Advertisement

Options for biodiversity conservation in managed forest landscapes of multiple ownerships in Oregon and Washington, USA

  • Nobuya SuzukiEmail author
  • Deanna H. Olson
Chapter
  • 694 Downloads
Part of the Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation book series (TOBC, volume 9)

Abstract

We examine existing and developing approaches to balance biodiversity conservation and timber production with the changing conservation roles of federal and nonfederal forest land ownerships in the US Pacific Northwest. At landscape scales, implementation of the reserve-matrix approach of the federal Northwest Forest Plan in 1994 was followed by proposals of alternative designs to better integrate disturbance regimes or to conserve biodiversity in landscapes of predominantly young forests through active management without reserves. At stand scales, landowners can improve habitat heterogeneity through a host of conventional and alternative silvicultural techniques. There are no state rules that explicitly require biodiversity conservation on nonfederal lands in the region. However, state forest practices rules require retention of structural legacies to enhance habitat complexity and establishment of riparian management areas to conserve aquatic ecosystems. Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) under the US Endangered Species Act provide regulatory incentives for nonfederal landowners to protect threatened and endangered species. A state-wide programmatic HCP has recently emerged as a multi-species conservation approach on nonfederal lands. Among voluntary incentives, the Forest Stewardship Council certification comprehensively addresses fundamental elements of biodiversity conservation; however, its tough conservation requirements may limit its coverage to relatively small land areas. Future changes in landscape management strategies on federal lands may occur without coordination with nonfederal landowners because of the differences in regulatory and voluntary incentives between ownerships. This raises concerns when potentially reduced protections on federal lands are proposed, and the capacity of the remaining landscape to compensate has been degraded.

Keywords

Forest certification Forest practices rules Habitat Conservation Plans Matrix Nonfederal lands Northwest Forest Plan Regulatory incentives Reserves Voluntary incentives United States 

