see attached.


Doug


Jeff Juel wrote:


> Can you help me get a copy of the following scientific article?
>
> Belsky, Joy; Brown, R.; Frost, E.; Keeton, B.; Morrison, P.; Nelson, C.;
> Scurlock, M.; Wooten, G., 1995.  Key Elements for Ecological
> Planning:  Management Principles, Recommendations, and Guidelines for
> Federal Lands East of the Cascade Crest in Oregon And Washington. A Report
> to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project.  Columbia
> River Bioregion Campaign, Science Working Group, 41 South Palouse Street,
> Walla Walla, Washington 99362.
>
> Thanks,
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> Jeff Juel
> The Ecology Center, Inc.
> 801 Sherwood Street,  Suite B
> Missoula, MT  59802
> 406-728-5733
> fax: 728-9432
> mailto:jeffjuel@wildrockies.org
>
> Visit the Ecology Center website at: http://www.wildrockies.org/teci


--
__________________________________
Doug Heiken
Oregon Natural Resources Council
PO Box 11648, Eugene OR 97440
541-344-0675, dh@onrc.org
http://www.onrc.org

Back to Recommendations 


Key Elements For Ecological Planning:
Management Principles, Recommendations, and Guidelines for Federal Lands East of the Cascade Crest in Oregon and Washington
A Report to the
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project
Columbia River Bioregion Campaign
Science Working Group
41 South Palouse Street
Walla Walla, Washington 99362
May 19, 1995
 
 
Edited by Cara Nelson, Natural Resources Defense Council 
Joy Belsky 
Oregon Natural Resources Council 
Rick Brown 
National Wildlife Federation 
Evan Frost 
Greater Ecosystems Alliance 
Bill Keeton 
The Wilderness Society 
Peter Morrison 
Sierra Biodiversity Institute 
Cara Nelson 
Natural Resources Defense Council 
Mary Scurlock 
Pacific Rivers Council 
George Wooten 
Sierra Biodiversity Institute 
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 
Introduction 
Chapter I: Terrestrial Species Conservation 
Chapter II: Aquatic Conservation 
Chapter III: Landscape Prioritization and Reserve Design 
Chapter IV: Prescribed Burning 
Chapter V: Thinning 
Chapter VI: Post-Disturbance Logging 
Chapter VII: Fire Fighting 
Chapter VIII: Soil Conservation 
Chapter IX: Livestock Management on Forests and Grasslands 
Chapter X: Prevention of Alien Plant Invasions 
Chapter XI: Road Management 
References 
Executive Summary 
This report was drafted by the Science Working Group of the Columbia River Bioregion Campaign. It provides principles, recommendations, and guidelines that should be incorporated into any planning alternative for federal lands east of the Cascade crest in Oregon and Washington (the "Eastside") that purports to be ecologically sound. Chapter summaries are provided below. 
Chapter I. Terrestrial Species Conservation: Extensive loss of habitat due to logging, grazing, introduction of alien species, mining, fire suppression, and development has put numerous Eastside terrestrial species at risk of extinction or extirpation. This chapter contains standards and guidelines for 1) maintaining large or functionally significant populations of all native terrestrial species and 2) maintaining or restoring well-distributed populations across their historic range on federal lands. The chapter also addresses the limitations of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project's ("ICBEMP") "coarse-filter" method for assessing species status. An alternative approach for assessing species status, both as part of the scientific assessment and as part of subsequent planning prescribed by the Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") alternatives, is described. This approach employs a combination of "coarse-filter" and "fine-filter" methods, depending on the characteristics of the species and data availability. General management guidelines for ensuring sufficient habitat and connectivity to support viable and resilient populations across the landscape are also described. 
Chapter II. Aquatic Conservation: Most Eastside watersheds have been severely degraded. The recovery of aquatic ecosystems and species will depend on the protection and active restoration of watersheds on federal lands. The aquatic conservation strategy proposed in this chapter contains guidelines for a regional aquatic reserve network comprised of Biotic Refuges, Riparian Areas, and Aquatic Diversity Areas ("ADAs"), within which natural diversity and biophysical processes should be largely unimpaired. Watershed assessment should provide the basic planning tool for future management. The first priority for watershed restoration should be to secure reserve areas from any existing or potential threats to their value as refuges for native biota. Ecological indicators of watershed recovery are identified in conjunction with management guidelines which severely restrict or prohibit human activities in aquatic reserves. 
Chapter III. Landscape Prioritization and Reserve Design: Existing protected areas alone are incapable of maintaining biodiversity and important ecological processes on the Eastside. Although these areas play an important role, the system of biological reserves needs to be expanded if it is to protect and restore biological diversity at all levels of organization. Many Eastside ecosystems are either poorly represented or not represented in the current reserve system. An integrated reserve network on the Eastside is necessary to 1) maintain fully functioning ecosystems, 2) maintain well-distributed, viable populations of all native species, 3) provide representation of all natural communities and successional stages, and 4) provide refuges that are relatively resistant to biological invasions and human degradation. An integrated reserve system should act like an insurance policy -- buffering species from the rest of the managed landscape. Reserves are necessary to act as controls in experimental implementation of ecosystem management. They can provide an important gauge of the success or failure of ecosystem management efforts. Landscape prioritization and reserve design are discussed in this chapter. 
Chapter IV. Prescribed Burning: Carefully conducted, prescribed burning has the potential to improve significantly the ecosystem integrity of Eastside forests, where wildfires have been a dominant force shaping the species, communities, structures, and processes for at least the last several millennia. Fire suppression policies over the last century have changed historic fire regimes in some Eastside stands, particularly in the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer communities. These changes in the fire regime, in conjunction with logging, livestock grazing, and other human-caused disturbances, have adversely affected forest health and productivity. Guidelines for using prescribed burning as a tool for restoring the ecological benefits of fire are presented in this chapter. Prescribed burning programs should be carefully planned at the landscape-scale, should mimic natural fire regimes, and should include public information and outreach programs. 
Chapter V. Thinning: There is an emerging scientific opinion that past forest management activities and fire suppression policies have led to the development of forests on some Eastside landscapes that are denser and more homogenous than under pre-settlement conditions. Although thinning treatments are being advocated by some as a tool for facilitating the development of forest conditions that more closely resemble those that would occur under a natural disturbance regime, thinning operations, even when properly conducted, can result in significant adverse ecological impacts. Thinning should be allowed on public forest lands on the Eastside only when the responsible land management agencies can demonstrate that proposed treatments will accomplish desirable ecological goals. The approach to thinning discussed in this chapter is designed to accomplish the presumed benefits associated with this practice while minimizing ecological risks by restricting areas where thinning is allowed and establishing management guidelines to ensure retention of important structures at the stand level. 
Chapter VI. Post-Disturbance Logging: A conservative (i.e. non-manipulative) approach to post-disturbance management is clearly indicated for Eastside landscapes. This approach should emphasize natural recovery. The ecological consequences of removing "dead and dying" trees are described and areas in which post-disturbance logging should be prohibited are identified. The chapter also establishes standards for protecting ecosystem integrity in areas where post-disturbance logging is allowed to occur. 
Chapter VII. Fire Fighting: Fire suppression should not be a goal of forest management, except when human life or private property is at stake. Fire fighting efforts often result in more ecological harm than benefit and are expensive in terms of both dollars and human lives. Instead of aiming to eliminate fire from the landscape, managers on the Eastside should focus on restoring over time ecologically beneficial fire regimes. Recommendations are presented for 1) minimizing ecological damage associated with fire fighting efforts, 2) determining areas where wildfires should not be actively fought, and 3) allowing for protection of human life and property. 
Chapter VIII. Soil Conservation: Scientific literature, agency pronouncements, and the law all recognize soil as "the foundation of the ecosystem." Unfortunately, past Eastside planning and management practices have failed to protect adequately soils and their essential contributions to long-term productivity of terrestrial and aquatic systems. Ecological planning should provide substantially more conservative standards for protection of soil structure, organic matter, and productivity by controlling or eliminating activities on erosive soils and fragile sites, limiting compaction, retaining coarse woody debris ("CWD"), and maintaining complex soil food webs. Equally important, agencies should institute more effective inventorying and monitoring programs and ensure accountability for meeting standards and guidelines. 
Chapter IX. Livestock Management on Forests and Grasslands: Over a century of livestock grazing has significantly damaged Eastside forests. Although recent increases in forest density and susceptibility to diseases and fire are usually attributed to fire suppression and selective logging, the scientific literature suggests that livestock grazing may be the primary cause. Cattle and sheep are alien herbivores which graze at higher densities and for longer time periods than native wildlife species. They have changed Eastside forests by 1) depleting the herbaceous layer which historically out-competed conifer seedlings and reduced tree density, 2) removing herbaceous biomass that would otherwise fuel low-intensity fires, 3) causing the replacement of native herbaceous species with alien and weedy species, and 4) reducing herbaceous cover and disturbing and compacting soils, thus leading to increased erosion, loss of topsoil, and damage to downslope riparian areas. All livestock grazing should be excluded from 1) old-growth forests and forests that have an open, park-like structure, 2) forests still vegetated to some extent by native herbaceous species, 3) forests to which low-intensity fire is to be restored, and 4) areas with steep slopes, fragile soils, and sensitive habitats such as wetlands, springs, and fish-bearing streams. 
Chapter X. Prevention of Alien Plant Invasions: The progressive invasion of alien plants into Eastside ecosystems is a serious long-term threat to the maintenance of ecosystem health and biodiversity. This invasion causes significant resource and economic loss. Introduced alien species are a serious threat to rare native species -- creating the second most important cause of species endangerment nation-wide. They disrupt ecological processes and natural food webs. Since control methods are only temporary, often ineffectual, and can cause serious environmental harm (e.g. effects of herbicides), prevention strategies represent the best method of stopping alien plant invasions. Alien plants primarily occupy disturbed habitats, and are most frequently found in Eastside forests and rangelands that have roads, logging, or excessive grazing. Prevention of further spread into unroaded, unmanaged, and relatively pristine areas is critical to the long-term conservation of ecosystem resources, as these areas still retain undisturbed native flora and natural resilience to management-induced disturbances. Attempts to control invasions should emphasize biological, cultural, and mechanical control measures. Herbicides pose a serious threat to human and ecosystem health and should not be used on public lands to control invasions. 
Chapter XI. Road Management: Roads have been widely constructed to facilitate resource extraction and other land management activities throughout the Eastside. Although existing road systems were planned solely to provide human access, they have resulted in numerous and significant adverse impacts to soils, water quality, wildlife, and other biological resources. Recommendations are discussed in this chapter for 1) managing transportation systems on Eastside federal lands in a manner that does not result in significant and widespread adverse effects on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and 2) reducing road densities by closing/decommissioning roads that cause the greatest harm to biological resources. 
Introduction 
The forests and rangelands east of the Cascade crest in Washington and Oregon (the "Eastside") are recognized in the scientific community as among the most imperiled ecosystems in North America. Over a hundred years of logging, grazing, fire suppression, road-building, mining, development, and introduction of alien species has resulted in widespread degradation of much of the region's 12 million acres of public forest and rangeland. Still, significant areas, including wilderness areas and roadless areas where fire exclusion did not occur, remain less disturbed. 
Concern over species viability and ecosystem integrity on Eastside public lands has led to efforts to conduct ecosystem-based planning at the regional scale. In July 1993, President Clinton directed the Forest Service "...to develop a scientifically sound and ecosystem-based strategy for management of eastside forests." The Chief of the U.S. Forest Service and the Director of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management cooperated to initiate an "ecosystem management" assessment and planning process on federal lands. This process -- entitled the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project ("ICBEMP") -- is scheduled to be completed in early 1996. 
This report provides scientific principles and management recommendations for ecologically sound management of federal lands in eastern Washington and Oregon.1 Any scientifically-based "ecosystem management" plan needs to incorporate these standards to achieve ecosystem protection. The principles and management recommendations are presented in separate chapters to facilitate their review and consideration. Nonetheless, the chapters are highly interrelated and should also be considered in an integrated manner. Although not addressed in its own chapter, water and how water influences and is influenced by ecological processes is a key element. Management alternatives should reflect the central importance of water and its associated ecological, economic, and social value. 
