PURCHASED BY USDA FOREST SERVICE FOR OFFICIAL USE

By James R. Sedell, Gordon H. Reeves, and Kelly. M. Burnett

Development and Evaluation ofAquatic Conservation Strategies

ALL OPTIONS CONSIDERED IN THEFEMAT report, with the exception of Op-tion 7, used one of three variants of anaquatic conservation strategy first describedin Thomas et al. (1993). The conservationstrategy was designed to provide a scientificbasis for protecting aquatic ecosystems andenable planning for sustainable resourcemanagement. It sought to restore andmaintain the ecological health of water-sheds (Karr et al. 1986, Karr 1991, Naimanet al. 1992) throughout the region by re-taining, restoring, and protecting thoseprocesses and landforms that contributehabitat elements to streamsand promote good habitatconditions for fish andother aquatic and ri-parian-dependentorganisms.

At the heartof this approach isthe recognition that fish and otheraquatic organisms evolved within a dy-namic environment that has been con-stantly influenced and changed by geo-morphic and ecologic disturbances.Stewardship of aquatic resources has thehighest likelihood of protecting biologicaldiversity and productivity when land use ac-tivities do not substantially alter the naturaldisturbance regimes to which these organ-isms have adapted (Swanson et al., in press).Many of the features of the aquatic conser-vation strategies considered here attemptedto maintain or restore these regimes.

Current scientific understanding is in-adequate to define fish habitat needs at thewatershed scale. Some general fish habitatrequirements are well known, such as deepresting pools, cover, certain temperatureranges, food supply, and clean gravels forspawning (Bjornn and Reiser 1991).However, we (the Aquatic/WatershedGroup of FEMAT) were unable to specifyspatial and temporal distributions of habi-tat elements necessary for a single speciesthroughout its life cycle, and were even lesscertain of requirements to support com-

plex, interacting assemblages of differentfish species and age classes.

Therefore, we used an aquatic conser-vation strategy that strove to maintain andrestore ecosystem health at watershed andlandscape scales. The approach taken inthe strategy sought to prevent further deg-radation and restore habitat over broadlandscapes as opposed to individual proj-ects or small areas.

It will require time for this strategy towork. Because the strategy depends largely

on natural processes, it maytake many decades to ac-complish all of its objectives.Some improvements in

I I

Figure I. Augusta Creek Watershed on theWillamette National Forest showing ri-parian reserves designated under ripar-ian reserve scenario 1 and the conditionand management history of these ripar-ian reserves.

aquatic ecosystems, however, can be ex-pected in 10-20 years.

Components of the StrategyThe basic components of the aquatic

conservation strategy considered here areriparian reserves lands along streams

and unstable areas where special standardsand guidelines govern land use;

key watersheds—a system of water-sheds distributed through the owl regionthat are crucial to at-risk fish species andstocks and for high-quality water;

watershed analysis—procedures forconducting analysis that evaluate geomor-phic and ecologic processes operating in

specific water-sheds; and

watershedrestoration—acomprehensive,long-term pro-gram to restore

watershed health, riparian ecosystems, andfish habitats.

These four components were designedto operate together to maintain and re-store the productivity and resilience of

riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Theywill not achieve the desired results if

implemented singly or in somelimited combination. Late-suc-cessional reserves associated witheach option also will contributeto achieving riparian andaquatic objectives through theircurrent condition and future

management.

Riparian ReservesRiparian reserves are portions of

watersheds where riparian-dependentresources receive primary emphasis andwhere special standards and guidelines ap-ply. They include those portions of a water-shed that are directly coupled to streamsand rivers, that is, the portions required formaintaining hydrologic, geomorphic, andecologic processes that directly affect

I Open Canopy - Plantations

Open Canopy - Natural

Closed Canopy

28 April 1994 Reprinted from the Journal of Forestry, Vol. 92, No. 4, April 1994.

streams, stream processes, and fish habitats.Thus they include riparian areas that com-monly parallel streams and other primarysource areas for wood and sediment, such aslandslide-prone slopes in headwater areas.

Thomas et al. (1993) used specifiedhorizontal widths, geomorphic features, ordistances based on the height of site-po-tential trees to delineate interim riparianareas. They defined a site-potential tree asa tree that has attained the maximumheight possible given the site conditionswhere it occurs. A similar approach wasused here to establish interim riparian re-serves. We defined a site-potential tree asthe average maximum height of dominantconifers (200 years or more) on a givensite. Using plot data from old-growthstands on federal forests, we estimated thatthese heights varied from 140 feet to 250feet, depending on site quality.

