back to landscape management strategy l back to blue river landscape study home page

Landscape Management and Monitoring Strategy

Version #1

April 18, 1997

Relationship to Forest Plan, Adaptive Management Area Guide, and NEPA

Setting

Analytical Process

Special Area Reserves

Landscape Areas

Aquatic Reserves

Watershed Restoration

Landscape Blocks

Timber Harvest Scheduling

Refugia Watersheds

Interim Plan

Landscape Structure

Plant and Animal Habitats

Spotted Owls

Riparian Habitat

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives

Timber production and operational feasibility.

Background

H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest

Watershed scale

Subwatershed scale

Small-stream scale

Site scale

A history of landscape-scale case studies conducted in the central Willamette National Forest have developed and demonstrated methods to minimize fragmentation of older forests (Cook-Quentin - 1988), identify "ecologically significant old growth" and connective corridors (Upper Fall Creek - 1990), and establish integrated landscape and watershed objectives based upon historical disturbance regimes (Augusta Creek - 1995). Additionally, a landscape field experiment was proposed for the Blue River watershed in the late 1980’s to test hypotheses concerning the effects of alternative landscape patterns. This experiment was never implemented because the Blue River watershed was designated as a Habitat Conservation Area for the spotted owl (HCA) in 1990, precluding further timber harvest in the watershed. That designation was superseded by the Northwest Forest Plan in 1994. The Blue River watershed and surrounding lands are now in the Central Cascades Adaptive Management Area, an allocation in the Northwest Forest Plan that encourages development and evaluation of new approaches to integrating ecological and social objectives. Specific objectives for the Central Cascades Adaptive Management Area listed in the Record of Decision for the Northwest Forest Plan include: "intensive research on ecosystem and landscape processes and its application to forest management in experiments and demonstrations at the stand and watershed level; approaches for integrating forest and stream management objectives and on implications of natural disturbance regimes" (ROD p. D-12).

Results from the Augusta Creek landscape analysis provide a solid foundation for projects designed to meet the Adaptive Management Area objectives in the Blue River watershed. The Augusta Creek Project demonstrated that it is feasible to use historical fire regimes as a general template for future vegetation management. Additionally, results from the Augusta Creek analysis indicated that this form of landscape management may provide advantages over the long-term for a wide variety of species, particularly those associated with late-successional forests, such as the northern spotted owl, as compared to the interim Northwest Forest Plan (Cissel et al., in press). This concept needs a landscape-scale test to further evaluate the feasibility and consequences of managing with a historical disturbance regime general template.

The purpose of the Blue River Landscape Project is to develop, demonstrate and test an integrated landscape management strategy to achieve ecological and social objectives based upon historical disturbance regimes for the Blue River watershed (approximately 57,000 acres). The primary goal is to sustain native habitats, species, and ecological processes while providing a sustained flow of wood fiber for conversion to wood products. The general assumption is that the more future landscapes resemble historical landscapes, the higher the likelihood of retaining native habitats, species and ecological functions. A goal of the Blue River Landscape Project is to further develop and refine the general landscape management approach demonstrated in the Augusta Creek Project. Studies performed within this watershed, such as the spotted owl demography study, provide additional information upon which to base the Blue River landscape management approach.

Another goal for this project is to develop a watershed restoration component for the Blue River watershed and integrate this approach with the landscape management strategy for vegetation. The general goal is to reestablish habitats, species, and processes where feasible so that aquatic ecosystems can function within a range of variability that approximates historical ecosystems in this watershed. The intent is to integrate this strategy with the landscape management approach so that the spatial and temporal extents of management activities is coordinated as closely as feasible to meet overall landscape and watershed management objectives. Studies performed within this watershed, such as the peak streamflows study, provide additional information upon which to base the watershed restoration strategy.

An additional goal is to develop and portray the landscape management strategy in sufficient temporal and spatial detail that planning for subsequent projects to implement the strategy can be focused on site-specific issues and conditions. Future management actions will likely include prescribed fires, timber sales, stream and road restoration projects, reduction of exotic species, wildlife enhancement projects and silvicultural activities such as reforestation and thinning. A project schedule will be developed by Blue River Ranger District program managers as a transition step between landscape planning and project planning.

A major goal of this project is to evaluate the effectiveness of this historical disturbance-based management strategy for achieving the objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan. The presence of the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest within the watershed provides unique monitoring opportunities. Existing long-term datasets are available for the Andrews and surrounding lands to help evaluate trends within the watershed. In addition, the Andrews landscape itself provides a reference point for comparison with the rest of the watershed where management activities are planned. The 15,700 acre Andrews has had very little manipulation for the last 25 years (since 1970) and very little manipulation is anticipated in the future. Spotted owl demography, stream discharge, and amphibian populations have been monitored across the larger Blue River watershed. Comparison of future habitat patterns with nearby matrix lands, wilderness and large private industrial lands is also feasible. Vegetation and land-use data have been compiled using remote sensing for a much larger study area in the McKenzie and South Santiam watersheds since 1972.

A final goal for this project is to support and facilitate landscape-scale research opportunities. The strategy described in this document is new and should present numerous opportunities for new research. The ongoing landscape pattern and process research based at the Andrews provides a sound basis for additional work. In addition, much hydrology and stream ecology research has been conducted in this watershed, and the implementation of this strategy should augment existing research opportunities.