Chapter I: Terrestrial Species Conservation 
OBJECTIVES 
Management plans for Eastside public lands should meet the following key objectives for all native terrestrial species: 
· maintain populations within the range of natural variability, at functionally significant or large population sizes rather than estimated minimum viable population sizes (see Shaffer 1987; Conner 1988); and 
· maintain/restore multiple populations of each species such that they are well-distributed throughout the species' historic range on federal lands. All native species should have a very high (95-99%) probability of having well-distributed populations persist for 200 years or longer (Shaffer 1981 and 1987). 
PRINCIPLES 
Extensive loss of habitat due to logging, grazing, introduction of alien species, fire suppression, mining, road-building, and development has put numerous Eastside species at risk of extinction or extirpation. Over 750 species of plants and animals are considered to be of special concern by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, or the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project 1994). In addition, data is lacking for a significant number of species and taxonomic groups, such as soil invertebrates and fungi, that are not included in the species of concern list mentioned above but may be experiencing reduced viability, with potential serious consequences for overall ecosystem health and resilience. 
Conservation of multiple and well-distributed populations is necessary to achieve the goals of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project ("ICBEMP") (Marcot 1994), to comply with regulatory requirements under the National Forest Management Act, to ensure a very high likelihood of population persistence over time (Shaffer 1981), to maintain ecosystem integrity (structure, function, and composition) across the landscape, and to verify the efficacy of ecosystem management. In order for federal agencies to ensure the continued existence of all native plant and animal species on federal lands, they must develop terrestrial species conservation plans which include realistic methods for protecting extinction-prone species, including adequate safety factors to account for stochastic events such as fires, disease, and other hazards that could threaten species viability (Wilkinson and Anderson 1987). The ICBEMP process should develop and propose a conservative approach to species viability that provides a very high likelihood (95-99%) of maintaining viable, well-distributed populations across the species' distributional range over the long-term (least 200 years) (Shaffer 1981 and 1987).2 
The ICBEMP Terrestrial Team's method of assessing species status, which falls short of agency directives and legal requirements, will not adequately address species viability. Although the Terrestrial Team's charge is to assess "plant and animal species viability," defined in its documents as "the ability of a species to sustain itself," the Team is not actually conducting any viability assessments. In scientific terms, "population viability assessment" has a well-accepted definition: "a comprehensive analysis of the many environmental and demographic factors that affect survival of a population...." (emphasis added) (Meffe and Carroll 1994). Instead of conducting the necessary quantitative analyses of environmental and demographic factors affecting species, the Terrestrial Team is currently using a "coarse-filter" approach which relies on a single indicator -- habitat distribution -- to infer species status. 
There is widespread recognition among ecologists that "coarse-filter" habitat relationship models, such as the ones that the Terrestrial Team is using, have limited utility in predicting the status of many types of species, including those that are extinction-prone (Raphael and Marcot 1986; Verner et. al. 1986; de Becker and Sweet 1988; Ohmann 1992; Scott et. al. 1993). Problems with the habitat relationship model approach include 1) lack of consideration of demographic factors, environmental threats (anthropogenic and natural), and habitat quality, 2) invalid assumption of homogenous abundances in similar habitat types, and 3) reliance on coarse habitat classification systems. Unfortunately, the habitat relationship model approach is likely to yield the least accurate information for the species which are most threatened and, therefore, for which accurate information is most critical. 
For species for which habitat relationship models are inaccurate, including rare, geographically isolated or locally endemic species, or species known to be declining, population viability analyses are needed to ensure that all species have at least a 95% probability of persistence over 200 years or longer (Shaffer 1981 and 1987). For species for which life history and/or population data are lacking, qualitative assessments leading to mandated mitigation measures should be conducted (see Species Analysis Team 1994). Priority species for in depth assessment and management include: 
· extinction-prone species -- which fit into one or more of the following categories: 1) top predators, 2) species which require specialized habitats (e.g. old-growth associated species), 3) poor dispersers, 4) migratory species, 5) species that have a low intrinsic rate of population growth, 6) species that are valued as commodities, 7) locally endemic species, and 8) species with low genetic variability. 
· keystone species -- which influence the occurrence or abundance of other organisms or play an important role in maintaining biological processes; 
· indicator species -- whose occurrence or abundance indicates changes in habitat or management activities; and 
· mobile-link species -- which influence more than one food chain, community, or ecosystem. (Henjum et. al. 1994). 
A "coarse-filter" method that is being utilized by the U.S. Forest Service to assess Eastside habitat relies on the historic range of variability ("HRV") of forest structural stages as a benchmark for determining adequate habitat levels. Although the concept of HRV analysis is of theoretical interest, the HRV analyses that have been conducted on Eastside national forests as part of the interim management direction (U.S. Forest Service 1993a and 1994) have been inaccurate and have lead to erroneous conclusions (see DellaSala et. al. 1994; Natural Resources Defense Council 1994). An ecologically valid HRV analysis would have to be based on ecological data from time periods prior to intensive commercial management. These data are not currently available for much of the Eastside's public lands. HRV determinations also need to incorporate assessments at multiple scales. At a minimum, HRV should be analyzed at both the watershed and landscape levels, such that if a watershed is above HRV for a given biophysical environment/structural stage but the landscape is below, the watershed should not be considered in excess for management purposes. Similarly, even if a landscape is above HRV, management should be deferred in any of the landscape's spatial units that are below HRV. 
In addition, determination of whether any biophysical environment/structural stage is above or below HRV should not be based on the lowest historical threshold for that type. Although short-term fluctuations in habitat availability and corresponding fluctuations in population sizes do not necessarily jeopardize populations in a dynamic system, restricting populations to lowest historical thresholds can reduce population sizes and induce genetic "bottlenecks," leading to inbreeding, greater likelihood of genetic drift, and diminished fitness. It can also increase susceptibility to demographic and environmental stochasticity that ultimately may induce extinction vortices in small populations (Soulé 1983; Gilpin and Soulé 1986). Managers should not, therefore, equate lower thresholds within the HRV with the minimum amount of old-growth or other habitat that should be retained. Rather, sufficient habitat should be maintained such that fluctuations in habitat availability do not cause populations to decline below viable sizes. Habitat conservation standards must also include a reasonable margin for uncertainty and error in HRV estimates and habitat association information. 
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 
A conservative approach to managing terrestrial species should rely on a rigorous multi-pronged method of scientific assessment and conservation planning. The following procedures should be followed: 
Assess the status of all native terrestrial species and develop regional conservation plans. 
Although viability assessments for all native species should be standard protocol, rigorous interim approaches to assessment and conservation planning are needed for species for which currently there are not sufficient data for conducting a population viability assessment. Due to the great diversity of terrestrial species and the variability of existing knowledge of species' life histories and habitat requirements, a multi-pronged approach to assessing species status and designing management plans is required. The most appropriate approach to conservation strategies (e.g. "coarse-filter" versus "fine-filter") will vary depending on the characteristics of individual species and populations (e.g. widely distributed populations versus geographically isolated populations) (Menges 1990; Boyce 1992), as well as the availability of species status data. Utilization of a combination of "coarse-filter" and "fine-filter" approaches should result in viability probabilities with the least degree of uncertainty attainable given limitations in available data, analysis techniques, and project duration (Boyce 1992). 
The basic approach used to assess and manage terrestrial species should depend on the species abundance, mobility, and data availability, as displayed in the following dichotomous key: 
1. common species assess species status with habitat relationship models (Approach A) 
1. uncommon species go to 2 
2. non-mobile species develop "survey and manage" protocols (Approach B) 
2. mobile species develop species conservation plans (Approach C); go to 3 
3. data are available conservation plans based on quantitative viability analysis 
3. data are not available conservation plans based on qualitative viability assessment 
A brief discussion of each of these approaches is presented below. 
Common species 
Approach A -- habitat relationship models: 
For the purpose of conducting species status assessments, common species are defined herein as Eastside plants and animals that are habitat generalists, are known to have large, non-declining population sizes, and have high reproductive rates. "Coarse-filter" wildlife-habitat relationship models (e.g. Grenfell et. al. 1982) can be relatively effective for correlating current and proposed vegetation conditions with the occurrence and abundance of common species. Specific models should be used to estimate habitat suitability, which can then be used to evaluate relative risks to species at the regional level. Validation of modeling results, through field surveys and risk assessments need to be conducted and presented (Raphael and Marcot 1986; Burgman et. al. 1993). 
Uncommon species 
For the purposes of conducting species status assessments, uncommon species should include Eastside plants and animals listed (or proposed or a candidate for listing) as rare, sensitive, threatened, or endangered by federal or state resource management agencies, tribes, or conservation organizations. In addition, uncommon species should include species, such as many invertebrates, lichens, and fungi, for which there are insufficient data to determine their status. These species should be removed from the uncommon list only after federal land managers have sufficient information to determine that they are common. The list of uncommon species identified thus far by the ICBEMP includes over 750 species (Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project 1994). Plants and animals that are extinction-prone, keystone, indicator, or mobile-link species should be the highest priority for viability analysis and conservation planning (see Table 1 for examples of priority species). 
"Coarse-filter" approaches, such as habitat relationship models, will not be adequate for uncommon species. Numerous studies have shown that these models are ineffective at predicting habitat suitability for a wide variety of uncommon species (i.e. those that are rare or localized, dependent on fine-scale habitat elements, and/or disproportionately influenced by spatial habitat patterns or intraspecific interactions) (Raphael and Marcot 1986; Verner et. al. 1986; de Becker and Sweet 1988; Ohmann 1992). Alternative strategies are required for evaluating viability of and conservation alternatives for uncommon species. The approach described here is dependent on species' home range size, vagility, and data availability. 
Table 1: Examples of uncommon terrestrial vertebrate species that are of primary concern. Species included in this list, which is not comprehensive, are extinction-prone, keystone, indicator, or mobile-link species (see "Principles" section above for definitions). Status refers to administrative protection category (FE = Federal Endangered; FT = Federal Threatened; FC2 = Federal Category 2; BLMS = BLM Sensitive; FSS = FS Sensitive; FST = FS Threatened). 
  
  Common NameScientific NameStatus 
Bald eagleHaliaeetus leucocephalus FT, FST
Northern goshawkAccipiter gentilis FC2, FSS
Flammulated owlOtus flammeolus FSS, BLMS
Northern spotted owlStrix occidentalis caurina FT, FSS, FST
Boreal owlAegolius funereus FSS, BLMS
Great gray owlStrix nebulosa FSS
Vaux's swiftChaetura vauxi 
White-headed woodpeckerPicoides albolarvatus FSS, BLMS
Three-toed woodpeckerPicoides tridactylus FSS, BLMS
Black-backed woodpeckerPicoides arcticus FSS, BLMS
Pileated woodpeckerDryocopus pileatus BLMS
Red-breasted nuthatchSitta canadensis 
Pygmy nuthatchSitta pygmaea 
Brown creeperCerthia americana 
Golden-crowned kingletRegulus satrapa 
Swainson's thrushCatharus ustulatus 
Hermit thrushCatharus guttatus 
Townsend's warblerDendroica townsendi 
Pine MartinMartes americana BLMS
FisherMartes pennantiFC2, FSS, BLMS
WolverineGulo guloFC2, FSS, BLMS 
Grey wolfCanis lupusFE
Grizzly BearUrsus arctos FT, FST
LynxLynx lynxFC2, FSS 
Mountain lionFelis concolor 
Approach B -- "survey and manage" for non-mobile species: 
Develop "survey and manage" protocols for uncommon species that are non-mobile (e.g. plants) or have average home range sizes smaller than 5 acres (e.g. amphibians), similar to those adopted for federal lands within the range of the Northern Spotted Owl (FEMAT 1993). Active surveys to locate sites should be mandated for these species; surveys should not rely solely on known sites. Particular attention should be directed at developing "survey and manage" protocols for taxonomic groups, such as amphibians, plants (vascular and non-vascular), lichens, fungi, mollusks, arthropods, and non-volant mammals, for which little information is currently available. Lists of species requiring surveys and the degree of survey specificity should be developed for each national forest, building from those developed by state natural heritage programs, the U.S. Forest Service sensitive species program, and the expert panels on various taxonomic groups convened by the ICBEMP Scientific Integration Team ("SIT"). Mitigation measures that preclude deterioration of habitat suitability due to human causes should be mandated for all locations where uncommon species occur. 
