manastash taneum resilient landscapes project: landscape … · 2016-09-27 · the...

1TheNatureConservancy,Seattle,WA,2WashingtonConservationScienceInstitute,Wenatchee,WA,3UniversityofWashington,Seattle,WA,4USForestServiceOkanogan‐WenatcheeNationalForest,WenatcheeWA,5USForestServicePacificNorthwestResearchStation,Wenatchee,WA

Manastash‐TaneumResilientLandscapesProject:LandscapeEvaluationsandPrescriptions

RyanHaugo1,WilliamGaines2,JamesBegley2,JamesRobertson1,DerekChurchill3,JamesDickinson4,ReeseLolley1,PaulHessburg5,

May2016

TableofContents1.Introduction1.1.TapashSustainableForestsCollaborative............................................................................................11.2.Manastash‐TaneumResilientLandscapeRestorationProjectBackground...........................31.3.Manastash‐TaneumResilientLandscapesRestorationProjectObjectives............................32.LandscapeEvaluationandApproach2.1WhyIntegratedTerrestrialandAquaticLandscapeEvaluations?..............................................52.2ForestandStreamInteractions..................................................................................................................52.3AquaticLandscapeEvaluationMethods.................................................................................................62.4TerrestrialEvaluationMethods.................................................................................................................83.LandscapeEvaluationsSummariesandLandscapePrescriptions3.1AquaticEvaluationSummaries...............................................................................................................133.2TerrestrialEvaluationSummaries.........................................................................................................183.3RestorationOpportunitiesSummary....................................................................................................234NorthForkTaneumSubwatershed4.1NorthForkTaneumAquaticEvaluationandPrescription..........................................................284.2NorthForkTaneumTerrestrialLandscapeEvaluation................................................................294.3NorthForkTaneumTerrestrialLandscapePrescription.............................................................315.TaneumSubwatershed5.1TaneumAquaticEvaluationandPrescription...................................................................................325.2TaneumTerrestrialLandscapeEvaluation........................................................................................335.3TaneumTerrestrialLandscapePrescription.....................................................................................346.NorthForkManastashSubwatershed6.1NorthForkManastashAquaticEvaluationandPrescription.....................................................366.2NorthForkManastashTerrestrialLandscapeEvaluation..........................................................366.3NorthForkManastashTerrestrialLandscapePrescription........................................................387.RobinsonCanyonSubwatershed7.1RobinsonCreekTerrestrialLandscapeEvaluation.........................................................................247.2RobinsonCreekTerrestrialLandscapePrescription.....................................................................408.MonitoringandAdaptiveManagement...................................................................................................409.References............................................................................................................................................................42

FiguresFigure1.Manatash‐Taneumprojectarealandownershipmap.............................................................2Figure2.Exampleterrestriallandscapeevaluationmetricsoutput................................................12Figure3.Roaddistributionandpotentialsteelheadhabitatmap...................................................15Figure4.Roaddensityandpotentialsteelheadhabitatmap..............................................................16

Figure5.Road–streamcrossingdensitymap...........................................................................................17Figure6.Vegetationcovertypesmap...........................................................................................................19Figure7.Vegetationstructuralstagesmap................................................................................................20Figure8.Currentnorthernspottedowlhabitatmap.............................................................................21Figure9.MoistureDeficitmap.........................................................................................................................22Figure10.Aquaticrestorationopportunityareasmap.........................................................................26Figure11.Terrestrialrestorationopportunityareasmap..................................................................27

TablesTable1.Manastash‐Taneumlandownershippersubwatershed.......................................................3Table2.Steelheadlimitingfactors...................................................................................................................6Table.3.Terrestirallandscapeevaluationphotointerpretationderivedmetrics.....................10Table4.Terrestriallandscapeevaluationspatialmetrics...................................................................11Table5.Road‐streaminteractionindicatorvariablespersubwatershed....................................14Table6.Currentandpotentialsteelheadhabitatandcurrentandprojectedstreamtemperaturespersubwatershed...................................................................................................................14Table7.Aquaticrestorationopportunityareas........................................................................................23Table8.Terrestrialrestorationopportunityareas.................................................................................25

AppendicesAppendixA:VegetationandforeststructureattributesAppendixB:CompleteterrestrialevaluationoutputpersubwatershedAppendixC:Completeterrestrialevaluationmaps

TapashManastash‐TaneumLandscapeEvaluationandPrescription 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 TapashSustainableForestsCollaborativeTheeasternCascadesofWashingtonStateisanincrediblydiverseandcomplexecoregionthatsupportsabundantfishandwildlife,awiderangeofforestcommunities,andprovidesanarrayofcriticalecosystemservicesincludingwater,woodproducts,forageforgrazing,andawidevarietyofrecreationalopportunities.RangingfromthecrestoftheCascadesdowntotheshrubsteppeoftheColumbiaBasin,thevariabilityintheforestsandrangelandsoftheeastCascadesaredrivenbytheinterplayoftopography,precipitation,soils,anddisturbancessuchasfire,insects,flooding,andwind(Hessburgetal.1999,Stineetal.2014).SimilartoforestsacrosswesternNorthAmericaahistoryofwildfiresuppression,intensivetimberharvesting,andgrazingthroughoutthe20thcenturyhascausedwidespreaddegradationofforest,rangeland,andstreamhabitatsandincreasedtherisksofuncharacteristicallyseverewildfire(Hessburgetal.2000,Buntingetal.2002,Lehmkuhletal.2013,Hessburgetal.2015).Theresultingshiftsintreespeciescompositionandincreasesinforestdensityhaveresultedindecreasedresilienceofforeststodroughtandfireformanyoftheregionsforests,andthisoccursatatimewhenclimatechangeisprojectedtoincreasedroughtstressandwildfirerisks(Hessburgetal.2000,Haugoetal.2014,Littelletal.2010).Twentiethcenturyforestmanagementalsoledtothebuildingofextensiveforestroadnetworkswhichhavedramaticallyalteredwatershedhydrology,increasedsedimentdeliveryintostreams,reducedfloodplainfunctioning,andfragmentedaquatichabitats(Bissonetal.2003,Riemanetal.2010).Thesestressorsofaquatichabitatshaveandwillcontinuetobefurtherexacerbatedbytheincreasesinstreamtemperaturesanddecreasesinsnowpackasaresultofclimatechange(Mote2003;Mantuaetal.2009;Isaaketal.2010,2012).AcrosswesternNorthAmericaandwithintheeasternCascades,thechallengescurrentlyfacingourforestedecosystemsfrompastmanagementandfutureclimatechangehavepromptedawidescaleshiftinlandmanagementtofocuson“ecologicalrestoration”(Riemanetal.2010,Gainesetal.2012,USFS2013,Hessburgetal.2015).Ecologicalrestorationisdefinedas“theprocessofassistingtherecoveryofanecosystemthathasbeendegraded,damaged,ordestroyed”(SER2004).However,effortstoconserveandrestoretheecosystemsoftheeasternCascadesarefurthercomplicatedbyadiversepatchworkofprivate,state,tribal,andfederallandownerships,eachwithdifferentforestmanagementemphasesandobjectives.InresponsetothesechallengestheTapashSustainableForestCollaborative(http://www.tapash.org)wasofficiallyformedin2007throughaMemorandumofUnderstandingbetweenmajorlandownersintheeasternCascadesofsouth‐centralWashingtonState,includingtheUSForestService(USFS),YakamaNation(YN),WashingtonDepartmentofNaturalResources(WDNR),WashingtonDepartmentofFishandWildlife(WDFW),andTheNatureConservancy(TNC).TheTapashcollaborativeprovidesaframeworkforcooperationandcoordinationbetweenTapashpartnerstorestoreecosystems’resistanceandresiliencetoclimatechangeacross3millionacresintheeasternCascadesofsouth‐centralWashingtonState.


“Toimprovetheecosystemhealthandnaturalfunctionsofthelandscapethroughactiverestorationprojectsbackedbybestscience,communityinputandadaptivemanagement”–TapashMissionStatement.Figure1.TapashSustainableForestCollaborative‐Manatash‐TaneumResilientLandscapeRestorationProjectHUC12subwatershedsandlandownershippatterns


1.2Manastash‐TaneumResilientLandscapeRestorationProjectBackgroundInthefallof2014,theTapashCollaborativelaunchedtheManastash‐TaneumResilientLandscapeRestorationProjectasaflagshipefforttodemonstratecross‐ownership,integratedterrestrialandaquaticlandscapescaleecosystemrestoration.TheUSFS,WDFW,WDNR,andTNCallhavesignificantownershipswithintheManastash‐Taneumprojectareawhichincludesfour6thfieldsubwatersheds(12CodeHUC)comprisingnearly80,000acres(Figure1,Table1).ThesesubwatershedswereselectedbytheTapashCollaborativebecausetheycontainavarietyofsignificantaquaticandterrestrialresourcesandconservationvaluesinadditiontothediverselandownership.Theseconservationvaluesinclude,butarenotlimitedto,habitatforfederallylistedsteelhead(Oncorhynchusmykiss;NMFS2008,YBFWRB2009),bulltrout(Salvelinusconfluentus;USFWS2015),andnorthernspottedowl(Strixoccidentaliscaurina;USFWS2011).Additionally,inrecentyearsthesesubwatershedshavereceivedsubstantialconservationinvestmentstoprotectformerindustrialtimberlands,restorestreamflowsforfishpassage,andreplenishin‐streamlargewoodtoenhanceaquatichabitatqualityandfloodplainfunctioning.Table1.Manatash‐TaneumOwnershipperHUC12subwatershed Ownership

Total USFS WDFW WDNR TNC Other*Subwatershed ac. ac. ac. ac. ac. ac.NorthForkTaneumCrk. 29,533 21,030 730 7,611 162TaneumCrk. 25,848 3,693 13,465 4,743 16NorthForkManastashCrk. 13,451 1,287 8,467 3,264 433RobinsonCrk. 35,179 11,036 2,713Total 78,650 26,010 33,698 10,720 7,627 595*Note:Asignificantamountofprivate,primarilynon‐forestedlandsintheTaneumCreekandRobinsonCreeksubwatershedswereexcludedfromtheprojectarea.1.3Manastash‐TaneumResilientLandscapesRestorationProjectObjectivesThroughaseriesofTapashlandmanagermeetingsin2015,theTapashCollaborativedevelopedthefollowingManastash‐Taneumprojectobjectives:

TheManastash‐TaneumResilientLandscapeRestorationProjectaimstorestoretheresiliencyofforestandaquaticecosystemsinordertocontinueprovidingcriticalfishandwildlifehabitatandecosystemservices(water,woodproducts,forageforgrazing,andawide‐arrayofrecreationalopportunities),whilereducingtheriskofcatastrophicfiretolocalcommunitiesinthefaceofawarmingclimate.WithintheManastash‐TaneumprojectareatheTapashCollaborativewilldeveloprestorationprojectsusingthebestavailablesciencethateffectivelyworkacrossownershipandmanagementboundariesandrespectthedifferingobjectivesofeachlandowner.Restorationprojectswillseektobalanceecologicalobjectiveswitheconomicviability,producecommercialtimberproductswherepossible,andmaintainadiversityofsustainablerecreationalopportunities.


Aquaticrestorationprojectswillfocusonimprovingwatershedconditions,functions,andprocessesandrestoringthecomplexaquatichabitatsthatcontributetotherecoveryoffederallylistedfish.Specifically,thisincludesrestoringhabitatconnectivitybetweenheadwatertributaries,streamchannels,floodplains,wetlands,andriparianvegetationandreducingroadandstreaminteractionstoimproveaquatichabitatfunction,in‐streamflowandsedimentregimes,waterquality,andbiologicalfunctions(spawning,rearing,foraging,andmigration).Aquaticrestorationalsoincludesimprovingnaturalstreamchannelfloodplainaccesstorestorethetiming,variability,anddurationoffloodplaininundation.Terrestrialrestorationprojectswillfocusonrestoringpatternsofvegetationandwildlifehabitatsuccessionalpatchesandinherentfireanddisturbanceregimesfromthescaleofindividualpatches(1‐100’sofac.)tolocallandscapes(e.g.,subwatersheds,1,000’sto10,000’sofac.).Restorationofvegetationandwildlifehabitatpatternincludesreestablishingthenaturaldistributionofpatchsizes,treeclumpandgappatternswithinpatches,andafocusonretainingandpromotinglarge/oldtreesandpost‐disturbancelargesnagsanddownlogsacrossthelandscape.Terrestrialrestorationprojectswillbeinformedbybothhistoricandfuturerangeofvariabilityreferenceconditionsaswellfire,insect,anddiseaserisktoecologicalandsocialvalues.Inaddition,terrestrialobjectivesincludetherestorationofhabitateffectivenessbyreducingtheimpactsofroadsonaquaticandterrestrialhabitats.Totheextentpossibleaquaticandterrestrialrestorationprojectswillbeintegrated,orataminimum,coordinated,inordertoincreaseoperationalefficienciesandpromote“wholewatershed”restorationoutcomes.

