USFS 2018 Science Forum Chapters 7 - 12

Chapter 7: The Aquatic Conservation
Strategy of the NWFP—Review of the
Relevant Science After 23 Years
Speaker: Gordon Reeves, Research Fish
Ecologist, PNW Research Station

Northwest Forest Plan Science Synthesis – Science Forum | Tuesday, June 26, 2018 | Portland,
Oregon
Authors
• Gordon Reeves, Research Fish Ecologist, PNW
Research Station
• Dede Olson, PNW
• Steve Wondzell, PNW
• Pete Bisson, PNW (emeritus)
• Sean Gordon, Portland State Univ.
• Stephanie Miller, BLM
• Jonathan Long, PSW
• Michael Furniss, US Forest Service (retired)

Oregon
ACS Foundation
From: Naiman et al. 1992
Dynamic
Regional
Restore and maintain ecological processes that
create and maintain suitable conditions in
aquatic ecosystems in the NWFP area through
time

Oregon
Augusta
Cr.
Designs
Headwater and
riparian reservesThinning
Year 400
Long-rotation
blocks
Cissel et al. 1998
Riparian reserves
80-year regen. harvest
Headwater reserves
Longer rotations & thinning

Oregon
Aquatic and Riparian
Ecosystems
Riparian Function versus Distance

Oregon
Riparian Reserves
• Fish-bearing streams
• Second site-potential
tree-height not
supported by recent
science

Oregon
Riparian Reserves
• Fish-bearing
• Second site-potential
tree-height not
supported by recent
science
• May need active
management

Oregon
Riparian Reserves
• Non-fish-bearing
• Ecologically important
• May need active
management

Oregon
Water Contribution
Small-
Moderat
e
A
Lot
Percentag
e of flow
contribute
d

Oregon
• Improvement in condition
• Most improvement compared to
non-Key Watersheds in 10- &
15-year assessments
• Same level of improvement as
non-Key Watersheds in 20-year
assessment
• Have less capacity to support
recovery of ESA-listed fish than
originally assumed
Key Watersheds

Oregon

Oregon
Climate Change
1993 -
2011
2040

Oregon
Priority Riparian Areas for Water
Temperature
High priority

Oregon
Monitoring (AREMP)
10- & 15-Year
Reports
20-Year Report

Oregon
Issues with 20-Year Report
• Use of “reference conditions”
Juneau Empirefieldandstream.co
m
NSF

Oregon
Issues with 20-Year
Report
• Ecological meaning of some indices

Oregon
Issues with 20-Year Report
• Ecological meaning of indices
• Lack of concordance among
indices

Oregon
Summary
•Aquatic ecosystems in the NWFP area are likely
improving as expected, albeit slowly

Oregon
Summary
improving as expected, albeit slowly.
•The fundamental tenets and ecological framework of
the ACS are sound

Oregon
Summary
the ACS are sound
•Opportunities exist for implementing parts of the ACS
differently while continuing to achieve its goals.

Oregon
Summary
the ACS are sound
•Opportunities exist for implementing parts of the ACS
differently while continuing to achieve its goals.
•Need active management in Riparian Reserves in some
situations

Chapter 8: Socioeconomic Well-
Being and Forest Management in
Northwest Forest Plan-Area
CommunitiesLead Author: Susan Charnley, PNW Research
Station

Oregon
Chapter Authors
• Susan Charnley
• Jeffrey D. Kline
• Eric M. White
• Jesse Abrams
• Rebecca J. McLain
• Cassandra Moseley
• Heidi Huber-Stearns

Oregon
NWFP Area Population
• NWFP Area =
• 72 counties
• 10 metro areas
• ~1300 communities
• 11.87 million people
(2012)
• ~20% of population
lives w/in 5 miles of
USFS or BLM lands
I-5
I-82
I-80
I-205
I-505
I-5
I-5
I-84
I-5
I-90
I-90
I-84
Community Boundaries
NWFP Region
States
Major Lakes and Rivers
Major Roads
Community
Boundaries
within NWFP
Region
"
0 60 12030 Miles

Oregon
Early 1990s:
Main Benefit from Federal Forests =
Timber
• Key NWFP concern =
impacts of reduced
timber harvesting
• on workers & communities
• on payments to counties

Oregon
Wood Products Industry
Decline
NWFP area timber harvests, 1965-2000All ownerships
Federal
Mill capacity &
use in Oregon,
1976-2010
Oregon wood products
employment, 1950-2014Private