The central concept of this project is that approximating key aspects of historical fire regimes through forest management practices can sustain native habitats and species, maintain ecological processes within historical ranges, and provide a sustained flow of timber. A premise of this approach is that native species are adapted to the range of habitat patterns resulting from historical disturbance events over the last 500 years, and the probability of survival of these species is reduced if their environment lies outside the range of historical conditions for a prolonged period of time (Swanson et al 1993). Similarly, ecological processes, such as those involved in nutrient and hydrologic cycles, have functioned historically within a range of conditions established by disturbance and successional patterns. Operating outside the range of past conditions may affect these processes in unforeseeable and perhaps undesirable ways. While this concept is largely untested, various projects are exploring this approach in a variety of settings across North America (e.g., Baker 1992, Hunter 1993, Mladenoff et al. 1993, Stuart-Smith and Hebert 1996).

Historical fire regimes in this portion of the central western Cascades vary over time and space (Teensma 1987, Morrison and Swanson 1990, Weisberg 1996). General fire regimes have been identified and mapped for the Blue River watershed based upon these studies. In the Blue River landscape strategy timber harvest and prescribed fire regimes have been set to approximate key parameters of historical fire regimes (e.g., disturbance frequency, intensity and spatial pattern) to the degree feasible while still meeting the underlying objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan. These management regime interpretations of past fire regimes reflect mean conditions and do not incorporate the extremes of past fire behavior. For example, very large and intense fires were a part of the historical fire regime, but are not incorporated into future management regimes. In addition, timber harvest frequencies were lowered in comparison with the corresponding fire frequency since unplanned and unsuppressed future fires will likely occur.

Two important qualifications to this approach should be understood. First, existing conditions are far different from historical conditions in many cases (e.g., the presence of roads, clearcuts and a reservoir). Existing conditions require modification to historical disturbance regime based approaches in order to meet the objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan. And second, the combination of timber harvest and prescribed fire is different from the historical occurrence of fire in ways that can not be replicated in a timber harvest regime (e.g., much lower levels of residual dead wood). Large-scale habitat modifications resulting from past management actions in combination with societal expectations (e.g., that native species be maintained, timber produced, and fire suppressed) limit the degree to which historical patterns can be applied in future management regimes.

Testing these concepts requires ongoing monitoring, evaluation and adjustment programs. Traditional science-based hypothesis testing, using controls and replication, is not practical for projects of this scale. The monitoring strategy focuses on comparing development of stand and landscape structure under this approach to stand and landscape structure resulting from natural disturbances, and on the consequences of this management approach on key taxa, ecological processes and human uses (see Monitoring section). Monitoring systems currently in place on and nearby the Andrews provide numerous opportunities to implement the monitoring strategy. Periodic interdisciplinary assessment of monitoring results and evaluation of the need to modify the landscape management strategy is planned.

This document describes the landscape management strategy intended to guide management activities within the Blue River watershed. It is an implementation and monitoring guide meant to provide consistency and focus to activities in the Blue River watershed that are directed to achieving Central Cascades Adaptive Management Area objectives. The Blue River landscape management strategy is based upon concepts developed at the watershed scale. It provides context and guidance to projects so that the underlying concepts are implemented over time. The effectiveness of larger scale monitoring and evaluation (see Monitoring section) depends upon project implementation consistent with the landscape management strategy.

This document is consistent with the Northwest Forest Plan (USDI and USDA 1994). The Blue River watershed and surrounding lands were allocated to the Central Cascades Adaptive Management Area in the Northwest Forest Plan. The purpose of the Adaptive Management Area is to encourage development and evaluation of new approaches to integrate ecological and social objectives, with a specific emphasis on approaches for integrating forest and stream management objectives and on implications of natural disturbance regimes (ROD p. D-12).

This document is also consistent with the Central Cascades Adaptive Management Area strategic guide. The guide was developed to provide focus and coherence to Adaptive Management Area activities, and to meet Northwest Forest Plan requirements. The Adaptive Management Area guide identifies themes for Adaptive Management Area activities, and suggests potential projects to implement those themes. The Blue River Landscape Project is identified in the guide as a project to meet the landscape management theme, and is summarized in Appendix E of the guide.

This document does not make formal decisions resulting in activities affecting the environment. Decisions that commit resources to management actions will be made at the project-scale. Prior to commencement of any activity potentially affecting the environment a formal NEPA document will be prepared. Environmental analyses under NEPA for projects relying on guidance contained in this document will incorporate relevant material form this document into the project NEPA document. In particular, cumulative effects analyses for project assessments will incorporate information from this document.

The Blue River watershed (approximately 59,000 acres) lies within the McKenzie River subbasin (approximately 873,000 acres), a major tributary to the Willamette river in western Oregon. The water of the McKenzie River is cherished for recreational, scenic, and economic values, and is a source of drinking water for over 200,000 people. Most of the watershed (97%) is administered by the Blue River Ranger District. The Northwest Forest Plan (1994) designated the entire watershed as an Adaptive Management Area, a management allocation that emphasizes research, monitoring and education focused on integrating ecological and social objectives. A unique and important component of the watershed is the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest (approximately 15,700 acres), occupying the entire Lookout Creek subwatershed. The Andrews was established in 1948 and has a long history of ecological and forest management research and monitoring.

The Blue River watershed is located on the eastern edge of the western Cascade physiographic province (9-40 million years old) in Oregon. The terrain is steep, varied and deeply dissected reflecting a complex history of lava flows, uplift, faulting, glacial advance and retreat, mass movements, and hydrothermal alterations. Elevations range from 5,349 ft. at Carpenter Mountain, to 1,040 ft. at the confluence with the McKenzie River. Wolf Rock is a prominent volcanic intrusion visible from many areas in the watershed. Wet, cool winters and dry, warm summers typify the climate in this area. Seasonal snowpacks usually develop above 3,500 ft. elevation, with the lower elevations dominated by rain, or rain-on-snow from November through May. The streams within the watershed are generally high gradient (>2%) with a step-pool morphology. Most are steeply incised with narrow valley widths.