Abbreviations

CA

California

DBH

Diameter at Breast Height

ESA

US Endangered Species Act

FSC

Forest Stewardship Council

HCP

Habitat Conservation Plan

NWFP

Northwest Forest Plan

OR

Oregon

SFI

Sustainable Forestry Initiative

US

United States

WA

Washington

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Forest Foundation (2002) Standards of sustainability for forest certification: including performance measures and field indicators (2004–2008 AFF standard). Washington, DC, USA, available at http://www.treefarmsystem.org. Cited 25 October 2006
  2. Barbour RJ, Haynes RW, Martin JR, Lee DC, White R, Bormann BT (2006) Context for the Northwest Forest Plan. In Haynes RW, Bormann BT Lee DC, Martin JR (Tech Eds) Northwest Forest Plan: the first 10 years (1994–2003): synthesis of monitoring and research results. Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-651, US Department of Agiculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, pp 11–22Google Scholar
  3. Boersma PD, Kareiva P, Fagan WF, Clark JA, Hoekstra JM (2001) How good are endangered species recovery plans? BioScience 51:643–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bordelon MA, McAllister DC, Holloway R (2000) Sustainable forestry Oregon style. J Forestry 98(1):26–34Google Scholar
  5. Bormann BT, Lee DC, Kiester AR, Spies TA et al (2006) Synthesis: interpreting the Northwest Forest Plan as more than the sum of its parts. In: Haynes RW, Bormann BT, Lee DC, Martin JR (Tech Eds) Northwest Forest Plan: the first 10 years (1994–2003): synthesis of monitoring and research results. Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-651, US Department of Agiculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, pp 23–48Google Scholar
  6. Bury RB, Bury GW (2005) Biogeographic patterns. In: Jones LLC, Leonard WP, Olson DH (eds) Amphibians of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA, pp 14–16 Google Scholar
  7. Call R (2005) Collaborative processes: lessons learned from the Timber Fish Wildlife, Chelan, and Forest and Fish Agreements. Thesis, University of WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  8. Carey AB, Curtis RO (1996) Conservation of biodiversity: a useful paradigm for forest ecosystem management. Wildl Soc Bull 24:610–620Google Scholar
  9. Cissel JH, Swanson FJ, Grant GE, Olson DH, Gregory SV, Garman SL, Ashkenas LR, Hunter MG, Kertis JA, Mayo JH, McSwain MD, Swetland SG, Swindle KA, Wallin DO (1998) A landscape plan based on historic fire regimes for a managed forest ecosystem: the Augusta Creek study. Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-422. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, p 82Google Scholar
  10. Cissel JH, Swanson FJ, Weisberg PJ (1999) Landscape management using historical fire regimes: Blue River, Oregon. Ecol Appl 9:1217–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cissel JH, Anderson P, Olson DH, Puettmann K, Berryman S, Chan S, Thompson C (2006) BLM density management and riparian buffer study: establishment report and study plan. US Department of Interior, US Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5087, p 144 Google Scholar
  12. Clayton D, Olson DH, Nauman RS (2005) Conservation assessment for the Siskiyou Mountains salamander (Plethodon stormi), Version 1.3. USDA Forest Service, Region 6, and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon, Interagecy Special-Status and Sensitive Species Program. Portland, OR. Available at: http://www.or.blm.gov/ISSSP/Conservation_Planning-and-Tools.htm, accessed 27 October 2006
  13. Curtis RO (1997) The role of extended rotations. In: Kohm KA, Franklin JF (eds) Creating a forestry for the 21st century. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 165–170Google Scholar
  14. Curtis RO, DeBell DS, Harrington CA, Lavender DP, St Clair JB, Tappeiner JC, Walstad JD (1998) Silviculture for multiple objectives in the Douglas-fir region. Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-435. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, p 123Google Scholar
  15. DellaSala DA, Reid SB, Frest TJ, Strittholt JR, Olson DM (1999) A global perspective on the biodiversity of the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion. Nat Areas J 19:300–319Google Scholar
  16. Duncan N, Ed. (1999) Management recommendations for survey and manage mollusks, Version 2.0. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and US Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR. Available at: http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/MR/TM23Species/TerrestrialMollusk.pdf. Cited 30 October 2006
  17. Epstein RA (1997) Babbitt v Sweet Home Chapters of Oregon: the law and economics of habitat preservation. Supreme Court Econ Rev 5:1–57Google Scholar
  18. Fletcher R, Adams P, Radosevich S (2001) Comparison of two forest certification systems and Oregon legal requirements. College of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, Available at: http://www.oregonsolutions.net/documents/forestry/certification_comp.pdf. Cited 20 October 2006
  19. Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) (2000) Principles and criteria for forest stewardship, Forest Stewardship Council. Washington, DC, Available at http://www.fscus.org/images/documents/FSC_Principles_Criteria.pdf. Cited 15 October 2006
  20. Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) (2005) Revised final Pacific coast (USA) regional forest stewardship standard version 9.0, Available at http://www.fscus.org/images/documents/2006_standards/pcwg_9.0_NTC.pdf. Cited 12 October 2006
  21. Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) (2006) Certificates in US/ certified forests. Forest Stewardship Council. Available via DIALOG. http://www.fscus.org/certified_companies/index.php?num=*&type=forests. Cited 18 October 2006
  22. Franklin JF, Berg DR, Thornburgh DA, Tappeiner JC (1997) Alternative silvicultural approaches to timber harvesting: variable retention harvest systems. In: Kohm KA, Franklin JF (eds) Creating a forestry for the 21st century. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 111–139Google Scholar
  23. Franklin JF, Spies TA, Pelt RV, Carey AB, Thornburgh DA, Berg DR, Lindenmayer DB, Harmon ME, Keeton WS, Shaw DC, Bible K, Chen J (2002) Disturbance and structural development of natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an example. Forest Ecol Manage 155:399–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gomez DM, Anthony RG (1996) Amphibian and reptile abundance in riparian and upslope areas of five forest types in western Oregon. Northwest Sci 70:109–119Google Scholar
