal areas for stands dominated by very small trees (quadratic mean diameter 10 in) or by very large trees (quadratic mean diameter 20 in). In addition to structural objectives, implementation of these strategies should generally favor seral tree species and promote structural heterogeneity within and among stands.

Table 3: Density targets for forests by subseries receiving active management under the dry forest strategy. Relative density index and seral tree species is used to calculate the desired stand density index, then the diameter of the existing large trees in the stand is used to determine the target basal area. Target densities are for immediately post-treatment with the understanding that stands will grow to a relative density of 0.55 before future commercial entry will be considered.

Ecosystem Resilience Fuels Management

Complex NSO HabitatNear Long

NSO Existing Habitat Outside NRF --- --- Dispersal CapableNSO Potential Habitat Low --- --- High HighInsolation Warm Cool Warm Cool --- ---Subseries Relative Density Index TargetJeffrey pine - dry 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.30Ponderosa - dry 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.30Douglas-fir - dry 0.30 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.30Douglas-fir - mesic 0.35 0.40 0.40 0.45 0.45 0.35White fir - dry 0.30 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.30White fir - mesic 0.35 0.40 0.40 0.45 0.45 0.35Tanoak/Douglas-fir - dry 0.30 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.30Subseries Stand Density Index TargetJeffrey pine - dry 108 151 151 172 194 129Ponderosa - dry 125 175 175 200 225 150Douglas-fir - dry 150 175 175 200 225 150Douglas-fir - mesic 175 200 200 225 225 175White fir - dry 159 186 186 212 239 159White fir - mesic 186 212 212 239 239 186Tanoak/Douglas-fir - dry 159 186 186 212 239 159

Basal Area Target – Quadratic Mean Diameter 10-30Jeffrey pine - dry 59-90 82-127 82-127 94-145 106-163 70-109Ponderosa - dry 68-105 96-148 96-148 109-169 123-190 82-127Douglas-fir - dry 82-127 96-148 96-148 109-169 123-190 82-127Douglas-fir - mesic 96-148 109-169 109-169 123-190 123-190 96-148White fir - dry 87-134 101-156 101-156 116-178 130-201 87-134White fir - mesic 101-156 116-178 116-178 130-201 130-201 101-156Tanoak/Douglas-fir - dry 87-134 101-156 101-156 116-178 130-201 87-134

11

Table 4: Density targets for forests in subseries receiving active management under the PROPOSED moist forest strategy (this concept is still in development). Relative density index and seral tree species is used to calculate the desired stand density index, then the diameter of the existing large trees in the stand is used to determine the target basal area. Target densities are for immediately post-treatment with the understanding that stands will grow to a relative density of 0.55 before future commercial entry will be considered.

Ecosystem Resilience Fuels Management

Complex HabitatNear Long

NSO Existing Habitat Outside NRF --- --- Dispersal CapableNSO Potential Habitat Low --- --- High HighInsolation Warm Cool Warm Cool --- ---Subseries Relative Density Index TargetTanoak/Douglas-fir - mesic 25% 25% 40% 45% 45% 35%Western hemlock - mesic 25% 25% 40% 45% 45% 35%Pacific silver fir - mesic 20% 20% 40% 45% 45% 35%Shasta red fir - mesic 25% 25% 40% 45% 45% 35%Mountain hemlock - mesic 25% 25% 40% 45% 45% 35%Subseries Stand Density Index TargetTanoak/Douglas-fir - mesic 133 133 212 239 239 186Western hemlock - mesic 133 133 212 239 239 186Pacific silver fir - mesic 106 106 212 239 239 186Shasta red fir - mesic 200 200 320 360 360 280Mountain hemlock - mesic 200 200 320 360 360 280

Basal Area Target – Quadratic Mean Diameter 10-30Tanoak/Douglas-fir - mesic 72-112 72-112 116-178 130-201 130-201 101-156Western hemlock - mesic 72-112 72-112 116-178 130-201 130-201 101-156Shasta red fir - mesic 109-168 109-168 175-269 196-303 196-303 153-236Pacific silver fir - mesic 58-89 58-89 116-178 130-201 130-201 101-156Mountain hemlock - mesic 109-168 109-168 175-269 196-303 196-303 153-236

12