Forest structure and composition reflect climatic gradients and the complex fire history of the area. The watershed lies within the western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and Pacific silver fir (Abies amabalis) vegetation zones. Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) is the dominant tree species over most of the planning area, with western hemlock and western redcedar (Thuja plicata) being the most common associates. Pacific silver fir and noble fir (Abies procera) dominate colder sites. Natural stands of trees in the watershed contain a mixture of younger forests ranging in age from 60-150 years old, and older forests 400-500 years of age. Plantations regenerated following clearcutting are dispersed throughout most of the roaded area. Most timber harvest from 1950-1970 occurred within the Lookout Creek basin, while most timber harvests since 1970 were located in the remainder of the watershed.

The diversity of wildlife in the watershed is similar to other nearby watersheds. Bald eagles, peregrine falcons, harlequin ducks, Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted owls, beaver, bear, deer and elk are some of the species of special interest sighted within the watershed. Wolf Lake provides habitat for waterfowl and pond-breeding amphibians. A long-term spotted owl research study is centered on the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest.

Thirteen species of fish and ten aquatic amphibians are known to inhabit the watershed. Aquatic habitat includes a reservoir, river, streams, and ponds. Blue River dam is an upstream migration barrier for fish, isolating upstream fish populations. Cutthroat trout occur both upstream and downstream of the dam and are the most common wild salmonid in the watershed. Both wild and hatchery rainbow trout exist in the watershed. Approximately 25,000 hatchery rainbow trout are annually stocked in the reservoir and lower Blue River.

Humans have used this watershed for at least the last 10,000 years. Numerous prehistoric use locations have been documented in the watershed, indicating that native people were occupied with broad spectrum hunting and gathering, exploiting available food sources on a seasonal basis. Gold Hill was once an active gold mining district employing approximately 250 men during the early twentieth century. Existing uses are quite varied. The H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, established in 1948, is a national and world resource for ecosystem research. Blue River Reservoir provides boating, swimming fishing and camping. Carpenter Mountain, Tidbits Mountain, Buck Mountain, and Wolf Rock are popular destinations.

The landscape management strategy was developed in four distinct phases. In practice, however, there was a great deal of overlap among phases and multiple iterations of some work. Each of these phases was conducted in the context of the larger adjacent watersheds, and was designed to efficiently link to project-level planning.

In the first phase, information about past and current conditions, ecological processes, disturbance regimes and human uses were compiled. This basic information provided the foundation for all succeeding analyses.

In the second phase, a landscape management and watershed restoration strategy was developed based on the range of "natural" variability of forest conditions as interpreted from fire and other disturbance history studies, and modified where current conditions were perceived to be outside the range of past conditions. The watershed was stratified into various management zones with differing management approaches prescribed for each zone.

In the third phase, spatially- and temporally-explicit portrayals of potential future landscape conditions were developed based upon the management strategies developed in the second phase. The resulting maps of future landscape structure provide a specific and direct link to project-scale planning for timber sales, prescribed fire, silvicultural activities, and restoration or recovery projects.

In the fourth phase, this landscape management approach was evaluated, in part by comparison to the standard, unmodified Northwest Forest Plan direction as applied to Matrix lands. Key objectives, such as the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives, spotted owl population, landscape structure, and timber harvest volume were evaluated through a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods.

The basic information used for development of the landscape management and watershed restoration strategies is compiled elsewhere. Much of the underlying information resides in the Blue River watershed analysis report (available at the Blue River Ranger District office). This watershed analysis was conducted in the winter of 1996 following procedures in the Federal Guide to Watershed Analysis. Past and present conditions and trends are documented for a wide range of resources, ecological processes and human uses. Management interpretations that relied upon this information will be reviewed when the watershed analysis is updated.

In addition to the watershed analysis report, three other information sources were important references for development of the landscape management and watershed restoration strategies. The "Blue River Fire Regime Analysis and Description" (Weisberg 1996) and supporting maps provided critical data and descriptions of general fire regimes in the Blue River watershed (available at the Blue River Ranger District office). This document took the form of an informal report on research in progress as part of an ongoing graduate student program. Management interpretations that relied upon this interim report will be reviewed when the final thesis is completed.

Similarly, "Herpetofauna in the Blue River Watershed, Western Cascades, Oregon" (Hunter 1996) was provided as an informal report on research in progress as part of an ongoing graduate student program. Information and maps in this report (available at the Blue River Ranger District office) document locations of amphibians and reptiles in the Blue River watershed. Management interpretations that relied upon this interim information will be reviewed when the final thesis is completed.

A multifaceted, long-term research program on the northern spotted owl is centered out of the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, and includes the entire Blue River watershed. Data on the reproductive rates and perceived habitat quality for each pair of owls in the watershed were provided to the Blue River Ranger District. This information is documented in the form of a map with several levels of productivity indicated (available for review at the Blue River Ranger District office). Management interpretations that relied upon this information will be reviewed whenever new information is available.

We followed four general steps to develop the landscape management strategy:

Figure 1 shows the location of these reserves and landscape areas; Table 1 shows the acres in each category.

The following reserves in the 1990 Willamette National Forest Plan were kept in a reserve status in this landscape management strategy: Thirty-five 100-acre Late-Successional Reserves associated with pairs of northern spotted owls, Hagan Late-Successional Reserve, H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Carpenter Mountain Special Interest Area, Wolf Rock Special Interest Area, and Gold Hill Special Interest Area. Management prescriptions described in the 1990 Forest Plan continue to be appropriate for these areas. Objectives associated with other allocations in the 1990 Forest Plan (e.g., visual management and special wildlife habitat areas) were felt to be met or exceeded through the landscape management strategy described below.