Approach C -- conservation plans for mobile species: 
Individual species conservation plans (Thomas et. al. 1990; Suring et. al. 1992) should be developed for species that are not covered by the "survey and manage" requirement. In particular, conservation plans should be completed for all mobile species (i.e. average home range ³ 5 acres) for which viability is an established concern. Species conservation plans should include a discussion of major threats to viability, mitigation measures that address these threats, and requirements for habitat protection (including minimum size, distribution, and connectivity of required habitat patches) in order to ensure that viable, well-distributed populations exist for species with identified concerns. Such plans should be based on the best available information on taxonomic status, distribution, life history, demography, sensitivity to disturbance, and habitat relationships. Viability should be assessed as follows: 
a) Quantitative viability analysis. 
Where sufficient data on species' habitat requirements and population factors are available, conservation plans should be based on the results of quantitative viability analysis. Several established modeling techniques provide a basis for quantitative viability analysis and subsequent development of habitat-based conservation strategies (e.g. Boyce 1992; Murphy and Noon 1992). 
b) Qualitative viability assessment. 
Where necessary data are lacking, interim qualitative assessments of species viability should be conducted until additional data can be obtained. These assessments should draw from and improve on the approach employed by FEMAT (1993) and the Tongass National Forest (Suring et. al. 1992). Qualitative species viability assessments should include environmental and demographic considerations, and should determine current status as one of at least four potential conditions: 1) well-distributed across its range within eastern Oregon and Washington, 2) locally restricted, 3) restricted to refuges, or 4) at risk of extirpation. Major threats to species viability, and management actions that could most effectively mitigate human-caused impacts, should also be identified. The basis for subjective judgments about viability, and the level of uncertainty involved in determinations, should be clearly articulated. 
All available information from the scientific literature, interim results from ongoing research, and professional judgment of experts familiar with the species involved and habitat conditions on federal lands in the region should be reviewed and incorporated into these assessments and subsequent development of conservation plans. Additional research, statistical analysis of empirical data, and inferences drawn from studies of related species should be conducted to test and strengthen species management guidelines, using an adaptive management approach (Murphy and Noon 1991). When sufficient data become available, quantitative population viability analysis need to be conducted and species conservation plans modified accordingly. 
General Guidelines for Conservation Planning 
Although different assessment strategies are needed for different species types (as described above), some general guidelines for the management and conservation of viable populations have been developed that are widely accepted among specialists in the fields of ecology and conservation biology (e.g. Thomas et. al. 1990; Suring and Crocker-Bedford 1992; Noss and Cooperrider 1994). The following guidelines apply to the development of species conservation plans and overall management scenarios: 
· Maintain habitat connectivity for all species requiring dispersal and migration habitat. Connectivity can potentially be satisfied by adopting one of two strategies (or a hybrid of both), depending on the species involved: 1) maintain/restore discrete habitat corridors, in spatial and dimensional configurations required to facilitate dispersal, migration, recolonization, and genetic interchange between core population centers of target species (Fahrig and Merriam 1985 and 1994; Harris and Scheck 1992) (see also Chapter III) or 2) implement land management guidelines that assure sufficient habitat conditions across the majority of the landscape for dispersal, migration, and recolonization between subpopulations for target species (e.g. Thomas et. al. 1990). 
· Maintain the viability of interacting subpopulations within metapopulations (Gilpin 1990; Harrison 1991). The viability of metapopulations can depend on the viability of individual subpopulations and the interchange between them. For species exhibiting metapopulation dynamics, suitable dispersal habitat should be maintained between interacting subpopulations (Gilpin 1987; Hanson 1991; Hanski and Gilpin 1991). 
· Anticipate natural variability and the potential for habitat loss and accommodate localized extinction caused by disturbance (e.g. catastrophic events) and environmental, genetic, and demographic stochasticity. Anticipating disturbance requires retaining sufficient ecological redundancy to maintain ecosystem resiliency (Walker 1992). In the context of species viability, this means retaining surplus habitat above estimated minimum levels and maintaining multiple, large habitat areas and populations distributed across the landscape (Soulé and Simberloff 1986; Suring and Crocker-Bedford 1992). 
· Maintain potential recolonization habitat in the vicinity of metapopulations that experience frequent, localized extinction of subpopulations (e.g. amphibian metapopulations) (Gilpin 1987; Hanski and Gilpin 1991). 
· Where appropriate, develop multi-species conservation plans that satisfy the needs of species exhibiting similar and overlapping habitat requirements (e.g. Suring et. al. 1992; FEMAT 1993). 
· Maintain the ecological processes, such as fire and hydrologic regimes, that create and maintain habitat to support viable, well-distributed populations of native terrestrial species (Agee and Johnson 1988; Agee 1993; Grumbine 1994). 
· Recover populations of species that are currently known to be declining due to anthropogenic causes. 
· Reintroduce extirpated native species and translocate keystone species where necessary (Griffith et. al. 1989; Mills et. al. 1993). 
· Control non-native species where these are out-competing or displacing native species (Everett et. al. 1994a) (see also Chapter X). Control measures should not include the use of herbicides. 
· Develop and implement a program to monitor 1) indicators of biodiversity at multiple spatial scales and hierarchical levels of biodiversity (Noss 1990a), 2) indicators for ecologically meaningful functional groups (Korner 1993), and 3) sub-regional population trends of indicator species over time. Conservation plans should be updated to reflect new knowledge derived from monitoring, using an adaptive management approach (U.S. Forest Service 1992a; U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment 1992; Grumbine 1994). 
· For areas where management activities are allowed, provide guidelines that follow principles of "ecoforestry" (Hammond 1992). Specifically, set standards for snag, greentree, and coarse woody debris ("CWD") retention, and canopy closure requirements. 
Integrate species status assessments and planning/decision-making. 
Management plans should be developed only after species status assessments have been completed. The ICBEMP SIT needs to provide an evaluation of the quality of the species status assessments and evaluate all regional management scenarios. Specifically, the SIT should: 
· Present clear and appropriate recommendations to the ICBEMP EIS team, including a risk assessment of species viability. 
The ICBEMP SIT should clearly indicate to the EIS Team the limitations of each approach used to evaluate viability (i.e. habitat relationship models, quantitative viability analysis, and qualitative viability assessment) and should specify the level of accuracy in viability determinations that are derived from these approaches. They also should use the relevant confidence levels achieved to specify the implications and utility of the various types of viability evaluations for developing management plans. The basis for determinations about relative risks to viability (e.g. lack of important data) should be clearly articulated. The SIT should provide recommendations for developing regional management scenarios that are sensitive to the level of uncertainty associated with the species status assessments, such that more conservative approaches are used for species for which assessments are less accurate. 
· Assess the probability of maintaining species viability under each proposed management scenario. 
Management scenarios should be evaluated based on their ability to ensure, at a minimum, at least a 95% probability of having well-distributed populations for longer than 200 years of all native terrestrial species across federal lands (Shaffer 1981 and 1987). All available empirical and theoretical evidence should be utilized and presented to support viability evaluations of proposed management scenarios. The implicit scientific uncertainties and potential consequences of implementing any management scenario should also be rigorously explored and clearly articulated. 
Provide project level direction for species conservation. 
Although viability assessments at the regional level are critical for developing species conservation strategies, project level consideration of the status of populations also will be necessary in order to maintain multiple, well-distributed populations of all native species. Regional species conservation strategies should stipulate project level mitigation measures and guidelines. The guidelines listed in the "General Guidelines for Conservation Planning" section above should be incorporated into project level plans. In addition, project level assessments will be needed to determine if additional provisions are needed to maintain population viability. EIS alternatives will have to prescribe general guidelines for conducting assessment of project impacts on populations. These guidelines should: 
· Prescribe populations as the operative units for assessment of project level impacts. 
Although EIS alternatives assess and ensure viability of species at the regional level, they should prescribe populations as the operative units of ecological organization for project level impact assessments. Ruggiero et. al. (1995) point out that "the gross mismatch of scales between the geographical scale of management actions (e.g. a timber sale) and the scale of ecological responses (e.g. species viability) reduces the reliability of environmental assessments." Population level responses to management activities can be more readily assessed than species level responses. 
· Prescribe general guidelines for population viability assessment during project planning. 
Population viability assessments at the project level may only be necessary for certain types of species, such as extinction-prone, indicator, or keystone species. Ruggiero et. al. (1995) present a six step process for conducting population viability impact assessments at the project level. This process includes delineating spatial areas of analysis that are relevant to 1) the viability of individual populations and metapopulations, 2) the direct impact of a particular management activity, and 3) the cumulative effects of management activities. Assessments should consider at a minimum 1) habitat connectivity, 2) degree of isolation, 3) successional and developmental stage of habitat, 4) patch size, 5) reproductive rates of populations, and 6) environmental conditions that may influence carrying capacity or increase variance in the growth rates of populations, thereby affecting persistence probabilities. 
Chapter II: Aquatic Conservation 
OBJECTIVES 
The purposes of the following recommendations for management of aquatic ecosystems are to: 
· protect and restore the ecological health of watersheds on Eastside federal lands; 
· protect as refuges for biodiversity 1) the remaining relatively healthy watersheds and riparian ecosystems and 2) those parts of river systems with the healthiest habitat and the greatest concentrations of biological diversity ("hot spots"); 
· restore degraded watersheds by removing threats to aquatic refuges, restoring natural hydrologic and disturbance regimes, and improving management to expand and link functional areas; 
· conduct watershed-level ecological assessments which provide the informational basis for planning and restoration; and 
· establish connectivity between aquatic refuges by protecting riparian corridors. 
PRINCIPLES 
Most Eastside watersheds and riverine ecosystems have been severely degraded due to resource development including logging, road-building, grazing, and mining, as well as water diversions, agricultural practices, hydroelectric development, urbanization, extirpation of riparian species, introduction of non-native species and hatchery stocks, pesticide and herbicide pollution, and other causes. These practices have contributed significantly to the catastrophic decline of anadromous and native fish habitat in the region. A majority of watersheds in the region would benefit from active restoration. 
Most of the Eastside's remaining watersheds of high biological integrity are located on federal lands. It is in the public's best interest to protect and maintain these remaining areas due to their value as habitat for rare biological communities, as repositories for, and sources of, natural species assemblages and diversity, and as benchmarks for the rehabilitation of riverine ecosystems nationwide. These watersheds and riverine ecosystems are of economic, aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the nation and its people and should be conserved and restored for future generations. Management actions taken to date by federal lands managers have not protected adequately or improved the condition of federally managed watersheds and riverine ecosystems in the region. 
Significant problems with federal lands management policy include: 
"[o]veremphasis on production of non-fishery commodities, resulting in incremental losses of riparian and fish habitat; failure to take a biologically conservative or risk-aversive approach to planning land management actions when inadequate information exists about the relationship between land management actions and fish habitat; failure to include the best available scientific information in planning of project actions; planning actions on a site-specific basis, rather than based upon broader watershed and river basin conditions and capabilities; and reductions in the number, size, and distribution of remaining high-quality habitat areas (such as roadless and minimally developed areas) that serve as biological refuges for salmon subpopulations." (National Marine Fisheries Service 1995b). 
Existing national forest management plans will not adequately protect aquatic and riparian resources because a comprehensive, landscape-level conservation strategy is lacking. Specifically, the plans fail to: 
"provide for a network of well-distributed watersheds containing high-quality spawning and rearing and readily restorable habitats and reduce risks to these habitats; 
prioritize restoration; plan activities and conservation strategies after landscape-scale analysis; and conduct implementation monitoring and begin gathering data for effectiveness and validation monitoring." (National Marine Fisheries Service 1995b). 
The most effective strategy to ensure the long-term health of the region's watersheds and fish habitat is to protect biologically key areas including watersheds serving as ecological refuges, smaller biotic refuges, and riparian areas. Protection should include taking all necessary steps to prevent irreversible damage from ecologically harmful management activities which increase the occurrence and severity of landslides, mass erosion, sedimentation, wind drying, wind erosion, and temperature. 
In short, an adequate aquatic conservation strategy would 1) identify and protect a system of aquatic and riparian reserves (referred to here as Aquatic Diversity Areas ("ADAs"), Riparian Areas, and Biotic Refuges), 2) restore watershed processes and functions across the landscape with priority on aquatic and riparian reserves, and 3) integrate planning and decision-making with watershed assessments. 
Existing high-quality habitats functioning as refuges must be preserved. 
The fundamental building blocks of any aquatic conservation strategy are the remaining areas of healthier habitat. The recovery of Eastside aquatic ecosystems depends on the protection and restoration of ADAs. The primary management goal within ADAs is the maintenance and restoration of the ecological integrity of riverine habitat and associated riverine-riparian species. 
