Creating a Forestryfor the 21st Century

Edited by Kathryn A. Kohm and Jerry F. FranklinForeword by Jack Ward Thomas

ISLAND PRESS Loo- F.Washington, D.C. • Covelo, California

Copyright 1997 by Island Press

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this bookmay be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher:Island Press, 1718 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20009.

ISLAND PRESS is a trademark of The Center for Resource Economics.

No copyright claim is made in chapters 2, 3, 6-11, 13-19, 21, and 29, work produced in whole or in partby employees of the U.S. government.

Grateful acknowledgment is expressed for permission to publish the following copyrighted material:Figure 3.1, on page 112, from Peet, R.K. 1992. "Community Structure and Ecosystem Function." In PlantSuccession: Theory and Prediction, edited by D.C. Glenn-Lewin, R.K. Peet, and T.T. Veblen. New York:Chapman and Hall.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Creating a forestry for the 21st century: the science of ecosystemmanagement / edited by Kathryn A. Kohm Jerry F. Franklin.

p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 1-55963-398-0 (cloth). — ISBN 1-55963-399-9 (pbk.)1. Forest management—Northwest, Pacific. 2. Forest ecology—

Northwest, Pacific. 3. Forests and forestry—Northwest, Pacific.4. Ecosystem management—Northwest, Pacific. 5. Forest management.6. Forest ecology 7. Forests and forestry. 8. Ecosystemmanagement. I. Kohm, Kathryn A. II. Franklin, Jerry F.SD144.A13C74 1997634,9--dc20

96-32771CIP

Printed on recycled, acid-free paper ®

Manufactured in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Contents

Foreword by Jack Ward Thomas ixAcknowledgments xiiiContributors xv

1. Introduction 1Kathryn A. Kohm and Jerry F. Franklin

crazt.—scr,z7

Section I. Ecological Processes and Principles 7Forest Stand Structure, Composition, and Function 11Thomas SpiesDisturbance, Recovery, and Stability 31David A. Perry and Michael P. AmaranthusThe Biological Landscape 57Malcolm L. Hunter Jr.Riparian Management in the 21st Century 69Stanley V GregoryBiodiversity of Old Forests of the West: A Lesson from Our Elders 87Bruce G. Marcot

ALIKTV,Z=3:0722

Section II. Silvicultural Systems and Management Concerns 107Alternative Silvicultural Approaches to Timber Harvesting:Variable Retention Harvest Systems 111Jerry F. Franklin, Dean Rae Berg, Dale A. Thornburgh, and John C. TappeinerShaping Stand Development Through Silvicultural Practices 141Dean S. DeBell, Robert 0. Curtis, Constance A. Harrington, and John C. TappeinerSilvicultural Systems and Regeneration Methods:Current Practices and New Alternatives 151John C. Tappeiner, Denis Lavender, Jack Walstad, Robert 0. Curtis, and Dean S. DeBellThe Role of Extended Rotations 165Robert 0. CurtisIntegrating the Ecological Roles of Phytophagous Insects,Plant Pathogens, and Mycorrhizae in Managed Forests 171Timothy Schowalter, Everett Hansen, Randy Molina, and Yanli Zhang

12. Fire Management for the 21st Century 191James K. Agee

vii

viii Contents

Forest Genetics for Ecosystem Management 203Sharon Friedman

Section III. Approaches to Management at Larger Spatial Scales 213

Ecosystem Management: Managing Natural Resources in Time and Space 215Thomas R. Crow and Eric J. GustafsonThe Physical Environment as a Basis for Managing Ecosystems 229Frederick J. Swanson, Julia A. Jones, and Gordon E. GrantApproaches to Management at the Watershed Scale 239Robert J. Naiman, Peter A. Bisson, Robert G. Lee, and Monica G. TurnerLandscape Analysis and Design 255Nancy M. Diaz and Simon BellImplementing Spatial Planning in Watersheds 271John Sessions, Gordon Reeves, K. Norman Johnson, and Kelly Burnett

=27ZIWZMISMII

Section IV. Forest Economics: Products and Policies 281

The Context for Forest Economics in the 21st Century 285Richard W. Haynes and James F. WeigandChanges in Wood Products Manufacturing 303Clive G. WhittenburySpecial Forest Products: Integrating Social, Economic,and Biological Considerations into Ecosystem Management 315Randy Molina, Nan Vance, James F. Weigand, David Pilz, and Michael P. AmaranthusThe Public Interest in Private Forests: Developing Regulations and Incentives 337Frederick W Cubbage

irissaraimaSection V. Institutions in Transition 357

Organizational and Legal Challenges for Ecosystem Management 361Errol E. MeidingerBuilding Bridges Across Agency Boundaries 381Steven L. Yaffee and Julia M. WondolleckScience-Based Assessments of the Forests of the Pacific Northwest 397K. Norman JohnsonScarcity, Simplicity, Separatism, Science—and Systems 411R. W BehanMaking Decisions in a Complex and Dynamic World 419Gordon R. SmithOpen Institutions: Uncertainty and Ambiguity in 21st-Century Forestry 437Margaret A. Shannon and Alexios R. Antypas

