Lakeview Stewardship Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Monitoring Report: 2012–2019 JULIA OLSZEWSKI AND AUTUMN ELLISON SPRING 2021 Ecosystem 0 1o iiEaoN Workforce Program O~go~State Uruvers1ty About this project The Collaborative Forest Restoration Program requires that all forest collaborative groups receiving funding conduct ecological, social and economic monitoring. The report presents the results of analyses on the ecological, social, and economic monitoring data for the Lakeview Stewardship group from fiscal years 2012 to 2019. About the authors Julia Olszewski is a Monitoring Data Analyst with Lake County Resources Initiative. Autumn Ellison is a Senior Research Assistant with the Ecosystem Workforce Program, Institute for a Sustainable Environment at the University of Oregon. Contributors Clint Albertson, Fremont-Winema National Forest Don Kozlowski, Fremont-Winema NF Chaylon Shuffield, Fremont-Winema NF Heidi Huber-Stearns, Ecosystem Workforce Program, Vicki Saab, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USFS University of Oregon Jonathan Dudley, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USFS Eric M. White, PNW Research Station, USFS Richard Pyzik, Fremont-Winema NF Emily Jane Davis, Ecosystem Workforce Program, Phillip Gaines, Fremont-Winema NF Oregon State University Amy Markus, Fremont-Winema NF Cassandra Moseley, University of Oregon Gina Rone, Fremont-Winema NF Chewaucan Biophysical Monitoring Team Members: 2013-2019 Clair Thomas, lead Josh Fledderjohann Landen Lampman Lizzie Ramsey Nate Atchinson Stephen Griffin Brandi Larson Jacinda Thomas Josh Brown Luke Grosh Connor Lysne Patricia Thomas Mila Carita Kate Hadley Nathan McDaniel Kelton VanHoesen Bryce Crumrine Baylee Hamrick Samantha Nicholl Nick Wiebelhaus Helen Erickson Clark Hansen Kayne Oleman Anna Fledderjohann Nathan Harlan Aurora Price About Lake County Resources Initiative: Lake County Resources Initiative (LCRI) aims to bring Lake County, Oregon both economic and environmental prosperity through biophysical monitoring and renewable energy. LCRI serves as the facilitator of the Lakeview Stewardship Group, and employs the Chewaucan Biophysical Monitoring Team. About the Ecosystem Workforce Program: The Ecosystem Workforce Program is a bi-institutional program of University of Oregon’s Institute for a Sustainable Environment and the College of Forestry at Oregon State University. We conduct applied social science research and extension services at the interface of people and natural resources. More information: http://ewp.uoregon.edu. Acknowledgements This report was made possible through funding from the Collaborative Forest Restoration Program and the Fremont-Winema National Forest. Layout and design by Autumn Ellison. Many thanks to everyone who provided review and feedback. For more information please contact: Nick Johnson Lake County Resources Initiative 100 North D St., Suite 202 Lakeview, OR 97630 (541) 947-5461; nick.johnson@lcri.org http://lcri.org/ 0 The University of Oregon is an equal-opportunity, affirmative-action institution committed to cultural diversity and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. This publication will be made available in accessible formats upon request. ©2021 University of Oregon. OREGON Table of Contents: Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Part 1: Biophysical Monitoring Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Overview table of questions, indicators, and recommendations: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Q1: How effective are fuels treatments at reducing fire risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Q2: What are the effects of fire and/or mechanical treatments on tree survival/mortality by diameter class, changes in ladder fuels, and fuel loading pre/post treatment? . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Q3: What is the effect of the treatments on moving the Forest Landscape toward a more sustainable condition that includes scale and intensity of historic disturbances?. . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Q4: What is the historical spatial pattern within the Lakeview Stewardship landscape? How well are treatments mimicking historical spatial patterns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Q5: What are the site-specific effects of restoration treatments on focal species habitat within the project area? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Q6: What are the effects of restoration treatments on focal species habitat across the CFLR Project Area? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Q7: How are riparian and upland treatments impacting ground vegetation and soils? . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Q8: How are projects (road closures, upland and riparian treatments, etc.) impacting water quality? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Q9: Are Forest Prevention Practices effective in minimizing impacts of management treatments (including prescribed fire) on invasive plant species (new and/or existing)? . . . . . . 104 Part 2: Socioeconomic Monitoring Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Introduction and overview of questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Q10: What is the socioeconomic context of the Lake County area? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Q11: What are the overall economic impacts of the CFLR project? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Q12: How much and what kinds of CFLR work are captured locally? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Q13: What are the costs, local capture, and treatment outcomes of different project implementation mechanisms? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Q14: What are the total and matching funds in CFLR? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Appendices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 2 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 f -Co-mmon A-cronyms-: l CBH Canopy Base Height CBMT Chewaucan Biophysical Monitoring Team CFBH Crown Fuel Base Height CFLR(P) Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration (Program) CWD Coarse Woody Debris DBH Diameter at Breast Height DWD Downed Woody Debris FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class FSDMP Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol FWD Fine Woody Debris GNN Gradient Nearest Neighbor ICO Individuals, Clumps and Openings LCBH Live Crown Base Height LCRI Lake County Resources Initiative RMRS Rocky Mountain Research Station USFS United States Forest Service WCF Watershed Condition Framework Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 3 Introduction 4 Lakeview Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Project Monitoring Plan “Multiparty monitoring has the potential to be a valuable component of landscape-scale restoration and the CFLRP. Groups have designed their strategies with the intention of promoting knowledge generation and learning, maintaining or promoting accountability and trust among stakeholders, reducing uncertainty regarding landscape-scale and long-term effects of restoration, and supporting the development of adaptive management frameworks that facilitate changes in project planAnidnga apntdi vimep leMmeanntaatiogne imn reesnpot nse to monitowrienrge ainpfpoliremda ttoi oenac.”h ( qSucehstuioltnz. eTth aesl.e, 2ar0e1 c4on) cepts the collaborative group felt were important in de- Framework ciding whether a question becomes part of the final The Lakeview CFLR multiparty monitoring group monitoring plan. The criteria are: The Cohlalsa badoorapttievde t heF oforlelsotw inLga nddiasgcraapme (FiRgeusrteo 2r)a taiso an Stewardship Group (LSG), a public lands forest col- (CFLR) wParyo gtor aomrg anwiazes theset oavbelrisahlle md oninit otrhineg aOnmd nadibapu-s 1.l abDooreast itvhee t qhuaet sftoiormn epdro ivni d1e9 9p8o tteon gtiuaild aen aswnder asd vise the Public Ltiavned m Manaangaegmeemnet nfrta Amcetw oofr k2.0 W09it thoi np rthoims ofrtaem the-e Fotrheastt mSaeyr vinicfleu eonnc et hfuet umrea dneacgiesimonesn?t of the Lakeview collaborwaotirvke, t, hsec gieronucpe -idbeansteidfi eedc qouseyssttioenms trheastt aorrea tgiuoind eodf 2.F edDeoreas lt hSet eqwueasrtidosnh aidpd Urenssi tt.h Te hgoea lCs FoLf tRh ep CroFjLeRc t encom- priorityb fyo aregsret elda-nodn ssciadpebeos.a rTdhs.e T phrios girnaitmia lu ssteesp ah eclpoemd- paasnseds t ohev erer q6u5i0re,0m0e0n ta tcor emso onnit othr eso Fcriaelm, eocnont-oWmi-nema Na- the group to narrow the questions to those that are petitive process to allocate funding to landscape-scale tioinc,a al nFdo reecsotl oagnicda li sv adleuseisg?ned to improve forest health highest priority. Our learning framework can be restoratdioensc prirboejde catss tthhea ct oallraeb porraotpivoes eadn by the U 3. Does the question addred institutioSnDaAl and reduce wildfire hazsas rtdh ew gohaillse ocf othnet rLiobnugt-ing to the Forest Seer Rannvviricoen m(Feonrt etshta tS peervrmiciet)s tahned f oclololwlaibnogr asetoriress oonf social gaen Sdt reacteognyo fmori tch we Lelalkbeeviinegw oFfe ldoecraall Sctoemw-munities. nationaml afonraegsetm leannt-d asn. dG scoiaelnsc eo-fb atsheed lperaorngirnagm p rioncceslude ardship Unit?ses. encouraging ecological, economic, and social sus- 4.M oCnainto croinstg-e fofef ctbioveth m oencoitloorginicga tle cahnndi qusoesc iboee conomic tainability; leveraging local resources with national prodjeevcetl oopuetdc otom aenss wise ar tcheen qturaels tcioonm?ponent of the CFLR and privQatue reessotuirocens;s r eDduecvineg lwoipldmfiree mnatn aagnemde nt 5.P roDgoreasm th, ea nmdu altlilp faurtnyd medo npirtoojreinctgs garroeu pre hqauvier ed to de- costs; anPdr piroorviidtiyng local economic benefits in rural veloowpn aenrsdh icpo innd tuhce tq mueustlitoipna?rty monitoring plans (Om- commuTnhitei ecso l(lUabSoDraAti vFeo grerosut pS ehrevldic ae w, no.rdk.s)h. op in July of 6.n ibHuass Pthueb qluice sLtiaonnd b Meena naangswemereendt t Ahrcotu, g2h0 p0r8e)v. iT-he intent 2012 to identify questions of interest to the group. is otou ss meto nuipto rainng aedffaoprttsi?ve management framework to The LaAkpepvrioexwim aStetleyw 6a5r qdusehsitpio nsC wolelraeb eoxrparteisvsee d Fbyo rtehset evaluate the success of restoration methods as shown Landscagproeu Rp.e Isnto orradteior nto P firlotejer cotr wnaarsr oaww tahredseed q fuuesntdioinnsg Aifnte rF tihgeu raeb oAve bcreiltoewria (wDeerMe aepop leite da lt.o, t2h0e1 q5u).e sC-ollabora- in 2012d. oTwhne tpo rhoijgehcets tw parsio prirtoy pqouseesdti obnys ftohr em Loankiteovriinegw, titoinves, gthroe ulpisst wanads ntahrer oFwoerde sdt oSwenrv tioc e1 4c eacno luosgei- monitor- the collaborative group also identified criteria that cal, social, and economic questions that would be Figure AF iguAred a2p. t iPvaec mifiacn Naogretmhweenst tf rRaemgeiowno 6rk A tdoa fpatcivileit Mataen aa gmeomneitnotr Finragm perowcoersks Questions Development and Formal Priority– Stakeholders and Decision-makers Each tted to a Learning Method Implementation, National Outcome Eectiveness via Monitoring, and Performance Monitoring and Management Research Activities Records Reporting–OMB Trend Analysis Studies Mandatory Requirements (legal and otherwise) Annual and Multi-year Synthesis and Interpretation With Stakeholders and Decision-makers k db ac Fee Future Decisions New Planning Rule ➔□- ~ ➔□-1 I➔ ➔o- J \o~ f', ft" \ ', \ \ ' ' \ \ \ \ ' ' ' .. 4 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 2 Lakeview Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Project Monitoring Plan ing information on project outcomes to help determine here include commercial thinning, pre-commercial whether project objectives are being met or if future thinning, aspen release, stream enhancements, and changes need to be made to better meet goals. prescribed/wildland fire. The socioeconomic moni- toring questions analyze the impact that restoration In July oIfn 2t0r12o, dthue cLStGio hneld a workshop to identify trBeaatmcekntgs rhoavue nfodr the local economy and beyond monitoring questions of interest. They also identified while considering the socioeconomic context and criteria tThhaet Lthaekye vaipepwl iCeodl ltaob eoarcahti vqeu Feosrtieosnt L toan ddestcearpmei Rnees - trTehned sL aokf etvhiee war eSat.e wThaerd rsehsiupl tGs,r oreucpo wmams efonrdmateido nins , and toration Project (CFLR) was selected for funding in 1998 to examine the policies tied to the Lakeview which m20ad12e. iMt iunlttoi ptharet yfi nmaol npiltaonri, nugl,t iemvaaltuelayti eosnt,a abnlids ha-c- leFsesdoenrsa l lSeuasrtnaeinde da rYei epldre Usennitt eadnd h geernee rfaolrl yt hime pbreonvee fit of ing 14 eccooulnotgaibciallit, ys oarceia rle, qaunidre de ctoon aosmseiscs qthuee sptoiosintisv eto o r alml acnoallgaebmoernatt iovfe t mhee umnbite. rTsh, aeinrd le wadilelr sbhei pu saendd tsou ipn-form be inclundeegda tiinv et heec oLlaokgiecvaile, wso Scitaelw, aanrdd sehciopn ComFLicR e Mffeocntsi -of supborste rqeuseunltte dr eisnt othrea tUionnit baecitnivgi rteieasu tahnordi zmedo inni t2o0r0i1n g ef- toring Pplaronj.e cTtsh eismep qleumeestnitoends. Mwoenreit orreivnige wise dan a ensds eanpti-al foarst st haes sLhaokwevni eiwn FFiegduerrea lB S, bteewloawrd. ship Unit (the proved pbayr t tohfe a dfuapllt icvoe lmlaabnoaragteimve ngt,r obuecpa uinse Fite pbrouvairdye s Unit) with a new restoration-focused policy state- 2013, anredl iab Slec ifeendcbea Tcke aomn twhea se fcfeocntvs eonf emda ntoa gdeemveenlot pac - Tmhe nmt (osneeit: ohrtitnpg:/ /dwawtaw u.fs.efedd i.uns /trh6i/sf rreewpionr/tp crojmecets/ from the apprtoiopnrsia aten dm eitt haolldoowlos gmy aton aagnesrws etor eraecfihn eq udeesctiisoinon. s a cveartr/iseytyu poofl iscoyu.prdcfe)s., and many different people have The finaaln md opnriotjoercitn gd eqsuigens titohnrosu ignhc lau dleeadr nniinnge ebcaoselodg ai-p- contributed to the analysis; a true multiparty effort. cal quesptiroonacsh a ntdo fimvea nsaogceiomeecnotn. oMmuiclt iqpuaersttyi omnso.n itoring FCuotullraeb moroantoirtos rtihnagt wmiallk ein ucplu tdhee tLhaek nevewielwy- Sdteevwel-oped helps to achieve the CFLR’s goals of “improving Caormdsmhoipn MGroonuipto r(iLnSgG S) trreatpergeys einn ta dmdoistito pno ttoe nqutieaslt ions This repcoormt rmepurneisceantitosn a ann adn jaoliynsti sp orof belceomlo sgoiclvailn, gso acmiaoln, g secloelclatebdo rbayto rths eo nc otlhlea blaonradtsicvaep iet.s Telhfe. yM ionrcel uidnefo Trhmea tion individuals and groups” to better manage land- Collins Companies, Concerned Friends of the and economic monitoring data for restoration activi- on the Common Monitoring Strategy can be found at scapes. Figure 1 provides an overview of the CFLR Fremont-Winema, Defenders of Wildlife, Fremont- ties conMduuclttiepda rbtyy Mthoen iLtoarkienvg iPerwo cSetsesw. ardship Group thWe ilnienmksa iNna tthioen raels oFuorrecsets, bLoaxk eo nC oPuangety 5 C. hamber (LSG) from 2012 to 2019. The treatments analyzed of Commerce, Lake County Resources Initiative, Lakeview High School, Lakeview Ranger District, FigureF Big ureO 1ve. rOviveewr voief wth oe fC CFFLLRRP Muullttiippaarrttyy Moniittorriing Process Hold Multiparty Meeting - Identify common goals and monitoring concerns for the project. Construct communications framework outlining information transfer between project stakeholders. Develop Monitoring Plan - Describe indicators to measure change built on reliable data collection methods. Specifically address where, when, and who will gather project data. Gather Data - Collect pre-treatment measures, repeated measures, to determine post-treatment success. Ensure data is kept in a long-term safe place. Analyze Results - Conduct reliable and simple calculations on data from local, regional, and national perspectives. Schedule multiparty team meet- ings to discuss and interpret results. Share Results - Keep process transparent, adaptive, and flexible. Suggest tangible prescriptions when new information becomes available. Report results illustrating both success and failure. Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 5 Resources: References Demeo, T., Markus, A., Bormann, B., & Leingang, J. (2015). Common Monitoring Strategy: Tracking Progress: The Monitoring Process Used in Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Projects in the • Monitoring in the Next Round of Pacific Northwest. Ecosystem Workforce Program, University Collaborative Forest Landscape of Oregon. Working Paper #54. Available at: http://ewp. Restoration Projects. Available at: https:// uoregon.edu/sites/ewp.uoregon.edu/files/WP_54.pdf. www.fs.fed.us/restoration/documents/cflrp/ CFLRP_monitoring_strategy_20201214.pdf Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 Title IV-- Forest Landscape Restoration, Public Law No. 111-11, S.2593 • Core CFLRP Monitoring Questions and (2008). https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate- Indicators. Available at: https://www. bill/2593/text. fs.fed.us/restoration/documents/cflrp/ CFLRP_monitoring_questions_core_ Schultz, C. A., Coelho, D. L., & Beam, R. D. (2014). Design and indicators_20201214.pdf governance of multiparty monitoring under the USDA Forest Service’s Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. Journal of Forestry, 112(2), 198–206. Lakeview CFLR Project Monitoring Plan: • Available at: http://ewp.uoregon.edu/sites/ USDA Forest Service. n.d. Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program Overview. Available at: https://www.fs.fed. ewp.uoregon.edu/files/WP_60.pdf us/restoration/CFLRP/overview.shtml. Lakeview Stewardship Group members meet up to discuss projects and see results on the ground during a 2018 field tour. Photo courtesy of Autumn Ellison, University of Oregon. 6 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Biophysical Monitoring “The monitoring program .... goals are to collect relational indicator information from the landscape, from tree top to below ground on the same site; using equipment and methodologies that are relevant, sensitive, relatively inexpensive, standardized, repeatable, and usable; and to create a relational database that allows anyone to query inventory information from the watershed, in order to gauge rates of watershed repair over time.” (Lakeview CFLR Monitoring Plan, 2015) Overview Table 1. Summary of Biophysical monitoring questions, goals, indicators, and conclusions and recommendations Question # Goal Indicator Conclusions and Recommendations • Predicted fire behavior appeared to decrease following treatment, but contin- ued monitoring with a more comprehensive sampling plan is recommended in future projects. Additional monitoring is recommended in prescribed burns. To quantify the effective- Modeled fire • Pile/burn treatment appeared effective in mitigating a potential increase in 1.1 ness of fuels treatments growth and be- surface fire behavior due to residual treatment slash. on fire growth and How effective havior • The decrease in live vegetation appeared to influence fire behavior more than behavior. are fuels treat- the increase in fine surface fuels. This balance will change over time, so con- ments at reduc- tinued monitoring will be necessary to track trends in post-treatment surface ing fire risk? fuel dynamics. Estimate fire program • Use of the software tool R-CAT was discontinued, so the calculations management cost sav- Expected suppres- couldn’t be performed as outlined in the question. The collaborative must 1.2 ings and risk reductions sion costs with and decide if an alternative method of addressing this question is desired. for the CFLR project without treatment • One potential approach would be to use the Risk Reduction Index developed area by the Colville National Forest. What are the effects of fire • Pile/burn treatment appeared effective in mitigating a potential increase in and/or mechani- surface fuel build-up from residual treatment slash. cal treatments To quantify the effects • Longer-term monitoring will be necessary to assess trends in mortality and on tree survival/ Mortality, Forest 2.1 of prescribed fire and surface fuel dynamics.mortality by Structure and Fuel diameter class, mechanical treatments • Treatment appeared to result in a lift in canopy base height when saplings Loading changes in lad- on vegetation were removed, but continued monitoring with a more comprehensive sam- der fuels, and pling plan is recommended in future projects. Additional monitoring is recom- fuel loading pre/ mended in prescribed burns. post treatment? Projection of a • CSE data was not gathered as specified in the monitoring plan, so general To assess whether treat- stand’s resistance vegetation data gathered by the CBMT was used instead. The collaborative ments have resulted in to wildfire, insects may consider alternative measures of resistance/resilience in future projects. 3.1 sustained or improved and disease, • In some thinning treatments, residual basal area appeared to be above targets resiliency/resistance drought based on established in silvicultural prescriptions. What is the to insect, disease, and past radial growth • In some thinning treatments, diameter distributions appeared high in smaller effect of the drought and other stand size classes. treatments data • Multi-age or variable density prescriptions may be considered. on moving To quantify and compare the Forest Change in Fire • Treatments have been effective at vegetation restoration, but so far only a the scale and intensity Landscape 3.2 Regime Condition small fraction of the total vegetation departure has been addressed.of current restoration toward a more Class (FRCC) • Wildland fire at severity levels consistent with historical fire regimes appears sustainable treatments to historic rating to be the most effective method of restoration. condition that disturbances includes scale • Under the historic fire regime, 126,000 acres should have burned between and intensity 2011 and 2019. In that time, 26,500 acres were burned in prescribed fires, of historic To quantify and compare and 71,000 acres were burned in large wildland fires for a total of 97,500 disturbances? the effects of prescribed acres. 3.3 fire and mechanical Fire frequency • The majority of acres burned were in wildland fire, indicating that prescribed treatments to the historic fire alone has not come close to matching the historical regime. disturbance regime • Recommendations include supporting efforts to remove barriers to prescribed burning, increasing the use of managed fire, and monitoring fire severity extent in addition to acres burned. Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 7 Biophysical Monitoring Questions Overview Table, continued Question # Goal Indicator Conclusions and Recommendations What is the To understand historic • An attempt to contract with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) to gather this historical spatial 4.1 spatial patterns that will Individuals, clumps data as specified in the monitoring plan fell through.pattern within help with future pre- and openings • Information on historical spatial patterns in similar dry forest types can be the Lakeview scription writing used to inform prescription writing. Stewardship landscape? • An attempt to contract with TNC to gather this data as specified in the moni- How well are To achieve fine scale toring plan fell through. treatments 4.2 mosaic pattern across Individuals, clumps • A LiDAR data analysis revealed too few large clumps and too few large open- mimicking the landscape that and openings ings were left following thinning treatments. historical spatial existed historically • Future thinning treatments should focus on leaving larger clumps and larger patterns? openings. To incorporate fine-res- olution habitat suitability Levels of tree for nesting WHWO into clustering, stand • An attempt to contract with TNC to gather this data as specified in the moni- 5.1 silvicultural prescrip- densities, and tree toring plan fell through.tions and thereby guide characteris-tics, • The LSG may make another attempt to contract with TNC or use an alternate ecosystem restoration and the density and method such as LiDAR data analysis. projects within the range size of openings of the species What are the • This indicator is being addressed by the Rocky Mountain Research Station site-specific (RMRS). effects of To verify the effective- • Nests were generally found in large-diameter ponderosa pine and aspen in White-headed restoration ness of restoration low-density ponderosa pine forest or aspen stands adjacent to pine forest. 5.2 woodpecker oc-treatments for improving • White-headed woodpecker (WHWO) detections have increased but nest treatments on cupancy, nesting, habitat for white-headed detections have decreased. focal species and successwoodpeckers • More WHWO and nest detections have taken place in untreated areas than habitat within treated areas. the project • RMRS plans to continue monitoring in order to further study these trends. area? • Under the historic fire regime, 126,000 acres should have burned between 2011 and 2019. In that time, 26,500 acres were burned in prescribed fires, To quantify and compare and 71,000 acres were burned in large wildland fires for a total of 97,500 the effects of prescribed acres. 5.3 fire and mechanical Fire frequency • The majority of acres burned were in wildland fire, indicating that prescribed treatments to the historic fire alone has not come close to matching the historical regime. disturbance regime • Recommendations include supporting efforts to remove barriers to prescribed burning, increasing the use of managed fire, and monitoring fire severity extent in addition to acres burned. To improve and maintain habitat for white-headed Amount of WHWO • The RMRS is responsible for addressing this indicator. RMRS personnel will 6.1 woodpeckers (WHWO) habitat within be conducting a habitat suitability analysis using the 2017 GNN data within What are the at the stand and land- CFLR Project Area the next couple years. The results will be reported when received. effects of scape scale restoration Total acres of treatments on aspen or riparian focal species habitat in which co- habitat across To improve habitat for • Conifer reduction took place in 6,386 acres of aspen habitat and 44.5 acres nifer reduction oc- 6.2 fish and wildlife species of riparian habitat.the CFLR curred and the total within aspen, stream, • 22.8 miles of stream enhancement projects were conducted. Project Ar-ea? number of miles of and riparian areas stream enhanced due to in-stream improvements 8 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Biophysical Monitoring Questions Overview Table, continued Question # Goal Indicator Conclusions and Recommendations • The CBMT found that three years after conifer removal in the West Drews Riparian vegetation To quantify vegeta- Aspen project, understory vegetation had responded positively but there species composi- tion composition and was no observed increase in aspen regeneration. The LSG agreed to tion, bare ground and response before and continue monitoring in West Drews to see if there was a delayed aspen 7.1 ground cover, ripar-after small tree thin- regeneration response.ian and streamside ning and prescribed • South Warner Aspen sites were monitored one year following treatment, vegetation cover, age How are fire within riparian but this was too soon to observe a vegetation response to conifer removal. class, extent of ripar- riparian corridors Continued monitoring is recommended in all aspen sites.ian vegetation and upland treatments • Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol surveys conducted by the impacting Fremont-Winema soil scientist showed that soil disturbance was within the ground standards of detrimental impact for the following: • One year and three years following commercial thinning by cut-to-length vegetation and Estimate fire pro- tethered forwarder on steep slopes harvest in Deuce Pilot. soils? gram management Expected suppres- 7.2 • One year following commercial thinning by feller-buncher and skidder in cost savings and risk sion costs with and Crooked Mud Honey Lil Stewardship. reductions for the without treatment • Eight years following commercial thinning by feller-buncher and rubber-tired CFLR project area skidder in Abe. • The CBMT found that soil compaction in skid trails from grapple logging in Olde was not high enough to be of concern, especially when compared to soil compaction in burned areas from the Barry Point fire. • The WCF structure is in the process of being revised, so there is no current official WCF rating. The most recent assessment was completed in 2016. To maintain those • Of the 65-sub-watersheds in the Stewardship Unit, 22 were rated as func- watersheds currently tioning properly and 43 were rated as functional-at-risk. rated as “good” and Watershed Condition 8.1 • CFLR projects have resulted in improvements to some sub-watersheds, to improve to “good” Framework (WCF) but likely not enough to shift ratings from functional-at-risk to functioning in those watersheds ratings properly. currently rated as • Improvements in WCF ratings could be made by addressing stream tem- “fair” How are perature, but this would involve resource-intensive operations that would be projects (road difficult to carry out on a large scale. closures, upland Miles of road To quantify the • Some road decommissioning has taken place, but not enough to make a and riparian decommissioned miles of road change in the WCF rating. treatments, etc.) and reduction in road decommissioned • Obstacles to road decommissioning include the following: impacting water 8.2 density in the 6th field across the entire • Public desire to access remote areas. quality? watersheds within the CFLR project area • Access for firefighters. CFLR project area and within riparian • Turnover and lack of funding for engineering staff. and within riparian zones areas • Average stream temperature is increasing in some areas and decreasing in To determine how others. 