Oregon
Wood products industry is
affected by many factors
WOOD
PRODUCTS
INDUSTRY
MARKET
CONDITIONS
COMPETITION
TIMBER
SUPPLY
MILL TECHNO-
LOGY

Oregon
NWFP Impacts on
Communities
• Impacts were highly variable
• Depended on local context
• Impacts included:
• +/- population
• +/- economic conditions
• +/- socioeconomic well-being
• Impacts were greatest
• during the first decade of the NWFP
• in communities close to federal forests
• at community scale
• where there was a mill closure

Oregon
Amenity Communities
Natural amenities population &
business growth economic
development

Oregon
Communities Pursuing (New)
Forms of Production
• New industries & services, (il)legal economies,
agriculture, sustainable natural resource
production

Oregon
Communities in Decline
• Declines in commodity production
declines in population & employment
recovery difficult but possible

Oregon
Conditions Have Changed
• Rural communities have diversified
• Timber production remains important
• Jobs in ecosystem management, forest
restoration, fire
• Federal forests are valued for multiple benefits

Oregon
Private Forestlands are
Important
• Produce ecosystem services
• Conversion to development is occurring
• Acquisition by TIMOs and REITs
• Changes will affect NWFP goals
65%
forest
Private lands, W OR
70%
forest
Private lands, W WA

Oregon
Reliable Timber Supply +
Contracts Support Restoration
Contracts
Timber
from
private
lands
Timber
from
public
lands
Maintain
restoration
workforce +
infrastructure

Oregon
Summary
• Rural communities are not all alike
• Forest management affects communities
differently
• Communities have changed
• Providing diverse benefits from federal forests will
help communities diversify economically
• Healthy communities support federal forest
management

Chapter 9: Understanding Our
Changing Public Values, Resource
Uses, and Engagement Processes
and PracticesSpeaker: Lee Cerveny, PNW Research Station

Oregon
Chapter 9 Author Team
Lee K. Cerveny, USFS Pacific Northwest Research
Station
Emily Jane Davis, Oregon State University
Rebecca McLain, Portland State University
Clare M. Ryan, University of Washington
Debra R. Whitall, USDA Forest Service, Region 6
Eric M. White, USFS Pacific Northwest Research
Station

Oregon
Social-Ecological System
Conservation initiatives are
more likely to lead to better
informed decisions when
ecological and social elements
are linked.

Oregon
Values, Attitudes and Beliefs
Values: Guiding principles
formed at an early age that are
enduring and consistent over
time.
Beliefs: Judgments about what
is true or false - shaped by
science, experiences, or social
norms.
Attitudes: Learned tendencies to
react favorably or unfavorably to
situations, conditions, people,
or policies.
Values
BeliefsAttitudes
Behavior
& ActionsValues are not malleable, but can
shift gradually as a result of
learning and exposure to new
ideas.

Oregon
Environmental Values
Systemic monitoring of public values,
attitudes, and beliefs about the
environment is critical for understanding
what is important to those with a stake
in the NWFP area.
Production Protection Production Protection
Air & Water
Ecosystems
Fish & Wildlife
Carbon
Tourism
Logging
Grazing
Mining
1950s-1980s 1990s-2010s

Oregon
Values and Attitudes towards
Forest Management
• Studies indicate public
support for harvest
strategies that mimic
natural processes.
• Existing studies in the NWFP
area show that in locales
studied, respondents
generally did not support
clear-cutting as a harvest
strategy.

Oregon
Outdoor Recreation
Nation-wide, participation in outdoor recreation will increase
in the coming decades with continued population growth.
143.6
145.5
147.5
146.7 146.8
149
FY 2006-2010 FY 2007-2011 FY 2008-2012 FY 2009-2013 FY 2010-2014 FY 2011-2015
Annual visits to the National Forest System
(Millions)
The National Visitor Use Monitoring Program runs on 5 year cycles. National-level
visit estimates are calculated for these five-year periods.

Oregon
Outdoor Recreation
• Recreation visits are
expected to grow in day-
use settings and developed
facilities.
• Popular activities in NWFP
forests are: hiking, viewing
nature, visiting nature
centers, and viewing
wildlife.
• Barriers to participating in
outdoor recreation include:
lack of discretionary time
and distance to national
forests.
Outdoor experiences are seen
as important to the health and
well-being of children and
adults.

Oregon
Sense of Place
• People can form strong
emotional attachments
to places based on
repeated visits, shared
experiences, stories and
memories.
• Place attachments can
affect public attitudes
toward management of
those places and trigger
place-protective
behaviors.
• Place meanings are
dynamic and constantly
being renegotiated.
• Placed-based planning
is a tool enabling
managers to recognize
deep bonds and develop
strategies with these ties
in mind.
The bonds that people have with
places can motivate them to engage
in forest stewardship projects.