A growing body of literature supports the protection of existing refuges as an integral and necessary part of any aquatic conservation strategy (e.g. Sheldon 1988; Moyle and Sato 1991; Moyle and Yoshiyama 1992; FEMAT 1993; The Wilderness Society 1993; Henjum et. al. 1994; Rhodes et. al. 1994; Frissell et. al. 1995; National Marine Fisheries Service 1995a). Although individual fragments of suitable habitat have ecological value, refuges for aquatic species should be designed at the watershed level (Sheldon 1988; Williams et. al. 1989; Moyle and Sato 1991; Naiman et. al. 1992; FEMAT 1993). 
Protection of headwater ADAs is required to prevent further habitat loss and secure the few remaining refuges for many remnant stocks and assemblages (Henjum et. al. 1994). Although protection of the headwater and small stream refuge areas identified as ADAs by the American Fisheries Society is critical, protection of those areas alone will not be adequate "...to sustain migratory populations or restore the productivity in eastside watersheds of native cold water species like salmon or bull trout (Henjum et. al. 1994)." Critical reaches and habitats on large streams and rivers must also be identified and protected based on criteria which recognize their high potential for restoration. These areas can then be targeted in subsequently developed restoration plans (Henjum et. al. 1994). 
Riparian Areas, functionally defined, must be protected and restored. 
Fully functional aquatic ecosystems are complex habitats that consist of floodplains, banks, channel structures (i.e. pools and riffles), water columns, and sub-surface waters. Riparian and upslope areas are an integral part of the aquatic ecosystem, providing sediment, large woody debris, and water (Pringle et. al. 1988; FEMAT 1993). Riparian Areas which are preserved in a natural, functional condition provide shade and organic debris and help regulate nutrients and sediments (O'Laughlin and Belt 1995). Disturbance processes, such as landslides and floods, help maintain the system by providing important delivery mechanisms. 
Riparian reserves provide connectivity for the many terrestrial animals and plants that use riparian habitats as travel and dispersal corridors. They also play a role in protecting species that are dependent on the transition zone between riparian and upslope habitat (FEMAT 1993). 
The protection and restoration of Riparian Areas would allow for the establishment and regrowth of riparian hardwoods, such as willows and cottonwoods, which provide a host of valuable ecosystem functions. Riparian vegetation provides shade and moderates water temperature. Woody root systems decrease erosion and provide bank protection during high flows. Rush and sedge communities provide fibrous roots which bind to finer particles in the flow (Elmore 1992), reducing sedimentation of the stream. Riparian vegetation produces mats which, in addition to providing off-channel habitat for aquatic biota, intercept sediments during high flow periods (Platts 1991) and allow for the accumulation of sediment and the building of banks (Elmore and Beschta 1987). 
In degraded areas, watershed functions and processes must be restored. 
Restoration strategies need to start at headwaters and work downstream in order to function effectively for watershed systems. It is ineffective to address problems at the reach scale alone. Existing conditions are inadequate to protect native species and, therefore, should not be considered a "baseline" or desired management condition (Reeves and Sedell 1992; FEMAT 1993; Beschta et. al. 1995; Frissell et. al. 1995; National Marine Fisheries Service 1995a). A primary goal of restoration must be to re-establish connectivity. In addition, natural disturbance patterns and self-regulating processes and functions both within and between watersheds should be re-established. 
The interaction of the flood plain with the stream's high flow disturbance regime is essential to the recovery of aquatic ecosystems. In functional systems, where channel and floodplain are connected, floods naturally deposit sediment and debris on the floodplain, thereby replenishing the floodplain surface (Van Haveren and Jackson 1986). This process is required to establish vegetation on the floodplain and enable side-channel development over time. In degraded systems, where floodplain connectivity has been lost, sediment and debris are exported from the system. As connectivity and floodplain surfaces are restored, typical riparian species may be re-established (Elmore and Beschta 1987). In order to restore interaction with the floodplain, it may be necessary to remove roads and other obstructions (Henjum et. al. 1994). 
Planning and decision-making should be integrated with watershed assessment. 
Information on watershed functions and processes is necessary to determine whether the objectives of the aquatic conservation strategy are being met. This information can be provided by watershed assessment and analysis. Watershed analysis provides a practical analytical framework for ecosystem management using an ecologically relevant management unit (Montgomery et. al. in press). The specific goals of watershed assessment and analysis are to: 
· determine and map the geomorphic, ecological, and hydrologic characteristics of specific watersheds with reference to neighboring watersheds and identified beneficial uses; 
· determine the type, aerial extent, frequency, and intensity of watershed processes, including mass movements, fire regimes, peak and low streamflows, surface erosion, and other processes affecting the flow of water, sediment, organic material, or nutrients through a watershed; 
· determine the distribution, abundance, life histories, habitat requirements, and limiting factors of fish and other riparian-dependent species; 
· identify parts of the landscape (e.g. hillslopes and channels) that are either sensitive to specific disturbance processes or critical to beneficial uses and key fish stocks or species; 
· interpret watershed history, including the effects of previous natural disturbances and land use activities on watershed processes; 
· establish ecologically and geomorphologically appropriate boundaries of riparian areas, consistent with the minimum criteria set forth below; 
· evaluate and monitor the reliability of watershed assessment procedures, the effectiveness of management standards applicable to riparian reserves, and the effectiveness of restoration measures; 
· identify restoration objectives, strategies, and priorities; and 
· recommend silvicultural and other management standards on lands which are not within designated riparian reserves. Such standards should, at a minimum, set appropriately long harvest rotation ages outside no-logging riparian reserves, withdraw unstable slopes and erosion-prone soils from the timber base, require logging plans to be based on hydrologic designs, and identify and protect old-growth and mature trees and forests. 
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 
General Management Recommendations for all Federal Lands 
All management activities on U.S. Forest Service or U.S. Bureau of Land Management lands within the planning area must be consistent with the conservation and recovery of aquatic and riparian systems and species. Management actions that do not maintain the existing conditions or lead to improved conditions in the long-term would not meet the intent of the conservation strategy and should not be implemented. Management activities should accomplish the following: 
· Maintenance and restoration of the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations, and communities are uniquely adapted. 
· Maintenance and restoration of spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refuges. These network connections must provide chemically- and physically-unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life history requirements of aquatic and riparian-dependent species. 
· Maintenance and restoration of the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations. 
· Maintenance and restoration of water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems. Water quality should remain within the range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits the survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of individuals composing riparian and aquatic communities. 
· Maintenance and restoration of the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input, storage, and transport. 
· Maintenance and restoration of instream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of natural peak, high, and low flows must be protected. 
· Maintenance and restoration of the timing, variability, and duration of flood plain inundation and water table elevations in meadows and wetlands. 
· Maintenance and restoration of composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration and to supply sufficient amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris ("CWD") to sustain physical complexity and stability. 
· Maintenance and restoration of habitat to support well-distributed populations of native riparian-dependent plant, invertebrate and vertebrate species. 
Management Recommendations for Aquatic Diversity and Riparian Areas 
Identification and Designation Criteria of Aquatic Diversity Areas 
Areas where native aquatic species are at risk and vulnerable to future disturbance, whole watersheds exemplify native aquatic ecosystems, or essential connecting habitats are required to support native fish populations should be protected as ADAs. 158 ADAs have already been identified on the eastside of Oregon by the Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society (Oregon AFS 1993). With some modifications to ensure that all ecoregions are well-represented, these areas, and the criteria used to identify them, provide a starting point for the creation of an aquatic diversity network in both Oregon and Washington. Where ADAs have not yet been identified, ADA watersheds need to include the most intact riverine ecosystems. As long-term monitoring and control watersheds, ADAs would be useful for assessing the success of site-specific restoration activities in more degraded watersheds. 
ADAs should be designated by watershed boundaries and must protect biotic communities at temporal and spatial scales sufficient to recover threatened fish and other riverine-riparian species. The following types of areas should be designated as ADAs (adapted from Oregon AFS 1993): 
· Watersheds that support unique, sensitive, or key populations of aquatic species that may be vulnerable to disturbance and that require immediate protection to maintain genetic or life history diversity. These include critical areas for known sensitive species or stocks, narrow endemic populations, stocks known to have unique life history or genetic traits, populations near the extreme edge of the range of a more widely distributed species, or highly abundant populations that may be critical for sustaining production or seeding habitats within a watershed or in adjacent areas. 
· Watersheds which contain unique, sensitive, or otherwise important aquatic assemblages or ecosystems, including the best remaining representatives of native assemblages and aquatic ecosystems in the region (e.g. the last or best remaining watershed or unfragmented old-growth forest in a large basin). Areas meeting this criteria would include but not be limited to 1) areas with high numbers of native species or watersheds relatively unaffected by species introductions or stock transfers which might serve as important genetic refuges for indigenous fish assemblages; 2) habitats or streams important to the watershed's ecological functioning (e.g. critical to maintaining water quality or optimum temperatures); and 3) corridors that provide vital connections between rearing and spawning areas, disjunct or potentially disjunct populations, or existing areas that are relatively undisturbed by management activities (e.g. wilderness areas or roadless areas). 
· Watersheds which are a source for valuable baseline data, a benchmark for future monitoring, or a life history/ecology research site for a species or assemblage. 
· All existing reserve areas, including national parks, wilderness areas, federally managed portions of the wild and scenic rivers system, national wildlife refuges, recreation areas, and monuments. 
· The Eastside watersheds identified as ADAs by the watershed classification subcommittee of the Oregon chapter of the American Fisheries Society (Oregon AFS 1993). 
Identification and Interim Definitions of Riparian Areas 
Riparian Areas must be identified throughout the planning area. According to the functional definitions below, the size of Riparian Areas should vary with topographic and on-site conditions. However, unless and until the site-specific information is available to define Riparian Areas ecologically, riparian reserves should include at least 300 foot buffers for all perennial streams, as measured horizontally from the edge of both channels and at least 150 foot buffers for all ephemeral or intermittent streams, seeps, springs, and wetlands. 
Streams: All streams, permanent and impermanent, should be designated as Riparian Areas based on functional, rather than fixed or arbitrary, widths. The full extent of the stream's riparian area must be included -- from the edge of the active channel (or edge of the braided channel area) to the top of the inner gorge or to the outer edge of either the 100 year flood plain, riparian vegetation, the zone of control of stream area microclimate, the habitat areas of aquatic, semi-aquatic and riparian dependent terrestrial or avian species, or the top of stream-adjacent moderately unstable or unstable slopes. Particular attention should be given to defining Riparian Areas for streams so that connectivity between groundwater and surface water is maintained. Therefore, Riparian Area boundaries should be drawn with due regard to flood plain hydrologic features, recharge areas, and hyporheic zones. In addition, Riparian Areas should function as significant corridors for migration or dispersal of species or propagules and should be designated in a manner which protects those functions. 
Springs and Seeps: Riparian Areas should be designated around all springs and seeps. They should be configured to protect the microclimate, the seasonally saturated soil, and the connectivity with the aquifer, so as to maximize the retention and possible recovery of structural and functional integrity. 
Wet Meadows: Riparian Areas should be designated for wet meadows such that "areas where grasses predominate" and areas that are "waterlogged within a few inches of the ground surface" are included (FEMAT 1993). 
Lakes: The designated Riparian Area for lakes should include the body of water and the area to the outer edges of either the riparian vegetation, the extent of seasonally saturated soil, the extent of moderately and highly unstable areas, or a distance equal to the heights of two site-potential trees. 
Ponds, Reservoirs, Estuaries, and Wetlands: The designated Riparian Area for ponds, reservoirs, estuaries, and wetlands greater than one acre should include the body of water (the maximum pool elevation of reservoirs) or wetland and the area to the outer edges of either the riparian vegetation, the extent of seasonally saturated soil, the extent of moderately or highly unstable areas, or a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree. 