The remaining portion of landscape not in Special Area Reserves is expected to provide some level of timber harvest while meeting a variety of ecological and social objectives (e.g., scenic views, functional riparian areas, and unique habitats). The need for additional reserves to meet the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives was evaluated as a separate step (described in a later section). These reserves were considered after the general landscape management strategy was established so that the relative need for additional reserves could be considered in light of likely future management actions. Based upon past experience with the Augusta Creek project, we anticipated that the landscape management strategy would feature upslope management regimes containing variable but generally longer rotations, lower timber harvest frequencies, and variable but generally higher levels of green tree retention as compared to the Willamette National Forest Plan. Where feasible, the landscape management strategy was modified to meet the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives instead of creating additional reserves.

Three noncontiguous landscape areas were mapped, each representing different portions of a complex gradient of ecological conditions and disturbance regimes. The fire regime map (Weisberg report 1996) was a primary basis for these delineations. This map portrayed potential fire frequencies in three classes as derived from a linear regression model. While this map appeared to represent a good first cut at fire regimes, modifications to the map were made where data were lacking. Interpretations drawn from this map were integrated with other information sources to delineate landscape areas. In particular, the plant series map, road map, stream map, and topographic maps provided relevant information. Boundaries were drawn so they could be readily located on the ground.

General prescriptions for each of these three landscape areas were drawn from an examination of the fire history (Weisberg report 1996) and other analyses documented in the Blue River watershed analysis report. Parameters of timber harvest regimes were derived from corresponding parameters of fire regimes. Timber harvest rotation ages (cutting frequency) approximated the frequency of stand- or partial stand-replacing fires for each landscape area. Rotations were lengthened by 20-40 years relative to the corresponding fire-return interval in recognition of the likelihood of an occasional escaped fire. The amount of forest cover retained at the time of regeneration harvest was matched with the interpreted severity of stand- or partial stand-replacing fires in each area. Spatial pattern objectives for each landscape area were developed from analysis of individual fire event sizes, and from the pattern of patch sizes resulting from recurring fires over time within each area (Morrison and Swanson 1990).

The correlation between the desired characteristics of future human-initiated disturbances with past disturbance regimes was general. For example, we tried to reflect the variability of patch sizes in the historical landscape and the tendency for some parts of the landscape to have smaller patches than others. The landscape management strategy calls for a range of created patch sizes across the landscape with small patches (<100 acres) emphasized in certain landscape areas, and larger patches (200-400 acres) in others. However, we assumed that it would be socially unacceptable to reflect the full range of historical conditions, which included some very large and intense fires creating patches thousands of acres in size.

Prescriptions were further developed based on results from the stand simulator ZELIG.PNW (Garman 1992, Urban 1993) to provide more details for silvicultural prescriptions and to evaluate the feasibility of these prescriptions. This model simulates stand dynamics over long rotations (200+ years) with varying levels of overstory retention. Variables considered in the analysis of prescriptions included reforestation composition and density, pre-commercial thinning density and residual composition, and the timing and density of commercial thinning. The ability of ZELIG.PNW to simulate stand development under previous, standard silvicultural prescriptions was first demonstrated by comparing model results with the Willamette National Forest stand projection tables. Sensitivity analyses were conducted comparing a wide range of potential timber management regimes. Results identified prescriptions providing sustainable production of wood fiber volume over multiple rotations.

Hydrologic analyses were used to evaluate and adjust landscape prescriptions to ensure that the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives will be met. Prescriptions set for areas of potential high susceptibility to rain-on-snow flood events or high contribution to late-summer baseflow were adjusted if necessary to ensure that these hydrologic processes would not be substantially affected by management activities. Guidelines for placement of retention trees, location and scheduling of future timber harvests, and the size of future timber harvest blocks were developed considering the sensitivity of the landscape to altered hydrologic functions.

General objectives were also established for the occurrence of fire. Moderate to high severity fires were replaced in this management approach by the use of prescribed fire following timber harvest activities, and by the anticipated occasional escaped fire. Objectives were also established for low-severity fires through either natural or human ignitions.

Vegetation management within each of the three landscape areas is intended to approximate key elements of an interpreted historical fire regime associated with that area. Each landscape area has a general disturbance regime associated with it:

Landscape Area 1: - General objective: approximate key elements of a relatively frequent, moderate severity (40-60% mortality) stand-regeneration fire regime.

Landscape Area 2: - General objective: approximate key elements of a moderate frequency, moderate-to-high severity (60-80% mortality) stand-regeneration fire regime.

Landscape Area 3: - General objective: approximate key elements of an infrequent, high severity (>80% mortality) stand-regeneration fire regime.

Key elements of the landscape area prescriptions are displayed in Table 2.

Continuation of a general fire suppression policy and goals for economically viable, long-term timber production limit the ability of managers to replicate the historical role of fire. The vegetation management regimes described in this section focus primarily on the role of fire in controlling forest and landscape structure, and secondarily on the process effects of fire itself (e.g., soil heating or nitrogen volatilization). Vegetation management regimes described in table 2, and the anticipated occasional fire that escapes initial suppression efforts, are intended to develop forest and landscape structure similar to historical landscapes. Variation in the frequency, severity, and spatial distribution of timber harvest is designed into the regimes themselves, and escaped fires will add still greater variability. The process roles of fire are simulated to a degree by the use of controlled fires after timber harvests and after forest stands mature (table 2), and by escaped fires. The actual effects of these fires may vary substantially from historical fires. However, these fires will be less frequent, of lower severity, and smaller in size than those that occurred historically.