Oregon
Participatory Mapping is a Tool for
Understanding Connections to Place
Participatory mapping is
designed to reach out to a
broad spectrum of the public
to capture the range of
connections to a place.

Oregon
Trust
Research has identified
many types of trust:
• Dispositional (one’s
natural inclination to
trust)
• Rational (based on
predictable behavior,
past performance, and
reasoned logic)
• Affinitive (based on
personal relationships
developed through
repeated encounters)
• Procedural (based on
processes viewed as fair,
just, and open)
For broader trust in natural
agencies to be activated, at
least three of the four types of
trust are needed.

Oregon
Public Involvement
• Participation in land
management planning
processes is required by
various laws, regulations,
and policies.1
• Factors that expand the
public’s ability to influence
decision-making: values,
time, trust, prior experience,
and the skill to provide
comments.
• Participation without a clearly
defined public role can lead
to frustration.
1 Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960; National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; National Forest Management
Act of 1976 ;

Oregon
• Clear objectives, timelines,
and parameters; skilled
facilitation
• Philosophy of empowerment,
equity, and inclusiveness
• Strategies to encourage
stakeholder participation
• Engaging stakeholders early
in the process
• Iterative or frequent
engagement throughout the
process
• Integrating local and scientific
knowledge
• Enduring agency commitment
to the process
The quality of a resource
management decision is
dependent on the quality of
the process that leads to it.
Public Involvement
Best Practices

Oregon
Collaboration
• Collaborative management
embraces a diversity of
values in working toward a
common goal for land
management.
• Collaborative groups
incorporate new knowledge
and generate mutual
understanding.
• Collaborative approaches
require significant
investment in time and
resources.
• No guarantee that
collaborative efforts will
result in an outcome that is
Collaborative
NGO
Government
Industry
Community
Groups
Private
Landowners
Tribes
Universities
Collaborative processes can
enhance trust through
relationship building.

Oregon
Field trip with South Santiam All-Lands
Collaborative
Inputs
•Clear goals
•Available
information
•Appropriate
scale & scope
•Appropriate
authority &
legitimacy
Process
•Shared vision
•Shared
information
•Decision &
process rules
•Skilled
facilitation
•Diverse
membership
Outputs
•Definable
project or plan
•Implementation
plan
•Monitoring plan
•Intervention
strategy
Collaboration: Success
Factors

Oregon
Summary
• Values, attitudes and beliefs
about forest management are
changing.
• Outdoor recreation is
connecting more and more
people with public lands.
• People form attachments to
places and assign meanings to
the landscape.
• Trust can be strengthened by
relationships, transparency,
and predictability.
• Effective public involvement
can improve awareness of
diverse public needs and lead
to better decisions..
• Collaboration can enhance trust
and improve citizen
participation, but requires a
long-term investment.
The social-ecological system of
the NWFP area is complex,
dynamic, and adaptive in
response to shifts in human
values, societal needs, and
natural forces.

Chapter 10: Environmental Justice,
Low-Income and Minority
Populations, and Forest Management
in the NWFP AreaSpeaker: Susan Charnley, PNW Research Station

Oregon
Chapter Authors
• Susan Charnley
• Delilah Jaworski
• Heidi Huber-Stearns
• Eric M. White
• Elisabeth Grinspoon
• Rebecca J. McLain
• Lee Cerveny

Oregon
Guiding Questions
1. What are the trends in the size of low-
income and minority populations in the NWFP
area since the plan was adopted, and what is
their current distribution?
2. How do low-income and minority
populations interact with federal forests in the
NWFP area?

Oregon
Low Income Populations
• Poverty rates increased
• Poverty rates highest in nonmetropolitan
counties
1990 2000 2012
Poverty rate, percent
United States 13.5 11.3 15.0
NWFP counties 11.2 10.0 14.7
Metro 10.3 9.1 13.9
Nonmetro 15.3 14.2 19.0

Oregon
Minority Populations
• Minority populations increased, especially
Hispanic/Latino populations
1990, % 2000, % 2012, %
Am Indian/ AK Native 2 2 2
Asian, Hawaiian, other PI 4 5 7
Black or African American 3 3 3
White 92 88 84
Hispanic or Latino 5 9 14
≥ two races 3 4

Oregon
Distribution of Low Income & Minority
Groups
% Poverty %
Minority

Oregon
Interactions with Federal
Forests
• Environmental workforce
• Commercial nontimber forest products
gathering
• Recreation
• Wildfire management
• Nonrecreational camping and
homelessness