Management Goals for Aquatic Diversity and Riparian Areas 
Within ADAs and Riparian Areas, the primary management goal is the maintenance (where conditions are optimum) and restoration (where conditions are sub-optimum) of the ecological integrity of riverine habitat and associated riverine-riparian species. Specifically, these areas need to be managed to achieve the following objectives: 
· maintenance or restoration of water quality to the level necessary for stable and productive aquatic ecosystems, as measured by water quality parameters including, but not limited to, the timing and character of temperature, sediment, and nutrients, biochemical oxygen demand, turbidity, and the absence of anthropogenic pollutants; 
· maintenance or restoration of stream channel integrity, channel processes, and the sediment regime under which the riparian and aquatic ecosystems developed (elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, and character of sediment input and transport); 
· maintenance or restoration of instream flows to support desired riparian and aquatic habitats, the stability and effective function of stream channels, and the ability to route flood discharges; 
· maintenance or restoration of the natural timing and variability of water table elevation in meadows and wetlands; 
· maintenance or restoration of the diversity and productivity of native riparian plant communities; 
· maintenance or restoration of riparian vegetation to 1) help achieve rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration characteristics equal to those under which the desired communities developed, 2) provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation within the aquatic and riparian areas, and 3) provide and distribute large woody debris characteristic of natural aquatic and riparian ecosystems; 
· maintenance or restoration of habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, vertebrate and invertebrate species; and 
· maintenance or restoration of riparian and aquatic habitats as necessary to foster the unique genetic fish stocks that evolved within the relevant geo-climatic ecoregion. 
Standards for Aquatic Diversity and Riparian Areas 
· Subject to valid existing rights, all federal lands located in ADAs and Riparian Areas should be withdrawn from 1) entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws, 2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, and 3) disposition under federal mineral and geothermal leasing laws. 
· No logging (including removal of fuel wood or dead trees) should be permitted in ADAs or Riparian Areas, except where wood removal is necessary for human health or safety reasons (e.g. existing navigation) or to attain aquatic conservation management objectives. All such management exceptions should be determined based on site-specific interdisciplinary analysis. 
· Removal of downed large woody debris (including from stream channels) should be prohibited in ADAs and Riparian Areas, except where necessary to allow the re-connection of a stream and its flood plain, or to protect human health and safety (e.g. for navigation). 
· Heavy equipment including road-building equipment should be excluded from ADAs and Riparian Areas except if either specifically approved for road obliteration, construction, or maintenance or an interdisciplinary team determines that the proposed activity is needed to meet aquatic conservation management objectives. 
· New recreation facilities (e.g. trails) should not be developed within ADAs and Riparian Areas unless compatible with the management objectives stated above. Existing facilities should be evaluated for compatibility with these objectives. Those which are incompatible should be modified to conform or their impacts should be reduced to the extent practicable through facility modification, changes in maintenance practices, education, use limits, or closure. 
· Issuance of any license, permit, or exemption for any dam, diversion, electrical generation, water resources project, or similar facility should be prohibited in ADAs and Riparian Areas. 
Identification and Management of Biotic Refuges 
In addition to the protection of refuges at the watershed level, the intensely fragmented nature of Eastside aquatic systems requires the protection of small, isolated relic refuges which support biodiversity within otherwise degraded basins. Biotic Refuges may not necessarily exhibit the natural hydrologic regime or other aspects of aquatic ecosystem integrity (e.g. active hydrologic management may be required to maintain species) but should be important for maintaining genetic resources. Biotic Refuges should be identified during watershed analysis. 
No activities should take place in Biotic Refuges that threaten or are inconsistent with protecting the remaining elements of the native biota. Biotic Refuges should be designed and managed with respect to the critical contributing area or the Refuge's relationship to the rest of the watershed. 
Identification and Management of Roadless Areas 
Roadless areas must be protected and integrated into the system of aquatic and riparian refuges (FEMAT 1993; Henjum et. al. 1994; Technical Working Group for the Upper Grande Ronde Anadromous Fish Habitat Protection, Restoration, and Monitoring Plan 1994). New road construction and logging must be prohibited within existing roadless areas that are either 1,000 acres or larger or biologically significant regardless of size. Because roadless regions contain the least-disturbed forests and stream ecosystems on the Eastside, they are currently serving as reservoirs of ecological diversity and benchmarks for restoring ecological health in more disturbed areas. These areas must be protected from the fragmentation caused by pervasive road-building across the rest of the landscape (see Chapter XI for road management standards). 
Watershed Assessment 
Watershed assessment needs to be the basic planning tool for future management. The agencies should assess the rates, patterns, and intensities of natural disturbances and identify human-caused risks to Eastside watershed ecosystems. Results of the assessment would provide the informational basis for: 
· evaluating cumulative watershed effects; 
· establishing watershed restoration goals and priorities to remove sediment sources and other threats to the integrity of riverine-riparian ecosystems; 
· developing and implementing watershed restoration plans on a site-specific basis; 
· monitoring annually the effectiveness of standards, guidelines, and restoration treatment plans; and 
· refining or expanding the network of ADAs, Riparian Areas, and Biotic Reserves identified through the regional planning process. 
Products of the assessment must include at least: 
· delineation of high productivity areas both in the aquatic and terrestrial components of the watershed; 
· delineation of critical areas for ecosystem functions (e.g. unconstrained valley bottoms and tributary junctions are critical areas for hydrologic and sediment processes and also tend to be the most biologically diverse areas; wetland and pond areas are critical for water storage and metering as well as a diversity of terrestrial and riparian wildlife; certain types of geology and landforms are potentially unstable, highly productive, or insensitive to particular disturbances); 
· identification of risks and hazards to critical ecosystem areas and specific land management recommendations to reduce these hazards; 
· identification of riparian reserve areas based on hydrology, vegetation, channel morphology, landforms, species diversity, and potential impacts from upslope and upstream areas; and 
· identification of specific criteria for evaluating and addressing the role of primary processes and disturbance trends when assessing the validity of restoration and management projects. These criteria should be aimed at regaining ecological function and biodiversity within the watershed as a whole and should ensure that projects are linked together in space and time. Criteria may also indicate priority areas for restoration, suggest time frames for project completion, and indicate where projects should be clustered to take advantage of time and money. Because the National Environmental Policy Act specifically requires cumulative effects analysis, the criteria need to provide a framework for assessing the cumulative impacts of all restoration projects in a watershed. 
Watershed Restoration 
For watersheds degraded by past or current management activities, watershed restoration plans should be developed based on a restoration needs assessment. Restoration plans should provide the following: 
· spatially explicit objectives for restoration, including the specific measures needed, the techniques to be used, a recommended sequencing for implementing these measures, and a description of how the work will be accomplished, including, 
a) a proposed long-term (2-20 years) monitoring plan which encourages and establishes cooperation of local, state, and federal participants; and 
b) prioritization of restoration activities based on 1) presence and condition of at-risk salmonids, other fish stocks, or riparian-dependent species, 2) restoration potential of the habitat, 3) ecological importance of the habitat, and 4) resources necessary to execute the restoration plan; 
· elimination or minimization of priority sediment sites and other threats to the ecological integrity of ADAs and Riparian Areas and an update of maps of land use history and disturbance to vegetation, soils, and streams; 
· reforestation of ADAs and Riparian Areas according to site-specific needs for the introduction of native vegetation with priority given to areas adjacent to and immediately downstream from watersheds designated as ADAs and Riparian Areas; 
· placement of large downed trees at ecologically appropriate places, pending the recovery of natural sources of downed trees as a result of riparian reforestation; 
· identification of priorities for reintroduction of native fish and wildlife; and 
· estimation of costs so that restoration plans can be accurately evaluated during agency budgeting procedures. 
Ecological Indicators for Management and Recovery 
Ecosystem-based indicators are needed to determine the condition (degraded v. functional) and trend (declining v. recovering) of aquatic and riparian systems within watersheds. These indicators should be used to implement land management standards, to guide restoration efforts, and to defer or curtail management activities. Such indicators should be capable, collectively, of accurately reflecting the aggregate effect of land use activities on ecosystem processes and functions at the watershed level. To this end, indicators should be developed to assess the condition and trend of the following aquatic and riparian habitat characteristics: 1) riparian vegetation; 2) channel substrate (e.g. sediment levels and cobble embeddedness); 3) channel morphology (number and volume of pools and large woody debris abundance); 4) water quality (temperature and levels of other pollutants); and 5) water quantity and timing. 
Quantitative habitat standards are not recommended for each of these five categories. However, because the habitat needs of anadromous salmonids are relatively well-known, and because certain habitat characteristics of these species are partial indicators of overall watershed conditions and suitable habitat for other aquatic species, quantitative habitat standards based on the needs of salmon are suggested for aspects of three types of indicators: channel substrate, water temperature, and bank stability (Rhodes et. al. 1994). As stated by Rhodes et. al. (1994), "[i]t is recommended that where these standards are not met, any activity that can potentially delay improvement in habitat condition should be deferred or curtailed until the habitat standard is met or a statistically improving trend is documented through monitoring over at least five years." 
Riparian/Aquatic Indicators: 
· Riparian vegetation. Improved density of vegetation increases the ability of a channel to recover by contributing to resiliency and restoration of overall ecosystem functions. Although presence of riparian vegetation is a critical indicator of "recovery," it alone does not indicate a functional system. Channel recovery will likely take much longer than vegetative recovery (Kondolf 1993). 
· Channel substrate. The presence of sorted bed material substrates, including decreased fine sediment among coarser material, is an indicator of the recovery of fish-bearing streams (Platts 1979). When cobbles are excessively embedded in fine sediments, fish reproduction is severely hampered. Substrates influence food production, as larger substrates provide a surface to which insects can cling (Wesche 1985). A decrease in cobble embeddedness may result from reduced erosion following improved management practices, high flows, and the presence of woody debris which allows fine sediment to be flushed out but retains coarser sediment (Beschta and Platts 1986). 
a) Surface fines. Recovered watersheds should have surface fine sediment levels that average less than 20% in spawning habitat. There should be no increases in surface fine sediment levels in spawning habitat where it averages less than 20% (Rhodes et. al. 1994). 
b) Cobble embeddedness. Cobble embeddedness should average less than 30% within rearing habitat. There should be no increase in cobble embeddedness in rearing habitat where it averages less than 30%. 
· Channel morphology. Improvements in channel morphology indicate improved watershed function and fish habitat and include increased abundance and volume of pools, woody debris abundance, and bank stability (Rhodes et. al. 1994). For salmonids, increased pool volume is an essential morphological characteristic of the stream (Beschta and Platts 1986; Rhodes et. al. 1994). These pools tend to be created or improved by channel narrowing, subsequent turbulence, and water flow over logs and woody debris. Channel narrowing usually follows the moderation of flow, decreased sediment from soil disturbance, and recovery of riparian vegetation (Beschta and Platts 1986). These conditions may also result in increased sinuosity and channel complexity. Point bars -- accumulations of relatively coarse-grained materials on the inside of a bend -- are associated with the increased presence of deep pools (Beschta and Platts 1986). Increased numbers of riffles -- important areas of fish food production (Beschta and Platts 1986) -- form as trees mature and fall into or across streams (Platts 1991). 
a) Pools. Pool volumes and frequencies should be monitored for trends, but should not be managed according to a numeric standard. Rather, watersheds should be managed to decrease fine sediment volumes in pools and increase residual pool volumes. 
b) Large woody debris. Large woody debris retention should not be managed according to a numeric standard. Rather, natural large wood recruitment systems should be fully protected in riparian reserves (see "Standards for Aquatic Diversity and Riparian Areas" above). In highly degraded areas, active restoration to re-establish tree stocking is necessary. Large woody debris should be monitored for trends. 
c) Bank stability. At least 90% of channel banks on all streams in a recovered watershed should be stable. Bank stability should be maintained where it is greater than 90%. Where stability is less than 90%, or shows a decreasing trend, activities which could decrease stability or forestall recovery should be eliminated until the standard has been reached or a statistically significant (p < 0.05) improving trend over at least five years has been documented through monitoring. Where an improving trend has been established but the standard is not met, activities should only be allowed if continued improvement in bank stability is not impeded. Suspension of riparian grazing is a key strategy for restoring bank stability (Rhodes et. al. 1994). 
· Water quality -- temperature and other pollutants. High summer stream temperatures resulting from lack of shading and wider channels put salmonids at great risk (Rhodes et. al. 1994). Current degradation has allowed for upstream propagation of warm water fishes. Thus the downwater migration of warm water fauna resulting from decreased water temperatures may indicate partial aquatic ecosystem recovery. The return of cold water fauna to restored areas may indicate that habitat has improved, as such fauna generally demand the highest quality habitat (Li and Castillo 1994). Increased vegetative cover and the narrowing of stream channels moderate stream temperatures year-round (Elmore 1992) and allow for increased oxygen availability (Noss and Cooperrider 1994). 
a) Temperature standard. Watershed recovery is indicated by increases in the downstream extent of summer water temperatures that are suitable for salmon. As stated by Rhodes et. al. (1994), "[w]here daily maximum summer water temperatures in excess of 60°F exist in historically usable spawning and rearing habitat for salmon, passive restoration measures should be taken to reduce water temperature and active restoration should be undertaken, where it is likely to be effective in speeding the natural recovery of water temperature. Activities that have the potential to increase water temperatures or forestall the recovery of natural water temperatures should not be allowed on any stream." 
b) Other pollutants. The presence of chemical pollutants is detrimental to salmon and other aquatic biota. As with temperature, existing state and federal water quality standards for pollutant parameters may not be sufficient to protect and restore sensitive aquatic biota such as salmon. Where these standards are inadequate, appropriate standards should be set and used as indicators of watershed condition. The presence of certain toxics, for example, indicates that mining activities are not being managed appropriately and/or that restoration of abandoned sites is needed. 