Tree heights, measured along a slopedistance, were used as ecologically rele-vant metrics with which to establish in-terim riparian reserve widths. For exam-ple, tree height distance away from thestream is a better indicator of potentialwood recruitment or degree of shade thanis an arbitrary distance unrelated to eco-system processes.

Interim widths were developed forthree categories of streams and for lakes,ponds, reservoirs, and wetlands. Three sce-narios were developed (see Thomas table2, p. 14) that differ with respect to interimriparian reserve widths for streams by cat-egory of stream and whether they fall inkey or nonkey watersheds.

Figure 1 shows the interim riparian re-serve network under scenario 1 (the mostextensive network) for a small watershed,Augusta Creek, on the Willamette Na-tional Forest. The drainage basin area in-cluded within interim riparian reserves forAugusta Creek varied from 18 to 53 per-cent under the scenarios, with most of thedifference due to reserve width along in-termittent streams.

Interim widths for riparian reserves ap-ply for all watersheds until a watershedanalysis is completed, a site-specific analy-sis is conducted and described, and the ra-tionale for final riparian reserve bound-aries is presented.

Key Watersheds for SpeciesRecovery

A system of key watersheds was de-signed to serve as refugia for maintainingand recovering habitat for at-risk stocks of

An Alternative View of RiparianArea Management

There is no doubt that riparian areas are critically important features in wa-tersheds. Streamside forests supply essential habitat components supportingecosystems. There appears to be growing consensus that riparian forests withstructural features characteristic of 80- to 200-year-old coniferous forest pro-vide the best mix of values for both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

As in other regions, many riparian forests and streams of the Pacific North-west do not meet this goal after a century of management practices consid-ered appropriate for the day. Awareness and practices have improved dramat-ically, especially in the last decade, but watershed assessments reveal that asmuch as 75 percent of the fish-bearing stream length does not currently meetdesired conditions for forest and/or instream habitat conditions. The situationis probably worse for streams flowing through agricultural and urban lands.

The question is not whether riparian areas should be maintained in late-successional forest conditions, but how best to manage them to achieve thisstate as rapidly as possible appropriate for the terrain. The FEMAT reportprovides several options for accomplishing these objectives, consistent withfederal policy objectives. Most notably, it sets aside very wide buffers servingessentially as preserves. This stipulation has a dramatic effect on the areasuitable for forest management. However, alternative options, likely to beequally viable, capitalize on business operating methods and infrastructureand are more compatible with management objectives for private lands.Given the tremendous impact of FEMAT riparian protection on the availabil-ity of manageable lands, these options should be fully explored.

Riparian areas can be actively managed to achieve desired conditions asrapidly as possible. To minimize risk associated with active management, a"smarter" system is required than the traditional one-size-fits-all buffer zoneprescriptions advocated by FEMAT. Rather than view riparian areas as blackboxes, we should get to know them as well as we know the rest of our for-estlands. An adaptive management approach requires that decisions withinthe riparian zone, including how to lay them out and what conditions needto be managed within them, are based on scientific methodologies designedfor that purpose and information collected from the site. Actions may in-clude planting different species, stand manipulation to change the forest suc-cessional track, and stream enhancement with woody debris where appro-priate. Presumably, a "smarter" approach to riparian areas increases thecertainty that resource objectives can be met, and thereby eliminates theneed for wide prescribed buffers where nothing is known.

Such an adaptive system is possible today, but it clearly requires greatercommitment from a number of sectors than has existed in the past. Environ-mental scientists must build their understanding into workable assessmenttechniques and reliable decision systems. Foresters must be challenged tobring their knowledge of forest systems to bear. Managers must be commit-ted to a more information intensive process. Organizations must monitor tomake sure that methods and practices achieve desired goals for aquatic andterrestrial ecosystems. And government must recognize that the necessaryreturn on this environmental investment is a predictable regulatory systemthat respects the need for operating flexibility and encourages, rather thandiscourages, information as a basis for decisions.

Contributed by Kathleen Sullivan, Environmental Forestry Department, Weyer-

haeuser Company, Tacoma, Washington.

Journal of Forestry 29

Anadromous & Resident Salmonids

anadromous salmonidsand resident' fish species(see Thomas fig. 2, p. 15).These watersheds shouldinclude areas of good habi-tat as well as areas of de-graded habitat. Areas pres-ently in good condition areanchors for recovery of de-pressed stocks, while thoseof lower quality habitatshould have a high poten-tial for restoration.