  25. Gomez DM, Anthony RG (1998) Small mammal abundance in riparian and upland areas of five seral stages in western Oregon. Northwest Sci 72:293–302Google Scholar
  26. Hagar JC (2007) Wildlife species associated with non-coniferous vegetation in Pacific Northwest conifer forests: A review Forest Ecol Manage (in press). doi:  10.1016/j.foreco.2007.03.054
  27. Hansen AJ, Garman SL, Weigand JF, Urban DL, McComb WC, Raphael MG (1995) Alternative silvicultural regimes in the Pacific Northwest: simulations of ecological and economic effects. Ecol Appl 5:535–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harding EK, Crone EE, Elderd BD, Hoekstra JM, McKerrow AJ, Perrine JD, Regetz J, Rissler LJ, Stanley AG, Walters EL, NCEAS Habitat Conservation Plan working group (2001) The scientific foundations of Habitat Conservation Plans: a quantitative assessment. Conserv Biol 15:488–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harris LD (1984) The fragmented forest: island biogeography theory and the preservation of biotic diversity. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  30. Hartley MJ (2002) Rationale and methods for conserving biodiversity in plantation forests. Forest Ecol Manage 155:81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hayes JP, Chan SS, Emmingham WH, Tappeiner JC, Kellogg LD, Bailey JD (1997) Wildlife response to thinning young forests in the Pacific Northwest. J Forestry 95:28–33Google Scholar
  32. Hunter ML Jr (1993) Natural fire regimes as spatial models for managing boreal forests. Biol Conserv 65:115–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kareiva P, Andelman S, Doak D, Elderd B, Groom M, Hoekstra J, Hood L, Frances J, Lamoreux J, LeBuhn G, McCulloch C, Regetz J, Savage L, Ruckelshaus M, Skelly D, Wilbur H, Zamudio K, NCEAS Habitat Conservation Plan Working Group (1999) Using science in habitat conservation plans, National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA and American Institute of Biological Science, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  34. Loehle C, MacCracken JG, Runde D, Hicks L (2002) Forest management at landscape scales; solving the problems. J Forestry 100(6):25–33Google Scholar
  35. McComb WC, Spies TA, Emmingham WH (1993) Douglas-fir forests: managing for timber and mature-forest habitat. J Forestry 91:31–42Google Scholar
  36. Molina N, Hussey T, Mulder B (2006a) Key management implications of the Northwest Forest Plan. In: Haynes RW, Bormann BT, Lee DC, Martin JR (Tech eds) Northwest Forest Plan: the first 10 years (1994–2003): synthesis of monitoring and research results. Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-651, US Department of Agiculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, pp 243–277 Google Scholar
  37. Molina R, Marcot BG, Lesher R (2006b) Protecting rare, old-growth, forest-associated species under the survey and manage program guidelines of the northwest forest plan. Conserv Biol 20:306–318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Neitlich PN, McCune B (1997) Hotspots of epiphytic lichen diversity in two young managed forests. Conserv Biol 11:172–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Noss RF, O’Connell MA, Murphy DD (1997) The Science of conservation planning: habitat conservation under the Endangered Species Act. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Olson DH, Rugger C (2007) Preliminary study of the effects of headwater riparian reserves with upslope thinning on stream habitats and amphibians in western Oregon. For Sci 53:331–342Google Scholar
  41. Olson DH, VanNorman KJ, Huff RD (2007a) The utility of strategic surveys for rare and little known species under the US federal Northwest Forest Plan. Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-708, US Department of Agiculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  42. Olson DH, Hagar JC, Carey AB, Cissel JH, Swanson FJ (2001) Wildlife communities in westside and high montane forest. In: Johnson DH, O’Neil TA (eds) Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR, pp 187–212 Google Scholar
  43. Olson DH, Anderson PD, Frissell CA, Welsh HH Jr, Bradford DF (2007b) Biodiversity management approaches for stream-riparian areas: perspectives for Pacific Northwest headwater forests, microclimates, and amphibians. Forest Ecol Manage (in press). doi:  10.1016/j.foreco.2007.03.053
  44. Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) (2001) Northwest Oregon State Forest Management Plan: final draft. Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon, USA, Available at: http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/STATE_FORESTS/nwfmp.shtml. Cited 25 October 2006
  45. Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) (2006) Oregon Department of Forestry Forest Practice Administrative Rules and Forest Practices Act: chapter 629 forest practice administration. Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon, USA, Available at:http://egov.oregon.gov/ODF/PRIVATE_FORESTS/docs/fp/FPArulebk.pdf. Cited 25 October 2006
  46. Palik B, Mitchell RJ, Pecot S, Battaglia M, Pu Mou (2003) Spatial distribution of overstory retention influences resources and growth of longleaf pine seedlings. Ecol Appl 13:674–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pabst RJ, Spies TA (1998) Distribution of herbs and shrubs in relation to landform and canopy cover in riparian forests of coastal Oregon. Can J Bot 76:298–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Public Land Foundation (2005) Forest plan revisions and future for O&C forests. Available via DIALOG http://www.publicland.org/forestPlansRevised.htm. Cited 30 October 2006
  49. Rahn ME, Doremus H, Diffendorfer J (2006) Species coverage in multispecies habitat conservation plans: where’s the science? Bioscience 56(7):613–619 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reeves GH, Williams JE, Burnett K, Gallo K (2006) The aquatic conservation strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan. Conserv Biol 20:319–329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Reichhardt T (1999) ‘Inadequate science’ in US habitat plans. Nature 397:287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rundio DE, Olson DH (2007) Influence of headwater site conditions and riparian buffers on terrestrial salamander response to forest thinning. For Sci 53:320–330Google Scholar