· Water quantity and timing. As riparian conditions improve, hydrologic features and processes necessary for the maintenance of sensitive aquatic species (e.g. soil water holding capacity, flow moderation, and flood plain interaction) begin to return. The capacity of stream systems to retain water increases as riparian vegetation recovers (Wissmar et. al. 1994). As the capacity of stream systems to store water increases, streams may reappear and ephemeral streams may change (Elmore 1992). Decreased soil temperatures indicate increased soil moisture. Improved hydrologic function also includes moderated high flows and enhanced or prolonged base flows, which are evidence of functional interaction between surface flows and increased groundwater storage (Van Haveren and Jackson 1986). 
Velocity is an important parameter in determining distributional patterns of aquatic invertebrates (Wesche 1985). Swift water facilitates oxygen renewal in the stream and the production of invertebrates on which fish feed. Large organic debris from woody vegetation dissipates stream energy and provides slow velocity areas needed by fish (Beschta and Platts 1986). 
Upland Indicators: 
Because total system recovery is the ultimate objective, recovery in uplands should also be measured. Indicators of upland recovery include increased vegetative cover, the return of natural disturbance regimes, improved hydrologic processes, decreased abundance and distribution of alien plant species, and increased abundance and distribution of native plant species. 
· Increased vegetative cover. Upland recovery is indicated by the return of natural patterns and assemblages of native vegetation communities, increased forage production, diversified age class distribution of plants, increased availability of microgermination sites as a result of reduced soil compaction, increased plant vigor, increased availability of seed sources, and the return of natural fire regimes. 
· Return of natural disturbance regimes. Western ecosystems evolved with and in response to fire. Fires are a part of the pattern of disturbance and recovery that provides a physical template for biological organization at all levels. However, management practices have dramatically reduced the presence of fire over the last 100 years. The return of disturbance regimes benefits not only the ecosystem, but also ungulate vitality, as fire can increase forage production tenfold. 
· Improved hydrologic processes. Recovery of aquatic ecosystem hydrologic processes may be hastened by improved upland hydrologic processes including reduced overland flow, reduced surface erosion, improved infiltration, and increased abundance of seeps/springs. 
Chapter III: Landscape Prioritization and Reserve Design 
OBJECTIVES 
The objective of this chapter is to provide recommendations for creating a system of new reserves on the Eastside to protect and restore native biological diversity at all levels of organization (genes, species, ecosystems, landscapes, and landscapes) and the ecological and evolutionary processes associated with each of these levels. More specifically, an integrated reserve network on the Eastside is necessary to: 
· maintain/restore fully-functioning ecosystems (including a complete array of native plant communities and wildlife habitats); 
· maintain well-distributed, viable populations of all native species; 
· provide representation of all natural communities and successional stages across their natural range of variation; 
· provide refuges of native flora and fauna that are relatively resistant to biological invasions of exotic organisms, and can act as source pools for dispersal into adjacent habitats; 
· provide areas of adequate size, number, and connectivity to allow for inevitable environmental change due to natural disturbances and long-term climatic shifts; and 
· accommodate uncertainty. 
In addition to protecting biodiversity, reserves are necessary as control areas in experiments with ecosystem management (Walters and Holling 1990; Noss 1991a). 
PRINCIPLES 
Development of an interconnected system of reserves, restoration areas, and linkage zones within the larger matrix of federal lands is the only reliable way to ensure that the ecological integrity and sustainability of Eastside ecosystems are not permanently lost. Any ecosystem management strategy for the Eastside which seeks to maintain regional biodiversity must incorporate a system of reserves, designed to protect relatively large, natural areas where native plant and animal communities and their associated ecosystem processes predominate. Comparison of natural landscapes in reserves with more intensively managed areas can provide an important gauge of the success or failure of ecosystem management plans (Kaufmann et. al. 1994). Since ecosystem management activities are experimental, widespread, and affect large landscape areas, control areas (i.e. reserves) for these experiments also need to involve large, well-distributed areas on the Eastside. 
The following principles underlie the need and foundation for developing a regional reserve system on the Eastside: 
Reserve-based conservation strategies are at least as indicated for Eastside landscapes as they are for other regions. 
Some authors have suggested that reserve-based conservation strategies are inappropriate for disturbance-prone landscapes, such as those found on the Eastside (Oliver 1992; Lippke 1993; Covington et. al. 1994; Everett et. al. 1994b). One frequently proposed argument is that past human management activities on the Eastside (e.g. fire suppression, logging, and grazing) have created ecosystem conditions that are unsustainable and, therefore, should not be protected in reserves. Although Eastside forests and rangelands have undoubtedly been degraded by past management and may be in a relatively unstable condition, protection of those areas that remain in a high-quality condition is critical. Widespread and repeated degradation of ecosystems in the region only reinforces the need to 1) protect those areas that have not yet been heavily degraded and 2) manage a large percentage of the landscape in a manner that is most likely to restore ecosystem stability and biodiversity (Angermeier and Karr 1994; Henjum et. al. 1994). 
It must also be emphasized that designation of an area as a reserve should not preclude active management. Rather, reserves should be areas where management (active or passive) is directed at maintaining and restoring biodiversity and ecosystem patterns and processes (Carroll and Meffe 1994). Biodiversity conservation in reserves can be facilitated by decommissioning roads, eliminating exotic species, and limiting recreational impacts. Active management may be important for restoring currently degraded, unstable areas of any proposed reserves. Appropriate restoration management guidelines should be developed, as described at the end of this chapter. These guidelines should reflect the dynamic nature of ecosystems in the region and encourage (not prevent) the restoration of disturbance regimes that sustain biodiversity and are characteristic of specific ecosystem types. For example, considerable management effort needs to be directed toward restoring natural fire regimes in existing protected areas and new reserves that are outside the historic range of variability for fire frequency. 
Other authors (Botkin 1990; Degraaf and Healy 1993; Everett et. al. 1994c; Johnson et. al. 1994) have argued against the establishment of reserves reasoning that since many vegetation types are subject to frequent and/or large disturbance events, reserves are not likely to be effective at preserving specific desired ecosystem conditions (e.g. old-growth forests). Neither the influence of disturbances in general nor the "non-equilibrium paradigm" in particular invalidate reserve-based conservation strategies. Proper recognition of ecosystem dynamics simply leads to the conclusion that larger and more reserves are required in order to ensure the protection of regional biodiversity and ecological integrity (Baker 1992; Pickett et. al. 1992; Fiedler et. al. 1993; Angermeier and Karr 1994; DellaSala et. al. 1994). 
The concept of "emphasis areas" in place of reserves has recently been promoted (Everett et. al. 1994b). These are conceived of as areas with "soft" boundaries and a management focus on the maintenance of certain species or ecosystem elements. This concept has significant shortcomings. First, the concept, as presented, focuses conservation efforts on individual species and ecosystem elements. Everett et. al. (1994b) described by way of example an "emphasis area" for protecting a population of rare Delphinium veridescens in a small watershed. This "single species" focus through special management of a small area has merit in certain situations but does not offer a viable alternative to conservation of regional biodiversity where populations of hundreds of sensitive, threatened, and endangered species are at stake. Larger reserves, which provide habitat and protection for diverse assemblages of species and ecosystems, are superior. Although there may be a continuing need to alter the boundaries of reserves based on new information and objectives, the implementation of flexible or "soft" boundaries (FEMAT 1993; Everett et. al. 1994b) is likely to lead to economically-driven decisions that adversely affect biodiversity protection. 
Existing reserves are inadequate for protecting regional biodiversity and ecological integrity on the Eastside. 
Although some wilderness areas, national parks, and other protected areas have been established on the Eastside, these areas were selected primarily for aesthetic, recreational, and socio-economic reasons. Ecological principles were not typically employed in their design, and biodiversity conservation was not the primary objective of their establishment. As a result, they suffer from a number of inadequacies in their ability to sustain biodiversity. The most widely recognized shortcomings of existing protected areas include: 
· domination by high-elevation environments, which tend to be unproductive and support fewer species than more mesic sites (Harris 1984); 
· failure to protect adequately all communities and ecosystem types representative of the region -- particularly those with high commercial value (Noss 1990b); 
· reliance on closed, static (rather than open, dynamic) models of ecosystems, resulting in loss of resiliency and adverse external influences (White and Bratton 1980); 
· designation of areas that are too small and isolated to sustain viable populations of native species and important ecological processes (Grumbine 1990; Shafer 1990); 
· allowance of human development activities that may be incompatible with biodiversity protection (e.g. fire suppression, widespread livestock grazing, mining, and in some cases roads) (Schonewald-Cox and Buechner 1992); and 
· lack of congruence between the administrative and ecological boundaries of protected areas (Kushlan 1979; Newmark 1985). 
As a result of these inadequacies, existing protected areas alone are incapable of maintaining biodiversity and important ecological processes. An expanded reserve network, designed according to ecological criteria, is needed to ensure that all elements and processes associated with native ecosystems on the Eastside are sustained. Although existing protected areas alone are inadequate for a representative and viable reserve system, they nevertheless represent some of the least disturbed areas on the Eastside and contribute to the habitat needs of a subset of the Eastside's species. Existing protected areas play a significant role (as part of an expanded reserve system) and must continue to be protected. 
Ecologically-based criteria for identifying areas of high conservation value and designing reserve systems have been well developed by the scientific community. 
Reserve design and conservation evaluation have been the subjects of considerable research and discussion within the scientific community over the last 15-20 years. Experience from numerous empirical case studies and application of ecological theory have led to the development of some systematic guidelines about how best to locate and design reserves for biodiversity conservation. These guidelines, as articulated by Diamond (1975), Soulé and Simberloff (1986), DellaSala et. al. (1994), Meffe and Carroll (1994), and Noss and Cooperrider (1994), should form the foundation of reserve identification and design efforts on the Eastside. 
Because native biodiversity is not uniformly distributed, identification of portions of landscapes that have the highest potential for conserving regional biodiversity is the first and most important step in the design of a reserve network. Landscape prioritization involves the integration of "coarse-filter" biological and physical factors into a model that predicts the overall value of various segments of the regional landscape to a reserve network (e.g. Develice et. al. 1993; Scott et. al. 1993; Stine and Luciani 1994). Decision rules that apply to the development of a landscape prioritization model include: 
· landscape units that have high species diversity and/or provide habitat for multiple rare, sensitive, threatened, or endangered species have high priority; 
· landscape units with high levels of endemism are of high value; 
· natural areas (especially in forest systems) that are unfragmented by logging, roads, and other forms of human disturbance are of higher priority than fragmented areas; 
· rare communities and successional stages (e.g. old-growth forests) and communities that are under-represented in existing reserves are prioritized over communities that are widespread and/or relatively well-protected; 
· landscape units where native flora and fauna are relatively uninfluenced by alien species have high priority; 
· undeveloped watersheds that provide high-quality water to aquatic ecosystems and act as refuges for native fish and other aquatic organisms have high priority; and 
· wetlands and riparian areas (because of their relatively high diversity, productivity, and decline from historical abundance) generally are of high priority. 
Results of landscape prioritization should provide the basis for the selection of areas to be included within a regional reserve system. 
A regional reserve system should be developed using the design principles presented by Noss and Cooperrider (1994) and briefly summarized below. All of these principles are interrelated and must be considered in conjunction. For example, decisions regarding matrix management and proximity of reserves influence decisions about reserve size, shape, and ability to absorb disturbances. 