29. The Emerging Role of Science and Scientists in Ecosystem Management 447John C. Gordon and James Lyons

Index 455

Foreword

Two separate but connected factors have combined inrecent decades to dramatically alter the practice offorestry in the United States. The first has been a ris-ing environmental consciousness among a signifi-cant and politically effective segment of the popula-tion. The second was a spate of environmentallegislation enacted in the 1960s and 1970s. Amonglaws that changed the practice of forestry are the Na-tional Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which re-quires the federal government to perform a detailedassessment of costs and benefits of all federally fi-nanced activities; the Endangered Species Act of1973, which established a government policy thatspecies should be preserved; and the National ForestManagement Act of 1976, which sets high standardsfor management of national forests.

Of particular note is the statement of purpose in-cluded in the Endangered Species Act. Twenty yearsafter passage of the act, that statement has emergedfull-blown, with far-reaching consequences for fed-eral land management. That statement is: "The pur-poses of this act are to provide a means whereby theecosystems upon which endangered species andthreatened species may be conserved" and notmerely the welfare of the single species identified as'endangered' or 'threatened.' In addition, there wereregulations promulgated by the federal governmentpursuant to the National Forest Management Actthat called for the retention of viable populations ofvertebrate species well-distributed on nationalforests with particular emphasis on habitat.

In combination, these laws and regulations havehad a profound effect on forest management on fed-eral lands. These changes came about over a periodof 25 years as governmental agencies (most notably

the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management)struggled to maintain or increase historic timber salelevels, satisfy the needs of traditional constituencies(such as grazers, hunters, fishers, and recreationists),and simultaneously remain in compliance with envi-ronmental laws. Under the U.S. legal system, citizensmay challenge the government's compliance withlaw. Over the past 25 years, there have been numer-ous such challenges to federal land management ac-tivities—many of which have been successful. Thesefederal court decisions have forced federal land man-agement agencies to change some of their traditionalapproaches to forest management.

The most noted of these legal challenges is thecase of the nort'hem spotted owl (Thomas et al.1990). This subspecies of the genus Strix was declaredby the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be "threat-ened" in early 1990. It is considered closely associ-ated with the habitat conditions most commonlyfound in the late-successional/old-growth forests ofthe Pacific Northwest. These forests have been di-minished significantly in amount and qualitythrough timber harvesting (most commonly clearcut-ting) and losses to fire, blowdown, and other naturalevents since the late 1800s (Thomas et al. 1990). Thelate-successional/old-growth forests of the PacificNorthwest are extremely valuable as a source of largevolumes of high quality timber and as a significantsource of employment (FEMAT 1993). The reserva-tion of significant amounts of old-growth from tim-ber harvesting to maintain a range-wide viable pop-ulation of a subspecies of owl (Thomas et al. 1990,FEMAT 1993) has been fraught with social, eco-nomic, and ecological consequences that have trans-lated into prolonged legal and political battles which

ix

Threzvord xi

able sale quantity of approximately 1.2 billion board;eet, with an additional 100-150 million board feet3otentially available from thinning stands youngerthan 80 years for silvicultural purposes. This probableannual timber sale level compares to 4.6 billion boardeet cut annually from 1980-1989, and 2.4 billionboard feet cut annually from 1990-1992. However, asignificant portion of the decline can be attributed tothe accumulated experience of managers with condi-tions that precluded maintaining the sale quantitiesprojected in the initial modeling efforts for forestplans.

Scientists doing the ecosystem assessments forPresident Clinton noted that despite the political andeconomic advantages of stable timber yields overtime, experience has shown that this is unlikely overthe long term. The world of forest management in thePacific Northwest is, clearly and simply, inherentlyunstable—ecologically, economically, legally, and po-litically. Forest management plans are frequentlychanged and often unpredictable. They are subject tothe vicissitudes of droughts, fires, insect and diseaseoutbreaks, and volcanic eruptions, as well as fundingshortfalls, frequent changes in laws and their inter-pretation, legal actions, court orders, public accep-tance, and changes in policy. The only certaintyseems to be the certainty of changing conditions—biological, social, economic, and legal.