Manatash‐TaneumobjectivesadaptedfromtheTapashSustainableForestsCollaborativemissionstatement(www.tapash.org),theOkanogan‐WenatcheeForestRestorationStrategy(2012),Hessburgetal.(2015)Restoringfire‐proneInlandPacificlandscapes:sevencoreprinciples,andYeager(2015)SummaryofAquaticResourceObjectivesandRecommendedDesignandImplementationElementsfortheMidandUpperColumbiaAnadromousandBullTroutProducingWatershedsofEasternWashington.


2.LANDSCAPEEVALUATION&PRESCRIPTIONAPPROACH2.1WhyIntegratedTerrestrialandAquaticLandscapeEvaluations?Buildingupondecadesofresearch,ecologistsandlandmanagersnowunderstandtheimportanceofworkingatlandscapescalesforthemanagementofresilientecosystems(CrowandGustafson1997,WhiteandHarrod1997,Reimanetal.2010,Luceetal.2012,Hessburgetal2015).Whileterrestriallandscapeevaluationtoolsarebecomingwell‐developed(e.g.,Hessburgetal.2013,USDAForestService2012),anintegratedlandscapeevaluationapproachthatconsidersabroadsuiteofbothterrestrialandaquaticecosystemservicesandresourcevaluesisneeded(Dayetal.2009).Riemanetal.(2010)suggestthreestepstomoresuccessfullyintegratethemanagementofforests,fires,watersheds,andnativefishes:1)communicationamongdisciplinaryscientists,managers,andstakeholders,withacleardefinitionofmanagementgoals;2)translationofgoalstoobjectiveswithinthecontextsandconstraintsofthesystemsinquestion;and3)spatiallyexplicitintegrationofterrestrialandaquaticobjectivestoidentifyopportunitiesforconvergentsolutions.Followingthesesteps,theTapashCollaborativeisusingtheManastash‐Taneumprojecttotestanddevelopamorecloselyintegratedaquaticandterrestriallandscapeevaluation.ThisevaluationwillprovidetheTapashCollaborativewiththecontextofwhatisneededfor“wholewatershed”restorationwithineachsubwatershed.Theevaluationwillalsodescribethecontributionthateachlandownercanmaketorestoretheresiliencyoflandscapesandwatershedsthroughcoordinatedtreatmentsacrossownerships.2.2ForestandStreamInteractionsForestsandstreamsaretightlylinkedthrougharangeofcriticalecologicalprocessesandfunctions(NaimanandTurner2000).Theseincludethetransferofmaterialsandenergythatinfluencehabitatstructure(largewoodandsediment),foodwebsandtrophicdynamics(nutrientsandorganiccarbonsupply)andwaterqualityandtemperature(riparianshade)(Riemanetal.2010).Forestscanalsostronglyinfluencestreamhydrologythroughimpactsonsnowpackdynamics,runoff,evapotranspiration,soilmoisture,floodplainfunctioningandgroundwaterinfiltrationamongotherprocesses(Luceetal.2012,Lundquistetal.2013).Aquatichabitatsarestructuredbyinteractionsamongterrestrialandaquaticprocessesandclimate(Bissonetal.2003).Forexample,wildfiresinfluencehillslopeerosion,streamsedimentation,andlargewoodydebrisrecruitmenttostreams(Bendaetal.2003,Milleretal.2003).Certaintypesofdisturbances,suchasfireandlandslides,areessentialinthecreationandmaintenanceofchannelandriparianlandforms(Bendaetal.2003,Milleretal.2003).Whenhumanactivitiessuchasstreamcleaning,logdrives,diking,riparianlogging,anddamminghavesimplifiedchannels,disturbancessuchasfiresandlandslides,maybeabenefitinthelongtermbecausetheymayincreasephysicalandbiologicaldiversity(Bendaetal.2003,Flitcroftetal.2015).Landusessuchastimberharvest,firesuppression,androadnetworks,canalterthefrequencyandmagnitudeofnaturaldisturbances(Bendaetal.2003,Riemanetal.2010).Roadsinparticularhavewide‐rangingeffectsonhydrologicprocesses,watershedfunction,andfishhabitats.Thecompactedsurfaceofroadscanlowerinfiltrationcapacity,alterandconcentrateoverlandflow,andincreaseerosionanddeliveryofsedimenttothestreamsystem,whichcandegradefishhabitatquality(DunhamandRieman1999,Furnissetal.


1991,LuceandBlack1999,Jonesetal.2000,Luceetal.2001,TrombulkaandFrissell2000,Meredithetal.2014).Roadscanalsointerceptsubsurfaceflowandconvertittorapidsurfacerunoff,extendingchannelnetworksandincreasingwatershedefficiency(LuceandBlack1999,TrombulkaandFrissell2000,Wondzell2001).Roadsreducevegetativecoverinstreamsideareasandacceleratedeliveryofwaterandincreaseerosionandsedimentationintostreams(TrombulkaandFrissell2000,Wondzell2001).Acceleratederosion,runoff,andsedimentdeliveryfromroadsincreasesstreambedfinesediment,whichaffectsaquatichabitatsandmacroinvertebratepopulations,andmakesstreambedsandbanksmoresusceptibletoerosionduringhighflowevents(LuceandBlack1999,Wondzell2001).Atroad‐streamcrossings,excessiveflowvelocitiesandundersizedculvertscanalterstreamchannelfunctionandfragmentfishhabitat(Furnissetal.1998).Otherroad‐relatedimpactsincludereducedpotentiallargewoodavailableforin‐channelwoodandshadefromriparianareas(TrombulkaandFrissell2000,Wondzell2001,Meredithetal.2014).Reducingnon‐climaticstressors,suchastheimpactsofroadsontheaquaticandterrestrialenvironment,hasbeenidentifiedasanimportantadaptivestrategytoreducetheeffectsofclimatechange(Strauchetal.2014,MantuaandRaymond2014).Thethermalenvironmentsthatorganismsexperiencestronglyaffecttheirvitalrates,distribution,andabundance(Kingsolver2009),especiallystreamfishes(Riemanetal.2007,Ruffetal.2011,GrenouilletandComte2014).Toaidmanagersintheassessmentandconservationofhabitatforcold‐waterfishes,currentavailabledataonsummerstreamtemperaturesandprojectedsummerstreamtemperaturesforthe2040sand2080sareavailableforallstreamsinthenorthwesternUS(VerHoefetal.2006,Isaaketal.2010,http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/AWAE/projects/NorWeST.html).Generally,maximumsummerstreamtemperatures<170Careconsideredtobe“favorable”forsalmonrearing,17‐210C“stressful”forsalmonrearing,and>210C“fatal”(MantuaandRaymond2014).Thefutureavailabilityofcold‐waterrefugiaforfederallylistedsalmonidsisofparticularconcernduetoawarmingclimate(MantuaandRaymond2014,Isaaketal.2015).Giventhelargenumberofinteractionsbetweenforestsandstreams,thisinitialphaseoftheManastash‐Taneumprojectfocusesonsomeofthemostimmediatelinksbetweenforestmanagementandaquatichabitatsincludingroad‐streaminteractions,aquatichabitatconnectivity,theavailabilityofcold‐water,andtheinteractionsbetweenupslopeprocesses(e.g.,wildfires,landslides)andstreamfunctions..Table2.ListoflimitingfactorsforsteelheadrelevanttotheNorthForkTaneum,Taneum,andNorthForkManastashwatersheds(YBFWRB2009).

LimitingFactorsforSteelheadDegradedfloodplains AlteredsedimentroutingDegradedchannel ImpairedfishpassageDegradedriparianareaandlargewoodydebris

2.3AquaticLandscapeEvaluationMethodsThroughtheManatash‐TaneumprojectwearedevelopinganaquaticevaluationtocomplimenttheOkanogan‐WenatcheeForestRestorationStrategyterrestriallandscapeevaluationprocess(Hessburgetal.2013).Thisinitialphaseoftheaquaticevaluationfocusesonthefactorsthathavebeenidentifiedaslimitingforsteelheadrecovery(YBFWRB2009;Table2).Theoutcomeofthisprocesswastoidentifyareaswithineach


subwatershedthatprovideopportunitiestorestorestreamfunction,reducethenegativeimpactsofroadsonthestreamenvironment,improvethequalityofrearinghabitatforsteelhead,andrestoredisturbanceregimes.Wehypothesizedthatbyrestoringenvironmentalconditionsconducivetospawningsteelhead(theycurrentlyspawnintheassessmentarea),itwillalsoresultinmorefavorableconditionsforotherfishspecies(e.g.,bulltrout,historicallybutnotcurrentlypresentintheassessmentarea).Ouraquaticlandscapeevaluationprocessincludedthefollowingsteps:Step1:Rectifytheroadandstreamspatialdata.Thespatialdataavailableforourevaluationdidnotprovideanaccuraterepresentationofroadandstreamlocationsacrosslandownerships.Thus,weusedhigh‐resolutionimagerytorectifytheroadandstreamlayers.Thistaskwasverylaborintensivebutresultedinahighlyaccurateportrayaloftheroadsandstreamsmakingourevaluationmorerealisticandcredible.Thisstepwasimportantbecausemanyoftheaquaticindicators,suchasroad‐streamcrossingsandproximityofroadstocurrentandpotentialfishhabitat,requireaccurateinformationaboutthelocationofstreamsandroads.Asanexample,therewereapproximately20%moreroadsonthelandscapethanweremappedinanyoftheavailableroadsdatalayers.Step2.Identifyandmapfloodplains.WeusedthefloodplainmappingtoolinTerrainWorks(Bendaetal.2007)todevelopafloodplainsspatiallayer.Step3.Identifyandmapcurrentandintrinsichabitatpotentialforsteelhead.WeobtainedfishdistributiondatafromtheWashingtonDepartmentofFishandWildlifetomapcurrentsteelheadrearinghabitat.WeusedtheintrinsicpotentialhabitatmappingtoolinTerrainWorks(Bendaetal.2007),usingthedefaultvaluesforsteelhead,toidentifypotentialhabitatwithineachofthesubwatersheds.Step4.Assessroad‐streaminteractions.Weevaluatedthepotentialforroad‐streaminteractionsinavarietyofways.First,weassessedthepotentialfornegativeroad‐streaminteractionsinareasthatmayinfluencecurrentorpotentialsteelheadhabitat.Wedidthisbyoverlayingroads,trails,streams,andfishhabitatlayersinordertoidentifyportionsofroads(e.g.,segments)thateitheroccurredinfloodplainsorwerewithin300feetofcurrentorpotentialsteelheadhabitat.Thisresultedinamapshowingportionsofroadsandtrailsthatoccurredincloseproximitytocurrentorpotentialsteelheadhabitatthatwecouldreviewinthefield.Second,weintersectedtheroadandstreamlayerstoidentifyroad‐streamcrossings.Weoverlayedstream‐roadcrossingswithcurrentandpotentialsteelheadhabitatandidentifiedroad‐streamcrossingsthatwereviewedinthefieldfortheirpotentialtoprovidefishpassage.Third,weassessedthedensityofroad‐streamcrossingsintheremainderofthesubwatershed(up‐slopefromthemainchannel)inordertoevaluatetheup‐slopeeffectsthatroadsmaybehavingontheaquaticenvironment.Inaddition,thisinformationcanbeusedtoidentifypriorityareasforfocusedfieldevaluationofroad‐aquaticinteractionsusingtoolssuchasGRAIP(GeomorphicRoadAssessmentandInventoryProcess;Blacketal.2012,Cisseletal.2012).TodatehoweverGRAIPinventorieshavenotbeenconducted.