Oregon
Environmental
workforce
• Most forest workers are Hispanic/Latino
• Poor working conditions are common
• Actions to improve working conditions:
• better enforcement of contract
requirements
• more oversight of contract crews
• changing competitive low-cost bid
process
Northwest Forest
Worker Center

Oregon
Nontimber Forest
Products
• Low income & minority groups active in commercial
harvest
• Federal forests are important harvesting sites
• Harvesters are under-represented in management
process
• Concerns = safety, access, employment conditions,
immigration officials, conflict w/other harvesters

Oregon
Visits to National Forests by
Income Group
• Recreation visitation by low-income populations
is low
• Key barrier = cost of trip
Annual household
income
Plan area
2011–2015
National
2011–2015
Percent
Under $25,000 12 10
$25,000–$49,000 18 18
$50,000–$74,999 23 22
$75,000–$99,999 20 18
$100,000–$149,999 17 16
$150,000 and up 11 16

Oregon
Visits to National Forests by
Minorities
• Recreation visitation by non-white populations is
low
• Barriers = distance, cost, transportation, safety
concerns, lack of awareness, information in
multiple languages
Minority Group Plan area National
Percent, 2011-2015
Am Indian/AK Native 3 2
Asian 3 2
Black/African Amer 1 1
White 95 95
Hawaiian /other PI 1 1
Hispanic or Latino 4 6

Summary
• EJ not just about exposure to toxins in urban
areas
• Low-income and minority populations are
growing
• NWFP impacts on these populations are unknown
(except for American Indians)
• Existing research points to important issues
• More information is needed to address local
conditions

Chapter 11: Tribal Ecocultural
Resources and Engagement
Speaker: Jonathan Long, PNW Research Station

Oregon
Tribal Ecocultural Resources
Authors
• Jonathan Long, jwlong@fs.fed.us , Pacific Northwest
Research Station
• Frank K. Lake, franklake@fs.fed.us, Pacific Southwest
Research Station
• Kathy Lynn and Carson Viles, University of Oregon
Key Management Question:
“Is active management needed to provide the cultural
resources valued by tribes, including first foods such as
salmon, elk, huckleberries, and camas”

Recent additions:
Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians
(71 km2)
Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower
Umpqua & Siuslaw Indians (60 km2)
Present-day tribal
lands >60 km2Tribal Lands
3% of NWFP
Area
Much of former Klamath Reservation
was transferred to Winema NF
Warm
Springs
Yakama
Quinault
Makah
Yurok
Hoopa Valley
Klamath
Reservation
(1864-1954)
WA
OR
CA

Oregon
Importance of National
Forests to Tribes
~98% National
Forests
~0.1% Karuk Trust
or Fee Land
http://nativenewsonline.net

The NWFP and Ecological
Dynamics

Oregon
Tribal Goals and Broader
Restoration
• Large trees
• Old-forest associated
wildlife
• Salmonids
Credit: Frank Lake

Opportunities and
Threats
Illegal Marijuana Cultivation
Sudden Oak Death
Climate
Change
17 forests
revising plans

Trap
Displacement of
indigenous people
Shifts in
ecosystems
Decreases in
community well-
being
Erosion of
knowledge
and adaptive
capacity
Fostering
stewardship by
native peoples
Increasing
community
well-being
Invigorating
knowledge and
adaptive capacity
Restoring
ecosystems
Renewal

NWFP Fire Regimes and Dependent
Ecosystems Ahlstrom’s Prairie, Olympic National Park
Upper Coyote Burn Bald Hills,
Redwood National Park
KatAnderson
DebraHarris
Infrequent, high
severity
Frequent, mixed
severity
Frequent, low
severity
Moderately
frequent, mixed
severity

Oregon
Restoring Fire-dependent
Ecological Communities and
Processes
Annually burned meadow in the Karuk Village of Tishunick
Elk Makah butterfly Lily

Oregon
Threats to Ecocultural
Resources
LenyaQuinn-Davidson
Bill Tripp, Karuk Tribe at the Bacon Flat Burn, Orleans CA Klamath Media

LenyaQuinn-Davidson
Black oak and white oak
http://lomakatsi.org/restoration-
forestry-fuel-hazard-reduction/
Madrone
PSW-GTR-252
Hardwood Trees
Tanoak

Oregon
Increasing Community Well-being
through First Foods and Cultural
Practices
Foods and regalia items from old
forests with frequent burning
Foods and basketry plants
from meadows and prairies
Credit:
Columbia
Intertribal
Fisheries
Commission
Credit: Frank Lake
Credit: Frank Lake
Credit: Frank Lake
Credit: Frank Lake
Credit: Kat Anderson
Credit: Kat Anderson