Johnson et al. (1991)identified a network of keywatersheds located on na-tional forestlands through-out the range of the northern spotted owl.USDA Forest Service fish biologists deletedsome watersheds and added others as newinformation was incorporated and an over-all design further developed. Key water-

Figure 2. Likelihood of sufficient habitatfor bull trout and anadromous and resi-dent salmonids to achieve Outcome Aacross federal lands over the next 100years.

sheds on Bureau of LandManagement land havealso been included. A totalof 162 key watersheds weredesignated that covered8.7 million acres, or ap-proximately one-third thefederal land within therange of the northern spot-ted owl. Option 7 was theonly option for which keywatersheds were not con-sidered.

Because key watershedsmaintain the best of whatis left and have the highestpotential for restoration,

they were given special consideration. Inmost options, key watersheds require wa-tershed analysis prior to further resourcemanagement except for minor activities. Inaddition, some options, such as 9, use ri-

Gambling with the Future

la his is the question before the nation: are the ancientforests of the Northwest primarily, in President Clin-

ton's words, "a gift of God" held "in trust for future genera-tions" or a cultivated source of commodities and profits?Forests historically have been managed as if we could have itall—ecologically, socially, and economically—now and for-ever. But we cannot. That is the fundamental truth of the FE-MAT report.

The report is a remarkable document, an accessible andcomprehensive summary of the state of current knowledgeinterspersed with unresolved scientific questions, legal que-ries, and philosophical reflections. It illuminates the com-plexity of ancient forest ecosystems and candidly acknowl-edges the sacrifices and limitations inherent in any manage-ment choice.

Though ostensibly answering the same call, the FEMATreport and its progeny, Option 9, are divergent and in somerespects irreconcilable. The FEMAT report is cautious andacknowledges "our poor understanding of ecosystem func-tion" (1V-72). Conversely, Option 9 brashly advocates an un-proven forest management strategy to accelerate the devel-opment of certain characteristics deemed, with incompletescientific knowledge, to be important. The FEMAT reportrecognizes the potentially critical role played by myriad spe-cies of arthropods, fungi, lichens, and mollusks, and warnsthat it may be prudent to preserve much of the remaininglate-successional forest. Conversely, Option 9 provides forliquidation of significant old-growth over the next decadeand acquiesces to extirpation of unnumbered species. Op-tion 9 advocates gambling with the future of the ecosystem,while the FEMAT report tells us that we do not know the

odds or the stakes.Somewhere between the Forest Conference and Option

9, the lofty mandate to fashion a "balanced and comprehen-sive," "scientifically sound, ecologically credible, and legallyresponsible" management plan was reduced simply to a"struggle to find the tightest possible fit between adherenceto requirement of law and our charge to maximize the po-tential economic and social contribution of the federal lands"(11-105). Option 9 fails to fulfill President Clinton's charge tothe team, declines to come to grips with many of the funda-mental issues raised in the FEMAT report, and accepts risksthat could result in irremediable damage. In providing formanagement of all the forest and allowing the extirpation ofmany species, it violates Aldo Leopold's adage that the firstrule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the pieces. TheFEMAT report tells us how little is known about most of thespecies that will not survive. What it cannot tell us is whatelse, including our own survival, may depend on the biologi-cal diversity we may elect to sacrifice in the interest of meet-ing immediate social and economic goals.

When confronted with the starkly limited choices engen-dered by past forest management, the administration couldnot muster the courage to dramatically alter course. Its an-swer to the dilemma is a plan that will provide little protec-tion for species, the ecosystem, and the national trust. Ulti-mately, Option 9 will be proven scientifically unsound,ecologically perilous, and legally indefensible.

Contributed by Diana Wales, cochair, Umpqua Valley AudubonSociety Conservation Committee, Roseburg, OR.

30 April 1994

GIS Applications inNatural ResourcesSelected Papers from the World's Foremost

GIS/Natural Resources Conference Series, Edited by MichaelHeit & Art Shortreid, Foreword by Charles R. Hartgraves

This 400-page, hard-cover book is a compilation of the bestpapers given at the GIS'87 - GIS'91 conferences sponsored byForestry Canada. A comprehensive overview of GIS applica-tions in natural resources in the United States, Canada andEurope, the book includes articles on forestry, wildlife, timberinventory, harvest scheduling, environmental assessment,data sharing, hardware, training, data conversion, remotesensing and more. Through the cooperative efforts of theeditors and GIS World, Inc., we are pleased to be able tooffer GIS Applications in Natural Resources at far lessthan its market price:

$29.95 (U.S.) and $35.55 (Canada); MasterCard, VISA,purchase orders or checks accepted. Add $30 for overseas

air mail. Order toll-free from the U.S. or Canada

1-800-GIS-WRLD

,GISS World Inc. 155 E. Boardwalk Drive, Suite 250,Fort Collins, CO 80525, USA1303) 223-4848 • FAX: (303) 22,3-5700

9308AFJ

S

parian reserve scenario 2, which calls forwider riparian buffers for intermittentstreams inside key watersheds than on theremainder of the landscape.