A timber management program and prescribed fire regime are clearly different than the historical role of fire. These differences are largely unavoidable, but should be considered in the implementation of this strategy. Major differences include:

Provision for standing and down dead trees should be included in prescriptions to ensure habitats and ecological functions associated with dead wood (e.g., storage of carbon and water). Levels of dead trees to be left or created at the time of regeneration harvests are in addition to the green tree retention levels; long-term replacement dead trees can be obtained from the green tree retention levels. Levels of dead trees are intended to vary across landscape areas reflecting variable disturbance frequencies. The guidelines and levels of dead trees by plant series in the Forest Plan can be used for this vegetation management strategy. Generally leave or create dead trees at the low end of the range given in the Forest Plan in landscape area 1, the middle of the range for landscape area 2, and at the high end of the range for landscape area 3.

Low-severity fire (0-30 % mortality of overstory trees) is included in landscape prescriptions to help maintain ecosystem processes and historical plant and animal habitats. Fire exclusion is inconsistent with one of the stated goals of this project - to sustain ecological processes - since fire itself is an ecological process that has historically played a significant role in this landscape. The absence of fire may be affecting ecosystems in unknown ways. Effects of fire exclusion become evident most rapidly where historical fire return intervals are shorter (e.g., eastern and southern Oregon), and may become more obvious in the wetter westside environments as the length of time fire suppression has been in force approaches or exceeds historical fire return intervals. Since fire suppression is expected to continue as a basic policy governing response to unplanned fires, prescribed fire provides opportunities to restore fire to the landscape. Habitats and ecological processes are expected to more closely resemble historical conditions where fire is restored. While many direct effects of high-severity fire are well-known, knowledge of the influence of fire on habitats and other ecological processes is incomplete, especially for low- and moderate-severity fires. Goals for prescribed fire are to:

• Kill a small proportion of overstory trees to create snags and future down wood.
• Reduce fuel loading and fuel ladders lowering the probability of future high-severity fire.
• Stimulate herb and shrub growth by increased light levels and through an initial flush of nutrients released by the fire.
• Provide horizontal heterogeneity to understory habitats.
• Provide a mix of fine-scale habitats similar to historical conditions following low-severity fires.
• Provide research and monitoring opportunities to study the effects of low- and moderate-severity fire on plants and animals under a variety of stand structures.

The degree to which each of these objectives are applicable depends on the overall management category the site lies within, the timing and spatial extent of projected management activities on and nearby the site, and site-specific conditions (e.g., stand structure, fuel loading, levels of snags). Site-specific analysis will be needed to determine locations where fire can be prudently used. Stand conditions, fire history, wind patterns, potential fuel breaks, slope position, aspect, and elevation all need to be considered. Some areas will not be suitable for prescribed fire due to operational and safety reasons. In areas where timber management is prescribed, landscape blocks are intended as operational units and should provide a basis for site-specific planning for prescribed fire. Where feasible, the upper boundaries of a block were placed along ridgelines or roads to help establish safe firelines.

Additional guidance for different management categories is provided in the following sections. Since the underlying fire history analysis was designed primarily to detect moderate- to high-severity events, these prescriptions should be regarded as first approximations.

Timber management and harvest is expected to occur in landscape areas. Prescribed fire should be scheduled and planned to complement timber management activities and minimize avoidable conflicts where feasible. Low-severity fire is prescribed both in conjunction with scheduled regeneration timber harvests, and later in the rotation when trees are more resistant to potential fire damage. Prior to an age of approximately eighty to one hundred years old fires may cause high levels of mortality to overstory dominants, and interfere with early stand silvicultural activities (e.g., precommercial and commercial thinnings).

Prescribed fire should be planned at the scale of the individual landscape block when stand initiation timber harvests are planned for that block. Fires should be prescribed to reduce slash where needed as well as meet the above goals. Prescribed fire may also be scheduled to occur simultaneously on sites that will not be harvested within these blocks (e.g., on soils unsuitable for timber harvest, see Inclusions). In neither case are prescribed fires intended to significantly reduce the soil litter layer or levels of coarse woody debris. Site-specific analysis should ensure that unique or rare plant and animal communities are not adversely affected. Existing plantations should be protected from prescribed fire.

As a part of the long-term prescriptions, low-severity fires were prescribed to occur one or two times between age one hundred and the timber harvest rotation age (100-260 years depending upon landscape area, see table 2). Where blocks are not scheduled for cutting for several decades, fire should be planned in Landscape Areas 2 & 3 (Landscape Area 1 has a relatively short rotation age, 100 years). Natural post-fire recovery processes can then occur for several decades prior to timber harvest.

Prescribed fire in harvested areas will vary in severity depending on fuel loadings created by the timber harvest. In general the intent is to create sufficient mortality in overstory trees through prescribed fire to meet wildlife objectives for dead-tree habitat. The spatial pattern of prescribed fires should be variable creating patches of understory mortality in some places while leaving unburned patches in others.

Prescribed fire in unharvested areas is intended to be of low severity. Flame lengths of 2-3 feet are expected, resulting in approximately 80-90% mortality of trees <5" DBH, 40-50% mortality of trees 5-12" DBH, and 5-15% mortality of trees >12" DBH within the western hemlock plant series. Where Pacific silver fir is a significant component of the stand fire prescriptions should be adjusted to achieve similar levels of mortality, if feasible. Otherwise prescribed fire should be postponed in that area. The spatial pattern of prescribed fires should be variable creating patches of understory mortality in some places while leaving unburned patches in others.