Oregon
Strengthening Adaptive
Capacity
Leland and Frank Lake,
collecting matsutake
mushrooms

Oregon
Stewardship Agreements
http://nativenewsonline.net
Pit River Tribe Stewardship Agreement: with 3 National Forests
Klamath Tribes and Fremont-Winema NF

Oregon
Special Management Areas
New
access
road
Government Meadows Mount Baker-
Snoqualmie NF, Washington
Willamette NF, Oregon

Oregon
Building Upon Historical
Precedents

Oregon
Scaling up Strategies

Chapter 12: Integrating Ecological
and Social Science to Inform Land
Management in the Area of the NWFP
Speaker: Thomas Spies, Emeritus Scientist, PNW Research Station

Oregon
Chapter Authors
• Thomas Spies, PNW Research Station,
Emeritus
• Jonathan Long, PNW Research Station
• Peter Stine, PSW Research Station, Retired
• Lee Cerveny, PNW Research Station
• Bruce Marcot, PNW Research Station
• Gordon Reeves, PNW Research Station
• Paul Hessburg, PNW Research Station
• Damon Lesmeister, PNW Research Station
• Matthew Reilly, Humbolt State University
• Martin Raphael, PNW Research Staton,
Emeritus
• Raymond Davis, USFS Region 6

Oregon
A Social-Ecological
System

Oregon
2012 Planning Rule Sets New
Context for Management in NWFP
Area
• Emphasis on Ecosystem Scale
• A few focal species
• Means different approaches for
moist and dry forests
• Ecosystem Services
• Collaboration
Moist
Dry

Oregon
Conserving species is challenging in
the face of threats that transcend
ownership boundaries
• Temper expectations for
federal plans
• Cross-boundary
conservation
Federal and non-federal Forest

Oregon
Managing for Resilience
Requires Active Management
• Reserves critical but active
management may be needed
• Can’t return ecosystems to past
• Manage for resilience to fire,
climate change etc.
• Moist Forests
• Variable density thinning
• Riparian restoration for
heterogeneity
• Fire suppression to protect old forest
remnants
• Dry Forests
• Use landscape approach—open and
dense forest mosaic
• Thinning, prescribed fire, wildfire for
ecological objectives

Oregon
Using Reserves in Dynamic
Systems
• Literature supports possible
need for active management in
reserves
• Moving/adjusting reserve
boundaries—small reserves
• Dynamic-ecosystem reserves
better fit for larger NWFP LSRs
• NWFP good basis for dealing
with climate change but this
hypothesis needs to be tested
and design may need update

Oregon
Forest Restoration can be
a Win-Win
• Infrastructure and
business capacity has
declined
• Restoration activity can
help maintain jobs and
capacity
• Focus on existing
plantations in moist
forests
• Broader focus in dry
forests but less economic
return

Oregon
Ecosystem Services Beyond
Timber Benefit
Communities
• Federal timber
remains important in
some communities
• Recreation, tourism,
non-timber forest
products benefit
communities
• Water, carbon
promoted by older
forests
• Work still needed to
quantify and apply ES
framework

Oregon
Collaborative Processes Engage
Stakeholders to Achieve Social and
Ecological Objectives
• Social license for forest
management can be
difficult to find
• Collaboration can
enhance trust
• Public support for active
management that does
not involve cutting old
growth
• Important to understand
cultural meanings of
places

Oregon
Monitoring and Adaptive
Management to Address Uncertainty
• Monitoring program
essential to
understanding change
• Formal adaptive
management areas
(AMA) discontinued
• AM especially at
landscape scales most
effective way to
conduct science-based
management and
address uncertainty

To Ask a Question
• Portland attendees
• To ask a question, pick up a number from the
registration desk
• Questions will be queued up in chronological order
• When you ask your question, please say the chapter or
topic it pertains to
• Webcast attendees
• Type your question in the comment box, indicating
which chapter it pertains to
• Note: We will likely not be able get through all
questions
• We will alternate between in-person and Webcast
questions
Oregon

Closing Remarks
Jim Peña, Regional Forester; U.S. Forest Service
Pacific Northwest Region

USFS 2018 Science Forum Chapters 7 - 12

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to USFS 2018 Science Forum Chapters 7 - 12

Similar to USFS 2018 Science Forum Chapters 7 - 12 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (18)

USFS 2018 Science Forum Chapters 7 - 12