Reserve Size. Large reserves are generally considered to be more effective at conserving biodiversity than small reserves. Large reserves capture a larger number of species, as documented in the well-known species/area relationship (MacArthur and Wilson 1967). The ability of a reserve to provide adequate habitat to maintain minimum viable populations for target species should also be one of the primary considerations in determining reserve size (Soulé and Simberloff 1986; Thomas et. al. 1990). The size needed to maintain minimum viable populations is a function of home range size and population density of target species, habitat quality within the reserve, proximity and connectivity to adjacent suitable habitat, the character of surrounding matrix lands, and the autecology of the target species. Often, reserves are considered to be isolated islands, surrounded by hostile environments to target species. Although this is sometimes the case, reserves can also be surrounded by habitat adequate for migration and dispersal. Isolated reserves surrounded by hostile environments need to be significantly larger than reserves located within a less human-disturbed matrix (Harris 1984; Janzen 1986). 
Representation and redundancy. Representation of the entire range of successional stages and ecosystem types is a key objective in designing a regional reserve network. In a region as large and diverse as the Eastside, providing protection for all ecosystem-level diversity patterns necessitates many reserves well-distributed throughout the region. Vegetation types that have declined dramatically from their historic abundance due to human activities deserve special consideration. On the Eastside, old-growth forest stands, wetlands, and native grasslands are currently much reduced from historic levels and, therefore, should be a high priority for protection (Henjum et. al. 1994). 
Redundancy in representation of the elements of biodiversity within reserves is also of great importance in any plan attempting to maintain/restore ecological integrity (Murphy and Noon 1992). Redundancy helps ensure that ecosystems and their associated species are well-distributed throughout the region -- ideally across their complete elevational, latitudinal, and environmental ranges -- thereby reducing the risk of extinction and loss of biodiversity elements due to catastrophic disturbances. 
Natural heterogeneity within reserves. Spatially heterogeneous reserves are generally more successful than homogeneous reserves at capturing and maintaining diversity (Meffe and Carroll 1994). This principle stems from the observation that overall biodiversity of a given area is a function of both alpha (within habitat) and beta (between habitat) diversity. More naturally heterogeneous areas usually have higher beta diversity. Natural patch heterogeneity dampens disturbances better than homogeneous landscapes (Perry 1991), and may be important in controlling metapopulation dynamics (Murphy et. al. 1990). Spatially heterogeneous reserves also provide for the diverse habitat needs of many species which require a variety of habitats at different seasons or at different life stages (e.g. grizzly bears). 
Ability to withstand short- and long-term change. It is imperative that reserve networks be designed to accommodate natural disturbances and climate change without loss of species or habitats. This is most likely to be accomplished by incorporation of large landscapes with broad environmental gradients which allow for species to shift their distributions in response to environmental change (Graham 1988; Hunter et. al. 1988). Incorporation of large landscapes allows natural disturbance processes to operate without jeopardizing all available habitat for target species (Baker 1992). 
Reserves can also accommodate disturbances by incorporating ecological elements that confer resiliency. These include: riparian fire breaks; abundant, older, fire-resistant trees; intact duff layers to trap moisture; within-stand structural and compositional diversity; and abundant populations of insectivores, parasitoids, and fungivores that help reduce the frequency and magnitude of insect epidemic events (DellaSala et. al. 1994). While the likelihood of high-intensity disturbance has increased in some areas on the Eastside, resiliency within reserves would dampen the intensity, reduce the frequency, and limit the spread of fire and epidemic insect outbreaks. As mentioned above, a reserve system that incorporates sufficient ecological redundancy would ensure ecological persistence and function in the face of potential habitat loss due to catastrophic disturbance. Reserves should thus be designed to incorporate redundancy of functional groupings, multiple populations of individual species, and multiple representation of each community type and seral stage. In lower-elevation, ponderosa pine ecosystems, restoration of high-frequency, low-intensity fire regimes would reduce the likelihood of stand-replacing disturbance. This would facilitate restoration of an equilibrium in the dynamic representation of seral communities, such that habitat converted through major disturbance would equal habitat replacement through stand maturation. 
Ideally, reserves should be at least as big as their "minimum dynamic area" -- the smallest area that allows for a natural disturbance regime while maintaining internal recolonization sources and hence minimizing extinction (Pickett and Thompson 1978). Some authors have concluded that reserves should be large enough to incorporate landscapes many times the size of the largest natural disturbance (White 1987; Baker 1992). Reserves of this size are not always feasible, but some of their most important features may be provided by designing around the significant Eastside opportunities (e.g. in the Eastern Cascades, Blue Mountains, Salmon-Selway Mountains) for large, interconnected reserve complexes. 
Proximity, connectivity, and matrix management. Allowing for migration and dispersal of organisms between units in a reserve network is critical to meeting long-term biodiversity conservation objectives (Noss 1991b; Taylor 1993). The ability of organisms to move between reserve units is dependent on the proximity of the units, the degree of habitat connectivity present, and/or the management of the matrix in which the reserve units are embedded. Protection of discrete linkage zones can ensure the continuance of migration and dispersal of many organisms between reserves, provided the linkages are of sufficient width and quality to satisfy dispersal habitat requirements (Beier and Loe 1992; Harrison 1992; Mcuen 1993). Alternatively, matrix management which provides habitat conditions suitable for migration and dispersal of target species may also allow for the movement of organisms through the landscape (Thomas et. al. 1990). 
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A REGIONAL RESERVE SYSTEM 
The following step-wise method is recommended for designing a reserve system on the Eastside, using Geographic Information Systems: 
Step 1 - Assemble "coarse-filter" data on biological and physical attributes of the study area. 
Step 2 - Derive additional data layers for specific variables relating to biodiversity. 
Step 3 - Evaluate biodiversity values across the region and prioritize areas for protection. 
Step 4 - Delineate boundaries of a regional reserve system, including reserves, restoration areas, and linkage zones. 
Step 5 - Develop general management objectives and guidelines for maintaining/restoring biological diversity and ecological integrity within the reserve system. 
Each of these steps is briefly outlined below. 
Step 1 -- Assemble GIS data layers of biophysical attributes. The first step in conducting a GIS-based landscape prioritization of the Eastside is the assembly of digital data layers which accurately portray important biological and physical attributes relating to biodiversity across the region. These should include: 
· Vegetation data which accurately reflect the current condition of plant communities in the study area. Wherever possible, this data should categorize vegetation to the plant community level and contain information on current vegetation conditions and potential natural vegetation, for both forested and non-forested plant communities. 
· Detailed forest cover data which contain specific information on canopy cover, successional stage, age, size, site class, and human management history of all forest stands. 
· Detailed hydrography data with stream segments attributed according to the Strahler ordering system. Ideally, this should be a network coverage. 
· National Wetlands Inventory data. This information can be supplemented with additional finer-scale data where available. 
· River Information System data -- similar to the Washington River Information System (WARIS) program data or the American Fisheries Society database on Aquatic Diversity Areas ("ADAs") in Oregon. 
· Major watershed and sub-watershed boundaries. 
· Natural Heritage Program data -- fine-scale information on known occurrences of rare, sensitive, threatened, and endangered species. 
· Distribution maps for vertebrate species. 
· Population status maps for sensitive, rare, threatened, and endangered species. 
· Landsat thematic mapper satellite imagery for base reference purposes. 
· Digital elevation data. 90 meter resolution is adequate for a regional analysis. 
· Soils and geology data. 
· Landform structural classes (e.g. glacial troughs, mesas, and cliffs). 
· Detailed transportation system data compiled from all available sources. 
· Human population centers and population density (U.S. census data). 
Step 2 -- Derive additional data layers relevant to determination of biodiversity values. The data listed above should be used as the basis for deriving data layers which reflect more specific dimensions of the landscape relating to biodiversity value. These derived data layers should be assembled to provide input into a raster-based GIS model depicting biodiversity value. The following derived layers are important elements of this surface model: 
· Degree of mature and old-growth forest development. Forest condition data should be analyzed to provide information on mature and old-growth forest conditions within the study area. This grid should be smoothed with a 500-meter mean filter to reflect the average degree of development of mature and old-growth forest characteristics in the landscape. The resulting surface should then be weighted to reflect the degree to which mature and old-growth forests contribute to regional biodiversity. 
· Distribution and fragmentation of unmanaged forest. The best existing data sources should be integrated to create a unified forest cover layer which reflects the current status of managed and unmanaged forests in the study area. Forest fragmentation can then be evaluated through determination of patch size and area/perimeter ratios of unmanaged forest patches. Resultant forest patches should be weighted; large patches with low perimeter to area ratios should receive the highest rank. 
· Patch size evaluation of mature and old-growth forest stands. The above GIS layer on mature and old-growth forests should be used to calculate patch size, connectivity, and proximity of mature and old-growth forest stands. A GIS grid should be created which is weighted by stand size, configuration, and proximity to other stands. 
· Vegetation rarity and representation evaluation. The overall rarity and representation of each vegetation type within existing protected areas (e.g. gap analysis) (Scott et. al. 1993) should be evaluated across the study area. A GIS grid should be developed which reflects both the relative rarity and degree of protection for each vegetation type in the study area. This grid should be weighted so that rare, under-represented communities receive the highest weighting and common, well-represented communities receive relatively low scores. 
· Road density analysis. A continuous surface model of road density should be developed for the study area. The road density surface should be designed to reflect the landscape-level impact of transportation systems in the study area, and should be weighted using a negative exponential distribution weighting. 
· Road proximity analysis. A continuous surface model of road proximity should be developed for the study area. This should be weighted with a negative exponential distribution weighting. The resulting surface model should give higher value to areas in the interior part of larger roadless/undeveloped regions. 
· Roadless/undeveloped region determination. All areas over 200 meters from a road and over 400 hectares (approximately 1,000 acres) (Henjum et. al. 1994) in size that have not been significantly and actively altered by human management (other than fire suppression and grazing) should be delineated as roadless/undeveloped regions. Roadless/undeveloped regions should be identified through analysis of composite road and land use coverages assembled from the best current data sources for the study area. They should be weighted by size using an exponential distribution weighting, such that overall value increases with area. 
· Biological effect of major streams and rivers on terrestrial species. A grid portraying proximity to perennial streams and rivers should be developed, where the first 100 meters adjacent to a watercourse is given the highest weighting. The weighting of the rest of the landscape should be determined using a negative exponential distribution, with areas over 1 km from a watercourse receiving no biodiversity value for this variable. 
· Biological effect of elevation. Low-elevation lands are generally more productive and biologically diverse than adjacent higher-elevation areas. A GIS grid should be created to reflect this pattern where weighting is inversely proportional to elevation. 
· Distribution and density of rare, sensitive, threatened, and endangered species. A GIS grid should be developed that depicts the distribution and average density of element occurrence records of rare, sensitive, threatened, and endangered species. Remote, unsampled areas should receive a regional average weighting to reduce the bias created by sampling intensity. 
· Aquatic diversity. The status of important aquatic species, including anadromous and resident fish, amphibians, and keystone aquatic invertebrates should be evaluated based on watershed assessment (see Chapter II). Watersheds with high aquatic diversity or the presence of rare, sensitive, threatened, or endangered species or stocks should be given the highest weightings. Other factors influencing watershed weightings include 1) fish habitat quality, 2) level of human disturbance, 3) sensitivity to disturbance (i.e. erosion hazard), 4) habitat connectivity value, and 5) genetic purity of fish stocks. 
· Geologic/Geomorphic rarity and representation. Endemic and unusual flora and fauna are often related to unusual geologic/geomorphic conditions. A rarity and representation evaluation of geologic substrate and landform should be developed in a similar fashion to that described above for vegetation. 
· Site productivity, forest suitability, and erosion hazard. Soil information for the study area should be compiled and used to develop two GIS data layers relevant to landscape prioritization and reserve design. The first data layer should reflect the relative potential of individual landscape units to provide sustained commodity outputs, with areas of higher productivity receiving higher weighting. The second data layer should reflect the relative surficial and mass erosion hazard of each landscape unit. These two data layers can be used to identify areas of high biodiversity where little resource conflict exists. 
Step 3 -- Evaluate biodiversity values using a GIS model. A GIS-based landscape prioritization model integrating all of the biodiversity value layers described above should be developed and used to identify those areas with high value for protecting biodiversity across the region. Weights and integration algorithms should be adjusted in an interactive GIS grid environment to achieve scientifically defensible results. The end product should be a surface model of the landscape that ranks all areas on a scale from relatively high to low biodiversity value, which then should be used as the foundation for designing a reserve network. 