Reserves are generally intended to provide late-successional habitat. Low-severity fire (1-10% mortality of overstory trees) may be prescribed in reserves where operationally feasible, and where there are no unacceptable risks to other values. The primary goal is to reduce fuel loadings and lower the probability of high-severity fires in the future. Low-severity fire (1-10% mortality) in aquatic reserves may also be appropriate on sites where fire has substantially influenced plant communities in the past (higher fire frequencies) and there is no significant risk to ecological processes or existing communities. Fire may also be appropriate in aquatic reserves to better integrate upslope and riparian habitats, and to induce a range of seral conditions more closely resembling historical conditions. Prescribed fire is a higher priority in reserves with high-frequency fire regimes where fuel loads can be reduced with low risk of accidental escalation of fire severity. In general, prescribed fire in reserves is a lower priority than elsewhere in the watershed. Lack of road access may substantially increase costs of treatment and reduce options for fire ignition, holding, and mop-up tactics in some reserves.

Land not appropriate for long-term timber management occurs in some landscape blocks where timber harvest is scheduled. These areas could include soils deemed unsuitable for timber management based upon regeneration or slope stability criteria, areas not intended for long-term timber management based upon specific plant or wildlife habitat objectives (e.g., the Willamette National Forest Special Habitat objectives or for Threatened or Endangered species), or other site-specific reserves needed to meet the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives. Inclusions of land not intended for long-term timber management should be identified and mapped during site-specific timber sale planning. Identification of inclusions should consider the size and spatial extent of inclusions within the landscape block as well as the prescription for the corresponding landscape area. For example, the frequency and intensity of timber harvest or prescribed fire intended for that landscape area may help determine whether long-term timber management is appropriate.

Managed disturbances may be appropriate in some inclusions in conjunction with timber harvest or prescribed fire scheduled in the remainder of the landscape block. In many cases fires historically burned through these areas in a similar fashion as in adjacent forests and have been an important factor shaping plant community dynamics. Absence of disturbance has resulted in development of closed-canopy forests in some areas where more open conditions were common in the past. Trees may be felled and fire prescribed within these inclusions to provide more open conditions, create more natural environmental gradients, or for other reasons, but not for the purpose of providing timber products. The decision to leave or remove felled trees in these areas should be made at the project level within the context of the overall prescription for the landscape block. The overall intent is to create conditions more typical of historical disturbance regimes, and to integrate these areas with surrounding lands.

Inclusions are separate from green-tree retention areas. Green tree retention objectives are meant to apply to the remainder of the landscape block where timber harvest is prescribed. Green tree retention marking guidelines should leave densities of retention trees near these inclusions that create a gradient of environmental conditions from the inclusion into the landscape block where feasible. Densities of retention trees near the inclusion may be lower or higher depending upon the prescription planned for the inclusion.

Where these inclusions occupy a significant portion of the landscape block it may be appropriate to reduce the general target green-tree retention level over the remainder of the block. The conditions of the landscape block and the general prescription for the landscape area provide context to help determine if adjustment of the retention tree level objective is appropriate. For example, it may be more appropriate to adjust retention tree levels downward where the overall retention objective is relatively high, or where there are few streams or unique habitats. Similarly, where a significant portion of the landscape block is currently in a clearcut, or young conifer plantation, it may be appropriate to increase the overall target green-tree retention level over the remainder of the block for the first timber harvests in the block under this strategy. The objective in either case is to create a disturbance pattern that approximates past general fire mortality patterns according to the goals for the landscape area.

Changes in future conditions will undoubtedly occur through unplanned disturbances. Small-scale disturbances (e.g., small pockets of windthrow, insect-induced mortality, or small fires) create additional variability and are biologically desirable. Changes in the overall schedule of activities would not generally be necessary, and salvage logging of these small patches of mortality should generally be avoided. Large-scale disturbances should trigger reevaluation of landscape objectives and projected management activities. While the long-term landscape and watershed objectives would likely still be applicable, changes in short-term plans may be appropriate.

For example, a large, severe fire may produce early seral conditions over a significant proportion of the planning area. An appropriate response might be to reschedule timber cutting to delay further regeneration harvests of live forest until the post-fire stands have closed their canopies. Salvage logging of a volume of timber approximately equal to that scheduled to be removed over that time period may be appropriate to maintain projected timber flows. The condition of adjacent areas, both within and adjacent to the Adaptive Management Area, provides important context for this evaluation.

The recommended management response to disturbance would depend upon current conditions and knowledge, and should include consideration of these factors:

Ecological functions of burned patches need to be considered if salvage for timber values is contemplated. Relative to natural conditions, managed landscapes are generally characterized by low levels of snags, and especially by the lack of high-density snag patches. Leaving fire-killed patches unsalvaged and maintaining the overall block harvesting schedule may be the most appropriate response to unplanned disturbance in many cases. Unplanned disturbances should also be viewed as opportunities to refine understanding of disturbance processes and patterns, and post-disturbance recovery trajectories.

Aquatic reserves (figure 1) were established to ensure that aquatic habitats and processes are protected, and that management for aquatic features is integrated with upslope management. In particular, the aquatic reserves are meant to ensure that the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives in the Northwest Forest Plan will be met. The pattern of aquatic reserves was based in part upon the likely frequency, intensity, and spatial pattern of future timber harvests, the context of the surrounding watershed, and the degree to which the landscape has been altered by past, intensive human use (e.g., dams, roads, timber cutting). Stream type (fish-bearing, perennial or intermittent) and geomorphic setting (gradient, constrained or unconstrained valley segment type) set the context for reserve decisions.

Several small-basin reserves were established to meet aquatic conservation objectives and to provide contiguous blocks of undisturbed habitat. Reserves were dispersed throughout the watershed and across elevation zones in locations of highest aquatic habitat diversity. In particular, reserves were placed in headwater locations thought to benefit the Cascade torrent salamander (a species thought to be limited in distribution and particularly sensitive to management activities), around important stream junctions, and in locations with a high potential to contribute wood and other materials to streams through mass soil movements. In addition, reserves encompass and adjoin Late-Successional Reserves associated with pairs of spotted owls with the highest reproductive rates, and those located in areas with the highest concentration of late-successional habitat.