Finally,asageneralmeasureofwatershedfunction,wecalculatedtheoveralldensityofroadsineachsubwatershed,andthedensityofroadswithinriparianzones(300footbuffer)ineachsubwatershed.WethenusedthemetricsfromtheWatershedConditionFrameworktocategorizeeachwatershedbasedonitslevelof“function”(PotyondyandGeier2010).Step5.Cold‐WaterRefugia.Weassessedmeansummer(August)streamtemperaturesalongmainstemstreamsineachsubwatershedusinginformationfromNorWeST(www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/AWAE/projects/NorWeST.html).Theinformationavailableforeachstreamincludedasummaryofcurrentsummerstreamtemperatures,andprojectedsummerstreamtemperaturesforthe2040sand2080s.DetaileddescriptionsofhowthestreamtemperatureprojectionsweredevelopedareavailableinVerHoefetal.(2006)andIsaaketal.(2010).Wethencategorizedportionsofstreamsinto“favorable”forsalmonidrearingifthemeanAuguststreamtemperatureswerecurrentlyorprojectedtobe<170C,“stressful”forsalmonidrearingifmeanAuguststreamtemperatureswerecurrentlyorprojectedtobe17‐210C,and“fatal”ifmeanAuguststreamtemperatureswerecurrentlyorprojectedtobe>210C(MantuaandRaymond2014).Step6.NaturalDisturbanceRegimes.Becauseoftheimportantinteractionsbetweennaturaldisturbancessuchasfireandlandslidestothestreamecosystems(Bendaetal.2003,Milleretal.2003),weusedinformationfromtheterrestriallandscapeevaluationtoassesshowcurrentdisturbanceregimeshavedepartedfromhistoricalregimes.Weassumedthatbyrestoringnaturaldisturbanceregimes,theroleoffireandassociatedlandslideswouldalsoberestored(Riemanetal.2010).WeusedboththeStandLevelFireandVegetationCover‐Structurecomponentsoftheterrestriallandscapeevaluation(seebelow)toassessdepartureandhelptoidentifyrestorationopportunities.Step7.Fieldreview.Weconductedafieldreviewinorderto:1)evaluatetheroadandstreamlayer,2)reviewareaswhereroadsortrailswereincloseproximitytostreamsorinfloodplainsthatprovidedcurrentorpotentialsteelheadhabitat,3)reviewroad‐streamcrossingsforfishpassagethatoccurredincloseproximitytocurrentorpotentialsteelheadhabitat,and4)identifyopportunityareasforrestoration.Step8.Identifyrestorationopportunities.Weusedinformationgatheredfromthespatialdataandfieldreviewtoidentifyareaswithineachsubwatershedthatprovidedopportunitiestoimplementrestorativeactions,andtoidentifyareaswhereadditionalfieldsurveyinformationisneeded.Weusedthisinformationtodevelopa“landscapeprescription”,whichisadetailedlistofactionsandlocationsthatcouldbeimplementedtorestoreaquaticandterrestrialecosystemresiliency,andaddresslimitingfactorsforsteelheadrecovery.2.4TerrestrialEvaluationMethodsTheManastash‐TaneumterrestriallandscapeevaluationsandprescriptionsfollowtheOkanogan‐WenatcheeForestRestorationStrategy(OkaWenFRS;USDAForestService2012,Hessburgetal.2013)evaluationprocess.Thisprocessisbasedupontheconceptthatastandbystandapproachtoforestrestorationwithoutestablishingalandscapecontextforthelocation,amount,andtypeofrestorationtreatmentswillnotleadtoresilientforestedlandscapes.TheOkaWenFRSprocessprovidesaframeworktodirectlyapplythesevenprinciplesoflandscaperestorationoutlinedbyHessburgetal.(2015):


Principle1:Importantecologicalprocesses1operateacrossspatialscales–fromtreeneighborhoodstoregionallandscapes.Implication:Planningandmanagementmustincorporateandlinkthetreeneighborhood,patch,drainage/hillslope,locallandscapes,andregionallandscapes.Principle2:Topographyprovidesanaturaltemplateforvegetationanddisturbancepatternsacrossthelandscapehierarchyscales.Implication:UsetopographytoguiderestorationtreatmentsPrinciple3:Disturbanceandsuccessiondriveecosystemdynamics.Implication:Focusonrestoringtheecosystems’inherentfire/disturbanceregimesandvegetationsuccessionalpatterns;otherecologicalprocesseswillfollow.Principle4:Predictabledistributionsofforest‐patchsizesnaturallyemergefrominteractionsclimate‐disturbance‐topography‐vegetation.Implication:focusonrestoringthenaturaldistributionofforestpatchsizesacrosslandscapes.Principle5:Patchesare“landscapeswithinlandscapes:Implication:focusonrestoringcharacteristictreeclumpandgappatternswithinstands/patches.Principle6:Widelydistributedlarge,oldtrees,provideacriticalecologicalbackboneforforestedlandscapes.Implication:focusonretainingandpromotinglarge/oldtreesandpost‐disturbancelargesnagsanddownlogs.Principle7:Traditionalpatternsoflandownershipandmanagementdisruptinherentlandscapeandecosystempatterns.Implication:developrestorationprojectsthateffectivelyworkacrossforestownershipandmanagementallocations.

CurrentconditionswithineachoftheManastash‐Taneumsubwatershedsweremappedacrossownershipsthroughinterpretationofrecenthigh‐resolutionaerialphotography.Successionalpatches(sensuHessburgetal.2015)weredelineatedfromtheaerialphotographyandforeachsuccessionalpatch,23derivedattributesrepresentingarangeofvegetation,wildlifehabitat,andfire,insect,anddiseasesusceptibilityratingswerecalculatedfromthephoto‐interpretedattributes(Hessburgetal.2013;Table3).Photo‐interpretationswereinitiallyconductedbyPeteOlsen(Okanogan‐WenatcheeNationalForest).JamesBegley(WashingtonConservationScienceInstitute)subsequentlyconductedfieldreviewandrefinementofthephoto‐interpreteddatalayers.Thenextstepintheevaluationprocessassessedthedepartureofpresentdayconditionswithineachwatershedfromboth“HistoricRangeofVariability”(HRV)and“FutureRangeofVariability”(FRV)referenceconditionsforeachderivedattribute(Table3).HRVdescribestherangeofconditionsmayhaveexistedwithinaparticularsubwatershedbaseduponitsbiophysicalsettingspriorto20thcenturymanagement(Landresetal1999,Keaneetal.2009).FRVisa“climatechangeanalogue”referenceconditionthatestimatestherangeofconditionsthatmaydevelopwithinasubwatershedifhistoricecosystemswereallowedtoadaptnaturallytoapredictedwarmer‐drierclimateinabsenceof20thcenturymanagement(Gartneretal2008;Keeneetal2009).Bycomparingcurrentconditionsto

1Fishandwildlifedispersal,hydrology,andthefrequency,severity,andextentofdisturbancessuchasfire,insects,disease,wind,andfloods.


boththehistoricandfuturereferenceconditions,managersarebetterabletoassessoptionsthatmimicpatternsandprocessesunderwhichspecieshaveevolved,butalsoconsiderwhatresilientlandscapesmaylooklikeinthefuture(Hessburgetal.2013,2015).Table3.Okanogan‐WenatcheeForestRestorationStrategyterrestriallandscapeevaluationphoto‐interpretationderivedattributes.Vegetation* WildlifeHabitatcont.Struct.ClassxCoverTypexPVG N.SpottedOwlPotentialStruct.ClassxCoverType WhiteHeadedWPStructureClassxPVG WildfireHazardCoverTypexPVG CrownFirePotentialPhysiognomictype RateofSpreadCoverType FlamelengthStructureClass FireLineIntensityMed‐LargeTreePresence FuelLoadingLateSuccessional‐OldForest FuelConsumptionRemnantLargeTree SmokePM10

SmokePM5WildlifeHabitat InsectHazardMarten Douglas‐firBeetleHazard

N.SpottedOwlCurrent W.SpruceBudworm*Note:SeeAppendixAforsummaryanddescriptionofvegetationandforeststructuralattributes.TheHRVandFRVreferenceconditionswerefromearlytomid‐20thcenturyaerialphotographythatwasconductedaspartoftheInteriorColumbiaBasinEcosystemManagementProject(ICBEMP;Hessburgetal.1999).TheICBEMPprojectphoto‐interpreted337subwatershedsacrosstheinteriorColumbiaBasin.Thesesubwatershedswerenestedwithinaclassificationof“EcologicalSubRegions”(ESR’s;Hessburgetal.2000).TheESR’srepresentedabroadclassificationofbio‐geo‐physicalsettings.EachESRineasternWashingtonhasasetof8‐20referencesubwatershedswithhistoricairphotointerpretationfollowingthesameinterpretationprotocolsanddevelopingthesamederivedattributes(Table3)asthepresentdayManastash‐Taneumcurrentconditionmapping.HRVreferenceconditionswerethendevelopedforeachManastash‐TaneumsubwatershedthroughcomparisonwiththehistoricdatafromsubwatershedsinthesameESR.HistoricdatafromsubwatershedsinthenextwarmeranddrierESRwereusedtodeveloptheFRVreferenceconditions(Gartneretal.2008).Centraltothelandscapeevaluationprocessiscomparingnotjusthowtheabundanceofthevegetation,wildlifehabitat,wildfireandinsectmeasuresmayhavedepartedfromHRV/FRV,buthowthespatialpatternsmayhavedeparted.“Spatialpattern”referstothesize,shape,andconfigurationofpatchesasdefinedbyvegetation,wildlifehabitat,wildfireandinsectmeasures.Thesespatialpatternsareacriticaldriverofecosystemprocessesandfunctioning(Hessburgetal.2015).Forexample,simplyevaluatingtheamountofnorthernspottedowlhabitatwithinasubwatersheddoesnotcapturewhetherthathabitatisfragmentedacrossmanysmallpatchesoraggregatedtogetherinfewlargepatches.Similarly,thedistributionofvegetationpatchsizeshasasignificantinfluenceonthespread


offireacrossalandscape(Hessburgetal.2015).WithineachoftheManastash‐Taneumsubwatersheds,weused6differentspatialmetricsinadditiontooverallabundancetocompareeachvegetation,wildlifehabitat,wildfire,andinsectmeasuretoHRVandFRVreferenceconditions(Table4,Figure2).ThedeparturesofcurrentconditionsfromHRVandFRVreferenceconditionsforeachsubwatershedaredescribedinthefollowingLandscapeEvaluationSummariesandLandscapePrescriptionssection.Weidentifiedpotential“LandscapeTreatmentAreas”(LTA’s)withineachsubwatershedbasedupontheLandscapePrescriptionsandusedanevaluationofsoilmoisturedeficit(sensuStephenson1998)tohelpaligntheLTA’swithnaturaltopographicandsoilpatterns(Principle2,Hessburgetal.2015).Basedupontopographicpositionandsoilwaterholdingcapacity,soilmoisturedeficitestimatesvegetationstressduetoseasonallackofwaterandhasbeenfoundtocorrelatewellwitharangeofecologicalimportantattributesincludingforeststructureandcomposition,fuelmoisture,andfirebehavior,(Lutzetal.2010,Kaneetal.2015).DeficitwascalculatedfollowingChurchillelal(2013)usinga10mdigitalelevationmodel,SSURGOsoilsdata(http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/)andClimateWNAclimatedata(http://www.climatewna.com/)).Table4.SpatialmetricsusedinOkanogan‐WenatcheeForestRestorationStrategyterrestriallandscapeevaluations.ClassMetrics BasicInterpretationPercentLand Percentageofthelandscapeoccupiedbyagivenclasstype.

Ecologicallyimportantindescribinglandscapecomposition

MeanPatchSize Averagepatchsizeforaclasstypeacrossasubwatershed.Representsthetypicalpatchsize.Animportantcomponentofhabitatquality.

PatchDensity Numberofpatchesonthesubwatershedbypatchtype(class).Indicateshowfragmentedisagivenclasstype.

MeanNearestNeighbor

Averagedistancebetweenanygivenpatchandtheclosestpatchofthesameclass.Representstheisolationofindividualpatches.

EdgeDensity Thetotallengthofedgeofagivenclasstyperelativetothesubwatershedsize.Aproxyforedgeeffectandfragmentation.

LandscapeMetricsContagion Howeasyitistomovewithinapatchtype,aggregatedacrossall

patchtypespresentonthelandscape.Ameasureoftheconnectivitywithineachclasstype.

Interspersion‐Juxtaposition

Howintermixedpatchesareacrossthesubwatershed.Reflectstheabilitytomovefromonepatchtypetoallotherpatchtypes.


Figure2.ExampleoftheterrestriallandscapeevaluationmetricsoutputforforestcovertypeswithintheNorthForkTaneumsubwatershed.VerticallinesrepresentcurrentconditionsandhorizontalbarsrepresentHRV(green)andFRV(yellow)referenceconditions.SeeAppendixBforcompleteterrestrialevaluationoutputforallsubwatersheds.


3. LANDSCAPEEVALUATIONSUMMARIESANDLANDSCAPEPRESCRIPTIONS

3.1AquaticEvaluationSummariesAcrossManastash‐Taneum,themeasuredindicatorssuggestthatroads(andothertravelroutes)arehavingaconsiderableinfluenceontheaquaticenvironmentinallsubwatersheds,butespeciallythosethathaveexistingorpotentialrearinghabitatforsteelhead(Figures3‐5,Table5).Therearemanyopportunitiestoreducetheroad‐streaminteractions,restorehydrologicfunctionsandprocesses,addresslimitingfactorsforsteelhead,andrestorenativedisturbanceregimes.Sections4–7belowprovidedetailedsummariesoftheAquaticEvaluationsforeachsubwatershed.Generally,habitatconnectivitywithinthecurrentandpotentialsteelheadhabitatwasgoodintheTaneumdrainage.However,welimitedourfieldreviewofroad‐streamcrossingstotheTaneumandNorthForkTaneum,becausesteelheadcurrentlyoccupyportionsofthesesubwatersheds.ThereisoneundersizedculvertintheNorthForkTaneum(seefurtherdetailsbelow)thatcouldpresentapassagebarrierduringcertaintimesoftheyear,suchaslowflow.Inaddition,thisculvertisnotsizedtohandleanticipatedhighflows.EffortsarecurrentlyunderwaytoaddressstreamflowsinthelowerreachesoftheNorthForkManastash,whichwouldprovidesteelheadaccesstoabout8milesofadditionalhabitat.Thisrestoredaccessmaywarrantfurtherevaluationofroad‐streamcrossingsaswasconductedintheTaneumdrainage.HeadwaterstreamsintheNorthForkTaneumandNorthForkManastashsubwatershedsarelikelytobecomeincreasinglyimportantcold‐waterrefugiaasstreamtemperaturesinlowerreachesareprojectedtoincrease(Isaaketal.2012).ThesechangesareprojectedtobemostdramaticintheTaneumsubwatershed,wherenearlytheentireportionofthestreamthatiscurrentlyusedasrearinghabitatbysteelheadislikelytoreachsummertemperaturesconsideredtobe“stressful”forrearingsalmonids(Table6).Itwillbecomeincreasinglyimportanttoreducenon‐climaterelatedstressorsonsteelheadhabitat.ForestandroadrestorationprojectsintheupperportionsoftheNorthForkTaneumandNorthForkManastashtorestorelargetreestructure,streamshade,andreducenegativeroad‐streaminteractions(e.g.,potentialforfine‐sedimentdelivery)wouldhelptoconservecold‐waterhabitats..


