Thinning and in-stream wood recruitment in riparian second growth forests in coastal Oregon and the use of buffers and tree tipping as mitigation

Abstract

Many aquatic habitats in coastal Oregon have been impacted by historic land use practices that led to losses of in-stream wood and associated degraded fish habitats. Many of these streams are now bordered by stands of dense second growth forests (30–80 years) that are incorporated into riparian buffer zones with low wood recruitment and storage. Thinning in riparian zones is one management option to increase the rate of large tree growth and eventually larger in-stream wood, however, it raises concern about impacts on current wood recruitment, among other issues. Using a forest growth simulation model coupled to a model of in-stream wood recruitment, we explore riparian management alternatives in a Douglas-fir plantation in coastal Oregon. Alternatives included: (1) no treatment, (2) single and double entry thinning, without and with a 10-m buffer, and (3) thinning combined with mechanical introduction of some portion of the thinned trees into the stream (tree tipping). Compared to no treatment, single and double entry thinning on one side of a channel, without a 10-m buffer, reduce cumulative in-stream wood volume by 33 and 42 %, respectively, after 100 years (includes decay). Maintaining a 10-m buffer reduces the in-stream wood loss to 7 % (single entry thin) and 11 % (double entry). To completely offset the losses of in-stream wood in a single entry thin (on one or both sides of the stream), in the absence or presence of a 10-m buffer, requires a 12–14 % rate of tree tipping. Relative to the no-treatment alternative, cumulative in-stream wood storage can be increased up to 24 % in a double-entry thin with no buffer by tipping 15–20 % of the thinned trees (increased to 48 % if thinning and tipping simultaneously on both sides of the stream). The predicted increases in in-stream wood that can occur during a thin with tree tipping may be effective for restoring fish habitat, particularly in aquatic systems that have poor habitat conditions and low levels of in-stream wood due to historic land use activities.

Keywords

Forest management / Thinning / Riparian / Woody debris / Forestry / Watersheds / Fish habitat

References

[1] Anlauf KJ, Jensen DW, Burnett KM, Steel EA, Christiansen K, Firman JC, Feist BE, Larsen DP. Explaining spatial variability in stream habitats using both natural and management-influenced landscape predictors. Aquat Conserv, 2011, 21: 704-714.

[2] Beechie T, Pess GR, Kennard P, Bilby PR, Bolton S. Modeling recovery rates and pathways for woody debris recruitment in northwestern Washington streams. N Am J Fish Manag, 2000, 20: 436-452.

[3] Benda L, Bigelow P. Recruitment, storage transport and function of wood in northern California streams. Geomorphology, 2014, 209: 79-97.

[4] Benda L, Sias J. A quantitative framework for evaluating the mass balance of wood in streams. J For Ecol Manag, 2003, 172: 1-16.

[5] Benda L, Miller DJ, Andras K, Bigelow P, Reeves G, Michael D. NetMap: a new tool in support of watershed science and resource management. For Sci, 2007, 52: 206-219.

[6] Bigelow P, Benda L, Miller DJ, Burnett KM. On debris flows, river networks, and the spatial structure of channel morphology. For Sci, 2007, 52: 220-238.

[7] Bilby R, Heffner J, Fransen B, Ward J, Bisson P. Effects of immersion in water on deterioration of wood from five species of trees used for habitat enhancement projects. North Am J Fish Manag, 1999, 19: 687-695.

[8] Bisson PA, Bilby RE, Bryant MD, Dolloff CA, Grette GB, House RA, Murphy ML, Koski KV, Sedell JR. Salo EO, Cundy TW. Large woody debris in forested streams in the Pacific Northwest past, present, and future. Streamside management, forestry and fishery interactions. 1987, Seattle: University of Washington Press, 143 190

[9] Braudrick CA, Grant GE, Ishikawa Y, Ideda H. Dynamics of wood transport in streams: a flume experiment. Earth Surf Proc Land, 1997, 22: 669-683.

[10] Burnett KM, Miller DJ. Streamside policies for headwater channels: an example considering debris flows in the Oregon Coastal Province. For Sci, 2007, 53: 239-253.