8.3 restoration projects Stream temperature • The factors affecting stream temperature are numerous, so it is difficult to impact stream tem- identify with any certainty which factors are contributing to stream tempera- perature ture trends. How are 9.1 Number of new • Invasive species surveys in areas of concern were never conducted. projects (road invasive plant sites • Almost no new infestations were observed in general post-treatment To minimize the closures, upland discovered and/or vegetation monitoring, but this monitoring did not necessarily take place in oc-currence of new and riparian expansion of existing areas of concern.invasive plant sites treatments, etc.) invasive plant sites • Invasive species surveys should be conducted in areas of concern in future and/or expansion of impacting water within or immediately restoration projects.existing sites quality? adjacent to vegetation management activities Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 9 Recommendations and Lessons Learned from the First Round of CFLRP Monitoring Ecological Monitoring Plan Development • Analysis and reporting would be easier if indica- tors, not just overall questions, are given consider- • For each question, be specific about the indicator ation in terms of order and organization. and how it will be measured. » The resistance and resilience indicators from » Indicators such as fire behavior, mortality and Q3 would fit with the forest structure/fuel fuel loading were identified in Q1 and Q2, but loading/mortality indicators from Q2 since all no instructions were given on how they were concern stand-level forest conditions and sus- to be measured. ceptibility to disturbance. » The fire regime indicators from Q3 would fit • For each indicator, consider the feasibility of gath- with the fire behavior/risk reduction indica- ering and reporting the data. tors from Q1. » CSE data was never collected and invasive » The results calculated for Q2 also serve as species surveys were not conducted. the inputs for fire behavior modeling in Q1. It » Efforts to contract with The Nature Conser- would have been more effective to position the vancy for data on forest structure fell through. discussion of fuel loading prior to the discus- » WCF indicators were not an accurate reflection sion of fuel loading effects on predicted fire of restoration work accomplished. behavior. • Establish desired conditions and benchmarks to define what constitutes success, and what consti- tutes trigger points for adaptive management. Field data collection • Establish a monitoring oversight committee that meets regularly. • Develop a comprehensive sampling plan with ap- » Ensure data gathering remains on schedule. propriate stratification and sufficient landscape » Address unforeseen issues with data gathering coverage to draw reliable conclusions. for any given indicator. » Identify all the different forest types (e.g. pon- derosa vs mixed conifer) to monitor. • National Indicators such as WCF and FRCC can be » Identify all the different management methods beneficial in that they involve minimal resources (e.g. CT, PCT, Rx Fire) to monitor. and expense on the part of individual collabora- » Identify the number of plots needed based on tives. However, they are subject to change, or may expected variation and how much of a change be discontinued entirely. If one of these indicators should be detectable. is used, it is important to keep track of the status so » Define how plot locations will be generated or adjustments can be made as necessary. selected. • Analysis and reporting are more difficult when » Define the plot naming convention. Ideally questions with similar themes are not grouped to- this would include references to both project gether. area and treatment name. This makes data or- » Habitat indicators were spread across multiple ganization and analysis much easier. different questions. » Forest Service specialists should share pre- » Fine-scale horizontal forest structure was ad- scribed burn units and thinning unit pools dressed in two different questions. once finalized so that pre-treatment data can » Q7 covers two unrelated indicators: riparian be collected in a timely fashion. vegetation and upland soils. » Focus on getting an adequate number of pre- treatment plots rather than instituting a treated vs. untreated sample scheme after treatment. 10 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 • Field data-gathering protocols should not be so • Electronic field data collection would help prevent time-consuming as to prevent a sufficient number conversion and transcription errors. of plots from being observed. » Balance the amount of data collected in plots • Field visits have always been a critical component with desired landscape coverage. of forest collaboration. These field visits allow » Do not include protocols that do not address stakeholders to see first-hand the results of restora- the monitoring questions. tion activities. The LSG has traditionally conduct- » Use appropriately sized field crews: two crews ed field visits at each annual meeting. Field visits, of four or five can accomplish more than one however, were not specified in the original LSG crew of eight to ten. monitoring plan. Field visits to restoration project » Do not worry about recording stumps and sites should be identified as a form of ecological felled trees to try to reconstruct pre-treatment monitoring. measurements. Concentrate on planning pre- treatment visits so there aren’t any post-treat- ment plots without pre-treatment visits. CBMT crew members at work in the field. Photo courtesy CBMT. Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 11 Question 1 How effective are fuels treatments at reducing fire risk? Goal 1.1: To quantify the effectiveness of fuels treatments on fire growth and behavior. Indicator 1.1: Modeled fire growth and behavior. Analysis 1.1: Modeled Fire Growth and were selected in order to represent a range of fire Behavior weather scenarios from moderate to most severe. The weather scenarios were calculated using Fire Fami- The Monitoring Plan suggests two programs, Flam- ly+ software (Jolly & Heinsch 2019) with weather data Map and Farsite, as options for modeling fire growth from the Coffee Pot and Summit Remote Automated and behavior. However, these programs have a spatial Weather Stations (RAWS) between 2012 and 2019. component to modeling potential fire spread, and re- RAWS data was accessed through the Kansas City quire continuous spatial data. BehavePlus (Heinsch & Fire Access Software (KCFAST) online portal (Barnes Andrews 2018) was selected for this analysis since it et al.). Coffee Pot RAWS data was used for the Deuce was a better fit for the discrete, plot-based monitoring and Jakabe harvests, and the Summit RAWS data was data collected by the Chewaucan Biophysical Moni- used for Crooked Mud Honey (CMH) Lil Stewardship. toring Team (CBMT). Any exercise in fire modeling is dependent on the No specific fire behavior variables of interest were accuracy of the inputs (McHugh 2006). Many of the identified in the Monitoring Plan, so two surface fire inputs used in this analysis were calculated from and two crown fire variables were selected. The sur- plot averages from each project area. In many cases, face fire variables are flame length and rate of spread the fuel loading results were inconclusive due to not (ROS). These two variables are used as basic quanti- enough plots being observed in a given project area. fiers of fire behavior (Fulé et al., 2001). The crown fire See Appendix 1A (pages 138-139) for maps of each variables are passive crown fire ROS and transition project area and plot distribution. Since the modeled ratio. Passive crown fire ROS refers to spread of fire fire behavior reflects averages and does not include in the canopy as trees torch from a surface fire as op- the variation, the results may not accurately reflect posed to spreading from crown to crown. A transition the change in fire risk. ratio of 1 is considered the threshold of when crown fire changes from unlikely to likely. A higher transi- Surface inputs calculated from the monitoring data tion ratio represents a higher likelihood of transition include downed woody debris (DWD) loading and from surface fire to crown fire (Heinsch & Andrews surface vegetation loading. Crown inputs include can- 2010). opy base height (CBH) and crown bulk density (CBD). The BehavePlus software requires crown fuel base While low-intensity surface fire was common in the height as opposed to live crown base height. CBD in- historical fire regimes for Eastside forests, crown fires puts were estimated using the tables and results from were rare and isolated (Hessburg et al., 2005). Ideally, Scott & Reinhardt (2005) and Reinhardt et al. (2006), forest restoration efforts would result in a lower prob- and were primarily based on basal area ranges. Since ability of surface fire transitioning to crown fire (Agee CBD was based on a range instead of an average, it & Skinner 2005). Both crown fire variables were se- is less likely to be affected by variation. Most of the lected in order to assess this probability. No weather input variables will be addressed in greater depth in scenarios were specified, so 80th, 90th, 95th and 98th Question 2. 12 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Deuce Pilot minimal, but the change in average 10-hr and 100-hr Inputs fuels could potentially be a large increase or a large Deuce Pilot was a commercial thinning treatment decrease. While the average live surface fuel loading (Figure 1.1). The change in average DWD loading dropped, the extent of the variation makes it unclear was minimal and the error overlapped pre- and post- whether there was a large drop or a small drop. While treatment, so the actual change in DWD is not clear. the average CBH lifted, it is unclear how much of a lift The change in average 1-hr fuel loading appears actually occurred. Figure 1.1 Fire behavior modeling inputs for Deuce Pilot calculated from field data (n = 7). Project-level averages are shown with standard error about the mean. Deuce Pilot: Fire Behavior Modeling Inputs 1−hr Fuels (tons/acre) 10−hr Fuels (tons/acre) 100−hr Fuels (tons/acre) 6 -- 0.50 I 2.4I 52.00.45 ' 4 1.6 I 0.40 1.2 3 -- Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Canopy Base Height (feet) Live Herbaceous (tons/acre) Live Woody (tons/acre) 6 4 5 I 0.16I 3 I 0.12 I 24 1 0.08 0 I Pre Post Pre -Post Pre Post Figure 1.2 Crew members measuring vegetation and fuel loading following the Deuce Pilot commercial thinning treatment. Photo courtesy of CBMT. Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 13 Results Fire ROS is measured in chains per hour. This may observed fire behavior and physical characteristics of not be a familiar measurement to many. One chain surface fuels in general (Anderson 1982). The likeli- is equivalent to 66 feet. With two exceptions, the hood of transition dropped in all four scenarios, and model predicted a decrease in fire behavior in all fire transition to crown fire changed from likely to un- behavior variables and weather scenarios following likely in the 90th and 95th percentile weather scenar- treatment. See Table 1.1 and Figure 1.3 for results. ios. The only predicted increase in fire behavior was The drop in average live fuel loading outweighed the in the 80th percentile weather scenario, where the slight increase in average 1-hr and 10-hr fuel loading, surface and crown fire ROS increased. In the milder as indicated by the predicted decrease in surface fire weather, the increase in surface fuel may have had behavior following treatment. This is consistent with more of an effect on fire spread than the weather. Table 1.1 Fire behavior modeling results for Deuce Pilot, pre-treatment and post-treatment for four different fire weather scenarios. 80th Percentile 90th Percentile 95th Percentile 98th Percentile Output Variable Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Units Surface Fire ROS 5.7 7.4 14.2 10.1 18.8 11.9 24.2 14.3 chains/hr Surface Fire Flame Length 2.8 2.6 4.4 3.1 5.1 3.4 5.8 3.8 feet Passive Crown Fire ROS 5.7 7.4 28.3 10.1 117 11.9 157 17.3 chains/hr Transition Ratio 0.66 0.46 1.84 0.64 2.92 0.80 3.89 1.03 NA Transition to Crown Fire? No No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes NA Figure 1.3 Results from fire behavior modeling for Deuce Pilot, pre-treatment and post-treatment. The dotted line at Y = 1 on the Transition Ratio graph represents the threshold for likelihood of transition from surface fire to crown fire. Deuce Pilot: Modeled Fire Behavior Passive Crown Fire Rate of Spread (chains/hour) Surface Fire Flame Length (feet) 6 150 100 4 50 2 0 0 80th 90th 95th 98th 80th 90th 95th 98th Surface Fire Rate of Spread (chains/hour) Transition Ratio 25 4 20 3 15 2 10 5 1 0 0 80th 90th 95th 98th 80th 90th 95th 98th Weather Percentile Monitoring Status ■ Pre □ Post Fire Behavior Output 14 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Deuce Olde in average 1-hr fuel loading was miniscule, in 10-hr loading was slightly larger (about one ton/ac), and in Inputs 100-hr was nearly six tons/acre. Due to the variation, Deuce Olde was a pre-commercial thinning treat- the actual extent of the increase was not clear. The ment with the goal of enhancing Late Old Structure average live surface fuel loading dropped, but the (LOS). Fuel loading inputs are shown in Figure 1.4. potential drop could have been large or small. While The average DWD loading increased in all three size the average CBH lifted, the overlap in variation shows categories; though by different amounts. The increase that it is not clear whether there was actually a lift, or if so, how much. Figure 1.4 Fire behavior modeling inputs calculated from field data for Deuce Olde (n = 4). Project-level averages are shown with standard error about the mean. Deuce Olde: Fire Behavior Modeling Inputs 1−hr Fuels (tons/acre) 10−hr Fuels (tons/acre) 100−hr Fuels (ton 0.200 14 -- - s/-acre) 3.5 12 0.175 3.0 10 0.150 8I 2.5 I 6 0.125 -- -- 2.0 I 4 Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Canopy Base Height (feet) Live Herbaceous (tons/acre) Live Woody (tons/acre) -- 7 0.3 -- 0.8 6 0.2 0.6 I 5 4 I -- 0.40.1 --0.2 I Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Figure 1.5 Pre-treatment and post-treatment photos in the Deuce Olde pre-commercial thinning treatment. Photo courtesy of the CBMT. Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 15 Results and flame length, as seen in Deuce Pilot. The tran- The model predicted a decrease in fire behavior in all sition ratio decreased in all four weather scenarios, fire behavior variables and weather scenarios. See Ta- and the transition to crown fire changed from likely ble 1.2 and Figure 1.6 for results. The decrease in aver- to unlikely in the 90th and 95th percentile weather age live surface fuel loading outweighed the increase scenarios. There was a greater decrease in passive in average DWD loading regarding surface fire ROS crown fire ROS than in other variables. Table 1.2 Fire behavior modeling results for Deuce Olde, pre-treatment and post-treatment for four different fire weather scenarios. 80th Percentile 90th Percentile 95th Percentile 98th Percentile Output Variable Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Units Surface Fire ROS 5.2 3.3 10.8 6.3 14.0 8.0 17.9 10.0 chains/hr Surface Fire Flame Length 2.9 2.5 4.1 3.4 4.7 3.8 5.4 4.3 feet Passive Crown Fire ROS 5.2 3.3 24.8 6.3 51.4 8.0 97.0 54.1 chains/hr Transition Ratio 0.71 0.36 1.57 0.70 2.11 0.94 2.83 1.23 NA Transition to Crown Fire? No No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes NA Figure 1.6 Results from fire behavior modeling, pre-treatment and post-treatment for Deuce Olde. The dotted line at Y = 1 on the Transition Ratio graph represents the threshold for likelihood of transition from surface fire to crown fire. Deuce Olde: Modeled Fire Behavior Passive Crown Fire Rate of Spread (chains/hour) Surface Fire Flame Length (feet) 100 75 4 50 2 25 0 0 80th 90th 95th 98th 80th 90th 95th 98th Surface Fire Rate of Spread (chains/hour) Transition Ratio 15 2 10 1 5 0 0 80th 90th 95th 98th 80th 90th 95th 98th Weather Percentile Monitoring Status ■ Pre □ Post Fire Behavior Output 16 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Jakabe change in 1-hr and 10-hr fuel loading. The increase Inputs in 10-hr fuels could have been anywhere from none to over four tons/ac. The average 100-hr fuel loading The plots analyzed here represent several different increased following harvest, but it is unclear by how pre-commercial thinning treatments within the Jak- much. Average CBH lifted, but only by about half a abe planning area. Inputs are shown in Figure 1.7. foot. Live surface fuel loading fell slightly, but the While the average DWD loading increased, the varia- variation is wide enough that it is unclear whether tion makes it unclear whether there was actually a there was a change or by how much. Figure 1.7 Fire behavior modeling inputs calculated from field data for the Jakabe planning area (n = 4). Project-level averages are shown with standard error about the mean. Jakabe: Fire Behavior Modeling Inputs 1−hr Fuels (tons/acre) 10−hr Fuels (tons/acre) 100−hr Fuels (tons/acre) 0.5 -- -,- 20 --6 5 0.4 15 ' 0.3 I ' 4 ' 103 --2-- I 5-- Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Canopy Base Height (feet) Live Herbaceous (tons/acre) Live Woody (tons/acre) 6 1.6 -.- 0.30 5 0.25 1.2 0.20 • 4 0.8 0.15 0.4 3 0.10 I 0.0 I Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Figure 1.8 Pre-treatment (left) and post-treatment (right) photographs in the Jakabe Swamp pre-commercial thinning treatment. Decrease in understory vegetation is apparent on the left side of the post- treatment photo. Photos courtesy of the CBMT. Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 17 Results following treatment, transition remained likely in all Predicted fire behavior decreased all categories and four scenarios. The decrease in predicted fire behav- weather scenarios with the exception of passive ior was likely driven by the decrease in live fuel load- crown fire ROS, which decreased in the two less ing and the lift in average CBH, which outweighed extreme weather scenarios but increased in the two the increase in average DWD loading. It is important more extreme weather scenarios. See Table 1.3 and to note the amount of variation in the inputs and the Figure 1.9 for results. There was a slight decrease in limited number of plots (n = 4) to represent the entire predicted surface fire flame length. While the tran- planning area, so these results may not represent the sition ratio decreased in all four weather scenarios actual conditions throughout the treatment units. Table 1.3 Fire behavior modeling results for Jakabe, pre-treatment and post-treatment for four different fire weather scenarios. 80th Percentile 90th Percentile 95th Percentile 98th Percentile Output Variable Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Units Surface Fire ROS 10.7 4.9 22.4 9.1 30.0 11.7 39.3 14.9 chains/hr Surface Fire Flame Length 3.9 3.4 5.6 4.6 6.5 5.3 7.6 6.1 feet Passive Crown Fire ROS 18.1 7.3 67.3 60.7 117 117 157 157 chains/hr Transition Ratio 1.59 1.07 3.57 2.03 4.99 2.75 6.96 3.67 NA Transition to Crown Fire? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA Figure 1.9 Results from fire behavior modeling, pre-treatment and post-treatment for Jakabe. The dotted line at Y = 1 on the Transition Ratio graph represents the threshold for likelihood of transition from surface fire to crown fire. Jakabe: Modeled Fire Behavior Passive Crown Fire Rate of Spread (chains/hour) Surface Fire Flame Length (feet) 150 6 100 4 50 2 0 0 80th 90th 95th 98th 80th 90th 95th 98th Surface Fire Rate of Spread (chains/hour) Transition Ratio 40 6 30 20 4 10 2 0 0 80th 90th 95th 98th 80th 90th 95th 98th Weather Percentile Monitoring Status ■ Pre □ Post Fire Behavior Output 18 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Crooked Mud Honey Lil there was an increase or decrease. There is a slight lift Stewardship in the average CBH, but the variation makes it unclear whether a lift actually occurred. The average live her- Inputs baceous surface fuel loading increased, while the Lil Stewardship was a commercial thinning treatment average live woody surface fuel loading decreased, with units scattered throughout the North Warner with a net increase in overall average live surface fuel Mountains, a different biophysical setting than Deuce loading. Even factoring in the variation, the change or Jakabe. Inputs are shown in Figure 1.11. There was in all inputs was very limited, so there is not likely to little change in the average DWD loading in all three be much of a change in fire behavior, whether it is a categories, and the variation makes it unclear whether slight increase or slight decrease. Figure 1.10 Post-treatment panorama photo from CMH Lil Stewardship commercial thinning treatment. A slash pile is visible in the background. Crew members gathering data are visible to the right. Photo courtesy of the CBMT. Figure 1.11 Fire behavior modeling inputs calculated from field data from CMH Lil Stewardship (n = 13). Project- level averages are shown with standard error about the mean. CMH Lil Stewardship: Fire Behavior Modeling Inputs 1−hr Fuels (tons/acre) 10−hr Fuels (tons/acre) 100−hr Fuels (tons/acre) 0.325 I 1.6 3.01.50.300 I 1.4 2.5 0.275 -- -- 1.3 2.0 I Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Canopy Base Height (feet) Live Herbaceous (tons/acre) Live Woody (tons/acre) 7 0.5 0.8 0.4 6 0.6 I 0.3 5 I 0.4 I --- 0.20.2 I 0.1 Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 19 Results the results. The only decrease in predicted fire be- The model predicted a slight increase in fire behav- havior was in passive crown fire ROS in the 90th and ior in most, though not all, weather scenarios and fire 95th percentile weather scenarios. The slight lift in behavior variables. However, due to the variation in average CBH was not enough to offset the increases in the input variables, this could just as easily be a slight average surface fuel loading. drop. See Table 1.4 and Figure 1.12 for a depiction of Table 1.4 Fire behavior modeling results for CMH Lil Stewardship, pre-treatment and post-treatment for four different fire weather scenarios. 80th Percentile 90th Percentile 95th Percentile 98th Percentile Output Variable Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Units Surface Fire ROS 6.2 7.1 13.9 17.0 18.1 22.6 18.9 26.4 chains/hr Surface Fire Flame Length 2.6 2.9 4.0 4.6 4.6 5.3 4.7 5.7 feet Passive Crown Fire ROS 6.2 7.1 76.7 26.5 118 52.6 146 146 chains/hr Transition Ratio 0.51 0.51 1.30 1.40 1.75 1.92 1.85 2.27 NA Transition to Crown Fire? No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA Figure 1.12 Results from fire behavior modeling, pre-treatment and post-treatment for CMH Lil Stewardship. The dotted line at Y = 1 on the Transition Ratio graph represents the threshold for likelihood of transition from surface fire to crown fire. CMH Lil Stewardship: Modeled Fire Behavior Passive Crown Fire Rate of Spread (chains/hour) Surface Fire Flame Length (feet) 150 100 4 50 2 0 0 80th 90th 95th 98th 80th 90th 95th 98th Surface Fire Rate of Spread (chains/hour) Transition Ratio 2.0 20 1.5 10 1.0 0.5 0 0.0 80th 90th 95th 98th 80th 90th 95th 98th Weather Percentile Monitoring Status ■ Pre □ Post Fire Behavior Output 20 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Recommendations/Conclusions Only one project (CMH Lil) exhibited an increase with prescribed fire at the time of monitoring. in predicted surface fire behavior given the in- Following a mechanical thinning treatment with creases in fine surface fuels. Average DWD a prescribed burn, which would likely take place loading, one of the main fuel drivers of surface under moderate weather conditions (80th per- fire behavior, either increased or showed little centile or lower), would reduce the surface fuel change post-treatment for all projects. Average load and lift the canopy base height (Stephens loading of live surface fuels, the other main fuel et al., 2009). Such an outcome would reduce driver of surface fire behavior, decreased fol- the predicted fire behavior risk. For example, lowing treatment in all projects except for CMH a lower surface fuel load would produce low- Lil. Since the live vegetation had a greater ef- er flame lengths, which would be less likely to fect on fire behavior than DWD, it is likely that spread surface fire to a canopy with a higher the slash removal methods used following treat- base (Agee & Skinner 2005). Prescribed fire ment were effective in reducing fire risk from ac- has taken place since post-treatment monitor- tivity fuels. ing in some of these areas, and additional pre- scribed fire is planned for others. It is recom- The observed decrease in loading from live mended that monitoring be conducted before vegetation may be due to disturbance from and after prescribed fire in order to assess harvesting activities, and is consistent with re- changes in fire behavior risk. A few plots have search observations (Vaillant et al., 2013). In the been installed in prescribed fire locations, but years following treatment, surface vegetation is more are needed to conduct a formal analysis. likely to increase due to the increase in sunlight reaching the forest floor (Roloff et al., 2005). While data analysis suggests that the aver- Research has shown that slash may decrease age fuel load decreased and average CBH over time following thinning-only treatments, increased in most cases, it is recommended but litter and duff loading show little change that a more comprehensive sampling scheme (Stephens et al., 2012). Continued monitoring be implemented in future restoration projects. will be necessary to determine how surface A more intensive sample would account for the fuel dynamics affect predicted fire behavior in expected variation and allow results to be re- the years following treatment, so longer-term ported with greater confidence. For instance, revisits are recommended in the years follow- both Jakabe and Deuce Olde contained only ing treatment. Fuel loading will be addressed in four revisited plots each. Additional plots would greater depth in Question 2. be necessary to determine whether the varia- tion was due to the small sample size or the in- All the treatments analyzed here involved me- herent variation across the landscape. chanical thinning that had not been followed up Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 21 Acknowledgements Many thanks to Clint Albertson, Fire Planner for the Fremont-Winema National Forest, for his assistance in providing the fire weather inputs, and Dr. John Bailey, Professor of Forest Engineering, Resources and Management at Oregon State University for review and feedback. References Agee, J. K., & Skinner, C. N. (2005). Basic principles of forest Reinhardt, E., Scott, J., Gray, K., & Keane, R. (2006). Estimating fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management, canopy fuel characteristics in five conifer stands in the western 211(1–2), 83–96. United States using tree and stand measurements. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 36(11), 2803–2814. Anderson, H. E. (1982). Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Roloff, G. J., Mealey, S. P., Clay, C., Barry, J., Yanish, C., & Forest and Range Experiment Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. INT- Neuenschwander, L. (2005). A process for modeling short- 122. and long-term risk in the southern Oregon Cascades. Forest Ecology and Management, 211(1), 166–190. Barnes, J., Ervin, D. & Rorabaugh, S. Kansas City Fire Access Software. [Web application] https://fam.nwcg.gov/fam-web/ Scott, J. H., & Burgan, R. E. (2005). Standard fire behavior fuel kcfast/html/wxmenu.htm models: A comprehensive set for use with Rothermel’s surface fire spread model. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-153. Fort Fulé, P. Z., Waltz, E. M., Covington, W. W., & Heinlein, T. A. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, (2001). Measuring forest restoration effectiveness in reducing Rocky Mountain Research Station. 72 p. hazardous fuels. Journal of Forestry, 99(11), 24–29. Scott, J.H., Reinhardt, E.D. 2005. Stereo photo guide for Heinsch, F. A., & Andrews, P. L. (2018). BehavePlus. (Version estimating canopy fuel characteristics in conifer stands. 6.0.0 Beta 3 (Build 626)). USDA Forest Service. https://www. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-145. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. frames.gov/behaveplus/software-manuals Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 49 p. Heinsch, F. A., & Andrews, P. L. (2010). BehavePlus fire modeling system, version 5.0: Design and Features. USDA Stephens, S. L., Moghaddas, J. J., Edminster, C., Fiedler, C. E., Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Gen. Tech. Haase, S., Harrington, M. G., Keeley, J. E., Knapp, E. E., McIver, Rep. RMRS-GTR-249. J. D., Metlen, K., Skinner, C. N., & Youngblood, A. (2009). Fire treatment effects on vegetation structure, fuels, and potential Hessburg, P. F., Agee, J. K., & Franklin, J. F. (2005). Dry forests fire severity in western U. S. forests. Ecological Applications, and wildland fires of the inland Northwest USA: Contrasting 19(2), 305–320. the landscape ecology of the pre-settlement and modern eras. Forest Ecology and Management, 211(1–2), 117–139. Stephens, S. L., Collins, B. M., & Roller, G. (2012). Fuel treatment longevity in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest. Jolly, M. & Heinsch, F. A. (2019). Fire Family+. (Version 5.0). Forest Ecology and Management, 285, 204–212. USDA Forest Service. https://www.firelab.org/document/ firefamilyplus-software Vaillant, N., Noonan-Wright, E., Dailey, S., Ewell, C. M., & Reiner, A. L. (2013). Effectiveness and longevity of fuel McHugh, C. W. (2006). Considerations in the Use of Models treatments in coniferous forests across California. Joint Fire Available for Fuel Treatment Analysis. In Andrews, Patricia L.; Science Program Final Report (Project 09-1-01-1), 1–28. Butler, Bret W., (comps.), Fuels Management—How to Measure Success: Conference Proceedings.28-30 March 2006; Portland, OR. Proceedings RMRS-P-41. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 22 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Question 1.2 How effective are fuels treatments at reducing fire risk? Goal 1.2: Estimate fire program management cost savings and risk reductions for the CFLR project area. Indicator 1.1: Expected suppression costs with and without treatment. Analysis 1.2: Expected suppression costs L. Buchanan, personal communication, April 27, with and without treatment 2020). Therefore, this question cannot be answered as specified in the original monitoring plan. If there This portion of Question 1 calls for the use of the is continued interest in answering this question, one Wildland Fire Risk and Cost Management Tools possibility would be to look into the “Risk Reduction package, or “R-CAT.” R-CAT is collection of software Index” used by the Colville National Forest. tools designed to allow CFLRP groups to quantify long-term wildland fire management cost savings as a result of restoration (Stockman & Gebert, 2010). References Upon investigating the use of R-CAT to address this Stockman, K. & Gebert, Krista., eds. (2010). Wildland question, it was found that no one familiar with Fire Management Risk and Cost Analysis Tools Package R-CAT worked for the Fremont-Winema National (R-CAT): User’s Guide. Retrieved from https://www.fs.fed. Forest, and R-CAT was phased out by CFLRP after us/restoration/documents/cflrp/R-CAT/CFLRPWildifreR- being deemed ineffective (C. Shuffield, T. DeMeo, CATUsersGuide01192011.pdf. Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 23 Question 2 What are the effects of fire and/or mechanical treatments on tree survival/mortality by diameter class, changes in ladder fuels, and fuel loading pre/post treatment? Goal 2.1: To quantify the effects of prescribed fire and mechanical treatments on vegetation. Indicator 2.1: Mortality, Forest Structure, and Fuel Loading. Analysis 2.1: Mortality, Forest Structure ning area was completed with enough pre-treatment and Fuel Loading and post-treatment plots to conduct an analysis. Lil Stewardship, a commercial thinning treatment us- This indicator is addressed with field data collected ing tractor logging, was conducted from 2016-19. See by the Chewaucan Biophysical Monitoring Team Appendix 1A (pages 138-139) for maps of the project (CBMT). Plot locations were either generated random- areas and plot locations. ly in GIS or determined by selecting a random bear- ing and distance from the road access point within a treatment unit, but there was not a systematic sam- Changes in Ladder Fuels/Forest pling plan. Each season, the monitoring crew would Structure go into the field and observe as many plots as time Ladder fuels refer to a continuous vertical fuel con- allowed. Plots were divided by individual treatment tinuity structure that would allow a surface fire to project, but were not stratified by additional factors spread to tree crowns and turn into a crown fire. One such as forest type or plant association. of the goals of hazard fuel reduction is to increase the space between the ground surface fuels and base of Two thinning treatments in the Deuce planning area the tree canopy so that crown fire initiation becomes contained enough pre-harvest and post-harvest plots less likely (Agee & Skinner, 2005). The Monitoring to conduct an analysis: Pilot and Olde. The Pilot com- Plan did not identify an indicator for ladder fuels, mercial thinning treatment was conducted in the and the CBMT did not record any explicit observa- winter and spring of 2014/2015 using a feller-bunch- tions of ladder fuels. er. The Olde pre-commercial thinning treatment was conducted in the winter/spring of 2015/2016 with the There are many potential methods of quantifying goal of enhancing Late Old Structure (LOS). Depend- vertical fuel continuity, and these can be quite com- ing on the unit, either a chainsaw or a “slash buster” plicated due to the nature of both surface and aerial was used. fuels (Menning & Stephens, 2007). Crown base height (CBH) is a measure of vertical fuel continuity, and re- There were not enough plots in any one thinning fers to the vertical distance between the ground sur- treatment in the Jakabe planning area to conduct face and the base of the tree crown (typically the low- an analysis by individual treatment. Instead, plots est live branches). Achieving a lift in CBH is one of from multiple PCT treatments (Ben Young, Coffee- the principal goals of restoration in dry mixed coni- pot and Swamp) were combined. These treatments fer forests (Agee & Skinner 2005). In terms of fire risk, were conducted in both 2014 and 2015. One thinning a lower CBH increases the likelihood that a surface treatment from the Crooked Mud Honey (CMH) plan- fire will spread to a tree’s crown (i.e. “torching”). In 24 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 dry mixed conifer forests, smaller, younger trees gen- haven’t reached a competition stage where vegetation erally have a lower crown base height, so removal of on lower branches dies off, so LCBH is likely also smaller trees is recommended to lift the crown base CFBH for most saplings. height and therefore decrease vertical fuel continuity (Fiedler et al., 1998). Live Crown Base Height (LCBH) Crown fuel base height (CFBH) is a measurement Methods: similar to live crown base height (LCBH), and repre- The average live crown base height was calculated sents vertical distance to the lowest ignitable mate- for each pre-treatment and post-treatment plot in the rial on a tree, usually dead needles. Dead needles are four project areas. The plot results were averaged not considered part of a tree’s live crown, but they to produce a project area average. The standard er- are still capable of spreading fire (Keane, 2006). Both ror was calculated for each pre-treatment and post- LCBH and CFBH were recorded in the field, so both treatment average. A paired t-test was performed for LCBH and CFBH were used in this analysis. CFBH each project area to estimate the change in LCBH fol- was not recorded for saplings, but saplings generally lowing treatment. Results are shown in Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1 Example of a lift in canopy base height following commercial thinning treatment in Deuce Pilot. Photos courtesy of the CBMT. Table 2.1 LCBH measurements (feet): pre-treatment, post- treatment, estimated change, lower and upper confidence interval. (One CMH Lil plot was excluded because all trees were removed). Project Pre +/- Post +/- Change Lower CI Upper CI # Plots Commercial Thinning Treatment Deuce Pilot 6.6 0.8 6.3 0.9 -0.36 -1.7 0.98 7 CMH Lil Stewardship 6.9 0.6 10.2 2.0 3.3 0.78 5.9 12 Pre-Commercial Thinning Treatment Deuce Olde 9.9 1.8 13.4 1.0 3.5 1.4 5.6 4 Jakabe 8.6 3.1 10.2 3.8 1.6 -0.70 3.9 4 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 25 Figure 2.2. In Deuce Olde, the average CBH rose by included zero, indicating the LCBH could have risen 3.5 feet. In CMH Lil Stewardship, the average LCBH or dropped. The confidence interval for Deuce Pilot rose 3.3 feet. The t-test found evidence of these lifts is fairly narrow, indicating that any change would in LCBH, though in CMH Lil this could potential- likely have been small. The confidence interval for ly be very small, since the 80% confidence interval Jakabe is wider, indicating that the LCBH could have indicates the actual change could be as low as 0.78 either dropped slightly or lifted up to four feet. Es- ft. In Deuce Pilot and Jakabe, the average LCBH was timated differences for both LCBH and CFBH are unchanged by treatment. The t-test did not find evi- shown in Figure 2.3. dence of a change since the 80% confidence intervals Figure 2.2 Pre/Post average live crown base height and crown fuel base height in feet in with standard error about the mean for the four project areas used in this analysis. Crown Base Height Commercial Thin Pre−Commercial Thin CFBH CFBH 15 15 10 10 5 0 El Ell 50 LCBH LCBH 15 15 10 10 5 0 LI ci 50 Deuce Pilot CMH Lil Deuce Olde Jakabe Monitoring Status□ Pre ■ Post Figure 2.3 Estimated difference in LCBH and CFBH following treatment for each project area. Error bars represent the 80% confidence interval. The dashed line at Y = 0 indicates no change. A positive number indicates a lift in CBH, and a negative number indicates a drop in CBH. Estimated Difference in Crown Base Height Commercial Thin Pre−Commercial Thin CFBH CFBH 6 6 4 4 2 0 ... .....I ... ...... ....r ... ... 20 .. .. .. .I ... ... .. .. .= · ·· · ···· · −2 −2 LCBH LCBH 6 6 4 4 2 0 I I. 20 J ... I .. −2 −2 Deuce Pilot CMH Lil Deuce Olde Jakabe Average difference (ft) Average (ft) 26 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Crown Fuel Base Height (CFBH) Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) Methods: Since there was little to no observed lift in CBH, it The average crown fuel base height was calculated for should be asked whether there was an increase in av- each pre-treatment and post-treatment plot in the four erage DBH following treatment. While lifting average project areas. The plot results were averaged to pro- CBH is a goal of restoration, this is accomplished by duce a project area average. The standard error was removing smaller trees. The removal of smaller trees calculated for each pre- treatment and post- treatment would result in an increase in DBH following harvest. average. A paired t-test for unequal variation was per- Table 2.3 shows the observed changes in average DBH. formed for each project area to estimate the change In most cases, the change in average DBH is consistent in CFBH following treatment. Results are shown in with the change in average CBH. Table 2.2 and Figure 2.3. In Deuce Pilot, the average DBH dropped following The only lift in CFBH detected was so small that it harvest. This is consistent with the lack of change ob- was not likely to make much of a difference in fire served in LCBH or CFBH. The drop in DBH is likely behavior. In Jakabe, the average lift in CFBH was ap- due to relatively few saplings being removed, as seen proximately five inches. The t-test found evidence of in Table 2.8 in the Mortality section. If more trees are this lift, but the confidence interval was very narrow removed in larger DBH classes than in smaller DBH with the upper limit being less than one foot. In Deuce classes, then the average DBH will drop. This is a con- Pilot, Deuce Olde and CMH Lil Stewardship, the aver- cerning result, since it shows an increase in hazard age CFBH was unchanged by treatment. The t-test did rather than a reduction. It is possible that some future not find evidence of a change in CFBH since the 80% management action was planned to remove the sap- confidence interval for all three included zero, indi- lings, and hadn’t taken place before monitoring. The cating the CFBH could have either risen or dropped. other commercial thinning treatment, CMH Lil Stew- Table 2.2 CFBH measurements (feet): pre-treatment, post-treatment, estimated change, lower and upper confidence interval. (One CMH Lil plot was excluded because all trees were removed). Project Pre +/- Post +/- Change Lower CI Upper CI # Plots Commercial Thinning Treatment Deuce Pilot 4.1 0.83 5.3 0.56 1.3 -0.09 2.6 7 CMH Lil Stewardship 5.0 0.74 5.6 1.4 0.67 -1.1 2.4 12 Pre-Commercial Thinning Treatment Deuce Olde 4.5 1.2 5.7 1.7 1.2 -0.57 3.0 4 Jakabe 4.1 1.5 4.5 1.7 0.41 0.01 0.80 4 Table 2.3 DBH (inches): pre-treatment, post-treatment, estimated change, lower and upper confidence interval for all four project areas. (One CMH Lil plot was excluded because all trees were removed). Project Pre +/- Post +/- Change Lower CI Upper CI # Plots Commercial Thinning Treatment Deuce Pilot 7.4 1.6 3.6 0.51 -3.8 -6.6 -1.0 7 CMH Lil Stewardship 5.1 0.74 13.5 2.7 8.4 5.2 11.6 12 Pre-Commercial Thinning Treatment Deuce Olde 8.9 0.94 12.7 1.4 3.8 0.61 7.1 4 Jakabe 9.6 1.7 10.3 1.9 0.69 -0.83 2.2 4 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 27 ardship, included a cut/skid/deck agreement with the six feet could have a considerable effect. Continued operator so that small, non-commercial trees were re- monitoring is recommended in future CT and PCT moved as well. treatments with a more intensive sampling scheme as described in Question 1. Deuce Olde showed evidence of an increase in aver- age DBH which is consistent with the observed lift If the thinning treatments alone did not result in a lift in LCBH, though there was no observed change in in CBH, following up with a prescribed burn could CFBH. Jakabe showed no evidence of change in DBH, lift the CBH. Prescribed fire has been shown to have a which is consistent with the lack of evidence for a more uniform and consistent effect on lifting canopy change in LCBH or CFBH. There was evidence of an base height than thinning alone (Schwilk et al., 2009). increase in DBH in CMH Lil, which is consistent with As of this report, prescribed burns have been con- the evidence for a lift in LCBH, though there was no ducted in Deuce and Jakabe, but none yet in Crooked evidence for a change in CFBH. Mud Honey. A handful of plots have been placed fol- lowing prescribed burns across Deuce and Jakabe, but not enough to conduct a formal analysis. Ladder Fuels Recommendations That the monitoring data did not detect much of a It is recommended that pre-burn and post-burn moni- change in crown base height indicates that either toring be conducted in future prescribed fire treat- there was not much of a change or that not enough ments. While additional plots can be placed in pre- plots were installed to detect a change. For exam- scribed burns that have already taken place, pre-burn ple, the confidence interval for the change in CMH plots are necessary to quantify the change as a result Lil LCBH (range of likely values for actual change in of the burn. Prescribed burns can be extremely vari- LCBH) stretched from less than one foot to nearly six able in terms of effects, so any burn unit monitored feet. A CFBH lift less than one foot would not likely must have an adequate spatial distribution of plots. have much of an effect on fire behavior, while a lift of 28 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Fuel Loading to calculate the total fuel loading. Since the FWD in- fluence on fire behavior differs from CWD, the fuel For the purposes of this analysis, fuel loading is taken loading from each category was calculated separately. to mean accumulation of dead woody or leafy mate- rial on the ground surface. Downed woody debris DWD generally does not decrease immediately fol- (DWD) refers to dead twigs, branches or logs on the lowing harvest due to the slash that results from fell- forest floor. DWD can be divided into two size classes: ing and limbing trees, but management actions such fine (FWD) and coarse (CWD). The cutoff between the as piling and burning slash can be used to minimize two size classes is generally considered to be a cross- the increase in surface fuels following harvest (Gra- sectional diameter of 3” (Brown, 1974). FWD, with ham et al., 2004). In all four treatments analyzed here, a smaller surface area to volume ratio, ignites more slash was piled following harvest and burned a year easily and is quicker to burn out, contributing to fire later. All post-treatment observations used in this spread. CWD, with a larger surface area to volume analysis were taken within the year following treat- ratio, ignites less easily but burns longer, contribut- ment, and can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of ing to fire effects or soil burn severity (Lutes & Keane, slash removal methods. Longer-term revisits will be 2006). necessary in order to study the change in DWD levels over time as the result of a thinned canopy and pre- FWD is further divided into three size classes. Each scribed fire size class is based on the time it takes for a fuel par- ticle to respond to changes in relative humidity (Brad- Also included in the category of surface fuel loading shaw et al., 1984). The FWD classes are 1-hour, 10- are litter and duff. Litter consists of recently fallen hour, and 100-hour. The CWD class is 1000-hr. leaves and needles, and duff consists of partially de- composed leaves and needles. Like FWD, litter con- Fuel loading of DWD is calculated in weight per unit tributes to surface fire spread. Like CWD, duff con- area. This analysis uses the measure of tons per acre. tributes to fire effects. Like DWD, litter loading can Measurement and analysis are conducted in accor- be expected to increase following harvest as a result dance with protocols in the Handbook for Invento- of the slash. However, piling and burning will not al- rying Downed Woody Material (Brown, 1974). In the ways reduce the litter resulting from slash. Prescribed field, particles in each size category are counted along fire is generally considered the most effective way to a transect. These counts are then input in formulas reduce litter and duff levels (Graham et al., 2004). Figure 2.4 Illustration of surface fuels: DWD, litter and duff. Diagram adapted from Brown (1974). Does Not Qualify Qua,lifies Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 29 Fine Woody Debris interval for all four projects included zero, indicating the FWD loading could have either risen or dropped. Methods: The confidence intervals for the two commercial The FWD loading was calculated for each plot using thinning treatments were narrow, indicating that any equations from Brown (1974), and averaged for each change would have been small and therefore unlikely project area. The standard error was calculated for to have a large effect on influence fire behavior. The each pre-treatment and post-treatment average. A confidence intervals for the two pre-commercial thin- paired t-test was performed for each project area to ning treatments were wide, indicating the change estimate the change in FWD loading following thin- could have been anywhere from a small decrease to ning treatment. Results are shown in Table 2.4 and a large increase. The averages, an increase of 7.2 tons/ Figure 2.6. ac in Deuce Olde and 14.2 tons/ac in Jakabe, are both large enough to contribute to an increase in fire be- In all four projects, the average FWD loading was un- havior. Estimated differences for both FWD and CWD changed by treatment. The t-test did not find evidence are shown in Figure 2.7. of a change in FWD loading since the 80% confidence Table 2.4 FWD loading in tons/acre: pre-treatment, post-treatment, estimated change, lower and upper confidence interval. I Project I Pre l +/- l Post I +/- I Change I Lower CI I Upper CI I # Plots 1 ~ - Commercial Thinning Treatment - Deuce Pilot I 6.8 I 2.2 I 6.9 I 1.6 I 0.09 I -2.6 I 2.7 I 7 - CMH Lil Stewardship I 4.5 I 0.61 I 4.2 I 0.43 -0.30 -1.4 0.8 I 13- Pre-Commercial Thinning Treatment Deuce Olde I 5.5 l 0.74 l -12.6 l 4.7 I 7.2 I -0.02 I 14.4 I 4 ' - Jakabe I 4.2 l 0.65 1 18.4 T 10.1 14.2 -3.0 31.4 l 4 ' __. Figure 2.5 Fine woody debris seen in a plot in Deuce Pilot. Photo courtesy of the CBMT. 30 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Figure 2.6 Pre/Post average DWD loading in tons/ac with standard error about the mean for the four planning areas used in this analysis. Downed Woody Debris Commercial Thin Pre−Commercial Thin CWD CWD 60 60 40 40 20 20 0 0 FWD FWD 60 60 40 40 20 20 0 0 Deuce Pilot CMH Lil Deuce Olde Jakabe Monitoring Status□ Pre ■ Post Figure 2.7 Estimated difference in DWD following thinning treatment for each project area. Error bars represent the 80% confidence interval. The dashed line at Y = 0 indicates no change. A positive number indicates an increase in DWD, and a negative number indicates a decrease in DWD. Estimated Difference in Downed Woody Debris Commercial Thin Pre−Commercial Thin CWD CWD 30 30 15 15 0 ···· ·····r· ··· ··············I·· ···· ········ 0 ·· ····· ··I··· · ····· ····· ······ ··l~ ······· ·· −15 −15 −30 −30 FWD FWD 30 30 15 15 0 ··· ·····=············· = ·· ·· ··· 0 .. .... ...I .. ............I ... .. . −15 −15 −30 −30 Deuce Pilot CMH Lil Deuce Olde Jakabe Average difference (ft) Average (tons/ac) Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 31 Coarse Woody Debris indicating the CWD loading could have either risen or dropped. The confidence intervals for all three proj- Methods: ects were so wide that it was not clear whether there The CWD loading was calculated for each plot using was a small effect or a large effect. equations from Brown (1974), and averaged for each project area. The standard error was calculated for DWD Recommendations each pre-harvest and post-harvest average. A paired t-test for unequal variation was performed for each It is important to note that immediate post-treatment project area to estimate the change in CWD loading results are only part of monitoring the effectiveness following thinning treatment. Results are shown in of restoration treatments on fuel loading. While mini- Table 2.5 and Figure 2.7. mal change in fuel loading is desirable immediately following treatment, the fuel loading should drop The average CWD loading increased by 11.8 tons/ac. from the pre-treatment baseline in the years follow- The t-test found evidence of this increase, though it ing treatment to be truly considered successful. The could have been as small as 3.5 tons/ac or as large as results used in this analysis are from the year im- twenty tons/ac. The average CWD loading for the other mediately following treatment, so it is recommended three project areas was unchanged by treatment. The that follow-up observations be conducted at 5 years t-tests did not find evidence of a change in CWD load- post-treatment. ing since the 80% confidence interval included zero, Table 2.5 CWD loading in tons/acre: pre-treatment, post-treatment, estimated change, lower and upper confidence interval. Project Pre +/- Post +/- Change Lower CI Upper CI # Plots Commercial Thinning Treatment Deuce Pilot 31.8 10.1 21.2 5.8 -10.6 -30.1 9.0 7 CMH Lil Stewardship 20.9 5.0 24.3 6.1 3.4 -6.8 13.5 13 Pre-Commercial Thinning Treatment Deuce Olde 32.5 12.3 44.3 14.7 11.8 3.5 20.1 4 Jakabe 15.1 1.8 17.0 4.6 1.9 -8.3 12.0 4 Figure 2.8 CWD crossing a transect in Jakabe Ben Young pre-commercial thinning treatment. Photo courtesy of the CBMT. 32 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Both of the commercial thinning treatments, Deuce ments were averaged at the plot level and converted Pilot and CMH Lil, showed a minimal change in FWD to tons per acre using a bulk density of 2.75 lb/ft3 (FFI loading. The range of potential differences is close Team, 2018). Plot-level loading was averaged to pro- enough to zero that the LSG may feel comfortable ac- duce a project-level average. The standard error was cepting the effectiveness of pile and burn treatments calculated for each pre-harvest and post-harvest av- for commercial harvests in mitigating an increase in erage. A paired t-test for unequal variation was per- FWD immediately following harvest. FWD appeared formed for each project area to estimate the change in to increase in both PCT treatments, but as noted in litter loading following treatment. Results are shown Question 1, continued monitoring of fuel loads with a in Table 2.6 and Figure 2.9. more intensive sampling scheme is recommended in future thinning treatments. The average litter loading was unchanged by treat- ment in all four project areas. The t-tests did not find It is also worth noting that the PCT treatments ana- evidence of a change in litter loading since the 80% lyzed here were conducted in 2015 and 2016, four confidence interval included zero, indicating the litter to five years prior to this report. PCT methods may loading could have either risen or dropped. The con- have changed in the interim. Another consideration fidences intervals are narrow enough that any change is that this analysis reflects the results of mechanical would likely have been small. Estimated differences thinning only. As with change in crown base height, for both litter and duff are shown in Figure 2.11 prescribed fire could contribute to lower fuel loading (Graham et al., 2004), and the same prescribed fire Duff monitoring recommendations apply. CWD can be a Methods: component of wildlife habitat, so there may be inter- Duff depth measurements were taken at ten spots est in leaving a certain amount of CWD. Prescribed along the transects in each plot. The depth measure- burning can be scheduled in the spring to reduce fine ments were averaged at the plot level and converted fuels and spare coarse fuels if desired, since coarse to tons per acre using a bulk density of 5.5 lb/ft3 (FFI fuels will retain more moisture in the spring than in Team, 2018). The plot-level loading was averaged to the fall (Estes et al., 2012). produce a project area average. The standard error was calculated for each pre-harvest and post-harvest Litter average. A paired t-test for unequal variation was per- Methods: formed for each project area to estimate the change in Litter depth measurements were taken at ten spots duff loading following treatment. Results are shown along the transects in each plot. The depth measure- in Table 2.7 and Figure 2.11. Table 2.6 Litter loading in tons/acre: pre-treatment, post-treatment, estimated change, lower and upper confidence interval. (One Deuce Olde plot was excluded due to lack of post-treatment observations). Project Pre +/- Post +/- Change Lower CI Upper CI # Plots Commercial Thinning Treatment Deuce Pilot 1.7 0.36 2.0 0.38 0.30 -0.37 0.98 7 CMH Lil Stewardship 3.0 0.37 2.7 0.43 -0.29 -0.96 0.37 13 Pre-Commercial Thinning Treatment Deuce Olde 1.8 0.75 2.3 0.88 0.51 -1.3 2.3 3 Jakabe 1.8 0.85 3.1 1.35 1.3 -0.93 3.6 4 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 33 Figure 2.9 CWD crossing a transect in Jakabe Ben Young pre-commercial thinning treatment. Photo courtesy of the CBMT. Litter/Duff Loading Commercial Thin Pre−Commercial Thin Duff Duff 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 Litter Litter 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 Deuce Pilot CMH Lil Deuce Olde Jakabe Monitoring Status□ Pre ■ Post Figure 2.10 Example of litter on the forest floor seen in a plot in Deuce Pilot. Photo courtesy of CBMT. Average (tons/ac) 34 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Table 2.7 Duff loading in tons/acre: pre- and post-treatment, estimated change, lower and upper confidence interval. Project Pre +/- Post +/- Change Lower CI Upper CI # Plots Commercial Thinning Treatment Deuce Pilot 6.5 1.2 1.1 0.33 -5.4 -7.5 -3.3 7 CMH Lil Stewardship 3.0 0.78 3.5 0.84 0.42 -0.80 1.6 13 Pre-Commercial Thinning Treatment Deuce Olde 4.0 3.7 4.0 2.7 0.0 -2.4 2.4 3 Jakabe 3.8 2.0 1.7 0.93 -2.1 -5.3 1.1 4 Figure 2.11 Estimated difference in litter/duff loading for each project area following thinning. Error bars represent the 80% confidence interval. The dashed line at Y = 0 indicates no change. A positive number indicates an increase in loading; a negative number indicates a decrease in loading. Estimated Difference in Litter/Duff Loading Commercial Thin Pre−Commercial Thin Duff Duff 4 4 0 ······························I ·· ··· ···· 0 .... ..... .I.. . .. ... ... .. ... ... .I. ... . .. .. ... .... −4 −8 I −4 −8 Litter Litter 4 4 0 .. ..... ..= i::. .... .. ... .. ...~ . .... ... . ~ l ____L._ 0 ·· ··· · · · · ~ · · · · ··· ·· ··· ·· · ·~· · · ·· · ·· · −4 −4 −8 −8 Deuce Pilot CMH Lil Deuce Olde Jakabe Litter and Duff Recommendations plots are recommended in prescribed fire treatments, since prescribed fire has been shown to be effective The estimated differences and variation in litter load- in preventing a buildup of litter and duff (Graham et ing were generally close enough to zero that the effect al., 2004). on fire behavior is likely minimal. The variation in the duff measurements was greater than in the lit- Monitoring of surface fuels including DWD, litter and ter measurements, but not overly so. The data did not duff has value beyond assessing the effectiveness of show any reason to be concerned about an increase restoration treatments. Fire management personnel in litter and duff levels as the result of commercial may be interested in information on fuel loading in or pre-commercial thinning treatment. However, the order to plan for wildland fire suppression or pre- long-term goal of restoration is to reduce litter and scribed burning. Therefore, even if the LSG is satis- duff loading, and as with DWD, success will not be fied with the monitoring results for fuel loading, the apparent immediately following harvest. Longer-term fire and fuels staff of the Fremont-Winema NF may be revisits will be necessary to observe the long-term re- interested in continuing to monitor fuel loading. sults of litter and duff loading. In addition, monitoring Average difference (tons/ac) Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 35 Survival and Mortality by Methods: Diameter Class In each plot, trees and snags were measured in a 0.1- acre circular plot, and saplings were measured in a This portion of Question 2 concerns the effect of 0.01-acre circular plot. Measured trees and snags treatments on tree survival and mortality by diameter were divided into 4-inch DBH classes, and the aver- class. Unlike a measure such as crown base height, age number of stems per acre in each DBH class was results will not necessarily be noticeable immedi- calculated for each plot. The plot totals were then av- ately following treatment. As of this report, the only eraged to the project level. revisits conducted were immediately following har- vest, so no longer-term trends would be apparent yet. Deuce Pilot In the Monitoring Plan, no target distributions were There were no snags observed in the sapling (0” – 4”) established by diameter at breast height (DBH) class DBH class before or after treatment. In the smaller beyond the requirement of the Eastside Screens that non-sapling DBH classes, the average number of snags all trees with a DBH over 21” be retained. No mea- per acre fell slightly following treatment. In the larger sure of success was established in terms of mortality DBH classes, there were so few snags that an overall increasing, decreasing, or staying the same outside increase or decrease was difficult to detect. Results of the retention of trees protected under the Eastside are shown in Table 2.8. Screens. For these two reasons, a formal statistical analysis was not conducted for this indicator. Stan- Figure 2.12 shows the distribution of snags and large dard error about the mean was calculated in order trees by DBH class. Saplings were excluded because to show the amount of variation, but error bars were the number of live saplings was so great that includ- not depicted on the graphs. This analysis will focus ing them in the graph would obscure the results in the primarily on changes in snag distribution by DBH other DBH classes, and there were no snags observed class. Additional conclusions regarding the impact of in the sapling DBH class. One white fir tree with DBH restoration on forest health can be drawn from DBH greater than 21” was removed in the observed plots, distributions of live trees, but these are addressed in but an amendment was granted for the Deuce project Question 3. allowing removal of white fir with DBH greater than 21” in certain situations. Table 2.8 Average stems per acre and standard error about the mean for live trees and snags by DBH class before and after treatment in Deuce Pilot (n = 7 plots). Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment Live Trees Snags Live Trees Snags DBH Class Stems/ac +/- Stems/ac +/- Stems/ac +/- Stems/ac +/- 0-4 in 574 322 0 0 430 86 0 0 4-8 in 80 28 4 3 31 15 1 1 8-12 in 47 16 6 3 21 6 4 3 12-16 in 34 7 1 1 27 8 1 1 16-20 in 13 5 1 1 7 3 1 1 20-24 in 4 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 24-28 in 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 28+ in 3 2 1 1 3 2 0 0 36 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Deuce Olde No snags were observed in the sapling (0” – 4”) DBH Figure 2.14 shows the distribution of snags and large class before or after treatment. The average number of trees by DBH class. Saplings were excluded because snags per acre in the smaller non-sapling DBH classes the number of live saplings was so great that includ- did not change following treatment. No snags were ing them in the graph would obscure the results in observed pre-treatment or post-treatment in the larger the other DBH classes. In addition, no snags were ob- DBH classes. Results are shown in Table 2.9. served in the sapling DBH class. Figure 2.12 Average stems per acre by DBH class for live trees and snags before and after treatment in Deuce Pilot, excluding saplings (0”-4” DBH). Deuce Pilot: Mortality by DBH Class Saplings excluded 100 80 60 40 20 0 ■- iiiiiiiiii - - -- 4−8 8−12 12−16 16−20 20−24 24−28 28+ Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post DBH Class (in) Tree Status □ Snags ■ Trees Table 2.9 Average stems per acre and standard error about the mean for live trees and snags by DBH class before and after treatment in Deuce Olde (n = 4 plots). Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment Live Trees Snags Live Trees Snags DBH Class Stems/ac +/- Stems/ac +/- Stems/ac +/- Stems/ac +/- 0-4 in 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 4-8 in 43 22 3 3 3 3 3 3 8-12 in 55 12 3 3 48 14 3 3 12-16 in 25 6 5 5 23 6 5 5 16-20 in 8 5 0 0 8 5 0 0 20-24 in 5 3 0 0 5 3 0 0 24-28 in 5 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 28+ in 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trees per acre Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 37 Figure 2.13 Snag in Deuce Olde precommercial thinning treatment. Photo courtesy of the CBMT. Figure 2.14 Average stems per acre by DBH class before and after treatment for live trees and snags in Deuce Olde, excluding saplings (0”- 4” DBH). Deuce Olde: Mortality by DBH Class Saplings excluded 60 40 20 0 4−8 8−12 12−16 -16−-20 -20−-24 -24−-28 -28-+ Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post DBH Class (in) Tree Status □ Snags ■ Trees Trees per acre 38 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Jakabe DBH classes. Few snags were observed in the largest No snags were observed in the sapling (0” – 4”) DBH DBH classes. Results are shown in Table 2.10. Figure class before or after treatment. Little change was ob- 2.15 shows the distribution of snags and live trees by served following treatment in the smaller non-sapling DBH class. Table 2.10 Average stems per acre and standard error about the mean for live trees and snags by DBH class before and after harvest in the Jakabe harvests (n = 4 plots). Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment Live Trees Snags Live Trees Snags DBH Class Stems/ac +/- Stems/ac +/- Stems/ac +/- Stems/ac +/- 0-4 in 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 4-8 in 85 24 8 8 63 34 8 8 8-12 in 38 18 3 3 35 19 3 3 12-16 in 33 16 3 3 30 17 3 3 16-20 in 8 8 5 3 8 8 5 3 20-24 in 8 9 0 0 18 9 0 0 24-28 in 5 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 28+ in 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 2.15 Average stems per acre by DBH class for live trees and snags in Jakabe before and after treatment. Jakabe: Mortality by DBH Class Saplings included 100 80 60 40 20 0 0−4 4−8 8−12 12−16 16−20 20+ Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post DBH Class (in) Tree Status □ Snags ■ Trees Trees per acre Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 39 Crooked Mud Honey Lil Stewardship The average number of snags fell following treatment the graph would obscure the results in the other DBH in the smaller DBH classes, including saplings. No classes. In addition, an average of only one sapling snags were observed in the larger size classes. Results snag per acre was observed prior to treatment; this are shown in Table 2.11. would not show up on a graph. Six white fir trees with DBH greater than 21” were removed in the ob- Figure 2.17 shows the distribution of snags and large served plots, but an amendment was granted for the trees by DBH class excluding saplings. The number CMH project allowing removal of white fir with DBH of live saplings was so great that including them in greater than 21” in certain situations. Table 2.11 Average stems per acre and standard error about the mean for live trees and snags by DBH class before and after treatment in Crooked Mud Honey Lil Stewardship (n = 13 plots). Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment Live Trees Snags Live Trees Snags DBH Class Stems/ac +/- Stems/ac +/- Stems/ac +/- Stems/ac +/- 0-4 in 535 128 1 1 47 22 0 0 4-8 in 105 16 8 6 18 6 1 1 8-12 in 48 8 4 4 8 2 1 1 12-16 in 28 5 2 2 8 3 2 2 16-20 in 13 3 0 0 4 2 0 0 20-24 in 7 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 24-28 in 5 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 28+ in 7 3 0 0 5 2 0 0 Figure 2.16 Pre/post-treatment view of a snag in CMH Lil Stewardship. Photo courtesy of the CBMT. 40 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Figure 2.17 Average stems per acre by DBH class for live trees and snags before and after treatment in Crooked Mud Honey Lil Stewardship, excluding saplings (0”-4” DBH class). CMH Lil: Mortality by DBH Class Saplings excluded 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 4−8 8−12 12−-16 -16−-20 -20−-24 -24−-28 -28-+ Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post DBH Class (in) Tree Status □ Snags ■ Trees Mortality Recommendations With only immediate post-treatment revisits, no It is important to note that the treatments ana- conclusions can be drawn about the long-term lyzed here represent mechanical thinning only. effects of management on survival and mortality Prescribed burning will have a different effect by DBH class. It is recommended that revisits be on tree survival and mortality by DBH class conducted at five years following harvest in or- than commercial and pre-commercial thinning, der to observe the long-term effects of thinning since mortality can be delayed. Therefore, it is projects on tree survival and mortality by DBH recommended that pre-burn, post-burn, and class. For Deuce Pilot, the fifth year following five-year follow-up visits be conducted in future treatment is the same year this report was com- prescribed burns. piled. Deuce Olde, Jakabe and Crooked Mud Honey will reach five years post-treatment in the years following this report. Trees per acre Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 41 Acknowledgements Many thanks to the following individuals for providing review and feedback: John Bailey, Professor of Forest Engineering, Resources and Management at Oregon State University, Daniel Leavell, State Fire Specialist, Oregon State University Extension, Craig Bienz, Director, Sycan Marsh Preserve, The Nature Conservancy, Kerry Farris, Instructor, Environmental Sciences Program, Oregon Institute of Technology, and James Johnston, Post-Doctoral Researcher in Forest Engineering, Resources and Management at Oregon State University. References Agee, J. K., & Skinner, C. N. (2005). Basic principles of forest Graham, R. T., McCaffrey, S., & Jain, T. B. (2004). Science fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management, basis for change forest structure to modify wildfire behavior 211(1–2), 83–96. and severity. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-120 Bradshaw, L. S., Deeming, J. E., Burgan, R. E., & Cohen, J. D., The 1978 National Fire-Danger Rating System: Technical Keane, R.E. (2006) Tree Data (TD) Sampling Method. USDA documentation. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Range Experiment Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-169. Technical Report RMRS-GTR-164-CD. (Missoula, MT) Brown, J.K. (1974). Handbook for inventorying downed woody Lutes, D.C., & Keane, R.E. (2006). Fuel Load (FL) Sampling material. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Method. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Experiment Station, General Technical Report INT-GTR-16. Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-164-CD. (Missoula, MT) Estes, B. L., Knapp, E. E., Skinner, C. N., & Uzoh, F. C. C. (2012). Seasonal variation in surface fuel moisture between Menning, K. M., & Stephens, S. L. (2007). Fire climbing in the unthinned and thinned mixed conifer forest, northern California, forest: A semiqualitative,semiquantitative approach to assessing USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 21(4), 428. ladder fuel hazards. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 22(2), 88–93. FFI Team. (2018) FFI User Guide. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. (Missoula, MT). Retrieved Schwilk, D. W., Keeley, J. E., Knapp, E. E., McIver, J., Bailey, from https://www.frames.gov/sites/default/files/FFI/FFI_UG_ J. D., Fettig, C. J., Fiedler, C. E., Harrod, R. J., Moghaddas, J. December_2018.pdf. J., Outcalt, K. W., Skinner, C. N., Stephens, S. L., Waldrop, T. A., Yaussy, D. A., & Youngblood, A. (2009). The National Fire Fiedler, C. E., Arno, S. F., & Harrington, M. G. (1998). and Fire Surrogate study: effects of fuel reduction methods on Reintroducing fire in ponderosa pine-fir forests after a century forest vegetation structure and fuels. Ecological Applications of fire exclusion. In Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference 19(2), 285–304. Proceedings (No. 20, pp. 245-249). 42 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Question 3.1 What is the effect of the treatments on moving the Forest landscape toward a more sustainable condition that includes scale and intensity of historic disturbances? Goal 3.1: To assess whether treatments have resulted in sustained or improved resiliency/ resistance to insects, disease, and drought. Indicator 3.1: Projection of a stand’s resistance to wildfire, insects and disease, and drought based on past radial growth and other stand data. Analysis 3.1: Resilience and Resistance by site productivity become more vulnerable to dis- turbances such as wildland fire, insects and disease The Monitoring Plan called for the collection of Com- (Hessburg et al., 2015). There are multiple ways to mon Stand Exam (CSE) data to address this question. quantify stocking levels, and basal area is used here. CSE data can be entered into the FSVeg software pro- Basal area (BA) refers to the total cross-sectional area gram, which includes a suite of tools for assessing at breast height of all trees in a stand. It is used be- stand health and condition (USDA USFS NRM 2015). cause most silvicultural prescriptions set residual BA The collection of CSE data never took place, so this targets for harvest based on the stocking level a given question cannot be analyzed as originally intended. site can support. The results presented here may be The existing monitoring data collected by the crew used to assess whether BA targets are being met. can be used to address this question, but not with the tools that would have been available with CSE data Resilience refers to a forest’s ability to recover or re- and FSVeg software. Pre-treatment radial growth data grow following a disturbance (DeRose & Long, 2014). has been collected, but post-treatment radial growth One method of assessing stand resilience is by age/ will not be collected until longer-term revisits are size class distribution. A stand with trees across mul- conducted. No specific indicators of resilience or re- tiple age classes is more likely to recover following a sistance to disturbance are provided for this question, disturbance than a stand with trees in one age class and “other stand data” is not specified. For this analy- (O’Hara 2006, O’Hara & Ramage, 2013). If mature trees sis, residual basal area was used to assess resistance are lost, then younger trees can grow and replace and diameter distributions were used to assess resil- them. If young trees are lost, then mature trees can ience. provide a seed source for regeneration. The inclusion of multiple age classes in a single stand will naturally Resistance refers to a forest’s ability to withstand lead to a concern about the presence of vertical fuel the effects of disturbance without significant impact continuity (i.e., ladder fuels); however, as long as gaps (DeRose & Long, 2014). Stocking levels are commonly and horizontal distance are maintained between in- used as indicators of susceptibility to disturbance, dividuals and clumps of each age class, the fuel con- since stocking affects the amount of resources avail- tinuity issue can be avoided (Moghaddas et al., 2010). able to trees. Trees with fewer resources available Since age is difficult to determine in the field, diame- are less likely to survive disturbance-induced stress. ter at breast height (DBH) is generally used as an indi- Stands with stocking levels higher than their histori- cator of age. Each project in this analysis was assessed cal rage of variation (HRV) or higher than supported for a sustainable DBH class distribution. Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 43 As mentioned earlier, this indicator was addressed Resistance: Basal Area with data collected by the Chewaucan Biophysical Monitoring Team (CBMT). Plot locations were either Residual BA targets were set by project and speci- generated randomly in GIS, or determined by selecting fied in the Environmental Assessment (EA) docu- a random bearing and distance from the road access ment. For the Deuce planning area, targets were set point within a harvest unit. Each season, the monitor- by forest type. The target BA range for ponderosa pine ing crew would go into the field and observe as many forest was 30 – 50 ft2/ac, and the target BA range for plots as time allowed. Plots were divided by individ- mixed conifer forest was 40 – 60 ft2/ac. Both Deuce ual treatment project, but not stratified by additional Pilot and Deuce Olde are mixed-conifer forests com- factors such as forest type or plant association. posed primarily of ponderosa pine and white fir, with some lodgepole pine and sugar pine as well. For both Two thinning treatments in the Deuce planning area of these harvests, the target residual BA range of 40 contained enough pre-harvest and post-harvest plots – 60 ft2/ac was used. The EA also specified that varia- to conduct an analysis: Pilot and Olde. The Pilot com- tion in residual BA is expected throughout the project mercial thinning treatment was conducted in the area, consistent with the HRV. Therefore, a consider- winter and spring of 2014/2015 using a feller-bunch- able amount of error about the mean for the post-har- er. The Olde pre-commercial thinning treatment was vest BA is expected. conducted in the winter/spring of 2015/2016 with the goal of enhancing Late Old Structure (LOS). Depend- Jakabe BA targets also differed by forest type. The ing on the unit, either a chainsaw or a “slash buster” target BA range for ponderosa pine forest was 20 – was used. 40 ft2/ac, and the target BA range for mixed conifer forest was 30 – 50 ft2/ac. The Jakabe pre-commercial There were not enough plots in any one thinning thinning treatments monitored fall in mixed conifer treatment in the Jakabe planning area to conduct an forest, so the 30-50 ft2/ac target residual BA range for analysis by individual treatment. Instead, plots from mid-seral mixed conifer was used. multiple PCT treatments (Ben Young, Coffeepot and Swamp) were combined. These treatments were con- CMH Lil Stewardship is located in the North Warner ducted in both 2014 and 2015. One thinning treat- mountains, a different ecological setting from Deuce ment from the Crooked Mud Honey (CMH) planning and Jakabe. At a higher elevation, the site productiv- area was completed with enough pre-treatment and ity is higher. As a result, the potential stocking levels post-treatment plots to conduct an analysis. Lil Stew- are higher. The target BA range for ponderosa pine ardship, a commercial thinning treatment using trac- forest was 40 – 70 ft2/ac, and the target BA range for tor logging, was conducted from 2016-19. See Appen- mixed conifer forest was 60 – 90 ft2/ac. The prescrip- dix 1A (pages 138-139) for maps of the project areas tions specified that some areas would not reach target and plot locations. BA due to the number of trees with DBH greater than Figure 3.1 Pretreatment and post-treatment photos from a plot in Deuce Pilot. Photos courtesy of CBMT. 44 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 21”. Additional units were added after the initial pre- ft2/ac. The entire range is above the upper BA target. scription had been released. These were mixed coni- The average residual BA in Deuce Olde was 89 ft2/ac. fer forest with a target BA range of 40 – 60 ft2/ac. When the standard error is considered, the average could have been as low as 69 ft2/ac or as high as 109 Since the monitoring question asks whether restora- ft2/ac. The entire range is above the upper BA target. tion resulted in a resilient/resistant forest structure, The average residual BA in Jakabe was 140 ft2/ac. the post-treatment basal area (as opposed to change in When the standard error is considered, the average basal area) is addressed here. BA results are shown in could have been as low as 91 ft2/ac or as high as 189 Table 3.1 and Figure 3.2. In the pre-commercial thin- ft2/ac. The entire range is above the upper BA target. ning treatments, the target residual BA range will not The average residual BA in CMH Lil Stewardship was likely be reached because only small trees are being 90 ft2/ac. When the standard error is considered, the removed. average could have been as low as 63 ft2/ac or as high as 117 ft2/ac. The average residual BA is at the upper The average residual BA in Deuce Pilot was 95 ft2/ac. end of the range, and the error possibly places the av- When the standard error is considered, the average erage within the target range. could have been as low as 79 ft2/ac or as high as 111 Table 3.1 Average basal area per acre (ft2/ac): pre-treatment, post-treatment, and target residual BA range. The CMH range is a composite of ranges for different forest types. Project Pre +/- Post +/- Change # Plots Target BA Range Commercial Thinning Treatment Deuce Pilot 149 26 95 16 -54 7 40 – 60 ft2/ac CMH Lil Stewardship 104 24 90 27 -14 13 40 – 90 ft2/ac Pre-Commercial Thinning Treatment Deuce Olde 208 32 89 20 -119 4 40 – 60 ft2/ac Jakabe 150 42 140 49 -10 4 30 – 50 ft2/ac Figure 3.2 Pre/Post average BA in ft2/ac with standard error about the mean for the four planning areas used in this analysis. Dashed lines represent the range of target residual BA. Basal Area Commercial Thin Pre−Commercial Thin 250 250 200 200 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 0 Deuce Pilot CMH Lil Deuce Olde Jakabe Monitoring Status□ Pre ■ Post BA Target Range Average BA/ac (sq ft) Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 45 The range provided for CMH Lil is actually a compos- In the mixed conifer units of Rx1, the residual basal ite of three ranges, since the CMH Lil plots fall into area was below the target range. In the mixed conifer three different prescriptions. One is a prescription units of Rx3, the residual basal area was above the for mixed conifer forest type, one is a prescription for target range. In the ponderosa units of Rx1, the av- ponderosa pine forest type, and the third is for a sub- erage residual basal area was above the target range, sequent add-on of mixed conifer forest type. Results although the variation shows that some units were are shown in Table 3.2 and Figure 3.4. within range. Table 3.2 Average basal area per acre (ft2/ac): pre-harvest, post-harvest, and target residual BA range for the three different CMH Lil Stewardship prescriptions. Prescription Pre +/- Post +/- Change # Plots Target BA Range Rx1 Mixed Conifer 148 37 46 14 102 5 60 – 90 ft2/ac Rx1 Ponderosa 201 70 103 55 98 4 40 – 70 ft2/ac Rx3 Mixed conifer 292 52 128 22 164 4 50 – 70 ft2/ac Figure 3.3 Pretreatment and post-treatment photos from a plot in CMH Lil. Photos courtesy of CBMT. Figure 3.4 Pre/Post average BA in ft2/ac with standard error about the mean for the three CMH Lil prescriptions. Dashed lines represent target average BA, and the shading represents target BA range. Basal Area per Acre: CMH Lil Stewardship Monitoring 300 Status Pre Post 200 BA Target Range 100 BA Target Average 0 Rx1 Mixed Rx1 Rx3 Mixed Conifer Ponderosa Conifer Prescription Average BA/ac (sq ft) 46 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Since the Eastside Screens prevent the harvest of any It is important to remember that the structure of East- tree over 21” in DBH, it is worth checking how much side ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests are in- of the residual basal area was in trees protected by the herently variable. While some areas may have higher Eastside Screens. Figure 3.5 shows a breakdown of concentrations of large trees that prevent a target BA basal area divided into trees over and under 21” DBH. from being reached, this may be offset by leaving a Basal area is also divided by species, since forest plan lower BA in other areas. This is explicitly stated in amendments have been made to harvest shade-toler- the Deuce EA and the CMH prescriptions. There is ant, fire-intolerant tree species over 21” DBH such as much more discussion to be had on this subject, and white fir. One item of concern unrelated to the East- it is not the intent of this report to delve deeply into side Screens is the amount of BA left in small white the Eastside Screens, especially considering the small fir in Deuce Pilot. Leaving a large amount of small sample size. However, the data show that it could be shade-tolerant, fire-intolerant trees is not consistent wise to agree on guidelines for how to proceed if the with restoration goals. concentration of large trees consistently prevents tar- get basal areas from being reached. The residual large In the mixed conifer units of Rx1, the residual basal ponderosa alone extends well into the target range for area was below the target range. In the mixed conifer CMH Lil. Leaving behind an even-aged distribution, units of Rx3, the residual basal area was above the even if it is entirely fire-tolerant large ponderosa pine, target range. In the ponderosa units of Rx1, the av- is not a sustainable forest structure over the long term. erage residual basal area was above the target range, although the variation shows that some units were within range. Figure 3.5 Pre/Post average BA in ft2/ac, separated by species and by Eastside Screen protected status. Basal area per acre by species, Eastside Screens status Commercial Thin Pre−Commercial Thin Deuce Pilot CMH Lil Deuce Olde Jakabe Species/DBH 200 200 Other < 21" White fir < 21" Ponderosa < 21" 150 150 Other > 21" White fir > 21" 100 100 Ponderosa > 21" 50 50 BA Target Range 0 0 Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Average BA/ac (sq ft) -=r::IIIIITJ : [II ] D D I] [II I ] I I ! 11 I I! i 11 01 11 11 : I I Ii I i I I : :1 1 I I i Iii I I Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 47 Resistance: Distribution by DBH low more saplings and fewer large trees. Such a curve Class does not need to be targeted exactly in order to be suc- cessful. Some variation is expected due to the hetero- Methods: geneous nature of these forest types. Trees in each plot were divided into four-inch DBH classes, and the number of trees was counted in each Deuce Pilot class. The plot totals were then averaged to the project level. Each distribution was assessed as to whether it The sapling DBH class was graphed separately from represented a sustainable age class distribution. The the mature trees DBH classes (Figure 3.6 and Figure desired distribution is an “inverse J-curve,” with suc- 3.7) because the scale required for the large number of cessively fewer stems in each larger DBH class (O’Hara saplings made the mature DBH classes difficult to in- 2004). This mimics historical disturbance processes, terpret. In Deuce Pilot, outside of saplings, more trees where the initial regeneration cohorts would be re- were removed in smaller DBH classes. This leaves a duced over the years by periodic disturbances (O’Hara desirable, resilient age/size structure. However, that & Ramage, 2013). Multi-age management, in contrast improvement is more than offset by the retention of to even-age management, seeks to manage for multi- almost all saplings. Leaving the best 5% of the sap- ple age classes rather than one age class. The inverse lings, in terms of individual vigor and spatial location J-curve is one example of multi-age management. A relative to openings, would result in a DBH distribu- silvicultural prescription aimed at replicating this tion close to the “inverse J-curve” sought for multi-age inverse J-curve would specify removal of the appro- management. In addition, the retention of so many priate number of trees in each DBH class (Tappeiner saplings leaves vertical fuel continuity in place, mak- et al., 2015). Such an approach simultaneously treats ing it easier to transmit a surface fire to the canopy. the ladder fuel concerns while making a stand more Perhaps more trees could have been removed from resilient and consistent with the historical range of the 8- to 12-inch and 12- to 16-inch size class. This variability (Bailey & Covington 2002). would have brought the residual BA closer to the tar- get range. It is possible that an additional management For each project in this analysis, a sample inverse J- action was planned to remove the saplings, but hadn’t curve was developed based on the target residual BA taken place before the plots were revisited. One white range, and overlaid on each graph of DBH distribu- fir tree with DBH greater than 21” was removed in the tions. A flatter curve was chosen to allow for fewer observed plots, but an amendment was granted for the saplings and more large trees, which is consistent Deuce project allowing removal of white fir with DBH with restoration objectives. A steeper curve would al- greater than 21” in certain situations. Figure 3.6 Average stems per acre (n = 7 plots) by DBH class for live trees in Deuce Pilot, excluding saplings (0”- 4” DBH). Superimposed points represent recommended stocking levels under a sample multi-aged management prescription. Deuce Pilot: DBH Distribution Saplings excluded 90 Monitoring 60 Status Pre Post 30 0 4−8 in 8−12 in 12−16 in 16−20 in 20−24 in 24−28 in 28+ in DBH Class Trees per acre [II 48 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Figure 3.7 Average stems per acre (n = 7 plots) in the Figure 3.9 Average stems per acre (n = 4 plots) in the sapling (0” – 4”) DBH class for live trees sapling (0” – 4”) DBH class for live trees in Deuce Pilot. The superimposed point in Deuce Olde. The superimposed point represents the recommended stocking level represents the recommended stocking level under a sample multi-aged management under a sample multi-aged management prescription. prescription. Deuce Pilot: Saplings Deuce Olde: Saplings 100 750 75 Monitoring Monitoring 500 Status Status Pre 50 Pre Post Post 250 25 0 0 Figure 3.8 Average stems per acre (n = 4 plots) by DBH class for live trees in Deuce Olde, excluding saplings (0”- 4” DBH). Superimposed points represent recommended stocking levels under a sample multi-aged management prescription. Deuce Olde: DBH Distribution Saplings excluded 60 Monitoring 40 Status Pre Post 20 0 4−8 in 8−12 in 12−16 in 16−20 in 20−24 in 24−28 in 28+ in DBH Class (inches) Deuce Olde the vertical fuel continuity, it does not lead to long- term stand resilience and a sustainable age/size class This DBH distribution shows that more trees could be distribution. Even in an old-growth stand, some sap- removed from the 8- to 12-inch and 12- to 16-inch size lings are needed to grow into small trees, and small class (Figure 3.8). This was a pre-commercial thin- trees are needed to survive to maturity. While the goal ning treatment, however, so trees in these DBH class- is to preserve old growth habitat, a stand with only es wouldn’t be harvested. No saplings were observed older trees is more vulnerable to disturbance than a following treatment (Figure 3.9). While this disrupts multi-aged stand. Saplings per acre Trees per acre IC] Saplings per acre ~ IC] IC] Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 49 Jakabe would result in a lower fire risk, but it does not con- tribute to stand resiliency. There should be at least As a pre-commercial thinning treatment, little change some saplings left to provide for long-term replace- in the number of trees in the larger size classes would ment of older trees. A clump of saplings growing in a be expected, as seen in Figure 3.12. And while the gap separate from the rest of the overstory would not number of saplings would be expected to drop, zero necessarily serve as ladder fuels. saplings were observed following treatment. This Figure 3.10 Multiple age/size classes in Deuce Olde following treatment. Photo courtesy of CBMT. Figure 3.11 Even age/size class in Jakabe Ben Young post-treatment. Photo courtesy of the CBMT. 50 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Figure 3.12 Average stems per acre (n = 4 plots) by DBH class for live trees in Jakabe harvests. Superimposed points represent recommended stocking levels under a sample multi-aged management prescription. Jakabe: DBH Distribution 90 Monitoring 60 Status Pre Post 30 0 0−4 in 4−8 in 8−12 in 12−16 in 16−20 in 20+ in DBH Class Crooked Mud Honey Lil Stewardship survival (Figure 3.15). Overall, the resulting DBH class distribution appears to be consistent with his- Many trees were removed in the smaller DBH classes, torical and sustainable forest structure. Six white fir which is a desirable result. The DBH class distribu- trees with DBH greater than 21” were removed in the tion adheres well to the desired inverse J-curve (Fig- observed plots, but an amendment was granted for the ure 3.14). A large number of saplings were removed, CMH project allowing removal of white fir with DBH but enough were left to provide for long-term stand greater than 21” in certain situations. Figure 3.13 Multiple age/size classes in a CMH Lil stand post-treatment. Photo courtesy of the CBMT. Trees per acre Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 51 Figure 3.14 Average stems per acre (n = 13 plots) by DBH class for live trees in CMH Lil Stewardship, excluding saplings (0”- 4” DBH). Superimposed points represent recommended stocking levels under a sample multi-aged management prescription. CMH Lil Stewardship: DBH Distribution Saplings excluded 125 100 75 MonitoringStatus Pre 50 Post 25 0 4−8 in 8−12 in 12−16 in 16−20 in 20−24 in 24−28 in 28+ in DBH Class Figure 3.15 Average stems per acre (n = 13 plots) in the sapling (0” – 4”) DBH class for live trees in CMH Lil Stewardship. The superimposed point represents the recommended stocking level under a sample multi-aged management prescription. CMH Lil: Saplings 600 Monitoring 400 Status Pre Post 200 0 Trees per acre Saplings per acre 52 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Recommendations/Conclusions While the results from CMH Lil showed a resil- prescriptions, which are designed to increase ient stand structure, the average residual basal within-stand heterogeneity (Knapp et al., 2017). area was at the high end of the target range, indicating that high stocking levels may lessen The collaborative may consider adopting alter- resistance to disturbance in subsequent years. native indicators for resistance and resilience In the other three thinning projects, there was in light of CSE data collection being infeasible. generally a large amount of residual small trees Such an indicator should allow for data collec- following thinning. It is important to note that tion either through field plots, remote sensing, the pre-commercial thinning treatments would or another method that can adequately capture not be expected to have much of an effect on the variation throughout the landscape. Basal basal area since only small trees were removed. area and diameter distributions were used here Deuce Pilot was a commercial thinning treat- because they were easily calculated from the ment, however, and the residual basal area was vegetation monitoring data, but other options well above the target range. The LSG may want exist. Resistance and resilience are broad con- to consider adopting multi-age prescriptions cepts and not easily quantified (DeRose & Long, (O’Hara & Ramage, 2013), in which target stem 2014), so the collaborative must decide on in- counts are set by DBH class, or variable density dicators that are both meaningful and practical. Acknowledgements Many thanks to the following individuals for providing review and feedback: John Bailey, Professor of Forest Engineering, Resources and Management at Oregon State University, Daniel Leavell, State Fire Specialist, Oregon State University Extension, Craig Bienz, Director, Sycan Marsh Preserve, The Nature Conservancy, Kerry Farris, Instructor, Environmental Sciences Program, Oregon Institute of Technology, and James Johnston, Post-Doctoral Researcher in Forest Engineering, Resources and Management at Oregon State University. References Moghaddas, J. J., Collins, B. M., Menning, K., Moghaddas, E. E. Y., & Stephens, S. L. (2010). Fuel treatment effects on modeled landscape-level fire behavior in the northern Sierra Nevada. Bailey, J. D., & Covington, W. W. (2002). Evaluating ponderosa Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 40(9), 1751–1765. pine regeneration rates following ecological restoration treatments in northern Arizona, USA. Forest Ecology and O’Hara, K. L. (2004). Stocking control concepts in uneven- Management, 155(1–3), 271–278. aged silviculture. Forestry, 77(2), 131–143. Derose, R. J., & Long, J. N. (2014). Resistance and resilience: O’Hara, K. L. (2006). Multiaged forest stands for protection a conceptual framework for silviculture. Forest Science, 60(6), forests: Concepts and applications. Forest Snow and 1205–1212. Landscape Research, 80(1), 45–55. Hessburg, P. F., Churchill, D. J., Larson, A. J., Haugo, R. D., O’Hara, K. L., & Ramage, B. S. (2013). Silviculture in an Miller, C., Spies, T. A., North, M. P., Povak, N. A., Belote, R. uncertain world: Utilizing multi-aged management systems to T., Singleton, P. H., Gaines, W. L., Keane, R. E., Aplet, G. H., integrate disturbance. Forestry, 86(4), 401–410. Stephens, S. L., Morgan, P., Bisson, P. A., Rieman, B. E., Salter, R. B., & Reeves, G. H. (2015). Restoring fire-prone Inland Tappeiner, J. C., Bailey, J. D., Harrington, T. B., & Maguire, Pacific landscapes: Seven core principles. Landscape Ecology, D.A. Silviculture and Ecology of Western U.S. Forests, 30(10), 1805–1835. Oregon State University Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/osu/detail. Knapp, E. E., Lydersen, J. M., North, M. P., & Collins, B. M. action?docID=5247351. (2017). Efficacy of variable density thinning and prescribed fire for restoring forest heterogeneity to mixed-conifer forest in the USDA USFS NRM. (2015). FSVeg Common Stand Exam User central Sierra Nevada, CA. Forest Ecology and Management, Guide. [Web] Retrieved from https://www.fs.fed.us/nrm/fsveg/ . 