Table5.Acomparisonofindicatorvariablesshowingtheroad‐streaminteractionsforeachsubwatershedintheManastash‐TaneumLargeLandscapeRestorationProject.Sub‐watershed RouteDensity

(mi./sq.mi.)RoadDensityConditionRating1

MilesSteelheadPotentialHabitat2

MilesSteelheadRearingHabitat3

RouteMilesin100mBufferofSteelheadHabitat

NumberofCrossingswithin100mofSteelheadHabitat

NorthForkTaneum

4.4 Poor 14.2 0 19.5 89

Taneum 6.5 Poor ‐‐‐‐ 14.1 14.9 25NorthForkManastash

5.1 Poor 7.7 0 11.3

RobinsonCanyon 1.5 Fair 0.3 0 NA NA

1/BasedonForestServiceWatershedConditionFramework(PotyondyandGeier2010).2/Potentialhabitatisnotcurrentlyusedforrearingbysteelheadbuthasthepotentialtobeinthefuture.3/RearinghabitatiscurrentlybeingusedbySteelheadbasedonmostcurrentsurveyinformationTable6.Milesofcurrentorpotentialsteelheadrearinghabitatbystreamtemperaturecategorywithineachsubwatershedbasedoncurrentandprojected(2040,2080)meanAuguststreamtemperatures1(datanotavailableforRobinsonCanyon).Subwatershed MilesofCurrentorPotentialSteelheadRearingHabitatwithinStreamTemperatureCategories2

Current 2040s 2080s Favorable Stressful Fatal Favorable Stressful Fatal Favorable Stressful FatalNorthForkTaneum

14.2 0 0 14.2 0 0 14.2 0 0

Taneum 13.1 1.0 0 8.1 6.0 0 0 13.6 0.5NorthForkManastash

7.7 0 0 7.2 0.5 0 5.7 2.0 0

1/Streamtemperaturefromwww.fs.fed.us/NorWeST2/CategoriesbasedonMantuaandRaymond(2014)


Figure3.DistributionofroadsandcurrentandpotentialhabitatforsteelheadwithintheManastash‐Tanuemprojectarea.


Figure4.RoaddensitiesinrelationtocurrentandpotentialsteelheadhabitatwithintheManastash‐Taneumprojectarea.


Figure5.Densityofroad‐streamcrossingsintheManastash‐Taneumlandscaperestorationprojectarea(noteroad‐streamcrossingdensitieswerenotcalculatedforNorthForkManastashorRobinsonCanyonduetopoorqualityroaddata)


3.2TerrestrialEvaluationSummariesAlthoughtheManastash‐Taneumprojectareacontainsverylargeenvironmentalgradients,theterrestriallandscapeevaluationsrevealedseveralcommontrends.Asisexpectedgiventhemanagementhistoryofthesesubwatersheds,thetrendsareconsistentwiththeimpactsofpastwildfiresuppressionandindustrialforestmanagementSections4–7belowprovidedetailedsummariesoftheTerrestrialEvaluationsforeachsubwatershed..AcrossallsubwatershedsexceptRobinsonCanyon,Douglas‐fircoverwasoverabundantcomparedtoHRVandFRV(Figure6).Similarly,closedcanopyconditionsgenerallyandtheYoungForestMulti‐Storystructuralstagespecifically(seeAppendixAforstructuralstagedefinitions)weretypicallyoverabundantcomparedtobothHRVandFRVreferenceconditions(Figure7).Slightlycomplicatingtheinterpretationoftheseresultsisthattheforeststructuralstageandcovertypedepartureswhereoftenspecifictoaparticularpotentialvegetationgroup(e.g.,coldforest,moistforest,dryforest;seeAppendixAfordefinitions)withinthesubwatershed.Assessingthespatialpatternsofforestedvegetationrevealedgeneraltrendstowardsfragmentation.WithintheNorthForkTaneum,Taneum,andNorthForkManastashsubwatershedspatchdensities(toohigh),meannearestneighbordistances(toolow),andedgedensity(toohigh)spatialmetricsdepartedfromHRVandFRVformanyvegetationmeasures.Trendsinwildlifehabitatabundancevariedconsiderablyamongstthesubwatershedreflectingtheunderlyingenvironmentalgradients.BothcurrentandpotentialfuturenorthernspottedowlhabitatsareconcentratedintheNorthForkTaneumsubwatershedwherethemajorityofmoistforests(potentialvegetationgroup)arefound(Figure21).WhiletheabundanceofcurrentnorthernspottedowlhabitatiswithintheHRV(butexceedingFRVinNorthForkTaneum),itisoverlyfragmentedwithtoomanysmall,disconnectedhabitatpatchescomparedtoHRVandFRVacrossallsubwatersheds.Similarly,mostcommondeparturesforwhite‐headedwoodpecker,goshawk,andAmericanmartenhabitatwasfragmentationwithtoomanysmall,disconnectedhabitatpatchescomparedtoHRVandFRV.TheHRVandFRVreferenceconditionsforthewildfireandinsectdisturbancemeasurestendedtobeextremelywidewiththeonlytruedeparturesfoundintheNorthForkTaneumsubwatershed(elevatedcrownfireandwesternsprucebudwormhazard).Nevertheless,mappingofcurrentconditionwildfireandinsecthazardscanandshouldbeintegratedintotheplanningofrestorationmanagementactions.


Figure6.Manatash‐Taneumvegetationcovertypes.SeeAppendixCforcompletesetofmapsforeachterrestrialmeasures.


Figure7.Manatash‐Taneumterrestrialvegetationstructuralstages.SeeAppendixCforcompletesetofmapsforeachterrestrialmeasure.


Figure8.Manatash‐Taneumcurrentnorthernspottedowlhabitat.SeeAppendixCforcompletesetofmapsforeachterrestrialmeasure.


Figure9.Manatash‐Taneummoisturedeficit.SeeAppendixCforcompletesetofmapsforeachterrestrialmeasure.


3.3RestorationOpportunitiesSummaryAcrosstheManastash‐Taneumprojectareawehaveidentifiedaseriesofaquaticandterrestrial“restorationopportunityareas”baseduponthelandscapeevaluationsandprescriptions(Tables6and7,Figures10and11).Theopportunityareaspresentpotentiallocationsforactivemanagementprojectstoaddressthekeylandscapeevaluationdeparturesandprescriptions.However,theyarenotexclusiveandactiverestorationactivitieswithinotherlocationsintheManastash‐Taneumprojectareamayalsoaddressthekeylandscapedeparturesandprescriptions.Eachrestorationopportunityareawillrequireadditionalin‐fieldscoping,evaluation,andenvironmentalreviewpriortoprojectimplementation.Alsoimportantly,additionalfieldreviewmayleadtosignificantmodifications/adjustments.WithintheNorthForkTaneumCreekandTaneumCreeksubwatershedswehaveidentified5distinct“opportunityareas”foraquaticrestorationprojects(Figure10,Table7).Eachoftheseaquaticrestorationopportunityareasfocusesonissuesrelatedtoroad‐streaminteractionsandpotentialnegativeimpactsonsteelheadhabitat.Table7.AquaticrestorationopportunitiesareaswithintheManastash‐Taneumlandscaperestorationprojectarea.

AquaticRestorationOpportunityAreaApplicableOwnerships

NFTaneumArea#1:Section21,ConfluenceofLookoutCreekandNorthForkTaneum

‐Water/sedimentdrainagefromroadintostream‐Potentialneedforculvertimprovements‐Highdensityofroad/streamcrossings

TNC

NFTaneumArea#2:Section23,ConfluenceofButteCreekandNorthForkTaneum

‐Undersizedmainculvert,potentialbarriertofishpassage‐Burnedareadeliveringsediment‐Smallculvertsreceivingfromburnedarea,crushedandoccluded‐Highdensityofroad/streamcrossings

TNC

NFTaneumArea#3:Sections33,34,27alongSouthForkTaneumCreek ‐Streamadjacentroad(3300‐135)confiningstreamchannel,

contributessediment,andreduceslargewoodydebrisinstreamsectionwithinpotentialsteelheadhabitat

USFS

NFTaneumArea#4:Sections26,27ConfluenceofFirstCreekandNorthForkTaneum

‐3300‐116roadwithsignificantchanneling,gullyingleadingtopotentialsteelheadhabitat.‐Dispersedcampsitesdeliveringsedimenttomainchannel

USFS

TaneumArea#1:Sections29,30ConfluenceofCedarCreekandTaneumCreek ‐Incisedchanneldeliveringsedimenttoexistingsteelheadhabitat

‐CulvertssmallandpartiallyoccludedWDFW&USFS


Table7:Continued.

AquaticRestorationOpportunityAreaApplicableOwnerships

TaneumArea#2:Sections29TaneumCreek ‐Dispersedcampingdeliveringsedimenttoexistingsteelheadhabitat WDFW&

USFSTaneumArea#3:Sections28,29TaneumCreek

‐Sedimentfromroadanddispersedcampingintoexistingsteelheadhabitat

WDFW&USFS

TaneumArea#4:ConfluenceofFirstCreekandNorthForkTaneum

‐Streamadjacentroad(mainline3300)confiningstreamchannel,contributessediment,andreduceslargewoodydebrisinstreamsectionwithinexistingsteelheadhabitat‐Dispersedcampingsitesdeliveringsedimentwithinexistingsteelheadhabitat

WDFW&USFS

TaneumArea#5:Sections36,1,TaneumCreek

‐Streamadjacentroad(mainline3300)confiningstreamchannel,contributessediment,andreduceslargewoodydebrisinstreamsectionwithinexistingsteelheadhabitat

WDFW&USFS

AcrosstheentireManastash‐Taneumprojectareawehaveidentifiedover17,000acresofterrestrialrestorationopportunityareaswhereactivemanagementmaybeusedtoaddresskeyecologicaldeparturesandfurthertheobjectivesofthelandscapeprescriptions(Table8,).WithinFigure11weidentifythreegeneralcategoriesofterrestrialrestorationopportunities.TerrestrialOpportunitiesCategoryA–Variabledensitythinning(mechanicalorprescribedfire)ofmostlyyoungforestmulti‐storyandstemexclusionclosedcanopystructuralstages,convertingtostemexclusionopencanopyforlong‐termdevelopmentintooldforestsinglestory.Generallypromotingponderosapineandwesternlarch(wherealreadypresent)andreducingDouglas‐fircover.Theseareasoccurpredominatelyonsoutherlyaspects.Restorationactivitiesneedtoincludeprotectionsforriparianareas,floodplains,andwetpatchesofcedar.LongtermtheselandsareNOTtargetedtoprovidenorthernspottedowlsourcehabitat.But,presentdayactivitiesneedtoavoidanyareaswithcurrentowlactivity.TerrestrialOpportunitiesCategoryB‐Generallypre‐commercialthinningofstandinitiationstructuralstagetoencouragedevelopmentofdesirabledominantsandco‐dominants.Long‐termtargetsmaybeeitheropencanopysinglestoryorclosecanopymulti‐story.TerrestrialOpportunitiesCategoryC‐Variabledensitythinning(mechanicalorprescribedfire)inpredominatelyyoungforestmulti‐storytoacceleratedevelopmentofcomplexmulti‐canopylayerstructure.Atthisstageoftheanalysis,wehavenotidentifiedwhichacresaresuitableforthinningviatractoryarding,cableyarding,prescribedfire,etc.Silviculturalprescriptionswillvarydramaticallyamongstterrestrialrestorationopportunityareasbaseduponthelandscapeprescriptionsandobjectivesforwithin‐standspatialpatterns.Techniquessuchasthe


“Individuals‐Clumps‐Openings”approachcanbeusedtoquantify,prescribe,andimplementappropriatewithinstandspatialpatterns(Churchilletal.2013).Table8.TerrestrialrestorationopportunitiesareaswithintheManastash‐Taneumlandscaperestorationprojectarea. TreatmentCategory Acres ApplicableOwnershipsNorthForkTaneumCreek

‐A&C;Variabledensitythinninginmoist‐forestYFMStoeitherpromoteopen‐canopyconditions(A)ormulti‐layer(C)

~4,000 USFS

‐B;Pre‐commercialthinninginmoist‐forestSItoacceleratestructuraldevelopment

2,000+ TNCprimarily,alsoUSFS

TaneumCreek

‐A;Variabledensitythinninginmoist&dryforestYFMS&SECCtopromoteopen‐canopyconditions

4,600+ WDFW,USFS,alsoWDNR

‐B;Pre‐commercialthinningindry‐forestSItoaccelerateopencanopystructuraldevelopment

1,500+ MostlyWDFW,alsoWDNRandUSFS

NorthForkManastashCreek ‐A;Variabledensitythinningindryforest

YFMS&SECCtopromoteopen‐canopyconditions

2,000+ WDFW,WDNR

‐B;Pre‐commercialthinningindry‐forestSItoaccelerateopencanopystructuraldevelopment

1,200+ MostlyWDFW,alsoWDNRandUSFS

RobinsonCrk. ‐A;Variabledensitythinningindryforest

YFMSandSItopromoteopen‐canopyconditions

2,300+ MostlyWDFW,alsoWDNR

Total 17,600+


Figure10.AquaticrestorationopportunitiesareaswithintheManastash‐Taneumlandscaperestorationprojectarea.