[11] Burnett KM, Reeves GH, Miller DJ, Clarke S, Vance-Borland K, Christiansen K. Distribution of salmon-habitat potential relative to landscape characteristics and implications for conservation. Ecol Appl, 2007, 17: 66-80.

[12] Carah JK, Blencowe CC, Wright DW, Bolton LA. Low-cost restoration techniques for rapidly increasing wood cover in coastal coho salmon streams. N Am J Fish Manag, 2014, 34: 1003-1013.

[13] Crookston NL, Dixon GE. The forest vegetation simulator: a review of its structure, content, and applications. Comput Electron Agric, 2005, 49: 60-80.

[14] Dodson EK, Ares A, Puettmann KJ. Early responses to thinning treatments designed to accelerate late successional forest structure in young coniferous stands of western Oregon, USA. Can J For Res, 2012, 42: 345-355.

[15] Everest FH, Reeves GH (2007) Riparian and aquatic habitats of the Pacific Northwest and Southeast Alaska: ecology, management history and potential management strategies. Gen. Tech. Rep., PNW-GTR-692 Pacific Northwest Research Station

[16] Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) (1993–2003) Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team, U.S. Government Printing Office 1993-793-071

[17] Garman SL, Hansen AJ, Urban DL, Lee PF. Luker P. 1992. Alternative silvicultural practices and diversity of animal habitat in western Oregon: a computer simulation approach. Proceedings of Summer Computer Simulation Conference. 1992, Reno: Society for Computer Simulation, 777 781

[18] Groom JD, Dent L, Madsen LJ, Fleuret J. Response of western Oregon (USA) stream temperatures to contemporary forest management. For Ecol Manag, 2011, 262: 1618-1629.

[19] Hann DW (2006) ORGANON user’s manual: Edition 8.0. Department of Forest Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis

[20] Harmon ME, Franklin JF, Swanson FJ, Sollins P, Gregory SV, Lattin JD, Sedell JR, Lienkaemper GW, Cromack K, Cummins KW. Ecology of coarse woody debris in temperate ecosystems. Adv Ecol Res, 1986, 15: 133-302.

[21] Hibbs DE, Bluhm AA, Garber SM. Stem taper and volume of managed red alder. West J Appl For, 2007, 22(1): 61-66.

[22] Ice G. Forest riparian protection in the Pacific Northwest. West For, 2005, 50(2): 8-10.

[23] Jones KK, Anlauf-Dunn K, Jacobsen PS, Strickland M, Tennant L, Tippery SE. Effectiveness of in-stream wood treatments to restore stream complexity and winter rearing habitat for juvenile coho salmon. Trans Am Fish Soc, 2014, 143: 334-345.

[24] King L, Hassan MA, Wei X, Burge L, Chen X. Wood dynamics in upland streams under different disturbance regimes. Earth Surf Proc Land, 2013, 38(11): 1197-1209.

[25] Kozak A. A variable-exponent taper equation. Can J For Res, 1988, 18: 1363-1368.

[26] Lassetter NS, Kondolf GM (2003) Process based management of large woody debris at the basin scale, Soquel Creek, California. Final Report prepared for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and Soquel Demonstration State Forest. Department of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, University of California, Berkeley. http://www.demoforests.net/Warehouse/Docs/Soquel/Reports/LWDinSoquelCreek.pdf

[27] Litschert S, MacDonald L. Frequency and characteristics of sediment delivery pathways from forest harvest units to streams. For Ecol Manag, 2009, 259: 143-150.

[28] Martin DJ, Benda L. Patterns of instream wood recruitment and transport at the watershed scale. Trans Am Fish Soc, 2001, 130: 940-958.

[29] Means JE, Cromack K, MacMillan PC. Comparison of decomposition models using wood density of Douglas-fir logs. Can J For Res, 1985, 15: 1092-1098.

[30] Meleason MA, Gregory SV, Bolte JP. Implications of riparian management strategies on wood in streams of the Pacific Northwest. Ecol Appl, 2003, 13: 1212-1221.