The case of the spotted owl and old-growth/late-successional forests in the Pacific Northwest is butone example of the dramatic changes in forest man-agement that are occurring in the United States.State after state has, or is in the process of, tighteningup regulations defining appropriate forestry practicesfor private and state lands. Much of this revisionseems to be a response to public demands for forestrypractices that are more aesthetically acceptable andmore sensitive (realistically or perceptually) to actualmultiple-use values—primarily those associated withfish and wildlife habitat—than past practices almostsolely directed toward profit and job maximizationfrom timber production, harvesting, processing, andutilization.

Of particular interest to ecologists is the emphaticshift in public interest toward concern for all speciesof wildlife along with an increasingly holistic sense ofecosystems. This broadened perspective replaces thehistoric, rather single-minded emphasis on habitat

for game species such as white-tailed deer, muledeer, and black-tailed deer. There is every reason tobelieve that this trend will continue. As a result, biol-ogists will have to broaden their interests, increasetheir expertise, and work with foresters to producehabitat conditions for a myriad of life forms andecosystems.

There are, however, countervailing pressures atplay. The changes in forestry currently underwaycome about at significant costs. Those costs are mea-sured in higher prices for wood, jobs lost or foregone,loss of revenue to federal and county treasuries, anddisproportionately negative impacts on rural com-munities dependent on the timber industry and tim-ber harvest levels that existed from 1980-1992 onfederal lands (FEMAT 1993).

Yet the trend toward ecosystem management andforestry that is more benign in environmental andaesthetic effects seems likely to continue for the fore-seeable future. These changes reflect evolving publicdemand and current law as interpreted by the courts.There seems to be a distinct and growing distrust ofnatural resource managers—particularly governmentand corporate managers—by at least a vocal portionof the public. That distrust must be allayed if landmanagers are to retain any semblance of their his-toric management prerogatives. One lesson to belearned is that, in a democracy, forests are managedat the sufferance of the citizenry or at least by the ma-jority of the minority of that citizenry that cares aboutthe issue. The greatest challenge that foresters andother natural resource management professionalsface in the practice of their professions may not bethe technical aspects of forest management, but pub-lic acceptance of those practices.

These are among the many issues raised and dis-cussed in Creating a Forestry for the 21st Century. Inthis volume, well-qualified experts have combined toproduce a comprehensive view of ecosystem man-agement.

Ecosystem management is a concept whose timehas come. But ecosystem management is only a con-cept for dealing with larger spatial scales, longer timeframes, and many more variables (ecological, eco-nomic, and social) than have commonly been consid-ered in past management approaches. To be useful, a

Foreword

continue today. The details surrounding this continu-ing controversy have been described by Thomas et al.(1993).

As the political and legal drama over old-growthforests and the northern spotted owl evolved, it be-came more and more obvious that the issue, asclearly foreseen and prescribed in the EndangeredSpecies Act, was not one of saving or maintaining vi-able populations of an individual subspecies. Rather,it was centered on public and scientific concerns withthe maintenance of ecosystem functions. Theseevolving concerns of scientists (and in turn the pub-lic) also began to surface under other names and al-lied concepts such as "sustainable forestry," "biodi-versity retention," "new perspectives in forestry,"and "new forestry." But most recently and predomi-nantly, these concepts have come to be known asecosystem management" (Thomas 1993).

Ecosystem ManagementBy mid-1993, both the Forest Service and the Bureauof Land Management announced that they were em-barking on a course of ecosystem management. Thatpronouncement was made without a detailed assess-ment of what such a management approach mightentail or how it might be accomplished. However, thechief of the Forest Service did say that the agencywould move away from clearcutting (except in certaincircumstances) as the primary silvicultural prescrip-tion for stand regeneration.

By 1993, repeated successful lawsuits by organizedenvironmental groups essentially brought timbersales on federal lands in the Pacific Northwest to ahalt. Federal court judges ordered federal land man-agement agencies to cease selling timber on landsdesignated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ascritical habitat for the northern spotted owl. This im-passe prompted vocal public concern, and receivedattention from all three major candidates during thepresidential election of 1992. In the course of thatcampaign, candidate Governor Bill Clinton ofArkansas promised that, if elected, he would convenea conference to devise a means of ending the court-ordered injunction—that is, he would break the"gridlock."

Shortly after his inauguration, President Clinton

convened a forest conference in Portland, Oregon, onApril 2, 1993. At the close of that conference, thepresident promised a solution to the impasse overforest management in the Pacific Northwest within60 days. He instructed the secretaries of Agriculture,Interior, Commerce, and Labor to carry out thatpromise. Three teams were organized to formulatemanagement options for the president's considera-tion. The instructions given to one of those teams, theForest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team(FEMAT), stated that an "ecosystem managementapproach" was to be included in their report, andthat late-successional/old-growth ecosystems andspecies associated with those ecosystems that werelisted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as "threat-ened" (northern spotted owls and marbled mur-relets) were to receive specific consideration.