Figure11.TerrestrialrestorationopportunityareaswithintheManastash‐Taneumlandscaperestorationprojectarea.


4NorthForkTaneumSubwatershed4.1NorthForkTaneumAquaticEvaluationandPrescriptionTheNorthForkTaneumsubwatershedis29,537acresinsizeandincludesaconsiderableamountofpotentialhabitatforsteelhead,inboththeNorthandSouthForksofTaneumCreek(Fig.6),thatiscurrentlynotbeingusedforrearing.ThedownstreambarriersthatpreviouslypreventedaccessforfishtotheTaneumandNorthForkTaneumhavebeenaddressed.Theoverallroaddensityishigh,givingthewatershedapoorconditionrating.However,roaddensitiesarenotevenlydistributedacrossthewatershed(Fig.7).Roaddensitiesareespeciallyhigh(>5miles/squaremile)inthewesternportionofthesubwatershed,andonthenorthsidesofboththeNorthandSouthForksofTaneumCreek.Themainroad(Rd33)alongtheNorthForkTaneumCreekoccurswithinfloodplains,isconfiningthechannel,reducingthepotentialforlargewoodrecruitment,andcreatingasituationthatcancausechronicdeliveryofsedimenttothestream.

TheterrestriallandscapeevaluationshowedthatforestedhabitatsaregenerallyoverlyfragmentedcomparedtoboththeHRVandFRV,andthattheabundanceofyoungforest‐multi‐story(YFMS)andstandinitiation(SI)areoverabundantcomparedtoHRVandFRV.Thecrownfirepotential“high”categoryisconsiderablyabovetheFRV,indicatingaconsiderableriskoflarge‐scalefire,makingthissubwatershedsusceptibletolarge‐scaledisturbancesandincreasestheriskofeffectstohydrologicandwatershedfunctions.Theterrestriallandscapeprescriptionidentifiedopportunitiesacrosslandownershipstorestoreforestvegetationstructureandcompositiontomoreresilientconditions,whichinturnwouldreducetheriskofuncharacteristicallyseverefiresandcontributetotherecoveryoflistedfishspecies(Bissonetal.2003,Reissetal.2008).

Weidentifiedfourrestorationopportunityareasalongthemain‐stemoftheNorthandSouthForksofTaneumCreek(Fig.8).Inaddition,weidentifiedareaswithhighdensitiesofroadsandroad‐streamcrossingswhereadditionalfieldworkcouldidentifyopportunitiestoreduceroaddensitiesandrestorewatershedprocessesandfunctions(Fig.9).Finally,thereisanopportunitytoreviewthecurrentlocationofthemainroad(Rd33)anddetermineifitcouldberelocatedtoreducethenegativeimpactsthisroadishavingontheaquaticenvironment.

Collectivelytheseprojectswouldaddressthefollowinglimitedfactorsidentifiedforsteelheadrecovery:degradedfloodplains,degradedchannel,degradedriparianareaandlargewood,alteredsedimentrouting,andimpairedfishpassage.

OpportunityArea1–Section21,confluenceofLookoutCreekandNorthForkTaneum

‐Waterandsedimentdrainsontobridgethengetsroutedintothestream(NFTphotos1.1and1.2).Waterandsedimentalsodrainsintoditchalongsidetheroadandthendeliveredintothestream(NFTphotos1.3,1.4,and1.5).Therearealsootherareaswithculvertsthatneedconsiderationforimprovement(NFTphotos1.7,1.8,and1.9).Generalareahasahighamountofroad/streamcrossings(10‐15crossingspersquaremile).

OpportunityArea2–Section23,confluenceofButteCreekandNorthForkTaneum

‐Culvertmaybeundersizedandcouldpotentiallybeabarriertoanadromousfishpopulations(NFTphoto2.1)duringperiodsoflowflows.AreasdirectlynorthwereburnedintherecentTaneumRidgefireandcontributesedimentimmediatelydownstreamfromtheaforementionedculvert(NFTphoto2.2and2.3).Smallculvertsreceivingwaterand


sedimentfromthepreviouslyburnedareaarecrushedandoccluded(NFTphotos2.4,2.5,and2.6).).Generalareahasaveryhighamountofroad/streamcrossings(>15crossingspersquaremile).

OpportunityArea3–Sections33,34,27alongSouthForkTaneumCreek

‐The3300‐135roadisimmediatelyadjacenttothestreamwithinpotentialsteelheadhabitat.Thisroadparallelsdirectlyalongsidethestreamandconfinesthechannel,contributessediment,andhasreducedthesourceforlargewood.Fieldsurveyofthisroadwouldrevealthebestoptionsforrestorationactions.

OpportunityArea4–Sections26,27,confluenceofFirstCreekandNorthForkTaneum

The3300‐116roadhassignificantchannelingontheroadsurfaceandgullyingonthesideleadingtothemainchannelandpotentialsteelheadhabitat(NFTphotos4.1and4.2).Therearedispersedcampingsitesdirectlyadjacenttothestreamthathaveroadsdeliveringsedimenttothemainchannel(NFTphotos4.3and4.4).

ReduceRoadDensityandRoad‐StreamCrossings

Conductfieldsurveystoidentifyspecificroads/motorizedtrailsandroad‐streamcrossingsforrestoration,includingintegrationwithareasidentifiedforterrestrialrestorationtreatments.TheseareasincludetheareasadjacenttoandupslopefromOpportunityAreas1‐4(Fig.8)

4.2NorthForkTaneumTerrestrialLandscapeEvaluationTheNorthForkTaneumsubwatershed(UYK_0503)is29,537acrescomprisedprimarilyofmoistforests(20,923ac.)withsmalleramountsofcoldforests(5,540ac.),dryforests(2,530ac.),andothernon‐forestedvegetationtypes(540ac.).OwnershipisdominatedbytheUSForestService(21,030)withalesseramountmanagedbyTheNatureConservancyfollowingrecentacquisitionfromPlumCreekTimber(7,611ac.).HistoricalRangeofVariability(HRV)referenceconditionswerebaseduponEcologicalSubRegion(ESR)4,andFutureRangeofVariability(FRV)referenceconditionswerebaseduponESR11.

Vegetation Overall,vegetationpatchesareoverlyfragmentedwithpatchdensity,meannearest

neighbor,andedgedensityspatialmetricsdepartedfromHRVandFRVformanyvegetationmeasures.

CoverofDouglas‐firisfaroverabundantcomparedtobothHRVandFRVwhilethecoverofPonderosapine(365ac.current)isonthelowendofHRVandisextremelylowcomparedtoFRV.

Withinmoistforests,theabundanceoftheyoungforestmulti‐story(yfms)andstandinitiationstructuralstages(si)areoverabundantcomparedtoHRVandFRV.

VegetationVariable Current HRV FRVCover‐(acres)Douglas‐fir 21,933 1,500‐15,600 0‐15,700ponderosapine 352 0‐2,900 1,500‐22,900

StructuralStage‐(acres)MoistForest–YFMS 9,604 0‐6,000 0‐5,300MoistForests–SI 4,004 0‐1,500 0‐3,000


WildlifeHabitat Theamountofwhite‐headedwoodpeckerandgoshawkhabitatiswithinHRVandFRV

butisoverlyfragmented. TheamountofAmericanmartenhabitatisoverFRVandisoverlyfragmented. TheamountofcurrentnorthernspottedowlhabitatiswithinHRVbutisover‐abundant

comparedtoFRVandisoverlyfragmented. TheamountofpotentialfuturenorthernspottedhabitatiswithinHRVandFRV,butis

alsooverlyfragmented.

Wildlifemeasure Current HRV FRVHabitat‐PercentLand(acres)spottedowl‐current 7,598 970‐12,000 0‐5,400spottedowl–future 8,076 1,700‐18,100 760‐18,100

Habitat‐PatchDensity(patchesper10khectares)spottedowl‐current 35 9‐47 0‐35spottedowl–future 91 9‐47 2‐45

Habitat‐EdgeDensity(metersperhectare)spottedowl‐current 34 4‐27 0‐25spottedowl–future 36 8‐30 1‐35

Disturbance Crownfirepotential“high”categoryiswayaboveFRV. Westernsprucebudworm“moderatehazard”isaboveHRVandFRVwhilethe“low

hazard”categoryisatthelowerendoftheFRVrange.Disturbancemeasure Current HRV FRVCrownFirePotential(acres)Low 6,671 4,200‐16,100 12,000‐27,000Moderate 7,270 23,400‐8,300 1,500‐10,700High 15,592 5,700‐19,200 0‐7,100

WesternSpruceBudwormHazard(acres)Low 6,657 1,800‐10,600 27,100‐28,200Moderate 9,103 1,200‐8,200 3,300‐8,000High 13,773 13,700‐24,700 9,600‐23,300


4.3.NorthForkTaneumTerrestrialLandscapePrescription Reconnectvegetationandhabitatpatchesbasedonpatternsoftopography/soil

o Acrossthewatershed,focusonconnectingsimilarpatchesformostcover‐structureandwildlifehabitatstoreducetototalnumberofpatchesandedgedensitiesbaseduponinherentpatternsoftopographyandsoilwithinthewatershed.

Treatmoist‐foreststandinitiation:o Usepre‐commercialthinningtoacceleratesuccessionaldevelopmentofmoist

forestsi,whichisfoundpredominatelyonTheNatureConservancy(2,684ac.,67%ofallmf‐si)andUSForestService(1,002ac.,25%ofallmf‐si)ownerships.

Treatmoist‐forestyoungforestmulti‐story:o Withinmoistforests,convert~4,000acresofyfmstostemexclusionopen

canopy(seoc)inordertoacceleratedevelopmentofoldforeststructureswhilereducingcrownfirepotentialandwesternsprucebudwormhazard.

o Dependingupontreatmentandsuccessionrateswithinthecurrentsi,another~1,000acresofyfmsmaybeconvertedtostandinitiation

o Treatmentsofmoistforest‐youngforestmulti‐storywillnecessarilybefocusedonUSForestServicelandswhichcontain91%(8,773ac.)ofthemoistforest‐yfms.

Decreasedisturbancehazards.o Usetreatmentsinmoistforest–youngforestmultistorytoreducefireand

insecthazards,particularlyinlocationswheretreatmentcanbeusedtoprotectnorthernspottedowlcurrentandfuturehabitat.

Promoteponderosapineandwesternlarchcovero Wherepossible,usetreatmentswithinsiandyfmstoreduceDouglas‐fircover

andpromoteponderosapineandwesternlarch.Thisisparticularlyvaluablewithinrelativelydrierlocationsbasedupontopographyandsoils,andcanbeusedtocreatelargerpatchesofhabitatforwhite‐headedwoodpeckers.

Long‐termhabitatshiftsacrosssubwatershedo Planforalongtermshiftofnorthernspottedowlandotherlatesuccessional

habitatsfrommesicanddryforests“lower”inthesubwatershed(easternhalfofsubwatershed)tothemoistandcoldforests“higher”inthewatershed(westernhalfofthesubwatershed)wheretheywillbemostsustainable.

o Identifylandscapelocationsinthedryandmesicforests,suchasnorthslopesandvalleybottoms,whereclosed‐canopymulti‐layeredhabitatsaremostlikelytobesustainedandcanbemanagedforfuturereplacementhabitat.

Increasewildlifehabitateffectivenesso Developanintegratedapproachtoaccessmanagementthatreducesoverall

effectsoftravelroutesonaquaticandterrestrialhabitats,whileprovidingaccessneededforrecreationandforestmanagement.