[31] Meleason MA, Davies-Colley RJ, Hall GMJ. Characterizing the variability of wood in streams: simulation modeling compared to multiple reach surveys. Earth Surf Proc Land, 2007, 32: 1164-1173.

[32] Miller DJ, Burnett KM. A probabilistic model of debris-flow delivery to stream channels, demonstrated for the Coast Range of Oregon, USA. Geomorphology, 2008, 94: 184-205.

[33] Murphy ML, Koski KV. Input and depletion of woody debris in Alaska streams and implications for streamside management. N Am J Fish Manag, 1989, 9: 427-436.

[34] Naiman RJ, Bisson PA, Lee RG, Turner MJ. Naiman RJ, Bilby RE. Watershed management. River ecology and management: lessons from the Pacific coastal ecoregion. 1998, New York: Springer, 642 661

[35] Ohmann JL, Gregory MJ. Predictive mapping of forest composition and structure with direct gradient analysis and nearest-neighbor imputation in coastal Oregon, USA. Can J For Res, 2002, 32(4): 725-741.

[36] Pabst RJ, Goslin MN, Garman SL, Spies TA. Calibrating and testing a gap model for simulating forest management in the Oregon Coast Range. For Ecol Manag, 2008, 256: 958-972.

[37] Pickard B (2013) Keying forest stream protection to aquatic ecosystem values in multi-owner watersheds. Masters Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis

[38] Pollock MM, Beechie TJ. Does riparian forest restoration thinning enhance biodiversity? The ecological importance of large wood. J Am Water Resour Assoc, 2014, 50(3): 543-559.

[39] PRISM Climate Group (2014) Oregon State University, June 2014. http://prism.oregonstate.edu

[40] Reeves GH, Burnett KM, McGarry EV. Sources of large wood in the main stem of a fourth-order watershed in coastal Oregon. Can J For Res, 2003, 33(8): 1352-1362.

[41] Reeves GH, Pickard BR, Johnson KN (in press) Options for managing riparian ecosystems on federal lands in the area of the northwest forest plan. Pacific Northwest Research Station GTR PNWXXX, PNW Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Portland

[42] Richardson JS, Naiman RJ, Bisson PA. How did fixed-width buffers become standard practice for protecting freshwaters and their riparian areas from forest harvest practices?. Freshw Sci, 2012, 31(1): 232-238.

[43] Roni P, Quinn TP. Density and size of juvenile salmonids in response to placement of large woody debris in western Oregon and Washington streams. Can J Fish Aquat Sci, 2001, 58(2): 282-292.

[44] Sedell JR, Froggatt JL. Importance of streamside forests to large rivers: the isolation of the Willamette River, Oregon, U.S.A., from its floodplain by snagging and streamside forest removal. Verh Int Verein Limnol, 1984, 22: 1828-1834.

[45] Sobota DJ, Gregory SV, Van Sickle J. Riparian tree fall directionality and modeling large wood recruitment to streams. Can J For Res, 2006, 36: 1243-1254.

[46] Society of American Foresters (Oregon Society, OSAF) (2009) Position statement: Riparian Forest Management and Fish. Online. http://www.oregon.gov/odf/BOARD/docs/April_2009/A_Att_2.pdf

[47] Spies T, Pollock M, Reeves G, Beechie T. Effects of riparian thinning on wood recruitment: a scientific synthesis. 2013, Portland: Science Review Team Wood Recruitment Subgroup, USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station

[48] Urban DL, Bonan GB, Smith TM, Shugart HH. Spatial applications of gap models. For Ecol Manag, 1991, 42: 95-110.

[49] Van Sickle J, Gregory SV. Modeling inputs of large woody debris to streams from falling trees. Can J For Res, 1990, 20: 1593-1601.

[50] Waddell DR, Weyermann DL, Lambert MB (1987) Estimating the weight of Douglas-Fir tree boles and logs with an iterative computer model. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PNW-RP-374

[51] Welty JJ, Beechie T, Sullivan K, Hyink DM, Bilby RE, Andrus C, Pess G. Riparian aquatic interaction simulator (RAIS): a model of riparian forest dynamics for the generation of large woody debris and shade. For Ecol Manag, 2002, 162: 299-318.