Aquatic reserves also took the form of riparian corridors along both sides of all fish-bearing streams. The corridor reserves were essentially linear, and occupy the entire valley bottom and adjacent toe-slopes. These corridors connect aquatic and riparian areas throughout the basin and link with the small-watershed reserves. Along Blue River a streamside reserve was delineated to run from Road 15 on the northwest to two tree-heights on the southeast side of the river. A one tree-height reserve along constrained channels (most of the fish-bearing streams), and a two tree-height reserve along unconstrained segments was designated for all other fish-bearing streams.

No additional reserves were established for non fish-bearing streams and intermittent streams. Management guidelines for those streams are described in the Landscape Area section. The combination of relatively low cutting rates (associated with long rotations) and generally higher green-tree retention levels was thought to provide sufficient large wood input, old forest habitat, and streambank stability.

Management objectives for aquatic reserves are to maintain or establish late-successional forest conditions. These reserves are intended to serve as intermediate-scale refugia in a landscape where timber harvest is occurring. Management guidelines for aquatic reserves should be similar to those in the Northwest Forest Plan. Small-basin reserves are meant to be managed similar to Late-Successional Reserves, while corridor-reserves should be managed similar to Riparian Reserves in the Northwest Forest Plan.

The fourth component of the landscape management strategy is watershed restoration. Restoration of watershed functions and habitats is needed where past management actions have substantially altered stream flows, riparian and aquatic habitats, composition or abundance of aquatic taxa, sediment or temperature regimes, aquatic nutrient cycles, and migration or movement routes of aquatic organisms. Upslope disturbances prescribed in this strategy through timber harvest and prescribed fire are planned so that their frequency, severity and spatial pattern approximate historical patterns. An aquatic ecosystem able to function within a range of historical variability is also essential to maintain ecological functions and habitats and retain a capacity to recover from these disturbances. In some cases restoration actions will need to be sustained over time to ensure long-term recovery.

Restoration actions should be planned in the context of the larger landscape recognizing the connections among upslope and riparian forests, engineered structures, riparian and stream habitats, and stream ecology. For example, upland forest conditions affect stream habitat through modification of stream flow regimes, temperature, or in-stream structure. Similarly, roads affect riparian habitat, sediment and stream flow regimes, and movement routes of aquatic organisms. Blue River Reservoir and road-related barriers block fish migration affecting species composition and nutrient cycles.

Prescriptions for restoration projects should be identified based upon specific objectives for future conditions. For example, objectives for input rates of organic and inorganic material to streams, or for riparian vegetation should be developed prior to project design. Historical conditions for aquatic ecosystems provide important reference points for restoration objectives. Studies conducted on the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest provide data to help estimate reference conditions. The FEMAT report (FEMAT 1993, Table V-J-1) identifies a wide variety of restoration measures that may be appropriate.

Three general approaches will be used in the restoration of Blue River watershed. One will focus on restoring the quality of aquatic and terrestrial habitat in drainages that serve as refugia. Another will focus on areas that are being entered for timber extraction. The last approach will be restoration methods utilized throughout the watershed, wherever the need occurs.

Watersheds of varying size are anticipated to serve as refugia so that organisms can repopulate areas negatively impacted by natural (e.g., wildfire or landslides) or human-initiated (e.g., timber harvest or prescribed fire) disturbances. Refugia habitats are intended to exhibit characteristics found in late-successional forests. Existing or future refugia subwatersheds are distributed throughout the larger watershed where Special Area Reserves and Aquatic Reserves are designated. In addition, timber harvest is planned to concentrate in certain subwatersheds so that timber harvest can be delayed in other watersheds that currently function as refugia. Untreated stream reaches within refugia habitats can be considered as control sites for comparison with actively restored stream reaches, and with stream reaches in areas where timber harvest occurs, to evaluate the effectiveness of management activities. Potential restoration activities include addition of large wood to streams and the river, closure of roads (including the pulling of drainage structures), riparian silviculture (including thinning, planting, release). Refugia habitats should generally receive first priority for restoration actions, with a particular emphasis on Cook and Quentin Creek watersheds where habitat for native cutthroat and rainbow trout exists.

Timber harvest frequently occurs in locations that could benefit from watershed restoration activities, and can contribute restoration funding for the nearby area. Timber harvests are likely to occur in accessible areas where past road construction, clearcutting, and stream channel clearing may have adversely affected aquatic habitats and processes. In addition restoration or mitigation activities may need to occur in conjunction with future timber harvest or prescribed fire. Restoration activities can sometimes take advantage of heavy machinery that may be in the location due to logging operations. Timber harvest also creates funding opportunities for restoration through road reconstruction and maintenance funds, and through K-V fund deposits. Potential restoration projects include decreasing the impact of FS Road 15, obliteration of roads and skid trails, riparian silviculture activities, and increasing culvert capacities to accommodate 100-year flood events.

A variety of additional restoration activities that could occur in the watershed without regard to timber harvest or refugia locations should be evaluated. These activities include:

• Work with ODF&W to discontinue stocking of hatchery rainbow trout in Blue River above Blue River Reservoir. Introduced fish stress wild rainbow trout, may introduce disease, and compete with wild fish for food and habitat. The wild rainbow trout are much less resilient than they were in the past because Blue River Dam blocks their genetic interchange with the McKenzie River population.
• Replace culverts at Ore Creek and Road 2620.126 to restore upstream fish passage.
• Restore the nutrients that spawned-out chinook salmon historically provided to Blue River. Work with ODF&W to dispose of spawned out chinook carcasses from the hatchery in historical Blue River chinook spawning areas, or release live excess hatchery chinook spawners and allow them to spawn naturally in Blue River and Lookout Creek and die. Another potential option may be to seasonally release synthetic nutrients into the historical spawning waters in concentrations that approximate levels provided historically through decomposition of chinook salmon carcasses.
• Determine the extent of the pollution left from the mining activities on Gold Hill, including the potential mercury in North Fork Quartz Creek. Develop a clean-up plan and implement and monitor as needed.