5.TaneumSubwatershed5.1TaneumAquaticEvaluationandPrescriptionTheTaneumsubwatershedis25,726acresinsizeandincludesaconsiderableamountofcurrentrearinghabitatforsteelhead(Fig.6).Theoverallroaddensityishigh,givingthewatershedapoorconditionrating.Roaddensitiesarefairlyevenlydistributedacrossthewatershed(Fig.7).Themainroad(Rd33)alongTaneumCreek,occurswithinfloodplains,isconfiningthechannel,reducingthepotentialrecruitmentoflargewood,andhasthepotentialtochronicallydeliversedimenttothestream.

TheterrestriallandscapeevaluationshowedthatforestedhabitatsaregenerallyoverlyfragmentedcomparedtoboththeHRVandFRV,andthatwithinthedryforests,theabundanceofstemexclusionclosedcanopy(SECC),youngforest‐multi‐story(YFMS)andstandinitiation(SI)areoverabundantcomparedtoHRVandFRV.Theterrestriallandscapeprescriptionidentifiedopportunitiesacrosslandownershipstorestoreforestvegetationstructureandcompositiontomoreresilientconditions,whichinturnwouldreducetheriskofuncharacteristicallyseverefiresandcontributetotherecoveryoflistedfishspecies(Bissonetal.2003,Reissetal.2008).

Weidentifiedfiverestorationopportunityareasalongthemain‐stemTaneumCreek(Fig.8).Inaddition,weidentifiedareaswithhighdensitiesofroadsandroad‐streamcrossingswhereadditionalfieldworkcouldidentifyopportunitiestoreduceroaddensitiesandrestorewatershedprocessesandfunctions(Fig.9).Finally,thereisanopportunitytoreviewthecurrentlocationofthemainroad(Rd33)anddetermineifitcouldberelocatedtoreducethenegativeimpactsthisroadishavingontheaquaticenvironment.

Collectivelytheseprojectswouldaddressthefollowinglimitingfactorsidentifiedforsteelheadrecovery:degradedfloodplains,degradedchannel,degradedriparianareaandLWD,andalteredsedimentrouting.

OpportunityArea1–Section29,30,confluenceofCedarCreekandTaneumCreek

Incisedchannelsdeliversedimenttomainchannelwithinexistingsteelheadhabitatandculvertsaresmallandpartiallyoccluded(Tphotos1.1,1.2,and1.3).

OpportunityArea2–Section29,TaneumCreek

Therearedispersedcampingsitesinthefloodplaindirectlyadjacenttothestreamdeliveringsedimenttothemainchannelintoexistingsteelheadhabitat(Tphotos2.1.2.2,and2.3).

OpportunityArea3–Sections28,29,TaneumCreek

Thereisanunnamed/numberedroadwithabridge.Sedimentisdeliveredfromtheroadsurfaceanddispersedcampsitesintoexistingsteelheadhabitat(Tphotos3.1,3.2,3.3,and3.4).


‐Themainline3300roadisimmediatelyadjacenttothestreamwithinexistingsteelheadhabitat.Thisroadparallelsdirectlyalongsidethestream,confinesthechannel,reducesfloodplainpotential,contributessediment,andhasreducedthesourceforLWD(Tphotos4.1and4.2).Therearedispersedcampingsitesinthefloodplaindirectlyadjacenttothestreamdeliveringsedimenttothemainchannel(Tphotos4.3and4.4).



Themainline3300roadisimmediatelyadjacenttothestreamwithinexistingsteelheadhabitat.Thisroadparallelsdirectlyalongsidethestream,confinesthechannel,reducesfloodplainpotential,contributessediment,andhasreducedthesourceforLWD(Tphotos5.1and5.2).


Conductfieldsurveystoidentifyspecificroadsandroad‐streamcrossingsforrestoration,includingintegrationwithareasidentifiedforterrestrialrestorationtreatments.Theseinclude:theareasadjacenttoandupslopefromOpportunityArea1;theareatothesouthofTaneumCreekandOpportunityArea3alongShadowCreek;theareatothesouthofTaneumCreekandOpportunityArea4betweenShadowCreekandYahneCanyon(Fig.8).

5.2TaneumTerrestrialLandscapeEvaluationTheTaneumCreeksubwatershed(UYK_0504)is25,726acrescomprisedprimarilyofdryforests(12,109ac.)withsmalleramountsofmoistforests(6,194ac.)andothervegetationtypes(7,545ac.).WashingtonDepartmentofFishandWildlifeislargestlandowner(WDFW;13,465ac.)followedbyWashingtonDepartmentofNaturalResources(WDNR;4,743ac.),USForestService(USFS;3,693ac.)andothers(3,931ac.).HistoricalRangeofVariability(HRV)referenceconditionswerebaseduponEcologicalSub‐Region(ESR)11,andFutureRangeofVariability(FRV)referenceconditionswerebaseduponESR90.Vegetation Overall,vegetationpatchesareoverlyfragmentedwithpatchdensity,meannearest

neighbor,andedgedensityspatialmetricsdepartedfromHRVandFRVformanyvegetationmeasures.

CoverofDouglas‐firisatthehighendbothHRVandFRV,especiallywithindryforests,whilethecoverofponderosapineisonthelowerendofHRVandFRV.

Withindryforests,thestemexclusionclosedcanopy(secc),standinitiation(si),andyoungforestmulti‐story(yfms)structuralstagesareoverabundantcomparedtoHRVandFRV

VegetationVariable Current HRV FRVCover‐(acres)Douglas‐fir 11,399 0‐13,700 0‐11,400ponderosapine 6,515 1,400‐20,000 0‐16,300Dryforest‐Douglas‐fir 5,750 0‐3,000 0‐2,300

StructuralStage‐(acres)Dryforest–SI 3,062 0‐2,600 0‐2,200Dryforest–SECC 1,419 0–200 0‐130Dryforest–YFMS 4,221 0‐2,300 0‐2,300

WildlifeHabitat Theamountofwhite‐headedwoodpecker,goshawk,andnorthernspottedowlcurrent

habitatisatthelowerendofHRVandFRV. TheamountofpotentialfuturenorthernspottedowlhabitatiswithinHRVandFRV,but

isoverlyfragmented.

Wildlifemeasure Current HRV FRV


Habitat‐PercentLand(acres)spottedowl‐current 492 0‐4,700 0‐4,100spottedowl‐future 8,896 700‐15,800 0‐14,600

Habitat‐PatchDensity(patchesper10khectares)spottedowl‐future 88 3‐45 0‐27

Habitat‐EdgeDensity(metersperhectare)spottedowl‐future 53 1‐35 0‐33

Disturbance FireandinsecthazardvariablesareallwithinverywideHRVandNRVranges.5.3TaneumTerrestrialLandscapePrescription Reconnectvegetationandhabitatpatchesbasedonpatternsoftopography/soil


o Inparticular,focusonconnectingpatchesofnorthernspottedowlpotentialfuturehabitatandwhite‐headedwoodpeckerhabitat.

Thinningdryforestclosedcanopypatchestocreateopencanopyconditionso Withindryforest,convert900+acresofstemexclusionclosedcanopyand

3,700+acresofyfmstoopencanopyconditions(likelytostemexclusionopencanopy,seoc)inordertoacceleratethedevelopmentofoldforestsinglestory(ofss)andtoreducedfirepotentials.Prioritizethinningwherelarge(25”+dbh)ponderosapineand/orwesternlargearealreadypresent. ThinningofdryforestyfmscanincludeWDFW(2,471ac.total),USFS

(1,042ac.)andWDNR(684ac.total)ownerships. EssentiallyalldryforestsecccouldbethinnedonWDFW(388ac.total),

USFS(193ac.total)andWDNR(277ac.total)ownerships.o Withindryforests,thinstandinitiationwhereverpossibletoaccelerate

successionaldevelopmentandpromoteopencanopystandconditionswithponderosapine/westernlarchcover. IncludesdryforestsionWDFW(1,888ac.),USFS(177ac.)andWDNR

(957ac.)ownerships. Promoteponderosapineandwesternlarchcover

o Wherepossible,usethinningtreatmentstoreduceDouglas‐fircoverandpromoteponderosapineandwesternlarch.Thisisparticularlyvaluablewithinrelativelydrierlocationsbasedupontopographyandsoils,andcanbeusedtorestorehabitatabundanceandpatchsizesforwhite‐headedwoodpeckers.

Balancethinningandwildlifehabitato Thinningofclosedcanopypatchesneedstobebalancedwiththemaintenanceof

northernspottedowlandgoshawkhabitat.Usethinningtoprotectclosedcanopywildlifehabitatsfromtransmissionoffireandinsectdisturbances.

o Duetothetransientnatureofclosed‐canopy,multi‐layeredhabitatswithinthedryandmesicforests,consideredidentifyinglandscapelocations,suchasnorthslopesandvalleybottoms,wherethesehabitatsaremostlikelytobesustainedandcanbeusedforfuturereplacementhabitat.

Increasewildlifehabitateffectiveness


o Developanintegratedapproachtoaccessmanagementthatreducesoveralleffectsoftravelroutesonaquaticandterrestrialhabitats,whileprovidingaccessneededforrecreationandforestmanagement.


6. NorthForkManastash

6.1NorthForkManastashAquaticEvaluationandPrescriptionTheNorthForkManastashsubwatershedis13,447acresinsizeandincludesabout8milesofpotentialhabitatforsteelhead(Fig.6).Theoverallroaddensityishigh,givingthewatershedapoorconditionrating.Theroaddensitiesarenotevenlydistributedacrossthewatershed,withthehighestdensitiesoccurringinthewesternportion(Fig.7).

TheterrestriallandscapeevaluationshowedthatforestedhabitatsaregenerallyoverlyfragmentedcomparedtoboththeHRVandFRV,andthatwithinthedryforests,theabundanceofstemexclusionclosedcanopy(SECC),youngforest‐multi‐story(YFMS)andstandinitiation(SI)areoverabundantcomparedtoHRVandFRV.Theterrestriallandscapeprescriptionidentifiedopportunitiesacrosslandownershipstorestoreforestvegetationstructureandcompositiontomoreresilientconditions,whichinturnwouldreducetheriskofuncharacteristicallyseverefiresandcontributetotherecoveryoflistedfishspecies(Reissetal.2008).


Conductfieldsurveystoidentifyspecificroadsandroad‐streamcrossingsforrestoration,includingintegrationwithareasidentifiedforterrestrialrestorationtreatments.

6.2NorthForkManastashTerrestrialLandscapeEvaluationTheNorthForkManastashsubwatershed(UYK_0509)is13,447acrescomprisedprimarilyofdryforest(8,127ac.)withsmalleramountsofmoistforest(1,291ac.)andothervegetationtypes(4,033ac.).OwnershipisdominatedbyWashingtonDepartmentofFishandWildlife(WDFW,8,467ac.)alongwithWashingtonDepartmentofNaturalResources(WDNR,3,264ac.),USForestService(USFS,1,287ac.)andotherownerships(433ac.).HistoricalRangeofVariability(HRV)referenceconditionswerebaseduponEcologicalSubRegion(ESR)11,andFutureRangeofVariability(FRV)referenceconditionswerebaseduponESR90.Vegetation Overall,vegetationpatchesarefragmentedwithpatchdensity(toohigh),meannearest

neighbordistances(toolow),andedgedensity(toohigh)spatialmetricsdepartedfromHRVandFRVformanyvegetationmeasures.

CoverofDouglas‐firisinexcessofbothHRVandFRV,particularlywithindryforests.PonderosapineandwesternlarcharebothatthelowendofHRVandFRV.

Particularlywithindryforests,theabundanceofstandinitiation(si),stemexclusionclosedcanopy(secc),andyoungforestmultistory(yfms)structuralstagesareattheupperendorexceedingHRVandFRV.Thestemexclusionopencanopy(seoc),oldforestsinglestory(ofss)andoldforestmultistory(ofms)structuralstagesareallatthelowendofHRVandFRV.

Vegetationmeasure Current HRV FRVCover(acres)Douglas‐fir 6,608 0‐7,100 0‐6,000ponderosapine 2,526 700‐10,420 0‐8,500Dryforest‐Douglas‐fir 5,458 0‐1,600 0‐1,200


StructuralStage(acres)Dryforest‐SI 2,043 0‐1,300 0‐1,100Dryforest‐SECC 511 0‐0 0‐0Dryforest‐YFMS 2,213 0‐1,200 0‐1,200

WildlifeHabitat TheamountofwhiteheadedwoodpeckerhabitatisatthelowendofHRVandFRVis

overlyfragmented.AbundanceofgoshawkhabitatisalsoatthelowendofHRVandFRV.

TheamountofcurrentandpotentialfuturenorthernspottedowlhabitatarebothwithinHRVandFRV,butarealsobothoverlyfragmented.