Watershed AnalysisWatershed analysis is a stratum of eco-

system analysis applied to watersheds of ap-proximately 20-200 square miles. It plays akey role in any aquatic conservation strat-egy, ensuring that aquatic system protec-tion is fitted to specific landscapes.

Watershed analysis uses a systematicprocedure for characterizing watershed andecological processes to meet specific man-agement and social objectives. This infor-mation then may guide management pre-scriptions, including setting and refiningboundaries of riparian and other reserves;developing restoration strategies and priori-ties; and revealing the most useful indica-tors for monitoring environmental changes.

RestorationWatershed restoration should be an in-

tegral part of a program to aid recovery offish habitat, riparian habitat, and waterquality and was assumed to occur in mostoptions. The most important elements ofa restoration program are to control andprevent road-related runoff and sedimentproduction; improve the condition of ri-parian vegetation; and improve habitatstructure in stream channels.

Of particular concern is that federallands within the northern spotted owl'srange contain approximately 110,000miles of roads. Without an active programto identify and correct problems associatedwith roads, habitat damage will continuefor decades.

Assessing the OptionsIn assessing the options relative to pro-

tection of aquatic ecosystems, we consid-ered five factors: (1) assessments for the in-dividual races/species/groups made by the"expert" panel (see Meslow et al., p. 24): (2)amount of riparian reserves, and type andlevel of land management activity allowedwithin them; (3) extent of other reserves(e.g., congressionally designated withdraw-als, late-successional reserves) and type andlevel of land management activity allowedwithin them; (4) presence of a watershedrestoration program; and (5) prescriptionsfor management of matrix lands.

The analysis rated the sufficiency, qual-ity, distribution, and abundance of habitatto allow the species populations to stabilize

across federal lands. In this assessment,Option 1 and Option 4 had the highestlikelihood of attaining sufficient quality,distribution, and abundance of habitat toallow the races/species/groups to stabilize,well distributed across federal lands. Op-tions 7 and 8 had the lowest likelihood(fig. 2). Other options fell between the twoextremes. Keys to the rating were extent ofriparian reserves, standards and guidelinescontrolling activities within riparian re-serves, and extent of late-successional re-serves. E

Literature CitedBJORNN, T.C., and D.W. REISER. 1991. Habitat re-

quirements of salmonids in streams. In Influ-ences of forest and rangeland management onsalmonid fishes and their habitats, p. 83-138.Am. Fish. Soc., Bethesda, MD. Spec. Publ. 19.

JOHNSON, K.N., J.F. FRANKLIN, J.W. THOMAS, andJ. GORDON. 1991. Alternatives for manage-ment of late-successional forests of the PacificNorthwest. A report to the Agriculture Com-mittee and the Merchant Marine Committeeof the US House of Representatives. Coll. For.,Oreg. State Univ., Corvallis. 59 p.

KARR, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long-ne-glected aspect of water resource management.Ecol. Appl. 1:66-84.

KARR, J.R., K.D. FAUSCH, P.L. ANGERMEIER, P.R.YAUT, and I.J. SCHLOSSER. 1986. Assessing bio-logical integrity in running waters: a methodand its rationale. Ill. Nat. Hist. Surv., Cham-paign, IL. Spec. Publ. 5.

NAIMAN, R., et al. 1992. Fundamental elements ofecologically healthy watersheds in the PacificNorthwest coastal ecoregion. In Watershedmanagement: balancing sustainability and en-vironmental change, R.J. Naiman, ed., p.127-88. Springer-Verlag, New York.

SWANSON, F.J., J.A. JONES, D.A. WAI I IN, and J.H.CISSEL. Natural variability—implications forecosystem management. USDA For. Serv.,Portland, OR. (In press.)

THOMAS, J.W., et al. 1993. Viability assessmentsand management considerations for species as-sociated with late-successional and old-growthforests of the Pacific Northwest. USDA For.Serv., Washington, DC. 530 p.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

James R. Sedell is principal research ecologist;Gordon H. Reeves is research fish biologist;and Kelly M. Burnett is fish biologist, USDAForest Service, Pacific Northwest ResearchStation, Corvallis, OR 97331. Sedell andReeves were coleaders and Burnett was mem-ber, FEMAT Aquatic/Witershed Group.

Journal of Forestry 31