Approximately 90 days after the conference, thepresident selected an option from among 10 pre-sented to him (FEMAT 1993). The consequences ofthat selection have been ecologically, economically,and socially profound. Of the land in federal owner-ship within the assessment area (the range of thenorthern spotted owl), 7.05 million acres (2.85hectares) of reserves were established where late-successional/old-growth forest conditions are to bepreserved and enhanced over time. An additional2.23 million acres (.90 million hectares) were desig-nated as riparian reserves to meet water quality stan-dards and protect and enhance habitat for nativefishes—particularly anadromous fishes considered tobe "at risk" of being listed as "threatened" or "en-dangered."

These late-successional/old-growth and riparianreserves were established in addition to 6.98 millionacres (2.83 hectares) already designated as wilder-ness or national parks or otherwise withdrawn fromtimber management activities for reasons such as soilstability, scenic corridors, or recreation needs. Ap-proximately 7.34 million acres (2.97 hectares) out of24.26 million acres (9.22 million hectares) in theanalysis area remained available for timber harvest(about 30 percent of the total area). However, itshould be noted that significant portions of the totalarea support no trees, offer little potential for grow-ing trees, or have fragile soils, steep slopes, or othercircumstances that preclude timber harvesting.

The acreage available for harvesting yields a prob-

xii

concept must be rendered operational. That requiresplacing the concept in context and in operationalterms.

This book is an attempt to take that critical nextstep—to move the concept of forest ecosystem man-agement into an operational context. Other such ef-forts are underway. But this, in my opinion, is the bestof such efforts to date.

This book can be likened to a river that is fed by

Foreword

many streams. It flows more strongly with the addi-tion and mixing into the current of each stream. Thisvolume has identified many of the contributing fac-tors that must be considered and ifitegrated to makeup the first efforts of forest ecosystem management.It is an exciting prospect.

Jack Ward ThomasChief, USDA Forest Service

Literature CitedFEMAT. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: An ecological,

economic, and social assessment. Report of the ForestEcosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT).1993-793-071. Washington, DC: GPO.

Johnson, K.N., J.F. Franklin, J.W. Thomas, and J.C. Gordon.1991. Alternatives for management of late-successionalforests of the Pacific Northwest: A report to the U.S.House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture,Subcommittee on Forests, Famil y Farms, and Energy,Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Sub-committee on Fisheries and Wildlife, Conservation, andthe Environment. Unpublished report.

Thomas, J.W. 1993. Addressing the retention of biodiversityin the national forests in the United States. In Our livinglegacy: Proceedings of a symposium on biodiversity, ed.

M.A. Fenger, E.H. Miller, J.A. Johnson, and E.J.R.Williams. Victoria, British Columbia: Royal British Co-lumbia Museum.

Thomas, J.W., E.D. Forsman, J.B. Lint, E.C. Meslow, B.R.Noon, and J. Verner. 1990. A conservation for the northernspotted owl. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NationalPark Service, Bureau of Land Management.

Thomas, J.W., M.G. Raphael, R.G. Anthony, E.D. Forsman,A.G. Gunderson, R. S. Holthousen, B.G. Marcot, G.H.Reeves, J.R. Sedell, and D.M. Solis. 1993. Viability assess-ments and management considerations for species associatedwith late-successional and old-growth forests of the PacificNorthwest: A report of the Scientific Assessment Team. Port-land, Oregon: USDA Forest Service.

Acknowledgments

Like most projects of this size and scope, this book isthe result of the work, support, and cooperation ofmany people and organizations. The rallying pointfor this project was a conference entitled "Creating aForestry for the 21st Century" held in Portland, Ore-gon, in September 1993. Sponsors of that event in-cluded the Olympic Natural Resources Center atthe University of Washington College of Forest Re-sources, the Cascade Center for Ecosystem Manage-ment, the USDA Forest Service Pacific NorthwestNew Perspectives Program, the Consortium for theSocial Values of Natural Resources, the Coastal Ore-gon Productivity Enhancement Program at OregonState University's College of Forestry, the Washing-ton State Department of Natural Resources, theBritish Columbia Forest Service, and the USDI Bu-reau of Land Management.

Substantial support for the editing of the book as awhole and preparation of some chapters came fromThe Pew Charitable Trusts. The grant was adminis-tered by The Nature Conservancy.

Carrie Bayless, Chuck Ayers, and Gordon Smithdeserve special thanks not only for their careful read-ing of the manuscripts, but also for their support andencouragement throughout the project. In addition,Virginia Lore and Cynthia Cimperman providedvaluable editorial assistance.

Finally, we thank all of the authors who stuck withus through many drafts. Without their ideas, insights,and expertise, the book truly would not have beenpossible.

Purchased by USDA ForestService for official use