406(June), 228–241. Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 53 Question 3.2 What is the effect of the treatments on moving the Forest landscape toward a more sustainable condition that includes scale and intensity of historic disturbances? Goal 3.2: To quantify and compare the scale and intensity of current restoration treatments to historic disturbances. Indicator 3.2: Change in Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) rating. Background all forested areas in Region 6 using LANDFIRE data (LANDFIRE 2020). Next, the cumulative area of de- The conception of ecological departure in the Pacific parture from the BpS (as shown by the GNN data) was Northwest (PNW) Region has evolved since the FRCC calculated for each landscape unit. Landscape units work of 2003-2010 (Barrett et al., 2010). Beginning in varied by historical fire regime. Fire management 2012, the US Forest Service PNW Region Ecology Pro- personnel consider the entire LFSU to be Fire Regime gram (Region 6) collaborated with The Nature Con- 1 (0-35 years), for which departures are calculated by servancy in developing a refined method of charac- 10-digit/5th level hydrologic unit (watershed). Finally, terizing ecological departure. This approach features the amount and type of restoration needed to return current data layers and methods to determine how to the entire landscape to its BpS was calculated. Resto- move landscapes towards a natural range of variation ration types include disturbance, disturbance + suc- (NRV). Estimates of the specific seral stage changes in cession, and succession only. Disturbance refers to a watersheds and the order in which they should occur management activity such as thinning or prescribed can now be produced (Haugo et al. 2015, DeMeo et al. fire. It is also important to note that wildland fires and 2018). their management are a significant source of distur- bance on the landscape. Succession denotes allowing This method uses Gradient Nearest Neighbor (GNN) a forested area to grow into a later successional stage. forest structure data produced by the LEMMA proj- In some cases, disturbance followed by succession ect (LEMMA, Ohmann & Gregory 2002) and updated (disturbance + succession) is recommended, such as every five years. CFLR activities were implemented when a mid-seral closed seral stage is thinned and in the Lakeview Federal Stewardship Unit (LFSU) be- maintenance prescribed burns follow. During this ginning in 2012, so the analysis of the 2012 GNN data phase of prescribed burning, succession of the over- provides a pre-restoration measure of vegetation de- story is proceeding. parture. A second departure analysis was completed using the GNN data released in 2017. A comparison of Methods: the 2012 and 2017 GNN data captures all CFLR resto- The departure totals for watersheds with a majority of ration completed in the LFSU between 2012 and 2017. forested area within the LFSU were extracted for this analysis. Some of the watershed boundaries extend The departure analysis methods are described in beyond the LFSU, but the forested area within these Haugo et al. (2015), and a brief summary is provid- watersheds does not extend much past the LFSU ed here. First, the biophysical setting (BpS), or ap- boundary. Watersheds without a majority of forested propriate historical forest type, was established for area in the LFSU were excluded. The total area need- 54 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 ing active restoration (disturbance and disturbance + the Barry Point Fire in 2012 was included in the res- succession) in 2012 and 2017 was calculated for each toration totals. watershed with a majority of forested area within the LFSU. A map of the selected watersheds is shown in The satellite imagery on which the 2012 GNN anal- Figure 3.16. To calculate the change in area needing ysis was based was taken around the beginning of disturbance, the 2012 GNN-detected totals were sub- August, near the start of the Barry Point fire. Since tracted from the 2017 GNN-detected totals. These re- the data is based on a composite of images, it would sults are shown in Table 3.3. be difficult to ascertain the exact range of dates used (M. Gregory, personal communication, January 2021). The amount of restoration that occurred in each wa- However, the likelihood of any of the burned area be- tershed was calculated using ArcMap 10.8 GIS soft- ing captured is so low (any images with smoke would ware (ESRI, 2020). Results are shown in Table 3.4, have been rejected) that the Barry Point Fire will be and a map of restoration treatment by watershed is treated as occurring entirely after the 2012 data was shown in Figure 3.17. The total area of CFLR thinning captured. This is supported by the comparatively treatment and prescribed burning treatment was cal- high (relative to other watersheds) increase in succes- culated for each watershed. Areas that were burned sion need and reduction in disturbance need in the following a thin were calculated separately from Barry Point watersheds. thinning-only or burn-only area. The area burned in Table 3.3 5th field (HUC 10) watersheds in the LFSU and amount of detected restoration need in acres. “Disturbance” includes both disturbance only and disturbance plus succession. Restoration refers to thinning, prescribed burning, or wildland fire occurring between 2012 and 2017. A negative change represents a drop in acres needing restoration. A positive change represents an increase in acres needing restoration. Change in disturbance need is in bold for watersheds with extensive restoration activities between 2012 and 2017. Disturbance Disturbance Change in Succession Succession Change in Watershed Needed Needed Disturbance Needed Needed Succession Restoration Name 2012 2017 Needed 2012 2017 Needed 2012-2017 Anna River- Summer Lake 6702 5860 -842 3347 4458 1111 Crooked Creek 14695 14721 26 83 100 17 Deep Creek 37391 36742 -649 0 136 136 South Warner Aspen Drews Creek- West Drews Frontal Goose 49607 46536 -3070 12 963 951 Aspen, Barry Lake Point Fire Dry Creek-Frontal Goose Lake 9678 6357 -3320 705 2603 1898 Barry Point Fire Honey Creek 12999 12850 -149 0 29 29 Lower Chewaucan River 17731 17747 16 142 378 236 Middle Chewaucan River 14555 13456 -1099 3262 3833 571 Deuce, Jakabe North Fork Willow Creek-Willow 10227 8172 -2055 1015 2065 1050 Barry Point Fire Creek Thomas Creek 45559 44631 -927 0 0 0 Upper Chewaucan River 42935 41519 -1417 1946 1846 -100 Deuce, Jakabe Willow Creek- Frontal Goose 10198 10218 20 0 0 0 Lake Total Acres 272275 258810 -13466 10513 16410 5897 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 55 Figure 3.16 Map of watersheds with a majority of forested area falling within the boundaries of the Lakeview Federal Stewardship Unit. Lakeview Federal Stewardship Un it: Watersheds 1 1 □ 5 0 10 Kilom eters 1· Anna Riv er-Summer La ke -- Highways ~ Ste wardship Unit ~ Towns LFSU Watersheds ~ Included ~ Not Included GNN Layer / 1111 Foreste d Area t ,\· / ~1 ( · I, r:\ 56 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Figure 3.17 Map of restoration activities in the Lakeview Federal Stewardship unit between 2012 and 2017. Activities include thinning, prescribed burning, thinning followed by burning, and wildland fire. Lakev iew Federal Stewardship Un it: Resoration and Departure by Watershed 2012-2017 110 5 0 -- Highways CJ Towns c::::J Ste ward ship Unit 1111 Barry Point Fire Activity 1111 Prescribed Burn 1111 Thin+Burn IIII Thinning LFSU Watersheds [=1 Included [=1 Not Included Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 57 Table 3.4 Total acreage of restoration activities by watershed occurring in the LFSU between 2012 and 2017. Watershed Name Prescribed Burn Thinning Thin + Burn Barry Point Fire Total acres Anna River-Summer Lake 0 0 0 0 0 Crooked Creek 0 0 0 0 0 Deep Creek 0 4,569 0 0 4,569 Drews Creek-Frontal Goose Lake 2,181 12,208 2,023 23,730 40,142 Dry Creek-Frontal Goose Lake 0 0 0 16,048 16,048 Honey Creek 0 0 0 0 0 Lower Chewaucan River 0 242 0 0 242 Middle Chewaucan River 3,054 7,133 74 0 10,261 North Fork Willow Creek- Willow Creek 0 59 0 3,103 3,162 Thomas Creek 0 680 0 0 680 Upper Chewaucan River 4,954 6,331 540 0 11,825 Willow Creek-Frontal Goose Lake 0 0 0 0 0 Analysis 3.2 concentrated in one watershed, a greater decrease in restoration need may have been detected. Projects fo- Per the departure analysis, all watersheds experienc- cused specifically on watershed restoration may in- ing extensive restoration activities (defined as 1,000 volve planning at the watershed scale (see Question acres or greater) or large wildland fire showed a re- 8), but projects oriented toward fire regime restoration duction in acres needing active restoration treatment. may not align with watershed boundaries. One po- Figures 3.19-3.22 show the treatment by individual tential approach to unite these two objectives could watershed. While it is encouraging that restoration be the use of Potential Operational Delineations, or activities have resulted in a decrease in active res- PODs (Thompson et al., 2016). Many forests have toration need, the acres restored are still a fraction begun planning strategic fire risk reduction around of the remaining acres needing active restoration. A PODs, so identification of vegetation departure at the comparison of actual restoration acres and GNN-pre- POD level could help prioritize restoration activities. dicted restoration needs is shown in Table 3.5. Another factor influencing the total acres restored is The three watersheds with the greatest drop in detect- that a fair amount of forested area in each watershed ed restoration need contained a portion of the Barry lies outside the forest boundary, and is therefore not Point Fire footprint. The Drews Creek-Frontal Goose subject to restoration efforts of the Lakeview Steward- Lake watershed (Figures 3.18, 3.19) also contained ship Group (Table 3.6). These areas would register as the highest acreage of active restoration projects, so needing restoration even though the Forest Service it is difficult to determine which portion of the de- itself cannot conduct restoration on these lands. Mov- tected decrease in restoration can be attributed to the ing toward an all-lands approach to restoration could projects as opposed to the fire. However, Dry Creek- help address this issue (Leavell et al., 2018). Frontal Goose Lake experienced a similar decrease in restoration need with half the extent of active restora- It is possible that error in the GNN analysis is influ- tion projects, so it is likely that the fire played more of encing the results, but a discussion of the technical a role in reducing the detected restoration need. process is beyond the scope of this report. Potential sources of error are currently being investigated by Both the Deuce and Jakabe restoration projects were Region 6. It is also possible that the areas identified distributed across the Upper Chewaucan and Middle as needing restoration by GNN analysis process are Chewaucan watersheds rather than occupying a ma- not the same as the areas identified as needing res- jority of a single watershed. Had the amount of res- toration by the consensus of the Lakeview Steward- toration conducted across the two watersheds been ship Group. The Region 6 methods identify ecologi- 58 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 cal departure, whereas forest restoration planning is Late-Old Structure. In a collaborative environment generally driven by a desire to minimize potential with stakeholders representing a variety of values, fire effects in priority areas. Therefore, factors beyond ecological departure is one of multiple priorities to the amount of vegetation departure may influence the be addressed (Urgenson et al., 2017). It is also possible decision of where to conduct restoration. These fac- that some areas identified by the departure analysis tors could include proximity to residences or values as needing restoration are protected and therefore un- such as wildlife habitat, water sources, or designated suitable for active restoration (Barros et al., 2017). Table 3.5 Total acres restored in the LFSU between 2017 and the amount of active restoration needed as determined by the GNN departure analysis. A negative change indicates a decrease in restoration needed, and a positive change indicates an increase in restoration needed. Total acres Change in need Watershed Name restored (GNN) Restoration 2012-2017 Anna River-Summer Lake 0 -842 Crooked Creek 0 26 Deep Creek 4,569 -649 South Warner Aspen Drews Creek-Frontal Goose Lake 40,142 -3070 West Drews Watershed, Barry Point Fire Dry Creek-Frontal Goose Lake 16,048 -3320 Barry Point Fire Honey Creek 0 -149 Lower Chewaucan River 242 16 Middle Chewaucan River 10,261 -1099 Deuce, Jakabe North Fork Willow Creek-Willow Creek 3,162 -2055 Barry Point Fire Thomas Creek 680 -927 Upper Chewaucan River 11,825 -1417 Deuce, Jakabe Willow Creek-Frontal Goose Lake 0 20 Figure 3.18 Before (top) and after (bottom) restoration in the West Drews Watershed Restoration and Vegetation Management Project, in the Drews Creek/Frontal Goose Lake watershed. (Courtesy of the CBMT). Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 59 Figure 3.19 Restoration activities in the Drews Creek/Frontal Goose Lake watershed between 2012 and 2017. Figure 3.20 Restoration activities in the Upper Chewaucan River watershed between 2012 and 2017. -- 11,ghways C] W:nardled Bour1daty n ~ru~'~ary 0 Towt1s Acbvity - ?rescnbed Burn - Thint8um - ThiMing GNN Layer - I orestedAre a 60 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Figure 3.21 Restoration activities in the Middle Chewaucan River watershed between 2012 and 2017.. 3 Kilometers I Figure 3.22 Restoration activities in the Deep Creek watershed between 2012 and 2017 -- Highw•y• c:J 0eep Creek D ~~~~jaAy - ~1~~fainlfi1v C] Towni; Ac~vity - Prescn~d Burn - Thinl8om ; - ThiMinp GNN Layer - I orestedAtea Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 61 Table 3.6 Area by ownership by watershed in the Lakeview Federal Stewardship Unit. Watershed Name USFS acres Non-USFS acres Anna River-Summer Lake 25,393 5,961 Crooked Creek 19,355 11,789 Deep Creek 47,521 31,059 Drews Creek-Frontal Goose Lake 77,678 21,928 Dry Creek-Frontal Goose Lake 13,410 5,469 Honey Creek 20,464 9,171 Lower Chewaucan River 20,798 13,439 Middle Chewaucan River 26,690 14,452 North Fork Willow Creek-Willow Creek 13,747 5,278 Thomas Creek 55,828 39,467 Upper Chewaucan River 85,703 21,850 Willow Creek-Frontal Goose Lake 12,920 7,842 Recommendations/Conclusions The results underscore the need to increase the composition, the landscape conditions must pace and scale of restoration. The two GNN promote fire severities consistent with histori- analyses took place five years apart. In five cal fire regimes. Increases in the amount of area years, the restoration activities that took place burned at high severity in forests adapted to pri- in the Stewardship Unit only registered a mod- marily low-severity fire can lead to loss of forest est decrease in the area detected as departed cover and other adverse effects (Tepley et al., from historical biophysical settings. While these 2017). The Barry Point Fire is an example, hav- activities have provided benefits at the stand ing burned extensively at high severity and leav- scale, in five years there was only a modest ef- ing extensive shrub fields in previously forested fect at the landscape scale. This is not to imply areas (A. Markus, personal communication, that these treatments were ineffective, only that November 2020). With climate change, these restoration of a landscape takes a long time. shrub fields may persist rather than return to Restoration activities have been successful in forest cover; this is a topic into which research mitigating severe wildland fire behavior (Kalies continues (Tepley et al., 2018). Increasing the & Kent, 2016). pace and scale of restoration will require con- tinued collaboration and cooperation by a wide As seen in this analysis, wildland fire appears range of stakeholders across all lands and all to be the most effective method of landscape- ownerships (Leavell et al., 2018, Spies et al., scale restoration. If wildland fire is necessary 2017), and increased use of fire. to restore landscape structure, function, and 62 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Acknowledgements Many thanks to Madison Laughlin, Graduate Student at the University of Washington, for running the departure analyses on the 2012 and 2017 GNN data, and Tom DeMeo, Regional Ecologist and CFLRP Coordinator for USFS PNW Region, for review and feedback. References Barrett, S., Havlina, D., Jones, J., Hann, W., Frame, C., Hamilton, LEMMA. (n.d.) GNN Maps and Data. Landscape Ecology, D., Schon, K., DeMeo, T., Hutter, L., & Menakis, J. (2010). Modeling, Mapping, and Analysis. https://lemma.forestry. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class guidebook. Version oregonstate.edu/data/home 3.0. USDA Forest Service, US Department of the Interior, and The Nature Conservancy. Ohmann, J. L., & Gregory, M. J. (2002). Predictive mapping of forest composition and structure with direct gradient analysis Barros, A. M. G., Ager, A. A., Day, M. A., Preisler, H. K., Spies, and nearest- neighbor imputation in coastal Oregon, U.S.A. T. A., White, E., Pabst, R. J., Olsen, K. A., Platt, E., Bailey, J. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 32(4), 725–741. D., & Bolte, J. P. (2017). Spatiotemporal dynamics of simulated wildfire, forest management, and forest succession in central Spies, T. A., White, E., Ager, A., Kline, J. D., Bolte, J. P., Platt, Oregon, USA. Ecology and Society, 22(1):24. E. K., Olsen, K. A., Pabst, R. J., Barros, A. M. G., Bailey, J. D., Charnley, S., Koch, J., Steen-Adams, M. M., Singleton, P. H., DeMeo, T., R. Haugo, C. Ringo, J. Kertis, S. Acker, M. Simpson, Sulzman, J., Schwartz, C., & Csuti, B. (2017). Using an agent- and Stern, M. 2018. Expanding our understanding of forest based model to examine forest management outcomes in a fire- structural restoration needs in the Pacific Northwest. Northwest prone landscape in Oregon, USA. Ecology and Society, 22(1). Science 92:18–35. Tepley, A. J., Thompson, J. R., Epstein, H. E., & Anderson- ESRI. (2020) ArcMap (Version 10.8). Environmental Systems Teixeira, K. J. (2017). Vulnerability to forest loss through altered Research Institute, Inc. https://www.esri.com/en-us/home postfire recovery dynamics in a warming climate in the Klamath Mountains. Global Change Biology, 23(10), 4117–4132. Haugo, R., Zanger, C., DeMeo, T., Ringo, C., Shlisky, A., Blankenship, K., Simpson, M., Mellen-McLean, K., Kertis, J., & Tepley, A. J., Thomann, E., Veblen, T. T., Perry, G. L. W., Holz, Stern, M. (2015). A new approach to evaluate forest structure A., Paritsis, J., Kitzberger, T., & Anderson-Teixeira, K. J. (2018). restoration needs across Oregon and Washington, USA. Forest Influences of fire-vegetation feedbacks and post-fire recovery Ecology and Management, 335, 37–50. rates on forest landscape vulnerability to altered fire regimes. Journal of Ecology, 106(5), 1925–1940. Kalies, E. L., & Yocom Kent, L. L. (2016). Tamm Review: Are fuel treatments effective at achieving ecological and social Thompson, M., Bowden, P., Brough, A., Scott, J., Gilbertson- objectives? A systematic review. In Forest Ecology and Day, J., Taylor, A., Anderson, J., & Haas, J. (2016). Application Management 75, 84–95. of Wildfire Risk Assessment Results to Wildfire Response Planning in the Southern Sierra Nevada, California, USA. LANDFIRE. (2020, January). LANDFIRE Project, U.S. Forests, 7(12), 64. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of Interior [Online]. Available: http://www.landfire.gov/index.php Urgenson, L. S., Ryan, C. M., Halpern, C. B., Bakker, J. D., [2020, August 7]. Belote, R. T., Franklin, J. F., Haugo, R. D., Nelson, C. R., & Waltz, A. E. M. (2017). Visions of Restoration in Fire-Adapted Leavell, D., Markus, A., Bienz, C., Carlsen, K., Davis, E.J., Forest Landscapes: Lessons from the Collaborative Forest Douglas, M., Ferguson, D., Fledderjohann, L., Johnson, K., Landscape Restoration Program. Environmental Management, Livingston, N., Pettigrew, J., Rogers, G., Schreder, M., Shoun, 59(2), 338–353. D., & Vradenburg L. A. (2018). Planning and implementing cross-boundary landscape scale restoration and wildfire risk reduction projects: A “How To” guide to achieve the goals of the National Cohesive Strategy. Oregon State University, University of Idaho, Washington State University, PNW 707. Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 63 Question 3.3 What is the effect of the treatments on moving the Forest landscape toward a more sustainable condition that includes scale and intensity of historic disturbances? Goal 3.3: To quantify and compare the effects of prescribed fire and mechanical treatments to the historic disturbance regime. Indicator 3.3: Fire frequency. Analysis 3.3 have burned in prescribed fires and 71,000 acres have burned in large wildland fires (Barry Point and Wat- The Lakeview Federal Stewardship Unit (LFSU) is son Creek) for a total of 97,500 acres burned. See Table approximately 490,000 acres in size. Assuming a 35- 3.7 for a comparison and Figure 3.23 for a map show- year Mean Fire Return Interval (MFRI), 14,000 acres ing the burned areas. This is 28,500 acres below what would have burned annually. The 35-year MFRI used would have burned historically in a nine-year time here is the average MFRI across all the forest types period. The 97,500 acres burned over nine years in the in the LFSU (C. Shuffield, personal communication, LFSU translates to an average of about 10,800 acres July 7, 2020). In the nine years since the implementa- burned per year. This is approximately 3,200 acres tion of CFLRP, a total of 126,000 acres should have fewer per year than the 14,000 acres that would have burned within the LFSU. Since 2011, 26,500 acres burned historically. Table 3.7 Historic and present-day acres burned over a nine-year time span. Historic Present Difference Total acres burned 126,000 97,500 -28,500 Annual acres burned 14,000 10,800 -3,200 Wildland fire total acres NA 71,000 NA Prescribed fire total acres NA 26,500 NA 64 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Figure 3.23 Map of all prescribed and wildland fire in the Stewardship Unit since 2011. CFLRP designation was received in 2012. I'-■ .------2-.-.5-1•--•■' Kilurnvt.1 s I \ ,,.,., '0,. ~ 1· · ~'>... ...' .·. ~ / ; ·> \ ._.....___, ,-.· ------·.. .. ·,1 . • \ ~- Highwoyo c:J Ueep_t..:reek 11 f otP.!.t L___J ~undary - ~riroint Fire LJ lowns > , ~ .•~~ .. Activity .,,_, - Pt~sc,ilMc'tl Bum - Thin+Bum .,'\. ·. ~---- ; - l h1nnrng GNN Layer - ForeG:tedArea References Barros, A. M. G., Ager, A. A., Day, M. A., Krawchuk, M. A., & Miller, C., O’Neill, S., Rorig, M., & Alvarado, E. (2019). Air- Spies, T. A. (2018). Wildfires managed for restoration enhance Quality Challenges of Prescribed Fire in the Complex Terrain ecological resilience. Ecosphere, 9(3), e02161. and Wildland Urban Interface Surrounding Bend, Oregon. Atmosphere, 10(9), 515. Burns, J. (2019, Jan. 24) Oregon Approves New Air Quality Rules to Allow More Prescribed Fire. Oregon Public Perry, D. A., Hessburg, P. F., Skinner, C. N., Spies, T. A., Broadcasting. https://www.opb.org/news/article/prescribed- Stephens, S. L., Taylor, A. H., Franklin, J. F., McComb, B., & fire-oregon-new-rules/ Riegel, G. (2011). The ecology of mixed severity fire regimes in Washington, Oregon, and Northern California. Forest Ecology Kolden, C. A. (2019). We’re Not Doing Enough Prescribed Fire and Management, 262(5), 703–717. in the Western United States to Mitigate Wildfire Risk. Fire, 2(2), 30. Reilly, M. J., Dunn, C. J., Meigs, G. W., Spies, T. A., Kennedy, R. E., Bailey, J. D., & Briggs, K. (2017). Contemporary patterns of Matonis, M. (2020). Insights and Suggestions for Certified fire extent and severity in forests of the Pacific Northwest, USA Prescribed Burn Manager Programs. Forest Stewards Guild. (1985-2010). Ecosphere, 8(3), e01695. https://foreststewardsguild.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/ InsightsRecommendationsCPMBprograms.pdf Schultz, C. A., McCaffrey, S. M., & Huber-Stearns, H. R. (2019). Policy barriers and opportunities for prescribed fire application in the western United States. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 28(11), 874. Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 65 Recommendations Of the total area burned in the LFSU over the Another potential method of reaching historical observed time period, over two-thirds was from fire regime targets is managed fire. Also known wildland fires. The total acreage of prescribed as wildland fire use, managed fire refers to wild- fire represents approximately 21% of the pro- land fires that are allowed to burn for resource jected historical nine-year total. This is not an benefit when conditions permit rather than be- unusual outcome for a western forest. Through- ing immediately suppressed. Though the use of out the US West, the Forest Service has not prescribed fire has been limited, managed fire generally been able to conduct prescribed fire provides an opportunity to maintain fire on the on a scale comparable to historical fire regimes landscape at larger scales than prescribed fire (Kolden 2019). Due to factors such as limited (Barros et al., 2018). Managed fire is recom- resources (Schultz et al., 2019) and limited burn mended as a method of restoration in addition windows (Miller et al., 2019), it is often difficult to prescribed fire. to conduct enough prescribed burning to match the historical fire regime for a given area. One aspect of fire regimes that is not captured in the reporting of total acres burned is percent- The Oregon Prescribed Fire Council is cur- age of fire by severity class. Severity class is rently spearheading efforts to amend Oregon commonly used to define fire regimes (Perry et State laws to lessen the regulatory hurdles to al., 2011). One of the concerns leading to res- prescribed burning. Smoke management reg- toration efforts is an increased amount of high- ulations have already been adjusted (Burns severity fire in forest types with a historical fire 2019) and a certified prescribed burn boss cer- regime composed primarily of low-severity fire tification has been proposed (Matonis 2020). If (Reilly et al., 2017). Tracking the percentage of these efforts are successful, there may be an area burned by severity class compared to the increase in prescribed burning opportunities in historical fire regime is recommended for future the coming years. The LSG should be aware of monitoring efforts. these efforts and support them if possible. Acknowledgements Many thanks to Chaylon Shuffield, Fire Ecologist and Fuels Planner for the Fremont-Winema National Forest, for his assistance in compiling the acres burned totals. 66 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Question 4 What is the historical spatial pattern within the Lakeview Stewardship landscape? How well are treatments mimicking historical spatial patterns? Goal 4.1: To understand historic spatial patterns that will help with future prescription writing. Indicator 4.1: Individuals, clumps and openings (ICO). Goal 4.2: To achieve fine scale mosaic pattern across the landscape that existed historically. Indicator 4.1: Individuals, clumps and openings (ICO). Analysis: Indicator 4.1 Research has shown that prior to widespread fire Therefore, historical ranges for similar forest types suppression, dry forests in the western U.S. tended should provide sufficient guidance for the forests of toward a heterogeneous pattern of widely spaced in- the Lakeview Federal Stewardship Unit (LFSU). dividual trees, tree clumps of varying sizes, and gaps of varying sizes (Larson & Churchill, 2012). Ecologi- cal benefits of this arrangement include resistance to Recommendations: pathogens such as insects and root disease, providing Indicator 4.1 adequate sunlight for regeneration of shade-intolerant trees, greater snow retention leading to higher sum- mer soil moisture, and natural fire breaks (Churchill Multiple historical reconstruction studies have et al., 2018). been conducted in dry Eastside forests simi- lar to those within the LFSU. Historical ranges The Monitoring Plan called for The Nature Conser- from these studies may be used as a guide for vancy (TNC) to oversee collection of data for this in- planning silvicultural prescriptions and evalu- dicator. Due to issues with the contracting process, ating the results of completed thinning treat- this data was never collected. However, this data may ments. Historical clump ranges are summa- be obtained from other sources. Research has shown rized in a guide produced by TNC in conjunc- that spatial patterns of individual trees, clumps of tion with the University of Washington (UW) trees and openings historically fell within a range, so (Churchill et al., 2016). A table with suggested adhering to the exact historical pattern of a given area ranges is included in Figure 4.1. is not strictly necessary for restoration as long as the resulting pattern is close (Larson & Churchill, 2012). Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 67 Table 4.1 Summary of clump proportions from 4 historical reference datasets. Values are the percent of trees in each clump size. The datasets include 10 plots in the Eastern Cascades of Washington, 12 plots on the western half of the Colville National Forest in North-Central Washington, 14 plots on the Malheur National Forest in North-Central Oregon, and 12 plots on Winema National Forest in South-Central Oregon. Plots range from 7 to 12 acres in size and were reconstructed to pre-fire suppression conditions (1890-1880). Plots represent a range of site conditions from dry ponderosa pine plant associations to dry Douglas-fir, grand fir, white fire, and sub-alpine fire associations. Contact the authors for more detailed information for each area. Clump (bin) Size (number of trees) Clump Clumping level distance 1 2-4 5-9 10-15 16-20+ TPA Eastern Washington Cascades High 20’ – 6m .22 .38 .24 .10 .06 40-60+ Medium 20’ – 6m .30 .42 .11 .17 25-40 Low 20’ – 6m .45 .43 .12 15-25 Western Colville National Forest High 20’ – 6m .13 .27 .28 .13 .19 40-60+ Medium 20’ – 6m .21 .35 .32 .09 .04 25-40 Low 20’ – 6m .38 .44 .14 .04 15-25 Malheur National Forest High 20’ – 6m .15 .25 .25 .10 .25 40-60+ Medium 20’ – 6m .20 .35 .35 .08 .02 25-40 Low 20’ – 6m .35 .45 .15 .05 15-25 Winema National Forest High 20’ – 6m .20 .30 .20 .15 .15 40-60+ Medium 20’ – 6m .25 .35 .20 .10 .10 25-40 Low 20’ – 6m .30 .35 .25 .10 15-25 Analysis: Indicator 4.2 smaller trees below the canopy, but this is an accepted limitation of LiDAR. Research studies have used this The monitoring plan called for The Nature Conser- process to analyze spatial patterns with the under- vancy (TNC) to produce stem maps. Due to issues with standing that some small trees will not be accounted the contracting process, the data was never collected. for (Jeronimo et al., 2018, Jeronimo et al., 2019). LiDAR data collected in 2018 was used instead. All units in the Deuce Pilot commercial thinning treat- Methods for analyzing ICO patterns are described ment and 53 units in the Crooked Mud Honey (CMH) in the TNC/UW guide (Churchill et al., 2016) and Lil Stewardship commercial thinning treatment were in Churchill et al. (2017). Clump sizes and locations completed prior to the LiDAR acquisition. No field can be identified using GIS software such as ArcMap data was used in this analysis, but LiDAR analysis (ESRI, 2020). A clump is defined as a collection of methods have been shown to be successful in the ab- trees within one crown length of each other. While sence of field verification. (Kane et al., 2014). crown width varies by tree, a generally accepted aver- age crown width used in ICO analyses is 20 ft or 6 m Methods: (Churchill et al., 2013, Churchill et al., 2016). Clump The LiDAR portion of this analysis was conducted distribution is characterized by proportion of total using FUSION software (McGaughey 2020). FUSION’s trees in each clump size. For this analysis, clump “TreeSeg” function uses a LiDAR-based canopy proportions were calculated for each treatment unit height model (CHM) to identify tree locations from in Deuce Pilot and CMH Lil Stewardship completed canopy high points. This process identifies primarily before the LiDAR acquisition. The individual units dominant and co-dominant trees and may miss some were then averaged over each project area. 68 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Openings are characterized as areas at least one crown The proportion of trees in each clump size was simi- radius away from a tree in all directions. Churchill et lar between Deuce Pilot and CMH Lil Stewardship. In al., (2016 & 2017) use two methods of classifying open- both project areas, the proportion of individual trees ings: by size and by distance from the nearest tree. and trees in the 2-to-4-tree clump size exceeded the While no reference data is available for distributions historical range. In all clump sizes of 5 trees or great- of openings for the LFSU, the reference data for the er, the observed proportion was less than the histori- Blue Mountains used by Churchill et al. (2017) and cal range. for the Sierra Nevada used by Jeronimo et al. (2019) represent similar forest types and can be used as a Openings guide. As with the clumps, the opening distributions were calculated for each unit and then averaged over The opening size distributions differed slightly be- each project area. tween Deuce Pilot and Lil, but were consistent rela- tive to the historical ranges. Results are shown in Ta- ble 4.3. These ranges were taken from the ponderosa Results pine forest type in the Blue Mountains of northeast- Clumps ern Oregon (Churchill et al., 2017). While they may not exactly reflect historical ranges in the LFSU, the species composition and ecological setting are simi- The “High” clumping level was used for this analy- lar enough that it should be a reasonable approxima- sis, and results are shown in Table 4.2. The Western tion. The number of openings is calculated per four Colville, Malheur, and Winema were judged to be hectares in order to match the historical reconstruc- similar forest types to those found in the LFSU, so tion plot sizes used by Churchill et al. (2017). their ranges were combined and used as a reference. Table 4.2 Average proportion of trees in each clump size and standard error for Deuce Pilot and CMH Lil Stewardship, with difference between observed proportion and historical range. Clump Deuce Pilot Deuce Pilot Deuce Pilot Lil Lil Clump size proportion proportion +/- difference Proportion +/- Lil difference Individual 0.13 to 0.20 0.30 0.03 +0.10 0.32 0.01 +0.12 2 to 4 0.27 to 0.30 0.36 0.03 +0.06 0.34 0.01 +0.04 5 to 9 0.20 to 0.28 0.15 0.01 -0.05 0.16 0.01 -0.04 10 to 15 0.10 to 0.15 0.08 0.02 -0.02 0.07 0.01 -0.03 16 to 20+ 0.15 to 0.25 0.11 0.05 -0.06 0.11 0.01 -0.06 Table 4.3 Average number of openings in hectares and standard error by size class in Deuce Pilot and CMH Lil Stewardship treatment units, with difference between observed number and historical range. Deuce Pilot Deuce Pilot Deuce Pilot Lil avg Lil Lil Size class (ha) Min Max avg openings +/- difference openings +/- difference 0 to 0.04 3 16 41.4 14.7 +25.4 55.8 4.92 +39.8 0.04 to 0.08 2 7 0.10 0.10 -1.90 0.13 0.05 -1.87 0.08 to 0.2 1 5 0.08 0.08 -0.92 0.12 0.08 -0.88 0.2 to 0.4 0 4 0.02 0.02 in range 0.04 0.03 in range 0.4 to 0.8 0 3 0.22 0.20 in range 0.17 0.11 in range 0.8 to 1.6 0 1 0.60 0.43 in range 0.06 0.04 in range 1.6 + 0 1 0.42 0.15 in range 0.26 0.03 in range Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 69 In both Deuce Pilot and Lil Stewardship, the average canopy and the tree itself. The averages for both Pilot number of openings in the smallest size class far ex- and Lil Stewardship fall in the middle of the histori- ceeded the historical range. In the next two larger size cal range for this distance range, indicating that the classes, the average number of openings were below number of trees is consistent with the number of trees the historical range. In the remaining four larger size historically. classes, the average number of openings was within range, but the range included zero. The number of trees in the next shortest distance range, 3 to 6 meters, is above the historical range for The distribution of openings by distance to nearest both Deuce Pilot and Lil Stewardship. Both projects tree was similar between Deuce Pilot and Lil Stew- are within the range for 6 to 9 meters, and within the ardship. Results are shown in Table 4.4. The 0-to- lower end of the 9-to-12-meter range. There were no 3-meter distance represents the area under the tree openings detected in any of the longer distance ranges. Table 4.4 Average proportion of unit area by distance in meters to nearest tree and standard error in Deuce Pilot and CMH Lil Stewardship treatment units, with difference between observed proportion and historical range. Deuce Pilot Deuce Pilot Deuce Pilot Lil avg Lil Lil Distance (m) Min Max avg openings +/- difference openings +/- difference 0 to 3 0.14 0.39 0.25 0.02 in range 0.26 0.01 in range 3 to 6 0.27 0.44 0.48 0.01 +0.04 0.48 0.01 +0.04 6 to 9 0.16 0.28 0.2 0.01 in range 0.2 0.01 in range 9 to 12 0.03 0.18 0.05 0.02 in range 0.04 0.01 in range 12 to 15 0.01 0.09 0 0 -0.01 0 0 -0.01 15 to 18 0.01 0.04 0 0 -0.01 0 0 -0.01 18 to 21 0.01 0.03 0 0 -0.01 0 0 -0.01 21 to 24 0 0.02 0 0 in range 0 0 in range 24 + 0 0.02 0 0 in range 0 0 in range Conclusions Relative to historical clump ranges, Deuce Pilot ings and not enough larger openings relative to and CMH Lil Stewardship contained a higher historic ranges. Silvicultural prescriptions for fu- percentage of trees in small clumps and a lower ture commercial thinning projects should focus percentage of trees in larger clumps. Relative to on leaving larger clumps and larger openings, historical opening size distributions, both proj- and monitoring for spatial patterns should con- ect areas had higher numbers of the smallest tinue. The Colorado Front Range Landscape opening size, and lower numbers of the larger Restoration Initiative, another CFLR-funded opening sizes. Relative to the historical percent- forest collaborative, has had success with pre- age of openings by distance to nearest tree, scriptions focused on creating heterogeneous both project areas had a higher percentage of forest structure (Underhill et al., 2014). Churchill area closer to trees, and a lower percentage of et al. (2013) also offer guidance on developing area further from trees. Taken together, the re- ICO-based prescriptions. sults for openings show too many small open- 70 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Acknowledgements Many thanks to Craig Bienz, Director, Sycan Marsh Preserve, The Nature Conservancy, for providing review and feedback. References Churchill, D. J., Carnwath, G. C., Larson, A. J., & Jeronimo, S. Jeronimo, S. M. A., Kane, V. R., Churchill, D. J., Lutz, J. A., North, A. (2017). Historical forest structure, composition, and spatial M. P., Asner, G. P., & Franklin, J. F. (2019). Forest structure pattern in dry conifer forests of the western Blue Mountains, and pattern vary by climate and landform across active-fire Oregon. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research landscapes in the montane Sierra Nevada. Forest Ecology and Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-956. Management, 437 (January), 70–86. Churchill, D. J., Larson, A. J., Dahlgreen, M. C., Franklin, J. F., Kane, V. R., North, M. P., Lutz, J. A., Churchill, D. J., Roberts, S. Hessburg, P. F., & Lutz, J. A. (2013). Restoring forest resilience: L., Smith, D. F., McGaughey, R. J., Kane, J. T., & Brooks, M. L. From reference spatial patterns to silvicultural prescriptions and (2014). Assessing fire effects on forest spatial structure using a monitoring. Forest Ecology and Management, 291, 442–457. fusion of Landsat and airborne LiDAR data in Yosemite National Park. Remote Sensing of Environment, 151, 89–101. Churchill, D. J., Larson, A. J., Jeronimo, S. A., Fischer, P. W., Dalhgreen, M. C., & Franklin, J. F. (2016). The ICO approach to Larson, A. J., & Churchill, D. (2012). Tree spatial patterns in quantifying and restoring forest spatial pattern: Implementation fire-frequent forests of western North America, including guide. Version 3.0 Stewardship Forestry and Science, Vashon, mechanisms of pattern formation and implications for designing Washington, USA. fuel reduction and restoration treatments. Forest Ecology and Management, 267, 74–92. Churchill, D. J., Seager, S.T., Larson, A. J., Schneider, E.G., Kemp, K.B., & Bienz, C. (2018). Ecological functions of spatial McGaughey, R.J. (2020). FUSION/LDV: Software for LIDAR pattern in dry forests: Implications for forest restoration. The Data Analysis and Visualization: Version 4.10. USDA Forest Nature Conservancy, Portland, OR. 7 p. Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Seattle, WA. forsys.cfr.washington.edu/fusion/fusionlatest.html; last ESRI. (2020) ArcMap (Version 10.8). Environmental Systems accessed Nov 17, 2020. Research Institute, Inc. https://www.esri.com/en-us/home Underhill, J. L., Dickinson, Y., Rudney, A., & Thinnes, J. Jeronimo, S. M. A., Kane, V. R., Churchill, D. J., McGaughey, (2014). Silviculture of the Colorado Front Range Landscape R. J., & Franklin, J. F. (2018). Applying LiDAR individual Restoration Initiative. Journal of Forestry, 112(5), 484–493. tree detection to management of structurally diverse forest landscapes. Journal of Forestry, 116(4), 336–346. Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 71 Question 5 What are the site specific effects of restoration treatments on focal species habitat within the project area? Goal 5.1: To incorporate fine-resolution habitat suitability for nesting white-headed woodpeckers into silvicultural prescriptions and thereby guide ecosystem restoration projects within the range of the species. Indicator 5.1: Levels of tree clustering, stand densities, and tree characteristics, and the density and size of openings. Goal 5.2: To verify the effectiveness of restoration treatments for improving habitat for white- headed woodpeckers. Indicator 5.2: White-headed woodpecker occupancy, nesting, and success. Goal 5.3: To quantify how restoration activities impact fish habitat. Indicator 5.3: Stream channel morphology, stream substrate composition, macroinvertebrate populations, riparian and streamside vegetation cover. Analysis: Indicator 5.1 Analysis: Indicator 5.2 The Nature Conservancy (TNC) was to have This indicator has been addressed annually by personnel overseen collection of data for this indicator. at the Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS). The 2019 However, due to problems with the contracting report (most recent) is included in the Supplemental Re- process, this data was never collected. ports section and is summarized here. • WHWO detections have increased each year since 2016. Recommendations: • Nest detections in 2019 decreased from 2018, and are similar to the nest detection numbers from 2015-2017. Indicator 5.1 • Nests were generally found in large-diameter ponderosa pine and aspen. The data for this indicator may still be • Nests have been found primarily in low-density ponder- gathered. The LSG could revisit the osa pine forest or aspen stands adjacent to pine forest. original plan of contracting with TNC. • In 2019, there were 32 WHWO detections on control TNC would then work with the CBMT to transects, and 8 WHWO detections on treatment tran- gather the necessary data on tree spatial sects. patterns in the areas around white-head- • In 2019, there were 8 nests detected on control transects, ed woodpecker (WHWO) nest sites. and 1 nest detected on treatment transects. 5 nests suc- ceeded and 4 nests failed. • Detection surveys were conducted on 14 treatment tran- sects and 13 control transects in 2019. 72 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Analysis: Indicator 5.3 Recommendations: Indicator 5.2 The Monitoring Plan calls for stream channel cross- sections, Wolman pebble counts, macroinvertebrate sampling, streamside canopy cover, and photo point Recommendations from the RMRS report monitoring. The CBMT has not collected any data for include: this indicator since CFLRP implementation, having • RMRS will continue conducting WHWO and prioritized FIREMON and aspen plots (C. Thomas, nest detection surveys. personal communication, July 2, 2020). The Forest • RMRS will assess the two remaining treat- Service has conducted stream cross-section and pho- ment transects (that had not been harvested to point monitoring at select stream restoration proj- prior to 2019) to determine whether additional ect locations. The projects monitored are described in vegetation data collection is necessary. the following statement, provided by Richard Pyzik, • Monitoring should be conducted in a pre- Eastside Fish Biologist for the Fremont-Winema: scribed burn that occurred in the fall of 2019. • More investigation is needed as to why “The Chewaucan Aquatic Habitat Restoration Proj- WHWO detections have increased but nest ect goals were to improve fish and aquatic habitat detections have not. conditions along the Chewaucan River by restoring • More investigation is needed to understand stream channel/floodplain function and to improve the relative importance of ponderosa pine and riparian vegetation on private and federal lands. aspen in nest site selection. The project covered nearly 15 miles and was a col- laborative effort by the Fremont-Winema National The following statement was provided by Vicki Forest – Paisley Ranger District, Lake County Wa- Saab and Jonathan Dudley of the RMRS: tershed Council, O’Leary Ranch, Murphy Ranch, and J-Spear Ranch. The project used a variety of “We have monitored 66 white-headed wood- restoration methods to improve aquatic and ripar- pecker nests during the years 2015-2020 on ian conditions including streambank stabilization, the Lakeview Stewardship [LS] CFLRP. This creation of gravel bars to decrease width to depth monitoring is part of a larger effort to evaluate ratios, additions of large wood material, providing woodpecker population changes in relation to access to floodplains, and planting of riparian veg- forest restoration treatments on 3 CFLRP proj- etation such as willows, cottonwoods, and sedges.” ects (Table 1). Our sample size of nests after treatments on the LS has been minimal (n=6) Monitoring photos from two locations, Jones Crossing compared to nests monitored before treat- and Strohm, are included in Figures 5.1 to 5.8. Both ments and in the untreated controls (n=60). To sets of photos show evidence of narrower, deeper better understand treatment effects, we plan stream channels, stable banks, and abundant ripar- for one more year (2021) of nest monitoring in ian vegetation. Reports from two additional locations, treatment units only to increase our post-treat- Dog Creek and Wooley Creek, are included in the ment sample size of nests. This will require a Supplemental Reports section. These reports include 2-person field crew and 1 vehicle during May- photos and stream cross-sections. The restoration ac- August 2021, for an estimated cost of $30 K. tivities monitored in these reports took place in 2014, The work will require field training and over- and the most recent observations were taken in 2016. sight, and data analysis and report writing by While the results shown in these reports are encour- RMRS, for an estimated cost of $30 K. We aging, the Monitoring Plan calls for measurements at are currently in the first phase of analyzing least five years following improvements in order to woodpecker population changes in relation to gauge success. restoration treatments across the 3 CFLRP’s. The additional nests monitored in 2021 will improve our evaluation and development of adaptive management recommendations.” Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 73 Figure 5.1 Jones Crossing gravel bar/width to depth reduction site before in 2010. Figure 5.2 Jones Crossing gravel bar/width to depth reduction site after implementation in 2010. 74 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Figure 5.3 Jones Crossing gravel bar/width to depth reduction site in 2015. Figure 5.4 Jones Crossing gravel bar/width to depth reduction site in 2020. Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 75 Figure 5.5 Strohm streambank stabilization and riprian restoration site before in 2012. Figure 5.6 Strohm streambank stabilization and riparian restoration site after implementation in 2012. 76 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Figure 5.7 Strohm streambank stabilization and riparian restoration site in 2016. Figure 5.8 Strohm streambank stabilization and riparian restoration site in 2020. Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 77 Recommendations: Indicator 5.3 More observations are needed before any recommendations can be made. The Forest Service moni- toring will be continuing as specified in the following statement provided by Philip Gaines, the Fishery Program Manager for the Fremont-Winema: “Stage Zero restoration is a technique which rehabilitates meadows and streams that have become degraded due to stream channel incision and loss of floodplain connectivity. Channel incision results in a lowering of the water table leading to the drying of wet meadows and conversion of riparian plant communities to upland grasses and forbs. Filling incised stream channels with large wood, boul- ders and soil raises water tables and increases floodplain re-connectivity. The goal is to construct a meadow/valley surface that is connected at base flow. “Due to concerns about fish passage from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Forest agreed to monitor stream channel evolution after project implementation to better understand channel evolution over time. The proposed monitoring included photo points and establishment of long-term stream channel cross-sections to monitor channel evolution over time.” Acknowledgements Indicator 5.2: Many thanks to Vicki Saab, Research Wildlife Biologist and Jonathan Dudley, Ecologist, of the Rocky Mountain Research Station for providing the analysis and report. Indicator 5.3: Many thanks to Richard Pyzik, Eastside Fish Biologist for the Fremont-Winema National Forest and Philip Gaines, Fishery Program Manager for the Fremont-Winema National Forest for providing the analysis, reports and photographs. 78 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Question 6 What are the effects of restoration treatments on focal species habitat across the CFLR Project Area? Goal 6.1: To improve and maintain habitat for white-headed woodpeckers (WHWO) at the stand and landscape scale. Indicator 6.1: Amount of WHWO habitat within CFLR Project Area. Goal 6.2: To improve habitat for fish and wildlife species within aspen, stream, and riparian areas. Indicator 6.2: Total acres of aspen or riparian habitat in which conifer reduction occurred and the total number of miles of stream enhanced due to in-stream improvements. Analysis: Indicator 6.1 Recommendations: The Monitoring Plan calls for Mahalanobis and Max- Indicator 6.1 ent habitat suitability models to analyze change in white-headed woodpecker (WHWO) habitat follow- RMRS personnel did not provide any recommenda- ing restoration activities. These models are run by tions. WHWO habitat suitability monitoring will con- Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS) personnel tinue under the Common Monitoring Strategy. when Gradient Nearest Neighbor (GNN) data is up- dated, which is usually once every five years (LEM- Analysis: Indicator 6.2 MA, Ohmann & Gregory 2002). The most recent GNN releases have been in 2012 and 2017. These provide The total area of aspen and aspen meadow in which pre-harvest and post-harvest depictions of changes in conifer reduction occurred was 6,386 acres. See Table habitat suitability for CFLR activities completed prior 6.2 for a breakdown of the conifer reduction acreage in to 2017. The results of the most recent model run by aspen and aspen meadow habitat by project area. the RMRS are shown in Table 6.1 below. The model showed a shift away from low suitability toward mod- The total area of riparian meadow in which conifer erate and high suitability, indicating that treatments reduction occurred was 44.5 acres. See Table 6.3 for a have been successful in restoring WHWO habitat. breakdown of the conifer reduction acreage in ripar- ian meadow habitat by project area. Table 6.1 Relative habitat suitability (acres; % of The total length of stream enhanced due to on-stream total) for WHWO nests in the Lakeview improvements was 22.8 miles. See Table 6.4 for a break- Stewardship CFLRP, 2012 and 2017. down of stream enhancement mileage by project area. Relative Habitat Suitabilitya Year Low Moderate High Total Table 6.2 Area by ownership by watershed in the 2012 213, 920; 60 75,101; 21 69,020; 19 358,041 Lakeview Federal Stewardship Unit. 2017 194,144; 51 98,624; 26 88,212; 23 380,980 Project Area Aspen/Meadow Restoration a HSI thresholds for determining suitability categories are based on West Drews 1,128 acres Table 5.2 in Latif et al. (2018), low HSI<0.40, moderate HSI 0.40- 0.49, and high HSI >0.49. South Warner 2,900 acres Crooked Mud Honey 2,358 acres Total 6,386 acres Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 79 Table 6.3 Riparian meadow restoration acreage by project area. Project Area Riparian Restoration Chewaucan River streambank stabilization & willow planting, sod/sedge mat transplant 20 acres Grizzly Creek headcut repair and stream bank stabilization 5 acres Wooley Creek headcut repair and streambank stabilization 5 acres Dog Creek headcut repair and streambank stabilization 5 acres Thomas Creek headcut repair 4.5 acres Shoestring Creek headcut repair and streambank stabilization 5 acres Total 44.5 acres Table 6.4 Stream enhancement mileage by project area. Project Area Stream Restoration Chewaucan River streambank stabilization & willow planting, sod/sedge mat transplant 4.0 miles Willow Creek culvert replacement 1.3 miles Grizzly Creek headcut repair and stream bank stabilization 2.0 miles Wooley Creek headcut repair and streambank stabilization 0.5 mile Dog Creek headcut repair and streambank stabilization 0.5 mile Dairy Creek large wood placement 3.0 miles Thomas Creek headcut repair 0.5 mile Deer Creek culvert replacement 1.0 mile Shoestring Creek headcut repair and streambank stabilization 2.5 miles Elder Creek large wood placement 1.5 miles Burnt Creek Large Wood placement 2.0 miles Hay Creek Large Wood placement 2.0 miles Upper Thomas Creek Large Wood placement 2.0 miles Total 22.8 miles Recommendations: Indicator 6.2 According to the Lakeview CFLR Project Monitoring Plan, the original CFLR proposal called for 65 miles of stream habitat to be restored or enhanced, and 26,000 acres of terrestrial habitat restored or enhanced by 2020. 22.8 miles of stream have been restored, which is 35% of the total identified in the proposal. The 6,430.5 acres of habitat restoration is 25% of the total identified in the proposal, and 1.3% of the total CFLR landscape area. Acknowledgements Many thanks to Vicki Saab, Research Wildlife Biologist and Jonathan Dudley, Ecologist, of the Rocky Mountain Research Station for providing the analysis and results; and many thanks to Amy Markus, Cohesive Strategy Coordinator for the Fremont-Winema National Forest, for providing the implementation totals for aspen, riparian and stream restoration. References LEMMA. (n.d.) GNN Maps and Data. Landscape Ecology, Modeling, Mapping, and Analysis. https://lemma.forestry. Latif, Quresh S.; Saab, Victoria A.; Haas, Jessica R.; Dudley, oregonstate.edu/data/home Jonathan G. 2018. FIRE-BIRD: A GIS-based toolset for applying habitat suitability models to inform land management Ohmann, J. L., & Gregory, M. J. (2002). Predictive mapping of planning. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-391. Fort Collins, forest composition and structure with direct gradient analysis CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky and nearest- neighbor imputation in coastal Oregon, U.S.A. Mountain Research Station. 74 p. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 32(4), 725–741. 80 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Question 7.1 How are riparian and upland treatments impacting ground vegetation and soils? Goal 7.1: To quantify vegetation composition and response before and after small tree thinning and prescribed fire within riparian corridors. Indicator 7.1: Riparian vegetation species composition, bare ground and ground cover, riparian and streamside vegetation cover, age class, extent of riparian vegetation. Indicator 7.1 can be subdivided into five different in- WDA small tree thinning plots, three plots were in- dicators: stalled in 2012 following the Dent commercial har- 1. Riparian vegetation species composition vest in 2012. These plots were revisited in 2014. The LSG agreed at the 2018 annual meeting to con- 2. Bare ground and ground cover tinue monitoring in West Drews, since the revisits 3. Riparian and streamside vegetation cover may have been too soon to capture the effects of co- 4. Riparian and streamside vegetation age class nifer removal treatment. Five WDA plots are within prescribed burns that were conducted after the 2018 5. Extent of riparian vegetation revisits. When follow-up visits are conducted, the prescribed burn results can be compared to the thin- Analysis 7.1 ning-only results. The CBMT is still in the process of collecting aspen monitoring data in North Warner, These indicators are addressed with data collected including both the Lil Stewardship commercial thin by the Chewaucan Biophysical Monitoring Team treatments and the North Warner Aspen (NWA) proj- (CBMT). Since CFLR funding was instituted in 2012, ect. Pre- and post-treatment monitoring has been con- small conifer removal treatments have been conduct- ducted in the South Warner Aspen project area, and ed in aspen stands in West Drews, South Warner, and the results are analyzed and presented below. North Warner. Commercial thinning treatments in Crooked Mud Honey Lil Stewardship have included The South Warner Aspen (SWA) treatment units and aspen stands as well. monitoring plot locations are shown in Figure 7.2. All units were treated to remove conifer less than Small tree thinning in the West Drews Aspen (WDA) 12” DBH by chainsaw. Five plots were placed prior project took place in the winter of 2014/2015. 