Wildlifemeasure Current HRV FRVHabitat(acres)whiteheaded

woodpecker 532 0‐2,300 0‐1,700spottedowl‐current 1,116 0‐2,500 0‐2,200spottedowl‐future 3,337 350‐8,300 0‐7,700

Disturbance Crownfirepotential“high”categoryisaboveHRVandFRVwhilethe“low”categoryisat

lowendofHRVandFRV. Westernsprucebudworm“moderatehazard”isaboveHRVandFRVwhilethe“low

hazard”categoryisatthelowerendoftheFRVrange.

Disturbancemeasure Current HRV FRVCrownFirePotential(acres)low 7,615 5,400‐12,261 5,900‐13,400moderate 2,420 700‐4,900 0‐4,300high 3,416 0‐3,200 0‐2,800

WesternSpruceBudwormHazard(acres)low 5,743 1,200‐12,900 1,400‐13,400moderate 5,032 150‐1,600 0‐3,500high 2,676 400‐10,600 0‐9,200


6.3NorthForkManastashTerrestrialLandscapePrescription Reconnectvegetationandhabitatpatchesbasedonpatternsoftopography/soil


o Inparticular,focusonconnectingpatchesofwhiteheadedwoodpecker,northernspottedowlcurrent,andnorthernspottedowlpotentialfuturehabitat.

Thinningdryforestclosedcanopypatchestocreateopencanopyconditionso Withindryforest,convert500+acresofstemexclusionclosedcanopyand

1,500+acresofyfmstoopencanopyconditions(likelytostemexclusionopencanopy,seoc)inordertoacceleratethedevelopmentofoldforestsinglestory(ofss)andtoreducedfirepotentials.Prioritizethinningwherelarge(25”+dbh)ponderosapineand/orwesternlargearealreadypresent. ThinningofdryforestyfmscanincludeWDFW(1,072ac.total),WDNR

(925ac.total),andtoalesserextent,USFS(73ac.)ownerships. EssentiallyalldryforestsecccouldbethinnedonWDFW(307ac.total),

USFS(148ac.total)andWDNR(55ac.total)ownerships.o Withindryforests,thinstandinitiationwhereverpossibletoaccelerate

successionaldevelopmentandpromoteopencanopystandconditionswithponderosapine/westernlarchcover. IncludesdryforestsionWDFW(1,672ac.),USFS(124ac.)andWDNR

(218ac.)ownerships. Promoteponderosapineandwesternlarchcover

o Wherepossible,usethinningtreatmentstoreduceDouglas‐fircoverandpromoteponderosapineandwesternlarch.Thisisparticularlyvaluablewithinrelativelydrierlocationsbasedupontopographyandsoils,andcanbeusedtorestoretheabundanceandspatialpatternofwhite‐headedwoodpeckerhabitat.

Decreasedisturbancehazards.o Usethinningtreatmentsindryforeststoreducefireandinsecthazards,.


northernspottedowlandgoshawkhabitat.Usethinningtoprotectclosedcanopywildlifehabitatsfromtransmissionoffireandinsectdisturbances.

o Duetothetransientnatureofclosed‐canopy,multi‐layeredhabitatswithinthedryandmoistforests,consideredidentifyinglandscapelocations,suchasnorthslopesandvalleybottoms,wherethesehabitatsaremostlikelytobesustainedandcanbeusedforfuturereplacementhabitat.




7. RobinsonCreek

7.1RobinsonCreekTerrestrialLandscapeEvaluationTheRobinsonCreeksubwatershed(UYK_0507)is35,131acresandhassomedryforest(6,628ac.),nomoistorcoldforest,andispredominatelycoveredwithothervegetationtypes(28,551ac.).OwnershipissplitbetweenWashingtonDepartmentofFishandWildlife(WDFW,11,036ac.),WashingtonDepartmentofNaturalResources(WDNR,2,713ac.),andotherownerships(21,430ac.).HistoricalRangeofVariability(HRV)referenceconditionswerebaseduponEcologicalSubRegion(ESR)11,andFutureRangeofVariability(FRV)referenceconditionswerebaseduponESR90.Vegetation Withindryforests,theabundanceoftheyoungforestmultistory(yfms)structuralstage

isabovebothHRVandNRV. Treespeciescoverisdominatedbyponderosapine,in‐linewithHRVandNRV. Relativelylowlevelofforestvegetationcoveracrossthesubwatershedcomplicates

comparisonsofpresentdayandHRV/NRVvegetationreferenceconditions.Vegetationmeasure Current HRV FRVCover(acres)ponderosapine 6,244 1,900‐27,200 0‐22,400

StructuralStage(acres)Dryforest‐YFMS 3,596 0‐3,200 0‐3,100

WildlifeHabitat TheamountofwhiteheadedwoodpeckeriswithinHRVandFRVbutisoverly

fragmented. Theamountsofcurrentnorthernspottedowlandpotentialfuturenorthernspottedowl

habitatareatthelowendofHRVandNRVrangesandareoverlyfragmented.Wildlifemeasure Current HRV FRVHabitat(acres)whiteheadedwoodpecker 2,681 0‐5,800 0‐4,600spottedowl‐current 486 0‐6,400 0‐5,700spottedowl‐future 3,487 900‐21,600 0‐20,000

Disturbance Disturbancemeasuresincludingcrownfirepotentialandwesternsprucebudhazard

categoriesarewithinHRVandFRVranges.However,themajorityofcurrentlyforestedlandshave“high”westernsprucebudwormhabitat.

Disturbancemeasure Current HRV FRVCrownFirePotential(acres)low 33,942 14,400‐32,000 15,400‐35,100moderate 891 1,800‐12,800 0‐11,100high 346 0‐8,500 0‐7,400


WesternSpruceBudwormHazard(acres)low 31,070 3,200‐33,600 3,700‐35,100moderate 70 390‐9,500 0‐9,100high 4,039 1,100‐27,800 0‐24,000

7.2RobinsonCreekTerrestrialLandscapePrescription Reconnectvegetationandhabitatpatchesbasedonpatternsoftopography/soil

o Acrossthewatershed,focusonconnectingsimilarpatchesformostcover‐structureandhabitattypestoreducetototalnumberofpatchesandedgedensitiesbaseduponinherentpatternsoftopographyandsoilwithinthewatershed.

o Inparticular,focusonconnectingpatchesofwhiteheadedwoodpecker,northernspottedowlcurrent,andnorthernspottedowlpotentialfuturehabitat.

Thinningdryforestclosedcanopypatchestocreateopencanopyconditionso Withindryforest,convert2,000+acresofyfmstoopencanopyconditions

(likelytostemexclusionopencanopy,seoc)inordertoacceleratethedevelopmentofoldforestsinglestory(ofss)andtoreducedfirepotentials.Thinningmayalsoincludeclosedcanopystandinitiation(si).Prioritizethinningwherelarge(25”+dbh)ponderosapineand/orwesternlargearealreadypresent. ThinningofdryforestyfmscanincludeWDFW(2,660ac.total),WDNR

(699ac.total)ownerships. Decreasedisturbancehazards.

o Usethinningtreatmentsindryforeststoreducefireandinsecthazards,particularlyfocusingonsprucebudwormhazard.


northernspottedowlhabitat.Usethinningtoprotectclosedcanopywildlifehabitatsfromtransmissionoffireandinsectdisturbances.

o Duetothetransientnatureofclosed‐canopy,multi‐layeredhabitatswithinthedryandmesicforests,consideredidentifyinglandscapelocations,suchasnorthslopesandvalleybottoms,wherethesehabitatsaremostlikelytobesustainedandcanbeusedforfuturereplacementhabitat.



8. MonitoringandAdaptiveManagementMonitoring and adaptive management are important components of collaborative landscape restoration (Salafsky et al. 2005, Stankey et al. 2005, Gaines and Lehmkuhl 2015, Hessburg et al. 2015). Monitoring and adaptive management provide a framework for the evaluation of how restorative aquatic and terrestrial actions add up to more resilient landscapes and watersheds (Salafsky et al. 2005). By using the terrestrial and aquatic indicators that were developed to evaluate landscape and watershed conditions, managers can periodically assess progress towards restoration across landownerships. For the Tapash Manastash-Taneum Landscape Evaluation Project, it is suggested that once land managers have developed relatively concrete ideas of


projects to implement the landscape prescriptions (e.g., Proposed Actions) that the landscape terrestrial and aquatic indicator metrics be re-run to assess the cumulative impacts of these projects on moving the landscapes and watersheds towards more resilient conditions. In this manner, project proposals may be modified or future projects identified so the collaborative can continue to meet or make progress towards their Mission and Objectives.


LiteratureCitedAplet,G.H.,andW.S.Keeton.1999.Applicationofhistoricrangeofvariabilityconceptsto

biodiversityconservation.Pages71‐86in:R.Baydack,H.Campa,andJ.Haufler.(eds.).Practicalapproachestotheconservationofbiodiversity.IslandPress,Washington,DC.

Benda,L.,D.Miller,P.Bigelow,andK.Andras.2003.Effectsofpost‐wildfireerosiononchannelenvironments,BoiseRiver,Idaho.ForestEcologyandManagement178:105‐119.

Benda,L.E.,D.J.Miller,K.Miller[andothers].2007.NetMap:anewtoolinsupportofwatershedscienceandresourcemanagement.ForestScience53:206‐219.

Bisson,P.A.,B.E.Rieman,C.Luce,P.F.Hessburg,D.C.Lee,J.L.Kershner,G.H.Reeves,andR.E.Gresswell.2003.FireandaquaticecosystemsofthewesternUSA:currentknowledgeandkeyquestions.ForestEcologyandManagement178:213‐229.

Black,T.A.,R.M.Cissel,andC.H.Luce.2012.TheGeomorphicRoadAnalysisandInventoryPackage(GRAIP)Volume1:DataCollectionMethod.GeneralTechnicalReportRMRS‐GTR‐280WWW.USDepartmentofAgricultureForestServiceRockyMountainResearchStation,FortCollins,CO.

Bunting,S.C.;Kingery,J.L.;Hemstrom,M.A.;Schroeder,M.A.;Gravenmier,R.A.;Hann,W.J.2002.AlteredrangelandecosystemsontheinteriorColumbiaBasin.USDAForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation,Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW‐GTR‐553.

Churchill,D.J.,A.J.Larson,M.C.Dahlgreen,J.F.Franklin,P.F.Hessburg,andJ.A.Lutz.2013.Restoringforestresilience:Fromreferencespatialpatternstosilviculturalprescriptionsandmonitoring.ForestEcologyandManagement291:442‐457.

Cissel,R.M.,T.A.Black,K.A.T.Schreuders,A.Prasad,C.H.Luce,D.G.Tarboton,andN.A.Nelson.2012.TheGeomorphicRoadsAanlysisandInventoryPackage(GRAIP)Volume2:OfficeProcedure.GeneralTechnicalReportRMRS‐GTR‐281WWW.USDepartmentofAgricultureForestServiceRockyMountainResearchStation,FortCollins,CO.

Crow,T.R.,andE.J.Gustafson.1997.Conceptsandmethodsofecosystemmanagement:lessonsfromlandscapeecology.In:Boyce,M.S.;Haney,A.eds.EcosystemManagement:Applicationsforsustainableforestandwildliferesources.YaleUniversityPress,NewHaven,CN:54‐67.

Day,J.W.,jr.,C.A.Hall,A.Yanez‐Arancibia,D.Pimentel,C.IbanezMarti,W.J.Mitsch.2009.Ecologyintimesofscarcity.BioScience59:321‐331.

Dunham,J.B.,andB.E.Rieman.1999.Metapopulationstructureofbulltrout:influencesofphysical,biotic,andgeometricallandscapecharacteristics.EcologicalApplications9:642‐655.

Flitcroft,R.L.,J.A.Falke,G.H.Reeves,P.F.Hessburg,K.M.McNyset,andL.E.Benda.2016.WildfiremayincreasehabitatqualityforspringChinooksalmonintheWenatcheeRiversubbasin,WA,USA.ForestEcologyandManagement359:126‐140.

Furniss,M.J.,T.D.Roelofs,andC.S.Yee.1991.Roadconstructionandmaintenance.In:Meehan,W.R.ed.InfluenceofForestandRangelandManagementonSalmonidFishesandtheirHabitats.AmericanFisheriesSociety,Bethesda,Ml.SpecialPublication19:297‐323.

Furniss,M.J.,T.S.Ledwith,M.A.Love,B.C.McFadin,andS.A.Flanagan.1998.Responseofroad‐streamcrossingstolargefloodeventsinWashington,Oregon,andnorthernCalifornia.USDAForestService,SanDimasTechnologyandDevelopmentCenter,SanDimas,CA.14pp.


Gaines,W.L.,D.W.Peterson,C.A.Thomas,andR.J.Harrod.2012.Adaptationstoclimatechange:ColvilleandOkanogan‐WenatcheeNationalForests.USDAForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation,PNW‐GTR‐862.

Gaines,W.L.andJ.F.Lehmkuhl.2015.Monitoring,AdaptiveManagement,andInformationGaps.Pages103‐125inLehmkuhl,J.,W.Gaines,D.W.Peterson,J.Bailey,andA.Youngblood.Eds.SilvicultureandMonitoringGuidelinesforIntegratingRestorationofDryMixed‐ConiferForestandSpottedOwlHabitatManagementintheeasternCascadeRange.USDAForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation,PNW‐GTR‐915.