Step 4 -- Design the regional reserve network. The biodiversity surface model described in the preceding steps should provide practical direction for defining the boundaries of a system of reserves, restoration areas, and linkage zones, using the design principles outlined earlier in this chapter. Restoration areas should be those areas which are adjacent to reserves and have the potential to contribute greatly to regional biodiversity but have been degraded by past management and are in need of restoration activities. Linkage zones should be areas of varying size and type that provide spatial linkages in the reserve network but do not qualify as reserves. The concept of minimum dynamic area should be employed when designing the integrated reserve network. An interactive GIS environment should be used to aid biologists in developing and evaluating several alternative reserve system options. 
Step 5 -- Develop management objectives and guidelines. Developing ecologically-based management objectives and guidelines for the various land designations should be a critical step in developing a regional ecosystem management plan. Since conditions vary greatly across the Eastside, management guidelines should be tailored to match specific vegetation types and objectives. Some initial management objectives and guidelines for the proposed land designations are listed below: 
Management objectives of the reserve system 
· Maintain/enhance habitat quality for rare, sensitive, threatened, and endangered species. 
· Restore native plant communities from damage associated with livestock grazing and other human disturbances. 
· Maintain/restore mature and old-growth forests. 
· Maintain/restore aquatic habitat for anadromous and resident fish and other elements of aquatic biodiversity. 
· Restore vegetation/landscape structure characteristic of natural disturbance regimes. 
· Maintain high-quality habitat for wide-ranging mammals currently or formerly present, including elk, woodland caribou, moose, lynx, cougar, wolverine, fisher, grizzly bear, and gray wolf. 
· Maintain characteristic diversity of native flora and fauna. 
· Maintain well-distributed, viable populations of all native species. 
Management guidelines for the reserve system 
Reserves: 
· Natural disturbances allowed to occur (e.g. fire, insects). 
· No new mining or road construction permitted. Prompt closure of unnecessary roads with obliteration and revegetation of roadbeds with native plant species. 
· Prescribed fire permitted as primary tool for restoring/maintaining forest ecosystem health (see management guidelines related to prescribed fire presented in Chapter IV). 
· Trail systems and other access regulated (follow typical wilderness area standards). 
· Collection of plants or other materials for commercial purposes prohibited. 
· No logging of unmanaged forests permitted. Thinning permitted only in plantations and other recently logged areas in order to facilitate development of old-growth forest characteristics, restore natural forest structure and composition, or reduce fuel loads (see thinning guidelines presented in Chapter V). 
· Alien species eliminated or reduced, as feasible without use of herbicides (see recommendations for alien plant control presented in Chapter X). 
· Fire suppression permitted on a case-by-case basis, but generally discouraged (see Chapter VII). 
· Environmentally-sensitive, low-impact recreation, environmental education, and non-manipulative research permitted. 
Restoration areas: 
· Thinning permitted in order to facilitate restoration of natural forest structure and composition (as described in Chapter V). 
· No new road construction or reconstruction permitted. 
Linkage zones: 
· No logging of existing old-growth forests permitted. 
· Some level of timber cutting permitted, but emphasizing previously managed stands, selection logging techniques (Swanson and Franklin 1992), long (200+ year) rotations, and other silvicultural systems that seek to emulate forest stand and landscape patterns created by natural disturbance regimes. 
· Restoration forestry and sustainable forestry experiments allowed. However, experimental treatment must retain at least a minimum canopy closure, determined for each forest type on the Eastside, based on capability, natural disturbance regime, and other factors. In addition, experimental testing and monitoring of restoration techniques should take place on small areas and should be determined to be effective at achieving its objectives while protecting ecological values before any large-scale application is allowed. 
· Road density reduced to or maintained at no more than one mile per square mile. New road construction is prohibited except when shown to be necessary for a larger program of partial or complete road obliteration. 
· All riparian areas and other sensitive sites identified by landscape or watershed assessment conducted prior to any new management activity, protected. 
Chapter IV: Prescribed Burning 
OBJECTIVES 
Carefully conducted prescribed burning has the potential to improve forest ecosystem health significantly in Eastside ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests. The objective of prescribed burning is to use surface fires to mimic natural disturbance regimes on stands historically maintained by low-intensity, high-frequency fire regimes. Prescribed burning should be conducted to accomplish one or more of the following goals: 
· reduce fuels/break up horizontal fuel continuity; 
· prepare seedbeds for regeneration; 
· maintain/improve wildlife habitat; 
· achieve the effects of understory thinning; 
· control some forest insect pests and pathogens; and 
· encourage nutrient release. 
PRINCIPLES 
Scientists and forest managers are increasingly aware of the importance of fire for maintaining forest ecosystem health on the Eastside (e.g. Agee 1994; Mutch 1994). Wildfires have been a dominant force shaping the species, communities, structures, and processes of many Eastside forests for at least the last several millenia. Historically, fires have helped maintain ecosystem integrity by releasing a steady supply of nutrients into the soil, helping to control populations of forest pests, and limiting stocking levels, thereby reducing resource competition (Agee 1994). Many of the Eastside's plant species have evolved in fire environments and are dependent on fire for germination and recruitment (Kauffman 1990). In addition, stand structural characteristics that are the result of fire provide habitat for a variety of mammals, birds, and other taxa. 
The influence and effects of fire vary by community type. In dry forest types, the historic fire regime of frequent, low-intensity burns maintained primarily open stands of old, large-diameter trees (e.g. Agee 1994; Everett et. al. 1994a; Langston in press). Higher-elevation fir-dominated communities have a longer interval historic fire regime. Fires in these types historically often were (and continue to be) intense stand-replacing fires. Moister riparian areas and north slopes are also less prone to frequent fires. 
Fire suppression policies over the last century have changed historic fire frequency, intensity, and extent, particularly in Eastside ponderosa pine and mixed conifer communities (Agee 1994). These changes in the fire regime, in conjunction with logging, site conversions, livestock grazing, and other human-caused disturbances, have adversely affected the ecosystem integrity and productivity of some stands. Some formerly open, park-like stands have developed thickets of shade-tolerant firs. In these stands, trees may be stressed from overstocking, potentially increasing susceptibility to attack by insects and pathogens. Where there are abnormally high rates of tree defoliation or mortality, fuel loading can be especially high, potentially contributing to increased incidence of high-intensity, stand-replacing fires that historically did not occur frequently in this forest type. 
Although some stands may have abnormally high stocking levels and fuel loads, this condition does not exist uniformly on Eastside forests. In fact, Forest Service data indicate that tree mortality as a percentage of stocking on national forests has not increased in the Interior West and has decreased in the Pacific Northwest over the past four decades (U.S. Forest Service 1992b). In addition, tree mortality, insects, and diseases are natural, essential ecosystem components. Areas of high mortality may provide essential habitat for species which rely on standing and downed dead wood (Hutto in review). 
Prescribed fire is a tool for re-establishing the historic fire regime of forests that have been adversely influenced by fire suppression. In addition to reducing fuel loading and continuity, prescribed fire may decrease pest outbreaks, provide germination sites for shade-intolerant species, release nutrients, and create wildlife habitat (Brennan and Hermann 1994). However, there are significant ecological risks associated with its widespread application. These risks are compounded by 1) the lack of information about the effects of various fire intensities on ecosystem components and 2) current fuel conditions which may increase significantly the probability of crown fires in some Eastside forest stands. Ecological damage potentially associated with fires that burn at high-intensity includes: erosion, nutrient loss, loss of duff and soil wood, damage to tree roots (Thomas and Agee 1986), increased susceptibility to bark beetles (Fellin 1979), smoke hazard, and damage from escaped fires. Although managers are beginning to recognize the importance of reintroducing fire, prescribed fire is not used commonly except for removal of slash piles. 
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 
· Prescribed burning should be conducted primarily in areas that are currently outside the historic range of variability for fire frequency (i.e. have missed more than 1 fire return interval). Prescribed burning generally should not be conducted in forest types that have long-interval fire frequencies (> 100 years) and, therefore, have probably not experienced significant ecological change due to fire suppression. 
· Priority for prescribed burning should be given to 1) ecologically sensitive areas, such as oak woodlands and native grasslands, that are likely to disappear without fire (Agee 1994), 2) low-elevation or south-facing forests that have been most transformed by fire suppression, 3) areas where landscape-scale benefits of fuels reduction are high, and 4) the environs around developed areas. 
· Although prescribed burns should be conducted at the stand-level, they should be planned at the landscape-scale in order to be effective at restoring ecosystem integrity and resiliency (Mutch 1994). 
· Prescribed burns should be conducted at frequencies and intensities similar to the natural fire regime. 
· Introduction of prescribed fire may need to be carried out in conjunction with pruning of lower limbs, raking litter away from large boles, or thinning treatments that reduce ladder fuels. 
· Prescribed burning should be conducted in the fall -- the natural fire season -- whenever feasible. Spring burning generally is discouraged because of potential damage to soil organisms, depletion of water retention in soils before the summer season, and threats to vulnerable birds and burrowing mammals. 
· Managers should plan to re-burn within a ten year period; in moister areas, it may be necessary to re-burn several times to reduce fuels gradually (U.S. Forest Service 1992c). 
· Control of prescribed fires should comply with standards and guidelines for fire fighting (as described in Chapter VII). 
· No new roads should be constructed for prescribed burning programs. 
· Where land ownerships are mixed, federal land management agencies should establish policies to address conflicts between re-establishment of natural disturbance regimes on federal lands and the protection of private property (Beschta et. al. 1995). 
· Negative public perception of prescribed burning due to "escaped" fires and reduced air quality should be addressed through public outreach and careful timing of burning so as to avoid significant short-term degradation of air quality. 
Chapter V: Thinning 
OBJECTIVES 
The objectives of thinning recommendations as part of an ecologically-based approach to national forest management on the Eastside are to: 
· enhance the development of stand conditions that are generally characteristic of each forest type under a natural disturbance regime; 
· reduce tree stocking associated with significantly abnormal susceptibility to insects and pathogens; 
· reduce fuels that significantly increase the abnormal likelihood of stand-replacing fires; 
· encourage the maintenance of older, large-diameter early seral trees; and 
· maintain/restore variability at both stand and landscape levels while maintaining wildlife habitat and other ecological values. 
Owing to its potential to cause serious environmental damage, thinning should be allowed on public forest lands on the Eastside only when the responsible land management agencies can convincingly demonstrate that proposed treatments are consistent with these objectives, and will comply with the standards and guidelines that follow. 
PRINCIPLES 
There is an emerging scientific opinion that past forest management and fire suppression policies have led to the development of forests on some Eastside landscapes that are denser and more homogeneous than under pre-settlement conditions (Covington et. al. 1994; Gast et. al. 1991; Henjum et. al. 1994; Lehmkuhl et. al. 1994). The increased density of shade-tolerant trees, particularly in forest types formerly characterized by frequent, low-intensity fires, has been linked to increased risk of insect and pathogen outbreaks (Perry 1988; Hessburg et. al. 1994) and high-intensity wildfires (Arno and Ottmar 1994a). Although increased mortality resulting from these conditions has been postulated as a significant threat to forest productivity, the extent of increased mortality on the Eastside has not been determined adequately. However, U.S. Forest Service summary statistics indicate that tree mortality, as a percent of stocking on national forests, has not increased in the Interior West and has decreased in the Pacific Northwest over the past four decades (U.S. Forest Service 1992b). Although some concern has been expressed over their reliability (W. Brad Smith, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C., personal communication 1995), these data suggest that the need for thinning is relatively limited and non-urgent. 
Silvicultural thinning is being advocated by some as a tool to facilitate the development of forest conditions that more closely resemble those that would occur under a natural disturbance regime (Hessburg and Everett 1994), reduce risks of catastrophic loss (Mason and Wickman 1994; Harvey 1994), and facilitate the reintroduction of fire as an integral ecosystem process (Mutch et. al. 1993; Arno and Ottmar 1994b). Although thinning within the context of intensive forestry is not new, its efficacy as a tool for ecological restoration is controversial and largely unsubstantiated. Very little empirical research has investigated the impacts of thinning treatments on a wide array of ecosystem components and processes and on differing forest types. However, anecdotal evidence and at least one empirical study (Weatherspoon and Skinner in press) suggest that stand density reduction through harvest treatments may not result in lower fire damage or risk and, in fact, may exacerbate fire damage. Conventional thinning operations may have little damping effect on fire behavior, given that the reduction of fine fuel (£ 3" diameter) levels are typically not the objective of treatment. 
Although our current understanding of the ecological effects of thinning is incomplete, available evidence indicates that thinning operations, even when properly conducted, can result in significant adverse ecological impacts, including: 
· reduced habitat quality for sensitive species asso