Older and more recent studies have shown significantly higher rates of landslides associated with roads, and a linkage of roads to increased peak stream flows during flood events (Jones and Grant 1996, Wemple 1996). In addition, roads occupy riparian areas, contribute to chronically higher sediment loads in some streams, obstruct movement of organisms, and impede delivery of organic and inorganic material to streams. Because of these adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems substantial restoration effort focuses on roads. Potential restoration projects in the Blue River watershed include road obliteration or decommissioning, road storage, road cut stabilization, side-cast stabilization, slide re-vegetation, and obliteration and revegetation of landings and spur roads. Addition analysis is needed to identify roads most likely to contribute to increased peak stream flows and landslides. Refugia subwatersheds should be emphasized in road restoration activities.

Placement of in-stream structures is an inherently short-term measure to restore channel and habitat complexity where existing conditions are degraded. The range of historical conditions in comparable streams should be used as an approximate guide for the amounts of large woods or other structures desired in streams. Trees located near streams can be placed back in streams or adjacent riparian areas. The highest benefits of installed in-stream structures may be in basins with low landslide frequencies, because basins with more frequent landsliding may have relatively rapid natural recovery. In-stream structures are also more likely to survive peak stream flows when installed in stream reaches of relatively low gradient (<4%). Refugia subwatersheds should be emphasized for in-stream restoration activities.

Silvicultural activities in riparian areas may be needed to restore longer-term ecological functions. Planting, releasing or thinning to promote rapid establishment and growth of large conifers may accelerate the time where large wood can be input to streams channels at historical rates. Unstable areas, such as bankside slides, may also benefit from revegetation. Refugia subwatersheds should be emphasized for in-stream restoration activities.

A variety of additional activities to restore terrestrial habitats will likely be implemented. Potential projects include meadow burning, tree habitat enhancement (e.g., creation of bat roost sites), control of exotic plant species, and snag creation. Site-specific proposals for these activities will be evaluated for consistency with the landscape management strategy.

We first delineated management blocks, termed "landscape blocks", in the three landscape areas where future timber harvest is prescribed, and then used these blocks as scheduling units to project future landscape conditions. These blocks are also the units used for prescribed fire and timber sale planning and implementation. Refugia watersheds were then identified to help establish watershed restoration priorities.

Landscape blocks are management units representing the spatial locations of future stands created through timber harvest and subsequent forest regeneration. The same general age-class structure will prevail within a block after timber harvest, but the spatial patterning and composition may be quite variable. Objectives for individual landscape areas provided specific guidance for the range of landscape block sizes, and for the spatial distribution of the blocks. Landscape blocks range in size from tens to hundreds of acres, and may be further subdivided into operational units, such as cutting units, to implement management activities. Existing stand conditions may be quite variable within a block, ranging from very young plantations to old growth.

Scheduling will be controlled at two scales: landscape blocks and landscape regions. Landscape blocks will be the basic scheduling unit; desired block sizes are described above for each landscape area. These blocks roughly correspond in size with the size of individual mortality patches from past fires. Landscape regions are large general areas roughly corresponding in size with the outer perimeter of many past fire events. Six landscape regions are defined for these purposes (figure 3, table 3): Mann, Cook-Quentin, Tidbits, Quartz, Reservoir area, and Upper Blue River.

At the watershed scale, the general approach will be to group harvest blocks within one or two landscape regions in a given time period (20 years) for all regions but the Reservoir area and upper Blue River. The scheduling priority should follow this sequence: first Quartz, then Mann, Tidbits, and finally Cook-Quentin. This priority postpones significant disturbance in landscape regions that are contributing the best refugia habitat for both aquatic species and for interior, late-successional species, and most quickly restores a desired spatial pattern of vegetation patches in the most fragmented regions. Grouping harvests within one or two landscape regions in a given time period roughly simulates the scale of a fire event. Within a region where timber harvest occurs, blocks selected for harvest will match the desired size of landscape blocks given in the landscape prescriptions and be dispersed within the region. Individual landscape blocks where harvest will occur roughly simulates the size of past fire-induced mortality patches. In addition to simulating past fires, this approach concentrates disturbance and habitat loss on relatively few spotted owl pairs at any one time, provides meso-scale refugia by not scheduling harvests in broad regions for an extended period of time, and opens up the possibility of large-area road closure strategies in conjunction with extended post-harvest recovery periods.

Within the Reservoir and upper Blue River regions, harvest of landscape blocks will be regularly dispersed through time and space. The intent of this strategy is to disperse the visual effects of timber harvest throughout the area seen from the heavily-used areas around Blue River, the Blue River Reservoir and Road 15.

The following additional criteria are meant to guide specific scheduling choices:

Watersheds of varying size are anticipated to serve as refugia so that organisms can repopulate areas negatively impacted by natural (e.g., wildfire or landslides) or human-initiated (e.g., timber harvest or prescribed fire) disturbances. Existing or future refugia are distributed throughout the larger watershed where Special Area Reserves and Aquatic Reserves are designated. In addition, timber harvest is planned to concentrate in certain landscape regions so that timber harvest can be delayed in other regions that currently function as refugia. The Cook-Quentin region is intended to function as refugia for the first several decades while timber harvest is scheduled elsewhere. Figure 4 identifies the location of planned refugia; table 4 shows the land area in each category.