Gartner,S.,K.M.Reynolds,P.F.Hessburg,S.Hummel,andS.Twery.2008.Decisionsupportforevaluatinglandscapedepartureandprioritizingforestmanagementactivitiesinachangingenvironment.ForestEcologyandManagement256:1666‐1676.

Girvetz,E.,andF.Shilling.2003.DecisionsupportforroadsystemanalysisandmodificationontheTahoeNationalForest.EnvironmentalManagement32(2):218‐233.

Grenouillet,G.A.,L.Comte.2014.Illuminatinggeographicalpatternsinspecies’rangeshifts.GlobalChangeBiology20:3080‐3091.

Haugo,R.,C.Zanger,T.DeMeo,C.Ringo,A.Shlisky,K.Blankenship,M.Simpson,K.Mellen‐McLean,J.Kertis,andS.Stern.2014.AnewapproachtoevaluateforeststructurerestorationneedsacrossOregonandWashington.ForestEcologyandManagement335:37‐50.

Hessburg,P.F.,B.G.Smith,S.D.Kreiter,C.A.Miller,R.B.Salter,C.H.McNicoll,andW.J.Hann.1999.HistoricalandcurrentforestandrangelandscapesintheinteriorColumbiaRiverBasinandportionsoftheKlamathandGreatBasins.Part1:Linkingvegetationpatternsandlandscapevulnerabilitytopotentialinsectandpathogendisturbances.USDAForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation,PNW‐GTR‐458.

Hessburg,P.F.,B.G.Smith,R.B.Salter,R.D.Ottmar,andE.Alvarado.2000.Recentchanges(1930s‐1990s)inspatialpatternsofinteriornorthwestforests,USA.ForestEcologyandManagement136:53‐83.

Hessburg,P.F.,andJ.K.Agee.2003.AnenvironmentalnarrativeofInlandNorthwestUnitedStatesforests,1800‐2000.ForestEcologyandManagement178:23‐59.

Hessburg,P.F.,J.K.Agee,andJ.F.Franklin.2005.DryforestsandwildlandfiresoftheinlandNorthwestUSA:contrastingthelandscapeecologyofthepre‐settlementandmoderneras.ForestEcologyandManagement211:117‐139.

Hessburg,P.F.,K.M.Reynolds,R.B.Salter,J.D.Dickinson,W.L.Gaines,andR.J.Harrod.2013.LandscapeevaluationforrestorationplanningontheOkanogan‐WenatcheeNationalForest,USA.Sustainability5:805‐840.

Hessburg,P.F.,D.J.Churchill,A.J.Larson,R.D.Haugo,C.Miller,T.A.Spies,M.North,N.A.Povak,R.T.Belote,P.H.Singleton,W.L.Gaines,R.E.Keane,G.H.Aplet,S.L.Stephens,P.Morgan,P.A.Bisson,B.E.Reiman,R.B.Salter,andG.H.Reeves.InPress.Restoringfire‐proneInlandPacificlandscapes:sevencoreprinciples.LandscapeEcology.

Isaak,D.J.,C.Luce,B.E.Rieman.2010.Effectsofclimatechangeandrecentwildfiresonstreamtemperatureandthermalhabitatfortwosalmonidsinamountainrivernetwork.EcologicalApplications20:1350‐1371.

Isaak,D.J.,S.Wollrab,D.Horan,andG.Chandler.2012.ClimatechangeeffectsonstreamandrivertemperaturesacrossthenorthwesternUSfrom1980‐2009andimplicationsforsalmonidfishes.ClimaticChange113:499‐524.

Isaak,D.J.,M.K.Young,D.E.Nagel,D.L.Horan,andM.C.Groce.2015.Thecold‐waterclimateshield:delineatingrefugiaforpreservingsalmonidfishesthroughthe21stcentury.GlobalChangeBiologydoi:10.1111/gcb.12879.


Jones,J.A.,F.J.Swanson,B.C.Wemple,andK.U.Snyder.2000.Effectsofroadsonhydrology,geomorphology,anddisturbancepatchesinstreamnetworks.ConservationBiology14:76‐85.

Kane,V.R.,J.A.Lutz,C.A.Cansler,N.A.Povak,D.Churchill,D.F.Smith,J.T.Kane,andM.P.North.2015.Waterbalanceandtopographypredictfireandforeststructurepatterns.ForestEcologyandManagement338:1‐13.

Kingsolver,J.G.2009.Thewell‐temperaturedbiologist.TheAmericanNaturalist174:755‐768.

Lehmkuhl,J.F.;Lyons,A.L.;Bracken,E.;Leingang,J.;Gaines,W.L.;Dodson,E.K.;Singleton,P.H.2013.Foragecomposition,productivity,andutilizationintheeasternWashingtonCascadeRange.NorthwestScience87(3):207‐231.

Littell,J.S.,E.E.Oneil,D.McKenzie,J.A.Hicke,J.A.Lutz,R.A.Norheim,andM.M.Elsner.2010.Forestecosystems,distributions,andclimaticchangeinWashingtonState,USA.ClimateChange102:129‐158.

Luce,C.H.,andT.A.Black.1999.SedimentproductionfromforestroadsinwesternOregon.WaterResourcesResearch35:2561‐2570.

Luce,C.H.,B.E.Rieman,J.B.Dunham,J.L.Clayton,J.G.King,andT.A.Black.2001.Incorporatingaquaticecologyintodecisionsonprioritizationofroaddecommissioning.WaterResourcesImpact(May):8‐14.

Lundquist,J.D.,S.E.Dickerson‐Lange,J.A.Lutz,andN.C.Cristea.2013.Lowerforestdensityenhancessnowretentioninregionswithwarmerwinters:aglobalframeworkdevelopedfromplot‐scaleobservationsandmodeling.WaterResourcesResearch49:6356‐6370.

Lutz,J.A.,J.W.VanWagtendonk,andJ.F.Franklin.2010.Climatewaterdeficit,treespeciesranges,andclimatechangeinYosemiteNationalPark.JournalofBiogeography37:936‐950.

Mantua,N.,I.Tohver,andA.Hamlet.2009.ImpactsofclimatechangeonkeyaspectsoffreshwatersalmonhabitatinWashingtonState.In:Elsner,M.M.;Littel,J.;Binder,L.W.,eds.TheWashingtonClimateChangeImpactsAssessment.Seattle,WA:CenterforScienceintheEarthSystem,JointInstitutefortheStudyofAtmosphereandOceans,UniversityofWashington:217‐254.

Mantua,N.J.,andC.L.Raymond.2014.Climatechange,fish,andfishhabitatintheNorthCascadeRange.Pages235‐270inRaymond,C.L.,D.L.Peterson,andR.M.Rochefort,Eds.USDAForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation,PNW‐GTR‐892.

Medhurst,R.B.,M.S.Wipfli,C.Binckley,K.Polivka,P.F.Hessburg,andR.B.Salter.2010.Headwaterstreamsandforestmanagement:doesecoregionalcontextinfluenceloggingeffectsonbenthiccommunities?Hydrobiologia641:71‐83.

Meredith,C.,B.Roper,andE.Archer.2014.ReductionsininstreamwoodinstreamsnearroadsintheinteriorColumbiaRiverBasin.NorthAmericanJournalofFisheriesManagement34(3):493‐506.

Miller,D.,C.Luce,andL.Benda.2003.Time,space,andepisodicityofphysicaldisturbanceinstreams.ForestEcologyandManagement178:121‐140.

Mote,P.2003.TrendsinsnowwaterequivalentinthePacificNorthwestandtheirclimaticcauses.GeophysicalResearchLetters30:1601‐1604.

Naiman,R.J.,andM.G.Turner.2000.AfutureperspectiveonNorthAmerica’sfreshwaterecosystems.EcologicalApplications10:958‐970.

NationalMarineFisheriesService(NMFS).2008.MiddleColumbiaRiversteelheadrecoveryplan.Portland,OR.


Polivka,K.M.,E.A.Steel,andJ.L.Novak.2015.Juvenilesalmonandsteelheadoccupancyofstreampoolstreatedandnottreatedwithrestorationstructures,EntiatRiver,Washington.CanadianJournalofFisheriesandAquaticSciences72:166‐174.

Ptyondy,J.P.,andT.W.Geier.2010.ForestServicewatershedconditionframeworktechnicalguide.USDAForestService,Washington,DC.

Reiss,K.Y.,K.Gallo,P.Dawson,D.Konnoff,andL.Croft.2008.Processforevaluatingthecontributionofnationalforestsystemlandstoaquaticecologicalsustainability.ARegionalPilotProjectconductedontheOkanogan‐WenatcheeandColvilleNationalForests.USDAForestService,PacificNorthwestRegion,Region6.Portland,OR.

Rieman,B.E.,D.J.Isaaks,S.Adams.2007.AnticipatedclimatewarmingeffectsonbulltrouthabitatsandpopulationsacrosstheinteriorColumbiaRiverbasin.TransactionsoftheAmericanFisheriesSociety136:1552‐1565.

Rieman,B.E.,P.F.Hessburg,C.Luce,andM.R.Dare.2010.Wildfireandmanagementofforestandnativefishes:conflictoropportunityforconvergentsolutions?BioScience60:460‐468.

Ruff,C.P.,D.E.Schindler,J.B.Armstrong.2011.Temperature‐associatedpopulationdiversityinsalmonconfersbenefitstomobileconsumers.Ecology92:2073‐2084.

Salafsky,N.,R.Margoluis,andK.Redford.2005.Adaptivemanagement:atoolforconservationpractitioners.Washington,DC:WorldWildlifeFund.http://www.fosoline.org/wordpress/wp‐content/uploads/2010/06/AdaptiveManagementTool.pdf.

Stankey,G.H.,R.N.Clark,andB.T.Bormann.2005.Adaptivemanagementofnaturalresources:theory,concepts,andmanagementinstitutions.USDAForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation,PNW‐GTR‐654.

Stephenson,N.L.1998.Actualevopotranspirationanddeficit:biologicallymeaningfulcorrelatesofvegetationdistributionacrossspatialscales.JournalofBiogeography25:855‐870.

SER.2004.TheSERinternationalprimeronecologicalrestoration,version2.SocietyforEcologicalRestorationScienceandPolicyWorkingGroup.

Stine,P.,P.Hessburg,T.Spies,M.Kramer,C.J.Fettig,A.Hansen,J.Lehmkuhl,K.O’Hara,K.Polivka,P.Singleton,S.Charnley,A.Merschel,andR.White.2014.Theecologyandmanagementofmoistmixed‐coniferforestsineasternOregonandWashington:asynthesisoftherelevantbiophysicalscienceandimplicationsforfuturelandmanagement.USDAForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation,PNW‐GTR‐897.

Strauch,R.L.,C.L.Raymond,andA.F.Hamlet.2015.Climatechange,hydrologyandaccessintheNorthCascadeRange.Pages48‐112inRaymond,C.L.,D.L.Peterson,andR.M.Rochefort,Eds.USDAForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation,PNW‐GTR‐892.

Trombulka,S.C.,andC.A.Frissell.2000.Reviewofecologicaleffectsofroadsonterrestrialandaquaticcommunities.ConservationBiology14:18‐30.

USDAForestService(USFS).2012.TheOkanogan‐WenatcheeNationalForestRestorationStrategy:adaptiveecosystemmanagementtorestorelandscaperesiliency.USDAForestService,PacificNorthwestRegion.Portland,OR.

U.S.FishandWildlifeService(USFWS).2011.RevisedRecoveryPlanforthenorthernspottedowl(Strixoccidentaliscaurina).U.SFishandWildlifeService,Portland,OR.

U.S.FishandWildlifeService(USFWS).2015.Draftmid‐Columbiarecoveryunitimplementationplanforbulltroutrecoveryplan.U.SFishandWildlifeService,Portland,OR.


VerHoef,J.M.,E.E.Peterson,andD.M.Theobald.2006.Spatialstatisticalmodelsthatuseflowandstreamdistance.EnvironmentalandEcologicalStatistics13:449‐464.

White,P.S.,andJ.Harrod.1997.Disturbanceanddiversityinalandscapecontext.In:Bissonette,J.A.ed.WildlifeandLandscapeEcology.Springer‐Verlag,NewYork,NY:128‐159.

Wondzell,S.M.2001.TheinfluenceofforesthealthandprotectiontreatmentsonerosionandstreamsedimentationinforestedwatershedsofeasternOregonandWashington.NorthwestScience75(SpecialIssue):128‐140.

YakimaBasinFishandWildlifeRecoveryBoard(YBFWRB).2009.Yakimasteelheadrecoveryplan.YakimaBasinFishandWildlifeRecoveryBoard.http://www.ybfwrb.org.

manastash taneum resilient landscapes project: landscape … · 2016-09-27 · the...

Documents