16 pre- to treatment in the southern portion of the South harvest plots were installed prior to treatment in Warner Mountains in 2014 (Figure 7.3) and revisited 2014, and 14 of these plots were revisited in 2018. The in 2016 following small conifer thinning treatments CBMT conducted an analysis of the WDA data follow- conducted over the fall/winter of 2014/2015. Six plots ing the revisits in 2018, and concluded that there was were placed in 2014 immediately following small co- no observable increase in aspen regeneration follow- nifer thinning treatments in the northern portion of ing the small conifer removal. That report is included the South Warner Mountains (Figure 7.4). These plots in Supplemental Reports section. In addition to the were not visited prior to harvest. Because only the Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 81 five southern plots had visits prior to the small co- northern plots and plots in other aspen projects will nifer thinning treatment, only these five plots were be analyzed when longer-term follow-up visits have included in the analysis here. See Figure 7.1 below for been completed. before/after photos from one of the SWA units. The Figure 7.1 SWA Unit 26 before and after treatment. Photos courtesy of C. Cavanaugh, USFS. 82 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Figure 7.2 Overview of South Warner Aspen harvest units and plots. South Warner Aspen: Overview SWA Plots -- Forest Roads = Highways ~ Aspen Units ~ Forest Boundary a 2 Kilometers I Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 83 Figure 7.3 Harvest units and pre/post-harvest plots in the southern portion of the South Warner Aspen project area. 0 SWAP10ls Forest AOr1dS D Forest Bo11rwi:uy Treatment - ro oe aetermlnel'.I_Sllh~hf>fl~ 100 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Analysis 8.2: Road Density and initial density calculations it was felt that there was Proximity to Water enough clandestine use of closed roads on the forest to warrant accounting for them in some fashion. It Road density and road proximity to water are among was decided about 20% of closed roads are probably some of the more important considerations to water- still being used to some extent and therefore density shed health that are under the control of land man- calculations include this percentage of closed roads. agement. An open road density of less than one mile per square mile of subshed is generally considered a Road density and proximity to water percentages both good rating, from 1-2.4mi/mi2 is a fair rating and any- pre- and post-project are presented in Table 8.1. Most thing over 2.5mi/mi2 is considered poor. These divi- road closures and decommissioning have occurred sions are based mostly on the effects to wildlife rather within the Abe and West Drews projects, with about than some watershed threshold, but fewer roads do 37 miles of road addressed in Abe, 26.7 miles in West equate to less sediment potential to find a stream. If Drews and 4.5 miles for Crooked Mud Honey. For all 10% or less of those roads are within 300 feet of a projects’ subsheds, in all but two cases the reduction stream or waterbody, the indicator is rated as Good, of density is not enough to change the density rating, 11-25% gives a Fair rating, and over 25% is rated as much less improve the watershed condition rating. Poor. A “quick-and-dirty” calculation of the entire CFLR The amount of road decommissioning that has oc- area gives a current road density of about 1.91 mi/ curred throughout the entire CFLR area is about 83 mi2, or a rating of “Fair”. To give some perspective miles, just 3.6% of the entire road system which is of the scale, all current closed roads and some 482 comprised of 1,061 miles of closed road and 1,246 miles of open road (1,543 miles total) would need to miles of open road. Closed roads do not generally con- be decommissioned in the CFLR area, OR some 867 tribute to road density calculations as when roads are miles of open road would need to be closed, OR some closed they should be hydrologically disconnected combination of closure/decommissioning in order to from streams and waterbodies; however, at the time of achieve a “Good” rating today. This demonstrates that Table 8.1 Open road density and proximity to water values and ratings pre- and post-CFLR projects. Density is in miles per square mile; Ratings: 1=Good, 2=Fair, 3=Poor. Open Road Open Road Proximity Proximity Sub- Road Density Road Density Proximity to Water Proximity to Water watershed Density- Rating- Density- Rating- to Water, Rating- to Water, Rating- Name Project Pre Pre Post Post %-Pre Pre %-Post Post Auger/Camp Abe 2.1 2 1.9 2 6.7 1 18.8 2 Bauers Abe 1.8 2 1.7 2 9.8 1 15.1 2 West Dent Drews 2.0 2 1.6 2 30.6 3 31.2 3 Drews West Hay 2.4 2 2.3 2 11.0 2 16.3 2 Drews Upper Crooked Crooked 1.9 2 1.2 2 17.5 2 10.4 2Mud Honey Lower Crooked Crooked 1.6 2 0.6 1 10.6 2 9.5 1Mud Honey Crooked McDowell 0.1 1 0.1 1 38.0 3 38.0 3 Mud Honey Crooked Mud 5.2 3 3.1 3 11.5 2 10.2 2 Mud Honey Upper Crooked 3.6 3 2.2 2 4.6 1 7.0 1 Camas Mud Honey Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 101 for this indicator to help improve watershed health, A summary of data collection in the CFLR project a much larger scale of decommissioning and closure area from 2012 (the institution of CFLR) to 2020 can will need to occur. be found in Appendix 8A (pages 140-143). Earlier data is also available upon request. This summary Road closure and decommissioning have been a chal- includes the monitoring station’s name, what year lenge on the forest in the recent past. In general, the data were collected, which ODEW standard the creek public is reluctant to close roads that give access to falls under, the maximum of the weekly average of remote areas of the forest, and decommissioning the daily maximum temperature and the number takes out roads that could be accessed in the future of days of that year that exceeded that standard to fight fire. In addition, shrinking budgets and dif- temperature. This summarized data can be graphed ficulties in hiring and retaining engineering person- to help analyze yearly trends in water temperatures. nel have recently led the forest to abandon retention For example, Figure 8.4 demonstrates an analysis of road crews, leaving maintenance and other road for the Chewaucan River at an elevation of 5,120 feet work needing to be contracted. The forest is currently (CH5120), where red dots indicate the yearly maximum looking at various options to outsource this neces- water temperature (as a 7-day running average) and sary work. What all the challenges boil down to is the grey bars showing the number of days during that the amount of road closure and decommissioning year the daily maximum water temperature exceeded that were planned in NEPA for the CFLR project area the ODEQ standard (the blue horizontal line). is progressing very slowly. This is affecting our WCF roads and trails condition indicators and slowing our Trendlines demonstrate a slow increase in yearly progress toward getting our watersheds into proper maximum over the 23-year span while the number functioning condition. of days exceeding the 20°C standard is rising dramatically. In contrast, Figure 8.5 demonstrates Analysis 8.3: Stream Temperature the decreasing trends in maximum temperatures and number of exceedance days on Thomas Creek at an Stream temperature is an important water quality elevation of 4,894 feet. indicator for the beneficial use of habitat and rearing of salmonid fish. Trout need cool water temperatures A clear linkage between any specific land management to thrive. The forest has streams listed by the Oregon act and that effect on stream temperature is somewhat Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) as elusive with these data sets. Many factors will interact being impaired (303d) by water temperature. The to affect stream temperature in complex ways, and the Fremont-Winema has a monitoring program used to temperature monitoring the forest does is not geared help determine trends in water temperature. Figure toward determining the cause and effect of any one 8.3 displays the streams within the CFLR project area of them. What these data sets do help answer is, are that are currently on the 303d list for heightened water we generally heading in the direction we would like temperatures along with monitoring sites established to see. As demonstrated briefly here, in some places by the Fremont-Winema. Some sites have only limited the answer appears to be no, in other places yes. More data while other sites are considered “long term” with complex analyses of these data can be performed but recent records that span over at least six years. are outside the scope of this report. Acknowledgements Many thanks to Don Kozlowski, Forest Hydrologist for the Fremont-Winema National Forest, for completing the analysis and report for Question 8 in its entirety. 102 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Figure 8.3 Locations of water temperature monitoring stations on perennial waters within the CFLR project area, 303d temperature listed waters highlighted in red. Water Temperature Mlonitoring Sites Withi1n the CFLR Area ' . OA.R • HM ., 10 ' e ,, . ' Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 103 Figure 8.4 Trend in maximum averaged yearly temperature and number of days exceeding temperature standards at CH5120. Chewaucan Rive r 5120' elevat ion 35 90 .,, 30 .;,., • .... • ·••' • 70 ~ 25 •.. .. ......... ....... . ····••"'"" ··································""""""". . ·· ·· ········ • •.. . . • ····· • .... ······ .... ., ... .••' .... .... .. •· ········ .... ······· 10 0 ~~~~~#~~~~~~~~~~~#~~~~~~~~~~~~ - # days aceeded --OOEQ staidard • Maximum of the WMly Average of the Daily Maximum Temperanxe •······•• linP;:ir(l:!ft:lyi:;.P1Cc-Pf"fiPrl) .. • .. , • •· Linear (Ill a< mum of the Weekly Average of the Daiy Mac mum T emperatU' e) Figure 8.5 Locations of water temperature monitoring stations on perennial waters within the CFLR project area, 303d temperature listed waters highlighted in red. Thomas Creek 4894' elevation 35 100 90 30 ~ .;,,. ....• 80 ~ ....... .... ... ............................. ........ ............. . ~ 25 I~ 70 . ·········• • u ········· ~ ····•·········· 60 B 20 ~ 1o " ~ ~ C. so a E t 0 15 ~ "C" i; $ 30 10 20 .0 ~ z 0 - # clays e,oceeded --ODEQ staidard o Maximum of the Wee $1M $500K-1M 0 80 Miles @~i $200K-500K $70K-200K< $70K 124 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 contract spending, were awarded to local businesses. FY 2012-2019 monitoring results During both the FY 2016–17 and FY 2018–19 analy- sis periods, none of the CFLR service contract dollars Indicator 12.1: Amount and percent of total went to local businesses. Overall, local capture of res- project dollars (timber sales, contracts, toration service contracts for the CFLR project was less agreements, etc.) captured by local businesses than the local capture of contracts as measured during the baseline analysis. While there could be many rea- Service contracts: sons for this, one reason is likely the large proportion of contract dollars that were for labor-intensive work, To better understand how much and what types of which local contractors have not captured in any year contractor capacity exist in the local area, we created since the project started. Labor-intensive work ac- a list in FY 2015 of all locally-based businesses who counted for 96.6 percent of the total service contract have been awarded contracts (service contracts, fire dollars during FY 2016–17, more than previous years. suppression contracts, or timber purchases) with the In FY 2018–19 labor intensive work was a smaller pro- Forest Service between FYs 2004–15. Although many portion of total contracted dollars but still the majority of the contractors, especially those related to fire sup- (58 percent) of contract dollars, and overall contract pression and support, were not supported by CFLR spending was much less than in other years. funding, this list highlights local contractor capacity in Lake County and Bly, Oregon. The list is included The lack of local capture of labor-intensive Forest Ser- in Appendix 12B (page 146). vice contracts among Lake County businesses is not new or unique to this CFLR project, nor is it unique In total, $12,470,050 in service contracts were award- to forests across the region. The baseline analysis and ed to businesses to complete restoration work as part related reviews of local contracting capacity (Appen- of the Lakeview CFLR project between FY 2012–19. dix 12a) showed that while local contractors did com- Figure 12.3 shows the distribution of this spending plete some labor-intensive work in FY 2004–05, in based on where recipient businesses were located. the following years, local businesses did not capture More than half of the total service contract dollars went labor-intensive restoration work for the Forest Service to one business in Salem for tree thinning work. Lake in Lake County or elsewhere. Prior to the start of the County contractors were awarded a total of $675,255 CFLR project in FY 2007–11, Lake County contractors of the service contract dollars, 5.4% of the total over received at least some of the other four types of resto- the eight years. Local capture varied between years ration work contracted in Lake County (ranging from and the type of the work contracted. four to 71 percent for the different types), but none of the labor-intensive contract work in Lake County In the first two years of the Lakeview CFLR Project (FY (Table 12.1). This ongoing lack of local capture, going 2012–13), 11 percent of the service contract value for back at least the last decade, suggests that there is little the project was awarded to local contractors; all of the contracting capacity in Lake County specifically for local contractors’ work was in equipment or technical- the labor-intensive restoration work that makes up a type work, no contract dollars in labor-intensive work, large portion of the CFLR project work. which was 82% of the contracted work value, went to local contractors. No material-, or professionally- In addition, the lack of local capture for labor-insten- intensive work was contracted during the two years sive work during the CFLR project suggests that to date (Table 12.2). the project has not led to greater capacity being cre- ated among local contracting businesses for this type In FY 2014–15, five percent of CFLR service contract of work. The Fremont-Winema National Forest has dollars were awarded to local contractors. Locally- attempted to increase the awareness of local contrac- awarded work was primarily for equipment-intensive tors to contracting opportunities and procedures. In work with some material-intensive work. Similar to FY 2014, the Fremont-Winema NF held a workshop the first two years, no contracts for labor-intensive to provide information to local contractors on how to work, which accounted for 94 percent of the CFLR compete for contract funds and how to enroll in the Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 125 Figure 12.3 Distribution of restoration service contract dollars from the Lakeview CFLR Project, FY 2012–19 Washington Vancouver, WA ($6,822) Portland Grass Valley ($102,364) (5,845) Independence ($6,253) Salem ($6,439,013) Sisters Prineville ($40,783) ($203,840) Redmond ($925,050) Bend ($145,065) Burns ($53,950) Roseburg Christmas Valley ($118,364) ($26,519) Lake County: “Local” area Lake - County - National forest land Paisley Central Point ($1,199,493) • Value of contracts* awarded to Merlin ($59,350) location, scaled to dollar size and ($155,000) Medford ($1,259,572 ) color-coded for activity typeKlamath Falls($106,735 ) Lakeview •E quipment-intensive activitiesAshland ($1,026,645 ) ($589,386) • Labor-intensive activities California • Material-intensive activities• Technical-intensive activities 0 80 Miles • Professionally-intensive activities * Note: Locations receiving total contract value equal to or less than $30,000 have the same size circle, which is not to scale Table 12.2 Local capture of service contracts from the Lakeview CFLR Project, FY 2012–19 2012–2013 2012–2013 2014–2015 2016–2017 2018–2019 Contracted total local 2014–2015 local 2016–2017 local 2018–2019 local work type value capture total value capture total value capture total value capture Equipment- $367,932 $198,832 $625,722 $248,312 $52,657 - - - intensive (59%) (80%) Labor- $3,050,397 - $4,846,213 - $2,971,159 - $292,974 - intensive Material- $59,350 - - $59,350 - - $29,914 - intensive (100%) Professional- - - - - $45,217 - $186,380 - intensive Technical- $49,141 $55,909 - - $5,845 - - - intensive (88%) Total service $417,073 $258,182 contract $3,732,028 $5,153,875 $3,074,879 $0 $509,268 $0 (11%) (5%) value 126 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Strategic Asset Management system. In FY 2016, For- Indicator 12.2: Number and percent of jobs cre- est Service staff offered a no-cost workshop to con- ated associated with local companies tractors on how to make proposals more competitive. The number of local jobs created by CFLR project CFLR staff also engaged Acquisitions Management spending under different scenarios is captured by the (AQM) staff to identify additional contracting instru- updated TREAT analyses that the Forest Service per- ments, timing, and size that could encourage more forms, and these results are covered in the previous local contractors to bid on projects. In the Lakeview monitoring question (starting page 111). FY 2016 CFLR Annual Report however, staff noted that, “Through these efforts, however, we did not see Indicator 12.3: Business responses to any significant increases in local contractors success- interviews describing the importance of CFLR fully competing for CFLR contracts in the [Sustainable to their work or noting it is an opportunity that Yield] Unit this fiscal year” (USDA Forest Service, Fre- would not otherwise be possible. mont-Winema National Forest, 2016, p.16). Because there was little local capture of CFLR service Even though local businesses captured few of the contracts, there were few businesses to interview. To CFLR service contract dollars during the eight years of further investigate dynamics around local capture and monitoring, many contracts were in relatively nearby lack thereof, we instead relied on interviews with For- communities, and 99.9% of all restoration service con- est Service personnel engaged in CFLR work, Lakev- tract spending for the project went to businesses based iew Stewardship Group collaborative members, part- in Oregon (Figure 12.3). Labor-intensive restoration ners engaged in agreements through the CFLR project, work tends to be concentrated in a small number of and members of the biophysical monitoring team. A contractors located in other parts of Oregon. The busi- full writeup of interview findings is included in the nesses that were awarded this work along the I-5 cor- FY 2018–19 socioeconomic monitoring report (Elli- ridor may have been the closest contractors available son, 2021). Below are key findings related to this mon- to provide the labor-intensive work capacity that was itoring question: needed. • Interviewees described a mismatch between the type of contracting capacity needed for the CFLR project Stewardship timber sales and service contracts activities and the type of work capacity available in the local area. They explained that the few local The Forest Service awarded a 10-year stewardship contractors in the area tended to do machinery-in- contract with Collins Pine, a business based in Klam- tensive work, while the CFLR relied extensively on ath Falls with a sawmill in Lakeview, to conduct tim- large hand-thinning efforts. ber harvesting in the Lakeview Stewardship Unit. • Interviewees also described how industry standards Since 2012, the Fremont-Winema National Forest has and competition for government contracts were a awarded task orders under this contract with timber barrier to many local people. For instance, local resi- sale and service components. The baseline analysis dents expressed that they wanted to do contracting and initial years of monitoring indicated that Collins work only in the local area and not have to travel, Pine relies mostly on local (Lake County and Bly, OR) which tends to not work well with the highly mobile contractors to complete their Forest Service timber nature of crew hand thinning work, which is often harvesting. More recently, the ten-year review of the dispersed across the western US. Lakeview Federal Sustained Yield Unit, which has the same boundaries as the CFLR project, showed that • Interviewees emphasized how the isolated location from FY 2010–18, 100 percent of all road-building la- of Lakeview did still lead to indirect effects on the bor and between 36–80 percent of the logging work- local economy because nonlocal contractors with force used in the unit/CFLR landscape was local (Da- winning bids for work tended to stay in the commu- vis, 2019). Throughout the CFLR project, stewardship nity and purchase supplies, food, and lodging for the sales were awarded to Collins Pine under the steward- entire summer season. ship contract, including the Pilot, Drill, Hay, and Lil Stewardship Sales. Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 127 Considerations The local capture analysis showed that local awarded to nonlocal contractors will result contractors appear to have been awarded less in contractors renting lodging, purchasing of the restoration service contract dollars on food and fuel, and even some equipment the CFLR project compared to the baseline and supplies, locally. This is especially true analysis of local capture during the years FY for rural locations such as Lake County 2007–11, and local capture of contracts has 2. Local capture depends on how “local” is decreased as the project has progressed. defined. For this socioeconomic monitor- However, all restoration timber sales and ing, Lake County and the town of Bly, Or- some associated service work were award- egon are defined as local. Although just ed through a 10-year stewardship contract five percent of contracts were awarded to Collins Pine, which hires many local sub- to businesses in this local area, contracts contractors for fieldwork and employs local were also awarded in neighboring De- residents to process timber at their Lakeview schutes, Klamath, and Harney Counties. mill. In addition, a broad variety of agreements (covered in the next monitoring question) have 3. Labor-intensive restoration work tends to engaged local entities in projects on the CFLR be concentrated in a small number of con- landscape. tractors located in other parts of Oregon. The businesses that were awarded this Interviewees suggested that the work that is work along the I-5 corridor may have been available through service contracts is primar- the closest contractors available to provide ily labor-intensive hand thinning; the baseline crews for the labor-intensive work capacity analysis showed that Lake County has not had that was needed. So while this work was local capture of this type of work well before not conducted by local contractors, 99.9 the start of the CFLR project. Although this percent of the contract dollars during the type of contract work does not appear to align first eight years of the project went to Ore- with local contractor capacity, there are still gon-based businesses. considerations for local capture and its impli- cations for the local economy: Going forward, this data can inform the collab- orative’s consideration of: 1) their definition of 1. Nonlocal contractors can still create indi- local; 2) potential engagement with addition- rect economic activity in rural communi- al local contractors; and 3) understanding of ties. Local capture has a greater impact on how, if at all, contracted work could better link the local economy through direct employ- to local or nearby businesses. ment of local residents, but many contracts 128 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Acknowledgements Many people have contributed to the socioeconomic monitoring for this project, and the results compiled for this report were originally published in four biennial socioeconomic monitoring reports. In particular: Eric M. White, Emily Jane Davis, and Cassandra Moseley contributed to monitoring question development and conducted the baseline assessment and first couple years of monitoring (FY 2012–13), Stacey Rosenberg contributed to FY 2014–15 monitoring efforts, and Autumn Ellison and Heidi Huber-Stearns have contributed to the past 6 years of monitoring (FY 2014–19). Many thanks to the interviewees who offered their insights and perspectives on key project dynamics, socioeconomic contexts, and barriers to the capture of CFLR work locally. References USDA Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forest. White, E.M., E.J. Davis, and C. Moseley. 2015. Social 2016. Lakeview Stewardship Landscape 2016 CFLR Annual and Economic Monitoring for the Lakeview Stewardship Report. Annual reports for all CFLR projects are available at: Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Project. https://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLRP/results.shtml. Ecosystem Workforce Program, University of Oregon. Working Paper #55. Available at: http://ewp.uoregon.edu/ Davis, E.J. 2019. A Review of the Lakeview Federal Sustained sites/ewp.uoregon.edu/files/WP_55.pdf. Yield Unit 2010–2018. Available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/ Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd645804.pdf. Ellison, A. 2021. Social and Economic Monitoring for the Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project: Fiscal Years 2018–2019 Results and Perspectives. Ecosystem Workforce Program, University of Oregon. Working Paper #105. Available at: http:// ewp.uoregon.edu/sites/ewp.uoregon.edu/files/WP_105.pdf. Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 129 Question 13 What are the costs, benefits, and outcomes of different project implementation mechanisms? Goals: To evaluate the costs, local capture, and treatment outcomes of different mechanisms (service contracts, stewardship contracts, and agreements) for restoration work; particularly to 1) identify mechanisms that work best for local businesses, including Collins Pine; and 2) test if stewardship produces notably different outcomes. Indicators: Measured both as baseline and change over time: • 13.1. For each type of mechanism (service contracts, stewardship contracts, and agreements): • 1. Range and median duration of projects • 2. Number of acres treated • 3. Costs per acre • 4. If businesses performing work were local • 5. For stewardship only: Dollar amount of retained receipts reinvested in restoration • 13.2 Qualitative responses from Forest Service about the costs and benefits of different mechanisms and why used • 13.3 Qualitative responses from contractors that are very satisfied or satisfied with how CFLR projects were implemented Context As noted throughout this report, CFLR project activi- tion work done, noting in their partnership guide that, ties may be accomplished through a variety of im- “Partnerships and collaboration can build long-term plementation mechanisms, including with in-house support and short-term momentum for projects. By Forest Service crews, through service contracts with pooling efforts, partners can add their capabilities to private businesses, under timber sales for restoration increase efficiency and results while reducing duplica- thinning, and through partnership agreements with tion” (USDA Forest Service, 2014). Partners can con- other agencies or NGOs. Each of these mechanisms tribute capacity to CFLR objectives by providing funds can have different costs, benefits, and outcomes, and for work or by providing in-kind contributions such their implementation can affect the Forest Service as as donated equipment or supplies, volunteer labor, well as the feasibility for both local and nonlocal part- or other goods and services that subsidize or expand ners to participate. restoration efforts. The Forest Service also engages in partnerships by using CFLR funds to pay other entities The Forest Service identifies partnerships as key to the to complete work, which may result in cost savings or agency’s accomplishments and getting needed restora- provide other benefits. 130 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Approach In-house Forest Service crews The benefits provided by in-house Forest Service crews Indicator 13.1: include employment and labor income provided by the We reviewed the Forest Service’s annual reports for agency to local empoyees; these benefits are captured the Lakeview CFLR Project. The annual reports pro- in the TREAT local economic impact models covered vide an account of accomplishments during each fis- in Question 11 (see page 111). cal year, as well as narratives that describe some of the mechanisms through which key accomplishments Service work within a stewardship contract were completed. We provide examples of on-the- In stewardship contracts, the Forest Service “may ground outcomes from the contracts with private busi- ‘trade goods for services’ by applying the value of har- nesses, which we analyzed in the previous monitoring vested forest products toward the value of restoration question. We also provide examples of on-the-ground services” (Congressional Research Service, 2019). This accomplishments from partnership agreements. These is just one of the ways that work is accomplished and accomplishments come from partners’ in-kind and accounted for in a stewardship contract. CFLR annual funding contributions as well as from the use of CFLR reports track the service work that is accomplished funds to pay partners to accomplish work. through goods-for-services funding within steward- ship contracts during each year. In FY 2012–19, over Indicators 13.1 and 13.2: $1.5 million of service work was accomplished through Between November 2019 and April 2021, we con- goods-for-services funding in the stewardship contract ducted interviews with 16 stakeholders involved in (Table 13.1). The dollar amount of the service work ac- different aspects of the project, including Forest Ser- complished through goods-for-services funding varied vice staff, Lakeview Stewardship Group collabora- considerably between years, from $0 reported in FY tive members, CFLR project agreement partners, and 2018 to nearly $900,000 in FY 2012. monitoring team members. The results of these inter- views are reported in greater depth in the FY 2018-19 Service contracts: socioeconomic monitoring report (Ellison, 2021). Key Service contracts with private businesses were typical- insights relevant to implementation mechanisms and ly used for work that required specialized equipment their different costs and benefits are included as rel- or skills or for work that covers large areas (Table 13.2). evant throughout the monitoring results. Contracts for CFLR work were typically awarded for one year or less. Multi-year contracts were most likely to be awarded to nonlocal contractors, and were in several cases modified to include additional activities. FY 2012-2019 monitoring results Modifications have been used to a limited extent in contracts with local businesses, most often for invasive Work in support of the CFLR project was accomplished weed treatment. with in-house Forest Service crews, through service contracts with private businesses, through a steward- Together, service contract work has resulted in thou- ship contract with Collins Pine, and through agree- sands of acres of restoration treatments that were ments and partnerships with outside organizations. implemented for the project between FY 2012–19. Table 13.1 Value of service work reported in annual reports as accomplished through goods-for-services funding in a stewardship contract, FY 2012–19 2012 2013 2014 2015* 2016 2017 2018 2019 Service work accomplished through goods-for-services $872,246 $3,042 $6,938 $376,776 $78,058 $88,537 $0 $81,280 funding in a stewardship contract Data source: Lakeview Stewardship CFLR annual reports. * The 2015 Annual Report notes an additional $1,269,396 under “Total revised credit limit for open and closed contracts awarded and previously reported prior to FY15.” Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 131 Figure 13.1 shows the footprint of acres treated dur- and monitoring across the CFLR landscape. ing each year of the project, much of these treatment In FYs 2018 and 2019, agreements with other agencies accomplishments were completed through restoration have been used to accomplish prescribed fire work that service contracts with contract implementation and is more specialized and larger in scale. Through agree- administration through agency employees. Restora- ments with the Bureau of Land Managment (BLM) and tion activities included thinning work, hand piling, the Oregon Department of Forestry, contractors were prescribed fire, meadow restoration efforts, invasive hired for prescribed fire work through contracts ad- species removal, road maintenance, and survey work. ministered through those agencies versus the Forest Service. A personnel agreement in FY 2019 with the Agreements: BLM also supported a BLM employee working on inva- Agreements with non-profits and local entitites such sive weed management on national forest lands in the as the Warner Creek Correctional Facility have been CFLR Project area. used to fund a variety of CFLR work such as ecologi- cal monitoring, trail maintenance, invasive weed re- Many of the agreements used during each year of the moval, and other restoration efforts (Table 13.2). During CFLR project are the result of longstanding efforts and the early years of the CFLR project, work most often relationships with partners in the Lakeview CFLR proj- completed via agreements were projects that were rela- ect area. For example, the Forest Service has worked tively smaller in scope that did not require specialized collaboratively with the LCCWMA for many years to equipment, or were focused on monitoring. Much of identify, inventory, and treat populations of invasive the recreation work on the CFLR landscape over the weeds before they can become well-established and last 8 years (e.g., trail maintenance, removing brush spread. CFLR funds have supported agreements with and downed trees, facility and grounds upkeep) has the LCCWMA throughout the course of the project, the been accomplished through agreements with several LCCWMA has used these agreements to hire several different youth crews. CFLR funds have also been Lake County contractors to treat and monitor exten- used as key matching funds to secure agreements with sive new areas for invasive weeds. foundations such as the Mule Deer Foundation and the Rocky Mou30n0t0a0in Elk Foundation for wildlife habi- Agreements used to fund work on the CFLR landscape tat work across the landscape. The Fremont-Winema have also had key social and local economic benefits. 25000 NF also has used an agreement with Lake County Re- For example, the Chewaucan Biophysical Monitoring source Initiati2v0e0 0(L0CRI) to help fund the Chewaucan Team (CBMT) began in 2002, and one of its goals is to Biophysical M1o50n0i0toring Team, which has conducted provide Lake County students with natural resource pre-harvest, po1s0t0-0h0arvest, wildlife, and stream surveys, field training. This group includes high school and soil nutrient analyses, and worked to combine all data– college students that collect data and conduct moni- including all pr5o0t0o0cols and changes in protocols–from toring activities with supervision from an adult crew 2002 onward in a s0ingle, searchable database. An agree- leader trained in these activities. The CBMP has gath- ment with the Lake County Cooperative Weed Manage- ered ecological field data for the CFLR project area that ment Area (LCCWMA) funds invasive weed treatments help show conditions and trends over time, including Figure 13.1 Footprint of acres treated under the Lakeview CFLR Project, FY 2012–19 29,654 30,000 24,801 25,000 20,523 20,632 20,000 17,166 15,076 15,000 12,143 10,000 6,378 5,000 I I 0 FY’12 FY’13 FY’14 FY’15 FY’16 FY’17 FY’18 FY’19 Data source: Lakeview Stewardship CFLR annual reports 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 acres treated 132 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Table 13.2 Example outcomes from contracts and partner agreements reported by the Forest Service, FY 2012–19 FY Contracts Partner agreements • Pre-commercial thinning on 3,256 acres in • 67 sites established or resurveyed, new landscape monitoring sites established, and 500 plots Jakabe and Launch projects completed by the Chewaucan Biological Monitoring Team • 3 miles of streambank stabilization and 15 • 153 miles of trail restoration by Northwest Youth Corps, Central Oregon Intergovernmental 2012 acres of riparian restoration Council, and others • 315 acres of aspen restoration • Material, fencing, and labor in the Chewaucan Aquatic Habitat Restoration project with local • 1,171 acres of juniper thinning ranchers and landowners • Pre-commercial thinning of 376 acres in the • 68 sites established, 40 soil disturbance surveys, and stream water sampling completed by the Burnt Willow Environmental Assessment Chewaucan Biological Monitoring Team • Pre-commercial thinning on 693 acres in the • 86 miles of trail restoration by Northwest Youth Corps, Central Oregon Intergovernmental 2013 Jakabe project Council, and others • Pre-commercial thinning on 1,619 acres in • Five acres of hand piling of slash, 38 acres of juniper slash reduction, 138 acres of aspen Foster and Wooley Creek subwatersheds enhancement, 10 acres of fuels treatment, and recreation site fence repair by Warner Creek Correctional Facility crews • WRZ multi-treatment/Jakabe fuels reduction • Warner Creek Correctional Facility performed 75 acres of hand-piling small diameter material in on 1,775 acres conifer stands and 160 acres of hand-piling cut material in aspen stands 2014 • Pre-commercial thinning of 1,367 acres in the • Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council restored and maintained 11.5 miles of trails, cleared Burnt Willow Environmental Assessment paths for ADA-accessible recreation facilities, and installed a dock to mitigate lakefront erosion • Fuels reduction thinning of 683 acres under • Northwest Youth Corps maintained 68 miles of recreation trails the Deuce pre-commercial thinning project • West Drews Environmental Assessment pre- • Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council constructed 2.7 miles of cattle exclusion fences, commercial thinning/juniper/piling project on maintained 12 miles of trails, removed hundreds of hazardous trees, and conducted other 1,064 acres recreation-oriented restoration activities 2015 • Coffee Pot fuels reduction project on 1,800 • Northwest Youth Corps bucked and cleared approx. 962 trees, repaired 25 drainage structures, acres and dropped and bucked 500 standing dead trees that were a hazard to public visitors • Dairy Creek large wood restoration project • Youth Conservation Corps manually treated 184.9 acres of invasive musk thistle • Thinning, piling, juniper removal, and • The Chewaucan Biological Monitoring Team, via an agreement with Lake County Resource prescribed fire on 2,084 acres of the West Initiative: established 90 sites, revisited 37 sites, conducted soil condition class surveys to act as Drews Environmental Assessment project, controls for the impact of logging and fire on steep slopes; and conducted 120 miles of stream leading to completion of a landscape-level monitoring that was subsidized by the Lake County Watershed Council project on the Lakeview Ranger District • The Warner Creek Correctional Facility completed 119 acres of hand-piling from prior pre- • Aspen and meadow restoration on 1,007 commercial thinning work and 20 acres of manual invasive treatments acres of the South Warner Aspen Meadow • Northwest Youth Corps crews continued treatments on a 97-acre aspen stand and maintained 54 Restoration Project miles of trails, including brushing, adding trail markings, and constructing treadways and drainage • Thinning treatments on 1,848 acres that structures completed the Coffee Pot Fuels Reduction • An agreement with Lake County Cooperative Weed Management Area supported hiring two local 2016 Project contractors to treat 196.5 acres of invasive plants • 5,209 acres of small tree thinning as part of a • Ruby Pipeline Mitigation cost reimbursement funded 46.8 acres of invasive plants treatment timber sale awarded to Collins Pine under the • Two Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council crews constructed 1,700’ of new fence, repaired Crooked Mud Honey Environmental Analysis and maintained 13,500’ of existing fence, maintained 23 miles of trail, and removed 100s of project hazardous trees in developed recreation sites • Youth Conservation Corps crews completed 10 miles of trail maintenance, 24 acres planting area maintenance, 4 miles of fence repair, and 270.7 acres of manual invasive plant removal in addition to assisting forest staff with riparian restoration, aspen restoration, recreation site vegetation management, and archeology surveys. • Treatment projects to enhance habitat in the Warner Mountains were supported by the the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Mule Deer Foundation, and Ruby Pipeline Mitigation Team • 429 acres of non-commercial thinning on the • The Chewaucan Biological Monitoring Team, via an agreement with Lake County Resource Crooked Mud Honey project were contracted Initiative, established 110 new sites and revisited 87 sites • The Deuce South and Northwest TSI Non- • The Warner Creek Correctional Facility conducted 30 acres of hand-piling around osprey nests Commercial Thinning Contract was awarded • The Oregon Department of Forestry completed 19 acres of small tree thinning and hand piling but due to high fire activity has yet to be under an agreement, with additional work to follow implemented • Northwest Youth Corps crews continued treatments on a heavily encroached 97-acre aspen • Aspen and meadow resoration on 890 acres stand, reconstructed 10 miles of trail, removed invasive weeds for 100 acres 2017 in the North and South Warner project areas • Youth Conservation Corps crews manually treated 129.1 acres of invasive species • Approximately 36 miles of road maintenance • An agreement with the Lake County Cooperative Weed Management Area supported hiring two plus commercial harvest and small tree local contractors to treat 381.1 acres of invasive plants thinning on 3,750 acres on the Lakeview • Ruby Pipeline Mitigation cost reimbursement funded 49.4 acres of invasive plants treatment Ranger District as part of the intergrated • Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council crews repaired 6 miles of fencing, maintained or resource stewardship contract with Collins reconstructed 30 miles of trail, and completed many other recreation-focused projects near Pine Lakeview Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 133 FY Contracts Partner agreements • Commercial harvest of 10 mmbf Site monitoring: • Non-commercial thinning with hand • The Chewaucan Biological Monitoring Team, via an agreement with Lake County Resource Initiative, piling on 1,024 acres established 38 new sites and revisited 95 sites. Revisited sites included harvest, aspen, steep slope • 5,540 acres of prescribed fire and logging impact, 10-year post-burn, and untouched old growth sites. 5,500 acres of pile burning Invasive weed treatments: • 5 miles of National Forest System • The Lake County Cooperative Weed Management Area (LCCWMA) performed manual and herbicide roads that had been determined invasive weed treatments on 636 acres with CFLR funds as no longer needed for resource • An additional 455 acres were treated by LCCWMA through USFS matching funds and partner cash management or fire suppression were decommissioned. match. • Another 130 acres (178 sites) were treated with herbicide with funding for sage-grouse habitat • Contracted vegetation plots were improvement completed to validate lidar data that was acquired during this FY to cover • The Youth Conservation Corp crew assisted with manual treatments in various locations throughout the 434,000 acreas with the CFLR project project area area. • 100s of other sites were revisited and treatment was deemed unnecessary. 2018 • A cadastral surveying contract with Youth Crews a private land surveying firm was • 4 leaders and 18 youth crew members maintained 7 miles of the Fremont National Recreation Trail through conducted in support of future timber clearing brush, removing downed trees, restoring tread, and performing general trail maintenance. sales • Two Youth Conservation Corps crews (1 crew lead and 4 crew members each) spent 8 weeks performing: surveys for wildlife, geology, archeology, botany, and weeds; weed abatement; trail maintenance; and recreation site maintenance. • A participating agreement between the Fremont-Winema National Forest and Lake County School District 7 was set up to employ a crew lead and 6 crew members for the Step Up Youth Crew. This youth crew will complete various trail and recreation maintenance projects on national forest lands for 4 weeks of each summer through FY 2023 including: trail tread repair and maintenance, trail clearing and brushing, trail sign and reassurance marker installation, micro trash cleanup, recreation facility painting, and recreation site ground maintenance. Agreements with ODF and the BLM were put in place to ensure assistance with future pile burning and prescribed fire; the agreements enable the hiring of contractors through ODF and BLM to complete this work • Commercial harvest of 12 mmbf Site monitoring: • Non-commercial thinning with hand • The Chewaucan Biological Monitoring Team, via an agreement with Lake County Resource Initiative, piling on 1,711 acres were conducted established 38 new sites and revisited 95 sites. Revisited sites included harvest, aspen, steep slope with the fourth contract for small tree logging impact, 10-year post-burn, and untouched old growth sites. thinning within the North Warner area within the last four years. Invasive weed treatments: Overall, 1,823.6 acres were treated and an additional 117.7 acres (782 sites) were • 4,127 acres of prescribed fire and accounted for within the CFLR Project Area. 5,410 acres of pile burning • The Lake County Cooperative Weed Management Area (LCCWMA) performed manual and herbicide invasive weed treatments on 643 acres with CFLR funds • A cadastral surveying contract with a private land surveying firm • An additional 702 acres were treated by LCCWMA through USFS matching funds and partner cash accomplished 7.75 miles of NFS match. boundary maintenance and the • Through a personnel agreement with the BLM, USFS provided funds for one BLM employee to work on maintenance of 19 corner monuments national forest lands for invasive weed management. that define the boundary lines, along • The Youth Conservation Corp crew assisted with manual treatments in various locations throughout the with associated paperwork. This work project area will support future timber sales in the • 100s of other sites were revisited and treatment was deemed unnecessary. area. Youth Crews 2019 • Northwest Youth Corps (NYC) completed approximately 24 of the 893 acres in the Mud Creek area using an adult (19-26 years old) saw crew of approximately 3-5 members with a crew leader. • 4 leaders and 18 youth crew members maintained 19 miles of trails through clearing brush, removing downed trees, restoring tread, and performing general trail maintenance. • Two Youth Conservation Corps crews (1 crew lead and 4 crew members each) spent 8 weeks performing: surveys for wildlife, geology, archeology, botany, and weeds; weed abatement; ecosystem restoration; trail maintenance; and recreation site maintenance. • A participating agreement between the Fremont-Winema National Forest and Lake County School District 7 employed a crew lead and 4 crew members for 8 weeks on the Step Up Youth Crew. This youth crew completed various trail and recreation maintenance projects on national forest lands including: trail tread repair and maintenance, trail clearing and brushing, trail sign and reassurance marker installation, micro trash cleanup, recreation facility painting, and recreation site ground maintenance. CFLN funding was provided to the High Desert Rangeland Association to complete a community-based wildfire pre-plan for the Summer Lake community. The plan will include locations and assessment of all structures, waterholes, existing or potential wildfire control lines, ingress/egress, and potential opportunities for defensible space, thinning, and/or prescribed fire treatments on public or private lands. This data will be provided to all agencies and partners to pursue implementation or to use during the next wildfire event. 134 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 in the decade before the project began (2002–12). This as the benefits that they provided to local community data has been important for showing the impacts of members. Many agency staff and partners also empha- treatments on the landscape —much of the monitor- sized the importance of CFLR funding to applying for ing data presented in the nine biophysical monitoring and securing funding through shared agreements with questions in this 8-year report were collected by the other entitites. For example, they described how CFLR CBMT. Between FYs 2012–2019, the CBMT hired 26 funds have frequently been used to meet required different local students on the monitoring team. Many match requirements when applying for wildlife habitat of these members returned season after season during enhancement funds through NGOs like the Mule Deer the summer between years of high school and college, Foundation or the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. and some have continued even beyond that, returning Because CFLR funds have met match requirements for as crew leaders on the team during the summers while these funding sources, successful proposals have led working other jobs like school teachers during the rest to additional work on and around the CFLR landscape of the year. During FY 2018 and FY 2019, the CBMT through funds from partners with mutual management consisted of 14 members, all but one of which were objectives. Finally, interviews with crewmembers of returning members, including some returning for their the CBMT emphasized the key personal benefits that seventh or eighth year on the team. members perceived through this work: In addition, several youth crews comprised of youth “Its helped me understand good recording practices, crewmembers and adult crew leaders have also been for a lot of stuff. Because we focus on recording high supported with Lakeview CFLR funds during each quality data, its kind of led into other aspects of my year of the project. Northwest Youth Corps (NYC) life, where like I know how to set stuff up to how it crews have partnered with the Fremont-Winema Na- makes sense and is easy for other people to come in tional Forest for many years and have been integral and look at it.” to building and maintaining recreation trails. Agree- ments funded through the CFLR project have allowed “Its hands down above anything else you could do [as a the Forest Service to continue to partner with NYC to summer job in high school], we are doing real world sci- accomplish labor-intensive trail maintenance work ence and real world data collection as well as working across the Lakeview Stewardship CFLR landscape, on real aspects of problem solving, whether its simple getting things done, or problem solving when it comes while providing youth with job skills and training. to logistics, problem solving when it comes to protocols Similarly, youth crews with adult leadership from the even–having debates or discussions about what’s the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council and Youth most logical thing to do, its just a really engaging way Conservation Corps were also supported by Lakev- to teach and learn for young adults. And I think more iew CFLR funds throughout the project, these crews than anything else it gives them a sense of pride and a also helped accomplish a wide variety of resource sense of community and a lot of knowledge about the enhancement projects at recreation sites and trails place that they live that they wouldn’t get otherwise, at across the CFLR landscape. Starting in FY 2018, the least that’s what it did for me.” Fremont-Winema National Forest entered into a par- ticipating agreement with Lake County School District “I would say it prepared me for any job that I wanted. 7 to set up and employ another youth crew. This youth It created in me a mindset and a work ethic of ‘hey, if crew, called the Step Up Youth Crew, hires students you’re doing this you need to do it right, because other only from the Lake County school district to complete people are depending on it.’ That’s huge and that’s various trail and recreation maintenance projects un- what people need in the workforce—dependable people der the supervision of an adult crew leader, providing who will do a good job even if you’re not watching and both summer jobs for local youth and additional ca- who will take that responsibility seriously.” pacity for this work on the CFLR landscape. “It’s really such a great unique experience, it changed Through interviews with agency staff, collaborative my life... It gave me a sense of purpose and really, be- members, and partners, we consistently heard about fore that, I don’t think I had it. Like, I was doing some- the benefits of agreements, both in terms of work that thing and what I was doing was worthwhile to other they were able to accomplish on the ground as well people, and that’s really powerful.” Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 135 Considerations Work has been accomplished on the Lakeview plishments, from validating lidar data to pre- CFLR landscape through a variety of mecha- scribed burning, road decommissioning, and nisms. Restoration service contracts have aspen restoration. been useful for acquiring the needed capac- ity for large scale and technical-intensive work In the future, the information from this monitor- across the landscape, and agreements have ing question can inform considerations about provided additional capacity to achieving ob- what mechanisms can be used to accomplish jectives while often offering benefits to local different activities. Beyond that, the group entities and community members. Agreements might consider other ways to more specifically with NGOs, local government, and other state capture the wide ranging and important work and federal agencies have increased both in of these agreements, including what entities number and in scope since the beginning of were engaged and how, to more flly under- the project, achieving a wide range of accom- stand the impacts of agreements. Acknowledgements Many people have contributed to the socioeconomic monitoring for this project, and the results compiled for this report were originally published in four biennial socioeconomic monitoring reports. In particular: Eric M. White, Emily Jane Davis, and Cassandra Moseley contributed to monitoring question development and conducted the baseline assessment and first couple years of monitoring (FY 2012–13), Stacey Rosenberg contributed to FY 2014–15 monitoring efforts, and Autumn Ellison and Heidi Huber-Stearns have contributed to the past 6 years of monitoring (FY 2014–19). Many thanks to the interviewees who offered their insights and perspectives on key project dynamics, implementation mechanisms, and the benefits to both the landscape and the local community. The Lakeview CFLR Project annual reports provide an account of project accomplishments. Annual reports for all CFLR projects are available at: https:// www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLRP/results.shtml. References Congressional Research Service. 2019. Stewardship End USDA Forest Service. 2014. Partnering with the USDA Forest Result Contracting: Forest Service and Bureau of Land Service, Chapter 1. Available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/ Management. Available at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/ Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3828323.pdf. IF11179.pdf. White, E.M., E.J. Davis, and C. Moseley. 2015. Social and Economic Monitoring for the Lakeview Stewardship Ellison, A. 2021. Social and Economic Monitoring for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Project. Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project: Fiscal Years 2018–2019 Ecosystem Workforce Program, University of Oregon. Results and Perspectives. Ecosystem Workforce Program, Working Paper #55. Available at: http://ewp.uoregon.edu/ University of Oregon. Working Paper #105. Available at: http:// sites/ewp.uoregon.edu/files/WP_55.pdf. ewp.uoregon.edu/sites/ewp.uoregon.edu/files/WP_105.pdf. 136 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Question 14 What are the total and matching funds used? Goals: To understand if CFLR is increasing the Forest Service and partners’ abilities to raise and leverage funds. Indicators: Measured as both annual amounts and change over time: • 14.1. Total direct CFLR funds, total matching funds, and total leveraged funds Context Funds to accomplish CFLR activities come from mul- Direct CFLR/CFLN funds for the Lakeview CFLR tiple sources. Direct funds are allocated as CFLR/ project ranged from $1.4 to $2.7 million during each CFLN dollars from the Forest Service Washington Of- year. Matching funds met the 50 percent match re- fice to use on CFLR projects, and matching funds are quirement during every year, ranging from 51 percent used to increase the amount of work accomplished. of total funding accounted for in FY 2012 to 81 per- CFLR legislation requires a 50 percent match of cent in FY 2017 (Figure 14.1). CFLR/CFLN funds, which can come from Forest Ser- vice spending at various levels (Washington Office, Funds contributed through agreements and in-kind regional, or forest-level) as well as from non-Forest came from a wide range of partners. These included Service sources (Omnibus Public Land Management many local NGOs (such as the Lake County Weed Act, 2008). Capacity to accomplish CFLR tasks also Board, Lake County Resource Initiative, Lake County comes from partners through both agreements that Umbrella Watershed Council), regional and global provide dollars for mutual work and in-kind contri- NGOs (such as the Mule Deer Foundation, the Nature butions that increase the scale of work accomplished Conservancy, Northwest Youth Corps, Central Oregon on the CFLR landscape through labor and other re- Intergovernmental Council, the Rocky Mountain Elk sources. Foundation), and state government (such as the Or- egon Department of Forestry, the Oregon Department Approach of Corrections). The methods for tracking how funds We reviewed Lakeview Stewardship CFLR annual contributed through agreements changed during FY reports to identify the amount of direct CFLR/CFLN 2018 in an attempt to improve accuracy. This means funds and non-CFLR/CFLN funds, including Forest that the dollars contributed through agreements can- Service matching funds, funds contributed via agree- not be compared across the years of the project. How- ments, and in-kind contributions, used in CFLR ac- ever the number of contributing partners illustrates tivities during each year. that many partners were invested in the work hap- pening on the project landscape. It also highlights the Results degree to which direct dollars allocated through the From FYs 2012–19, the Lakeview Stewardship CFLR CFLR program were able to leverage other funds: dur- project funded more than $54 milllion of on-the- ing each year, direct dollars accounted for just 18–43 ground restoration work and monitoring in the proj- percent of the total funds expended on the project, ect area. Total funds varied between $4.7 million and with other sources making up the balance. $9.1 million per year (Table 14.1). Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 137 Table 14.1 Direct, matching, and contributed funding in support of CFLR activities, FY 2012–19 10000000 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Direct CFLR/ 8000000 $2,088,646 $2,037,204 $2,707,036 $1,824,530 $1,783,061 $1,433,272 $ 1,408,364 $ 1,166,809CFLN funds Forest Service $2,475,267 $5,278,075 $5,748,551 $4,028,358 $7,108,760 $6,549,424 $3,053,296 $3,540,163 matching funds 6000000Funds contributed $243,246 $682,134 $239,178 $332,062 $111,794 $122,961 $1,461 $40,000 via agreements 4000000In-kind $18,909 $14,700 - $64,182 $81,775 $30,000 $209,009 $196,869 contributions Total $4,826,068 $8,012,113 $8,694,765 $6,249,132 $9,085,390 $8,135,657 $4,672,130 $4,943,841 2000000 Data source: Lakeview Stewardship CFLR annual reports 0 Figure 14.1 Proporation of total funds coming from direct, matching, agreements, and in-kind contributions to support of CFLR activities during each year, FY 2012–19 10 1%, 1% 3% 2% 8 9% 5%, 1% 6 5% 66% 78% 4% 1%, 4% 66% 81% 4 64% 51% 65% 72% 2 31% 43% 25% 29% 20% 18% 30% 24% 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 - Fiscal YearDirect CFLR/CFLN D Forest Service D Agreement In-kind matching contributions D contributions Data source: Lakeview Stewardship CFLR annual reports Millions of $ 138 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Considerations The Lakeview CFLR Monitoring Plan notes er, Forest Service match with partner contri- that the amount of funds that the Forest Ser- butions accounted for well over half the funds vice, partners, and collaboratives are able to during each year of the project, highlighting the bring to restoration projects can serve as one impact and leveraging potential these funds indicator of collaboration and capacity. have in accomplishing additional work on the landscape. During the first 8-years of the CFLR project, Forest Service match requirements were ex- In the future, the collaborative can use this in- ceeded each year, and additional funds were formation to inform project planning , including contributed to projects on the landscape via exploring the potential for additional leveraging agreements and in-kind contributions from a capacity within CFLR funds to achieve mutual multitude of partners with mutual interests in goals on the landscape. accomplishing the restoration work. Altogeth- Acknowledgements Many people have contributed to the socioeconomic monitoring for this project, and the results compiled for this report were originally published in four biennial socioeconomic monitoring reports. In particular: Eric White, Emily Jane Davis, and Cassandra Moseley contributed to monitoring question development and conducted the baseline assessment and first couple years of monitoring (FY 2012–13), Stacey Rosenberg contributed to FY 2014–15 monitoring efforts, and Autumn Ellison and Heidi Huber-Stearns have contributed to the past 6 years of monitoring (FY 2014–19). The Lakeview CFLR Project annual reports provided an account of expended funds to answer this monitoring question. Annual reports for all CFLR projects are available at: https://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLRP/results.shtml. References Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 Title IV--Forest Landscape Restoration, Public Law No. 111-11, S.2593. 2008. Available at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/ senate-bill/2593/text. Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 139 A CBMT crewmember marks a tree based on input by a breakout group of participants during a Lakeview Stewardship Group field tour exercise, 2018. Photo courtesy of Autumn Ellison, University of Oregon. 140 Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Project Ecological, Social, and Economic Report 2012–2020 Appendix 1A Maps of Treatment Units and Plots I Deuce: Pilot I 00 Method: reller-Buncher Hubber- 1i red !il<1cl