  53. Rykken JJ, Moldenke AR, Olson DH (2007) Headwater riparian forest-floor invertebrate communities associated with alternative forest management practices. Ecol Appl 17:1168–1183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Shilling F (1997) Do habitat conservation plans protect endangered species? Science 276(5319):1662–1663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Society of American Foresters Study Group (1995) Forest certification. J Forestry 93(4):6–10Google Scholar
  56. Spies TA, Turner MG (1999) Dynamic forest mosaics. In: Hunter JR (eds) Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 95–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Spies TA, Hemstrom MA, Youngblood A, Hummel S (2006) Conserving old-growth forest diversity in disturbance-prone landscapes. Conserv Biol 20:351–362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Strittholt JR, DellaSala DA (2001) Importance of roadless areas in biodiversity conservation in forested ecosystems: Case study of the Klamath-Siskiyou Ecoregion of the United States. Conserv Biol 15:1742–1754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Strittholt JR, DellaSala DA, Jiang H (2006) Status of mature and old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest. Conserv Biol 20:363–374CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) (2005) Sustainable Forestry Initiative 2005–2009 Standard, Washington, DC, USA, Available at http://www.aboutsfb.org/generalPDFs/SFBStandard2005–2009.pdf. Cited 12 October 2006
  61. Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI ) (2006) Sustainable Forestry Initiative participants that have completed 3rd party certification, Sustainable Forestry Initiative. Available via DIALOG http://www.sfiprogram.org/generalPDFs/SFI_Certification_List_Website.pdf. Cited 18 October 2006
  62. Taylor MFJ, Suckling KF, Rachlinski JJ (2005) The effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act: a quantitative analysis. Bioscience 55(4):360–367 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thomas JW, Raphael MG, Anthony RG et al (1993) Viability assessments and management considerations for species associated with late-successional and old-growth forest of the Pacific Northwest. The Report of the Scientific Analysis Team, US Department of Agriculture, p 530Google Scholar
  64. Thomas JW, Franklin JF, Gordon J, Johnson KN (2006) The Northwest Forest Plan: origins, components, implementation experience, and suggestions for change. Conserv Biol 20:277–287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. US Department of the Interior (USDI), Fish and Wildlife Service and US Department of Commerce (USDC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service (1996) Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permit Processing Handbook. Available via DIALOG. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/hcp/hcpbook.html. Cited 23 March 2007
  66. US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and US Department of Interior (USDI) (1993) Forest ecosystem management assessment team (FEMAT): an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  67. US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and US Department of Interior (USDI) (1994) Record of decision on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl [Northwest Forest Plan]. Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  68. US Fish and Wildlife Service (2001) Safe Harbor Agreements for private property owners: questions and answers. Endangered Species Program, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA, USA, Available at: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Documents/FWS-safeharborqa.pdf. Cited 23 October 2006
  69. US Fish and Wildlife Service (2002) Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances for non–federal property owners. Endangered Species Program, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA, USA. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/listing/cca.pdf. Cited 8 October 2006
  70. US Fish and Wildlife Service (2006) US Fish and Wildlife Service Conservation Plans and Agreements Database. Available via DIALOG. http://ecos.fws.gov/conserv_plans/servlet/gov.doi.hcp.servlets.PlanSelect. Cited 25 October 2006
  71. Washington Forest Practices Board (WFPB) (1997) Standard methodology for conducting watershed analysis manual, version 4.0, Washington Forest Practices Board, Olympia, WA, USA. Available at: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/forestpractices/watershedanalysis/manual. Cited 20 October 2006
  72. Washington Forest Practices Board (WFPB) (2002) Forest Practices Rules, Title 222 WAC, Washington Forest Practices Board, Olympia, WA, USA. Available at: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/forestpractices/rules. Cited 15 October 2002
  73. Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WSDNR) (2005a) Final Forest Practices Habitat Conservation Plan. Available via DIALOG. http://www.dnr.wa.gov/htdocs/agency/federalassurances/final_fphcp/index.html. Cited 17 March 2007
  74. Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WSDNR) (2005b) Forestry Riparian Easement Program: conserving Washington’s forested stream sides. Small Forest Landowner Office, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA, USA, Available at http://www.dnr.wa.gov/sflo/frep/frepfaqs.pdf. Cited 15 October 2006
  75. Welsh HH Jr, Stauffer H, Clayton DR, Ollivier LM (2007) Strategies for modeling habitat relationships of uncommon species: an example using the Siskiyou Mountains salamander (Plethodon stormi). Northwest Sci 81:15–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wessell SJ (2005) Biodiversity in managed forests of western Oregon: species assemblages in leave islands, thinned, and unthinned forests, Thesis, Oregon State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  77. Wilhere GF (2002) Adaptive management in habitat conservation plans. Conserv Biol 16(1):20–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ZoologyOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.Pacific Northwest Research StationUSDA Forest ServiceCorvallisUSA
  3. 3.Pacific Northwest Research StationCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations