Compiler

Richard L. Everett is the science team leader at the Wenatchee Forestry Sciences Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station in Wenatchee, Washington.
Volume IV: Restoration of 

Stressed Sites, and Processes

Richard L. Everett, Complier

Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health 

Assessment

Richard L. Everett, Assessment Team Leader

Published by: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

Pacific Northwest Research Station 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-330 

April 1994
ABSTRACT

Everett, Richard L., comp. 1994. Restoration of stressed sites, and processes. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR330. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

123 p. (Everett, Richard L., assessment team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment; volume 

IV.)

Portions of forest ecosystems in eastern Oregon and Washington are in poor health, are not meeting societies 

expectations, and have elevated hazard for fire, insects, and disease. Diversity in stream habitats and associated fisheries has declined over the last several decades in several drainage basins, requiring conservation 

and restoration efforts in key watersheds. Required first steps in restoring forest and aquatic ecosystems are 

the immediate reduction in hazard for catastrophic loss of biodiversity, site quality, resource commodities, 

and improved conditions for public health. To prevent loss of future options we need to simultaneously reestablish ecosystem processes and disturbance effects that create and maintain desired sustainable ecosystems, while conserving genetic, species, community, and landscape diversity and long-term site productivity. 

Restoration of stressed sites is site specific, but the context for the action should be defined by the desired 

condition(s) of the next higher landscape scale and achieve desired positive cumulative effects over time. 

Restoration actions should be consistent with the desired level of disturbance effects required to maintain 

sustainable ecosystems, and standards and guides should reflect the inherent variability associated with dynamic systems. Costs associated with restoration activities should be weighed against the foregone benefits if 

no action is taken. The restoration of the biological components of ecosystems should provide increased opportunities for the restoration of human cultural, social, and economic ecosystem components and increase 

options for resource-dependent communities.

Keywords: Restoration; forest health; ecosystem processes; disturbance effects; ecosystem management; 

insects, disease, and fire hazard.
This volume is in response to the Foley and Hatfield request for recommendations to restore stressed ecosystems in eastern Oregon and Washington. Ecological concerns include insect outbreak hazard, catastrophic 

fire hazard, decline in sensitive salmon stocks, and sustainable flows of renewable resources (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1991). The science panel requested the assistance of scientists working on these and 

other similar issues (for example, riparian restoration and rangeland restoration) to provide descriptions of 

specific stress conditions or altered processes, and make recommendations for their rehabilitation. The science panel appreciates the rapid response and input of these authors.
Contents

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

ECONOMIC ISSUES IN ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION ....................................................... 6

James F. Weigand

REDUCING HAZARD OF CATASTROPHIC LOSS .................................................................... 13

REDUCING HAZARD FOR CATASTROPHIC FIRE .............................................................. 18

Stephen F. Arno and Roger D. Ottmar

PROCEDURES TO REDUCE LANDSCAPE HAZARD FROM INSECT OUTBREAKS ......... 20

Richard R. Mason and Boyd E. Wickman

REDUCING HAZARD FOR ENDANGERED SALMON STOCKS .......................................... 22

Gordon H. Reeves and Fred H. Everest

CONSERVING BIODIVERSITY AND LONG-TERM SITE PRODUCTIVITY ............................... 27

CONSERVING BIODIVERSITY: FOREST GENETICS PERSPECTIVE ............................... 31

Jess D. Daniels

CONSERVING WILDLIFE HABITAT ...................................................................................... 37

Evelyn L. Bull

PRIORITY WILDLIFE HABITATS AND RESTORATION MANAGEMENT ............................. 39

Sandra K. Martin

PROTECTING UNIQUE HABITATS AND RIPARIAN AREAS FROM INSECT ATTACK ....... 43

Gary E. Daterman

PRACTICES TO REDUCE AND CONTROL NOXIOUS WEED INVASION ........................... 47

Richy J. Harrod

CONSERVING SOIL RESOURCES ....................................................................................... 50

Robert T. Meurisse and J. Michael Geist

RESTORATION OF ECOSYSTEM PROCESSES AND DISTURBANCE EFFECTS ................. 59

REINTRODUCTION OF FIRE INTO FORESTS OF EASTERN OREGON AND WASHINGTON .... 65

Stephen F. Arno and Roger D. Ottmar

MAINTENANCE AND RESTORATION OF ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES REGULATING

FOREST-DEFOLIATING INSECTS ........................................................................................ 68

Torolf R. Torgersen

RESTORATION OF HYDROLOGIC PROCESSES ............................................................... 72

Tom A. Robison and Mel W. Bennett
RESTORATION OF STRESSED SITES ...................................................................................... 81

RESTORATION OF RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS .................................................................... 87

D. Wayne Elmore, Bernard L. Kovalchik and Louris D. Jurs

ESTABLISH STABLE STAND STRUCTURES AND INCREASE TREE GROWTH:

NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN SILVICULTURE ........................................................................... 93

Michael B. Lambert

FOREST ROADS AND FOREST HEALTH ............................................................................ 97

Walter F. Megahan, Larry L. Irwin and Larry L. LaCabe

RESTORATION OF STRESSED, FORESTED RANGELANDS ............................................ 99

Richard L. Everett and Linda H. Hardesty

SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 109

GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................. 118

AUTHOR VITAE .......................................................................................................................... 120

APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................... 123

1

INTRODUCTION

Eastside forest ecosystems that are either not meeting society’s expectations or are functioning below their 

biological potential are in need of restoration. The current assessment of eastside terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems suggests that several watersheds have elevated insect, disease, and fire hazards; lowered soil productivity; unstable stream and riparian conditions; and low populations of sensitive species (Harvey and others 

1993, Hessburg and others 1993b, Lehmkuhl and others 1993, Marcot and others 1993, McIntosh and others 

1993, Wissmar and others 1993).

The causes of ecosystem damage can be traced in part to overuse of renewable resources by early European 

settlers (Irwin and others 1993, Wissmar and others 1993), past management practices (Oliver and others 

1993), and limited funding support for nontimber resource management (Kennedy and Quigley 1993). The 

recent adoption of ecosystem management principles by the USDA Forest Service and other government 

agencies provides for greater equity in emphasis among resources. Under ecosystem management goals of 

conserving biodiversity, long-term site productivity, and sustained resource flows, there is greater impetus to 

maintain and restore ecosystems (Overbay 1992).

Humans are an integral part of ecosystems and closely tied to the other biological components. “The disintegration of the social fabric in timber-dependent, rural communities has its counterpart in many of the 

regions’s forest ecological communities” (Clark and others, Chapter VII in Thomas and Raphael 1993). The 

same fire, insect, and disease hazards that threaten wildland habitats also threaten the long-term economic 

stability of the resource base and air and water quality. Resource-dependent jobs are only as stable as the 

resources they depend upon; loss of jobs erodes individual self esteem, disrupts social structure of small resource-dependent communities, and impacts the ability of local governments to provide for public transportation and education (McKetta 1994, Thomas and Raphael 1993). Human economic and social components 

of ecosystems in eastern Washington and Oregon are in need of restoration.

Describing restoration of economic and social components of ecosystems is beyond the scope of the Eastside 

Assessment, although we realize this is a significant component to achieving sustainable ecosystems. The 

reader is referred to the excellent discussion on social-biological interactions in timberdependent communities of the Pacific Northwest by Clark and others, Chapter VII in Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment (Thomas and Raphael 1993). Restoring the ability of rural communities to respond to changes in resource availability and to maintain a work force of resource professionals is 

required if ecosystem management is to become a reality.

There is an urgency in initiating restoration activities because of hazards from fire, insects, and disease; 

potential loss of aquatic and terrestrial species or their habitats; and adverse economic and social impacts 

to resource-dependent communities. Preventing catastrophic loss of species or other resource values seems 

paramount, reducing current or future hazards secondary, and restoring ecosystem processes and stressed 

sites a required but less urgent task.

Public Evolvement in Restoring Ecosystems

People in eastern Oregon and Washington are concerned about forest health and are seeking ways to create 

sustainable forests (Hessburg and others 1993b). The Blue Mountains Natural Resources Institute conducted 

a forest health workshop for about 150 concerned citizens in Pendleton, Oregon (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1991). The group shared information and discussed strategies for restoring healthy ecosystems, 

preventing catastrophic fires, minimizing insect and disease damage, increasing economic stability, and 

ensuring production of forest products. Similarly, the Colville National Forest invited public participation 

in finding solutions to forest health problems by creating a forest health stakeholder group. Their strategies 

focused on goals to restore and maintain healthy ecosystems and to ensure and maintain an appropriate level 

of sustained goods and services (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1993).
2

The public suggested a path that would explore ecosystem management on a landscape scale; a path that 

would require a database of resources and hazards. Special attention was to be given to maintaining biodiversity, including sensitive species, fisheries, big game, and fragile habitats (riparian and old-growth). Further, they suggested that management should mimic natural processes, including reintroducing fire and using 

historical landscapes as management reference points. The Blue Mountain and Colville groups see rangeland 

condition as part of the sustainable forest ecosystem issue and conserving long-term soil productivity as a 

desirable goal. Both groups were interested in maintaining commodity flow from the forest, emphasizing 

diversity in forest values, and developing technology and means to capture the economic benefits of those 

diverse values.

The panel on restoring ecosystems in the Blue Mountains (Caraher and others 1992) interviewed public 

stakeholders and found them most concerned about fuel reduction and fire management, water quality, 

fisheries and riparian areas, and timber management. The primary needs are to prevent catastrophic fires, 

provide high-quality water, and maintain sustainable forests resistant to insects and disease. Information 

and recommendations provided here on reducing potential catastrophic loss, conserving biodiversity and 

longterm site potential, and restoring stressed sites and processes address these stated public concerns and 

can be used in the restoration of forests in eastern Oregon and Washington.

Approach to Restoration

Forest Service emphasis on ecosystem management has been described in five levels of increasing investment for eastern Oregon and Washington (Hessburg and others 1993a). The priorities are to prevent catastrophic losses of species or productivity, stabilize current systems to avoid further degradation, and restore 

severely stressed sites and processes. Resources are managed for society, not for the resources themselves 

(Gates 1972); thus, society ultimately makes the choices among different levels of ecosystem management. 

Society should be informed of the costs and benefits of different levels of investment in ecosystem management (Hessburg and others 1993a). Also, the public needs to know the costs associated with restoration and 

the benefits foregone if restoration does not occur (Weigand 1993).

An immediate need in eastside ecosystems is the prevention of catastrophic loss in biodiversity and longterm 

site productivity from severe fire events, widespread insect outbreaks, or the cumulative effects of management practices on unique habitats or sensitive species. Of special concern are overused riparian zones and 

loss of sensitive fish stocks. Restoration of ecosystem processes, fire, insects and disease, and hydrology are 

prerequisites to the restoration of stressed sites. If we have not restored the processes that maintain ecosystems, then the restoration of specific sites is in vain. Specific sites identified as needing restoration include 

riparian zones, overly grazed rangelands, stream systems, and densely treed forest stands (Elmore and others 

1993, Everett and Hardesty 1993, Irwin and others 1993, Lambert 1993).

Restoration practices should be applied at the appropriate scale and the context for the restoration.project 

derived from the next higher scale (Urban and others 1987). The context will provide the reasoning for 

restoration projects and their integration. Until recently, restoration has been implemented at the stand or 

stream-reach level, although the desired outcome in process or structure was best evaluated at larger scales. 

Caraher and others (1992) recommend restoration of forest ecosystems in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and 

Washington where landscape attributes are outside the range of natural variability. An example of landscape 

restoration is provided by Shlisky (1993). She uses landscape analysis and design processes to determine historical landscape patterns and to set objectives for future landscape characteristics and restoration priorities.
3

What follows is a series of invited papers by scientists on specific restoration topics. The series is not intended to be an exhaustive treatment of restoration ecology, but to focus on critical issues identified by the public 

forums. General guidelines are provided on:

▪ approaches to prevent catastrophic losses from wildfire, insect epidemics, and degraded stream systems;

▪ conservation of biodiversity and long-term site quality;

▪ restoration of critical ecosystem processes; and

▪ restoration of stressed sites.

These guidelines are intended to be used by restoration practitioners as they develop landscape restoration 

plans.
4

References

Caraher, D.L.; Henshaw, J.; Hall, F. [and others]. 1992. Restoring ecosystems in the Blue Mountains-a 

report. to the Regional Forester and the Forest Supervisors of the Blue Mountain forests. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 15 p.

Elmore, W.; Kovalchik, B.; Jurs, L.D. 1993. Restoration of riparian ecosystems. In: Everett, R.L., comp. 

Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration of stressed sites, and processes. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Everett, R.L.; Hardesty, L. 1993. Restoration of stressed, forested rangelands. In: Everett, R.L., comp. 

Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration of stressed sites, and processes. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Gates, D.H. 1972. Social welfare and integrated resource management. Journal of Range Management. 

25(6): 411-412.

Harvey, A.E.; Geist, J.M.; McDonald, G.I. [and others]. 1993. Biotic and abiotic processes in eastside 

ecosystems: the effects of management on soil properties, processes, and productivity. In: Hessburg, 

P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume III: Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Hessburg, P.F.; Haynes, R.W.; Everett, R.L. 1993a. What are alternative ecosystem management scenarios? 

What process should be used to evaluate alternative rates of investment in ecosystem management; 

question 5. In: Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume I: Executive summary. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Hessburg, P.F.; Mitchell, R.G.; Filip, G.M. 1993b. Historical and current roles of insects and pathogens in 

eastern Oregon and Washington forested landscapes. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem 

health assessment—Volume III: Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Irwin, L.L.; Cook, J.C.; Riggs, R.A.; Skovlin, R. 1993. Effects of long-term grazing by big game and 

livestock in the Blue Mountains forest ecosystems. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem 

health assessment-Volume III: Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Kennedy, J.J.; Quigley, T.M. 1993. Evolution of Forest Service organizational culture and adaptation issues 

in embracing ecosystem management. In: Jensen, M.E.; Bourgeron, P.S., eds. Eastside forest ecosystem 

health assessment—Volume II: Ecosystem management: principles and applications. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Lambert, M.B. 1993. Establish stable stand structures and increase tree growth: new technologies 

in silviculture. In: Everett, R.L., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: 

Restoration of stressed sites, and processes. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Hessburg, P.F.; Ottmar, R.D. [and others]. 1993. Historical and current vegetation pattern 

and associated changes in insect and disease hazard and fire and smoke conditions in eastern Oregon 

and Washington. In: Hessburg, P.F.; comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume III: 

Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station.
5

Marcot, B.B.; Wisdom, MJ.; Li, H.W.; Gonzalo, C.C. 1993. Managing for featured, threatened, endangered 

and sensitive species and unique habitats for ecosystem sustainability. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside 

forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume III: Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

McIntosh, B.A.; Sedell, J.R.; Smith, J.E. [and others]. 1993. Management history of eastside ecosystems: 

changes in fish habitat over 50 years, 1935 to 1992. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem 

health assessment—Volume III: Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

McKetta, C.W. 1994. Socio-economic implications of a below cost timber program on the Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest. Moscow, ID: McKetta and Associates. 27 p.

Oliver, C.D.; Irwin, L.L.; Knapp, W.H. 1993. Eastside forest management practices: Historical overview, 

extent of their application and their effects on sustainability of ecosystems. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. 

Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume III: Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Overbay, J.C. 1992. Ecosystem management. National Research Station workshop on taking an ecological 

approach to management; 1992 April 27; Salt Lake City, UT. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. [Text of talk].

Shlisky, A.J. 1993. Multi-scale ecosystem analysis and design in the Pacific Northwest Region: the Umatilla 

National Forest restoration project. In: Jensen, M.E.; Bourgeron, P.S., eds. Eastside forest ecosystem 

health assessment—Volume II: Ecosystem management: principles and applications. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Thomas, J.W.; Raphael, M.G. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and 

social assessment: a report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of Commerce; U.S. Department of Interior; and 

Environmental Protection Agency. [Irregular pagination].

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1991. Forest health workshop; 1991 November 20; Pendleton, OR. La 

Grande, OR: Forest Service, Blue Mountains Natural Resources Institute. 24 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1993. Forest plan implementation strategy: forest health. Colville, WA: 

Forest Service, Colville National Forest. 3 p.

Urban, D.L.; O’Neill, R.V.; Shugart, H.H., Jr. 1987. Landscape ecology: a hierarchical perspective can help 

scientists understand spatial patterns. BioScience. 37(2: 119-127.

Weigand, J.F. 1993. Economic issues in ecosystem restoration. In: Everett, R.L., comp. Eastside forest 

ecosystem health assessment-Volume IV: Restoration of stressed sites, and processes. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Wissmar, R.C.; Smith, J.E.; McIntosh, B.A. [and others]. 1993. Ecological health of river basins in forested 

regions of eastern Washington and Oregon. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health 

assessment—Volume III: Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station.
6

ECONOMIC ISSUES IN ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

by James F. Weigand

Natural restoration of ecosystems is a function of the biophysical capacity of an ecosystem to maintain or 

recover its original elements, structures, processes, and interactions after disturbance. Restoration is precluded, however, where disturbance to an ecosystem is so profound that the ecosystem has lost its capacity 

to maintain or recover previous ecosystem features. Restoration is one of several strategies to regain the 

productivity desired by society.

Restoration is distinguished from other human efforts of reclamation and mitigation. Reclamation of an ecosystem recreates biophysical capacity and results in an engineered ecosystem that differs from the previous 

one. A notable example of reclamation has been the 1000-year process of diking and draining submerged 

land in the Netherlands for agriculture and settlement (Wolff 1992), whereby new terrestrial ecosystems 

replaced marine ecosystems. Compensatory ecosystem mitigation, in contrast, attempts to balance the loss 

of biophysical capacity at one site by recreating capacity at another site. An example of mitigation is creating salt marshes and wetlands where they previously did not exist as replacements for marsh habitat lost in 

development projects.

Objectives for Restoration

Society possesses the science and technology to speed the pace of natural ecosystem restoration. Land 

managers mimic and manipulate forest ecosystem processes to create desired ecosystem states more rapidly 

than what would occur naturally. Management of forest stands with appropriate tree thinnings, for example, 

can create stand structures with suitable large live trees, snags, and down wood for various old-growth forest 

types at a faster rate than does natural stand development after reforestation.

Although science and technology are indispensable to restoration, they do not suffice. A restoration project 

becomes a reality only with the support and participation of people whose demands are best met by an accelerated process of human-aided ecosystem restoration (Cowell 1993). Project implementation is predicated 

on societal affirmation that restoration provides greater utility to society than would other management 

alternatives such as rehabilitation, mitigation, or inaction. If society demands restoration, society must also 

agree on which previous ecosystem states are desirable for restoration. In some cases, society’s best interests 

are served when natural restoration processes of an ecosystem are allowed to proceed unsupplemented by 

human inputs because costs of human inputs are too high and the perceived value of restoration benefits is 

too low.

Economic Implications of Restoration

Human efforts to increase the rate of ecosystem restoration require labor and capital expenditures to augment the energy and biomass budgets of ecosystems. Society has resources that it may choose to allocate to 

restoration projects. Programs for ecosystem restoration will have to compete with other beneficial social 

projects for scarce private and, more importantly, public funds. Ecosystems and their lands are themselves 

scarce resources. A comparative accounting of potential returns and trade-offs between restoration projects 

and other projects in a complete, impartial, and scientifically valid manner is difficult, if not impossible. 

Forecasting the stream of goods and services and deciding who pays and who benefits are tasks without 

ready answers. The type, timing, and quantity of returns on investment to society may be highly uncertain. 

Unintended benefits may result, and many of the presumed beneficiaries are future rather than present generations.
7

In a broad policy sense, policymakers will not implement restoration projects if society perceives costs and 

does not perceive net benefits from restoration efforts. Also, people may advocate an incomplete level of 

ecosystem restoration whenever the next increment of restoration costs more than the benefit it produces (fig. 

1). A fully restored ecosystem, with society footing the bill, may not be acceptable to society because the 

cost is too high.

Restoration projects are investments with risk. Policymakers have often dismissed the value of ecosystem 

restoration because restoration projects have been perceived to have high start-up costs and uncertain benefits. Return on investment is ambiguous because investments in ecological infrastructure offset depreciation 

of ecosystem function brought on by unsustainable resource extraction and by themselves do not increase 

the gross domestic production (Jacobs 1991). The projects attempt to restore capacity and future options for 

production and not the production itself. Restoration projects are, in effect, reinvestments in ecosystem infrastructure (Schmidt and others 1993). However, American society traditionally has undervalued sustaining 

the productivity of land because society perceived that enough extra land was always available as a low-cost 

substitute for lost productivity of degraded land. A new management philosophy like ecosystem management may affect how society perceives and estimates benefits. Society may wish to recognize as legitimate 

the benefits of expanded and flexible options from ecosystem production now and in the future.
8

The quality of restoration projects will assure both the probability and degree of success. Government policies to award contracts on the basis of least (initial) cost may undermine achieving the quality in ecosystem 

restoration that society demands and is willing to pay for (see Deming 1982). When government is sensitive 

to the cost of implementing projects but not sensitive to project quality and total net benefit to society, the 

likelihood is greater that the government will not select the best restoration proposal. Analyses of costs for 

project implementation are easier to estimate than net benefits to society or costs of societal inaction. King 

(1991) has shown that parsimony of initial investment brings with it an enduring opportunity cost to society 

in terms of foregone sustainable ecosystem production as compared to a policy that allocates a larger initial 

investment (fig. 2).

In terms of secondary effects, restoration projects offer attractive prospects of employment, particularly 

when rural economies are depressed. Restoration employment is one of several transitional means to recover 

ecosystem productivity. The enduring goal is sustainable rural economic development in an undiminished 

ecosystem producing goods, services, and ecosystem states that respond to constantly changing societal 

demands.
9

Performance of restoration efforts is crucial. Measuring the success of restoration projects by monitoring is 

inherent in the fundamentally experimental nature of restoration and subsequent management for ecosystem 

sustainability. Protocols to measure performance criteria of ecosystem restoration projects must be developed. Thus far, methodologies have been advanced for monitoring the performance standards (Westman 

1991) by using statistical indices of similarity to compare present ecosystem states with desired past ecosystem states. Almost no literature exists at present that treats appropriate economic monitoring for ecosystem 

restoration projects.

Another implication is that an appropriate social discount rate must be incorporated into analyses that evaluate net benefit to present and future generations gained from restoration projects. This begs the question: 

what is the appropriate discount rate for restoration projects? Very low (or even negative) discount rates have 

been proposed for use if concern for future generations is equally important or more important in management objectives. Using a positive, comparatively high discount rate (such as the 4 percent real rate used conventionally by the USDA Forest Service) may be inconsistent with restoration projects that are a prelude to 

resource sustainability in the future. Assumptions in methodology of economic analyses must not prejudice 

outcomes. Projects are best examined with a sensitivity analysis involving multiple projects under multiple 

discount rates. Analyses for present net value and soil expectation value are appropriate tests for project efficiency.

Analysts should consider external economic effects from restoration in one ecosystem on adjacent ecosystems for a complete accounting of net societal benefit (Bradshaw and Chadwick 1980). Economic analyses 

are most helpful when policymakers conduct them at multiple spatial scales; for example, budget analyses 

done ecosystem-wide, locally, regionally, and nationally provide a complete understanding of the complex 

effects of restoration projects. Often, economic benefits that are difficult to quantify, such as so-called “second dividends” of ecosystem services and environmental quality, draw new businesses to the Pacific Northwest (Whitelaw and Niemi 1989, Yang 1992). Perceptions of environmental quality have been conducive to 

economic development in future-oriented, high-tech industries.

If the condition of ecological and economic sustainability is reached (fig. 3), management will still incur 

costs of monitoring as part of an ongoing system that alerts managers and policymakers to any potential 

malfunction in ecosystem sustainability. Without maintenance expenditures for ecosystem monitoring, 

positive effects of previous capital investment and the ability to make corrective adjustments to current 

investment or management might be undone. Bureaucratic unfamiliarity with the need to monitor outcomes 

together with ineptness in monitoring represent an uneconomical loss of information on appropriateness and 

effectiveness in mitigation efforts upon which to base future endeavors (Holland and Kentula 1992). A better understanding of costeffectiveness in monitoring is needed, particularly on the part of policymakers and 

regulatory agencies, whether for efforts in mitigation, rehabilitation, or restortion.
10

Institutional Responses for Ecosystem Restoration

Magnitude of restoration efforts creates technical concerns as well. Large-scale restoration efforts, such 

as those proposed in eastside Oregon and Washington, entail cooperative and coordinated participation of 

diverse communities as well as regulatory and administrative bureaucracies at multiple geographic scales 

(local, regional, and national) to achieve success. Administrative and regulatory conflict will only add to 

costs of restoration projects and reduce future net benefits to society. Technical failure may also result from 

inadequately coordinated science and technology and from inadequate policies to support restoration targets.

Funding allocated in small amounts over many years may be less effective than a single large pulse of 

funding over a shorter period. If society and government decide that restoration is an effective use of public 

resources, policy instruments—in particular, budgets and legislation—must act in concert with singleness of 

purpose to achieve stated goals for ecosystem restoration. High goals combined with inadequate funding in 

(both in amount and timing) frustrate ecosystem managers and the general public.

Restoration projects alone may not achieve societal objectives for ecosystem management. Other options, 

including ecosystem rehabilitation and mitigation, may prove useful tools for ecosystem management in 

addition to strategies for restoration. Likewise, policymakers must rely on advice from scientists and public 

opinion to determine how to connect regional restoration projects effectively with other regional programs 

for rural economic development and with national policies for protecting ecosystems and ecosystem productivity.
11

Conclusion

Restoration provides a sense of satisfaction to people that their society is thinking about and providing for 

the future. Ecologically based, rather than politically motivated, ecosystem restoration projects require not 

only a sense of altruism but also coordination and common purpose. Restoration, like other infrastructure 

improvements, is distinct from “production” investments. This distinction obligates policymakers to plan 

for restoration using economic analyses that are not biased against the societal time preferences and future 

concerns. Political will and commitment are indispensable to realistic formulation and implementation of 

restoration efforts. Restoration costs money but its return on investment may be considerable.

Acknowledgments

David Brooks and Richard Haynes read the manuscript and provided thoughtful suggestions for elaboration.
12

Section References

Bradshaw, A.D.; Chadwick, M.J. 1980. The restoration of land: the ecology and reclamation of derelict and 

degraded land. Studies in ecology, volume 6. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 317 p.

Cowell, M. 1993. Ecological restoration and environment and environmental ethics. Environmental Ethics. 

15(1): 19-32.

Deming, W.E. 1982. Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for 

Advanced Engineering Study. 507 p.

Holland, C.C.; Kentula, M.R. 1992. Impacts of section 404 permits requiring compensatory mitigation on 

wetlands in California (USA). Wetlands Ecology and Management. 2(3): 157-169.

Jacobs, M. 1991. The green economy. Concord, MA: Pluto Press. 312 p.

King, D.M. 1991. Costing out restoration. Restoration and Management Notes. 9(1): 15-21.

Schmidt, T.; Boche, M.; Blackwood, J.; Richmond, B. 1993. Blue Mountains ecosystem restoration strategy: 

a report to the Regional Forester. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region. 12 p.

Westman, W.E. 1991. Ecological restoration projects: measuring their performance. The Environmental 

Professional. 13(3): 207-215.

Whitelaw, W.E.; Niemi, E.G. 1989. The greening of the economy. Old Oregon. 69(3): 26-27.

Wolff, W.J. 1992. The end of a tradition: 1000 years of embankment and reclamation of wetlands in the 

Netherlands. Ambio. 21(4): 287-291.

Yang, D.J. 1992. High-tech heaven; why the Pacific Northwest is surging with technology start-ups. Business 

Week. May 25: 50.
13

REDUCING HAZARD OF CATASTROPHIC LOSS
14
15

REDUCING HAZARD OF CATASTROPHIC LOSS

Catastrophic loss of forest habitats and associated species were primary forest health concerns cited in public 

forums held in eastern Oregon and Washington (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1991). Fire and insect 

epidemics were identifed as the most threatening (Caraher and others 1992). Forest health has declined to 

the crisis stage on some forested landscapes of eastern Oregon and Washington. Over 50 percent of the forest acres in the Blue Mountains had visible insect-caused defoliation and mortality in 1990 (Gast and others 

1991). Lehmkuhl and others (1993) report similar insect problems in some watersheds in Oregon and Washington.

The public is concerned about the implications of declining forest health and lost forest resources on employment and sustainability of commodity outputs, the quality of their air and water, and forest aesthetics (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture 1993). Rural communities are concerned about the increasingly frayed link between availability of renewable resources and the resource-dependent work force (McKetta 1994). The loss 

of resource-dependent jobs can certainly be catastrophic to the impacted families, and effects on resources 

may be long lasting and catastrophic if skilled workers are permanently lost and the future ability to conduct 

ecosystem management reduced.

Catastrophic loss is difficult to define but is characterized by significant adverse impacts on forest function, 

species viability, or commodity production. Recovery can require a single rotation age for timber, several 

hundred years for old-growth, several centuries for soil genesis, or may be impossible in species extinction. 

Current elevated hazard of fire and insect epidemics could have catastrophic effects on sustainable timber 

supplies. Increased intensity of fires and subsequent removal of protective litter layers across larger burn 

areas increases the potential for soil erosion and long-term loss of site potential (Grier 1975). Significant 

reductions in old-growth representation in eastern Oregon and Washington (Lehmkuhl and others 1993) may 

set the stage for catastrophic loss of terrestrial and aquatic species if additional oldgrowth forests are lost 

(Scientific Society Panel 1993, Thomas and Raphael 1993).

Listing of sensitive species is increasing at an exponential rate within the United States (U.S. Department 

of Agriculture 1990), indicating an urgency in restoration of species and required habitats. Numerous plant 

and animal species are listed or candidates for Federal listing as threatened, endangered, or sensitive in the 

Pacific Northwest (U.S. Government Printing Office 1991). Restoration strategies have been developed for 

the northern spotted owl in the ISC (Thomas and others 1990) and for associated oldgrowth species in the 

SAT (Thomas and others 1993). Strategies for the conservation of sensitive salmon stocks in western Washington and Oregon were addressed in part in FEMAT (Thomas and Raphael 1993), SAT, and in the yet-tobe-released PACFISH report. Salmon runs in streams in eastern Oregon and the Yakima Basin in eastern 

Washington are significantly reduced from historical levels (McIntosh and others 1993). The loss of salmon 

stocks would be catastrophic for the species and have significant socioeconomic and cultural consequences 

(Anderson 1992).

Time is critical; prevention of catastrophic threats to biodiversity, long-term site productivity, renewable 

resources, and public safety is the highest priority in restoration activities (Hessburg and others 1993). The 

following papers address the issues of preventing catastrophic loss of forest habitats from fire and insects 

and disease, and the loss of sensitive salmon stocks. The reader is referred to the ISC (1990), FEMAT (1993), 

and SAT (1993) reports for restoration activites directed at maintaining viable populations of sensitive terrestrial species.
16

References

Anderson, J.W. 1992. Upper Grande Ronde River—anadromous fish habitat protection, restoration and 

monitoring plan. [Location of publisher unknown]: [publisher unknown]. 22 p. In cooperation with: 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 

Reservation, Nez Perce Tribe, and Oregon State University.

Caraher, D.L.; Henshaw, J.; Hall, F. [and others]. 1992. Restoring ecosystems in the Blue Mountains: a 

report to the Regional Forester and the Forest Supervisors of the Blue Mountains Forests. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 15 p.

Gast, W.R., Jr.; Scott, D.W.; Schmitt, C. [and others]. 1991. Blue Mountains forest health report: new 

perspectives in forest health. Clapp, R.A., Jr., ed. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Region; Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests.

Grier, C.C. 1975. Wildfire effects on nutrient distribution and leaching in a coniferous ecosystem. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research. 5: 599-607.

Hessburg, P.F.; Haynes, R.W.; Everett, R.L. 1993. What are alternative ecosystem management scenarios? 

What process should be used to evaluate alternative rates of investment in ecosystem management; 

question 5. In: Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume I: Executive summary. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Hessburg, P.F.; Ottmar, R.D. [and others]. 1993. Historical and current vegetation pattern 

and associated changes in insect and disease hazard and fire and smoke conditions in eastern Oregon 

and Washington. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume III: 

Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station.

McIntosh, B.A.; Sedell, J.R.; Smith, J.E. [and others]. 1993. Management history of eastside ecosystems: 

changes in fish habitat over 50 years, 1935 to 1992. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem 

health assessment—Volume III: Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

McKetta, C.W. 1994. Socio-economic implications of a below cost timber program on the Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest. Moscow, ID: McKetta and Associates. 27 p.

Scientific Society Panel. 1993. Interim protection for late-successional forests, fisheries, and watersheds. 

Executive Summary. Washington, DC: [Publisher unknown]. 16 p.

Thomas, J.W.; Forsman, E.D.; Lint, J.B. [and others]. 1990. A conservation strategy for the northern spotted 

owl: a report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted 

owl. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service. 427 p.

Thomas, J.W.; Raphael, M.G. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and 

social assessment: a report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of Commerce; U.S. Department of Interior; and 

Environmental Protection Agency. [Irregular pagination].
17

Thomas, J.W.; Raphael, M.G.; Anthony, M.G. [and others]. 1993. Viability assessment and managment 

considerations for species associated with late-successional and old-growth forests of the Pacific 

Northwest. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 523 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1990. Threatened, endangered and sensitive recovery and conservation: 

action plan. Washington, DC: Forest Service. 14 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1991. Forest health workshop; 1991 November 20; Pendleton, OR. La 

Grande, OR: Forest Service, Blue Mountains Natural Resources Institute. 24 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1993. Forest plan implementation strategy: forest health. Colville, WA: 

Forest Service, Colville National Forest. 3 p.

U.S. Government Printing Office. 1991. Federal Register, Volume 56, No. 225, November 21, 1991, Proposed 

Rules—Part VIII, Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 50 CFR Part 17—Endangered 

and threatened wildlife and plants; animal candidate review for listing as endangered or threatened 

species, proposed rule. Washington, DC: 58804-58836
18

REDUCING HAZARD FOR CATASTROPHIC FIRE

by Stephen F. Arno and Roger D. Ottmar

For thousands of years, fire shaped the composition and structure of forests east of the Cascade crest. This 

region, with its abundant vegetation, frequent lightning storms, and long, dry summers, had the necessary 

components for fires to spread across vast areas of the landscape (Agee 1990, Pyne 1982). As a result of 

frequent fires, most eastside forests have been dominated by the more fire-resistant or fire-adapted seral species such as ponderosa pine,1

 lodgepole pine, western larch, and western white pine. Fire-sensitive, shadetolerant species, such as grand fir and western hemlock, were minor components of most eastside stands. 

Forests at lower elevations and on south- and west-facing slopes were generally open and parklike as a result 

of frequent underburns. Forests on moist sites and at higher elevations were often a patchwork of different 

structures, including many young communities, as a result of numerous stand replacement or mixed mortality fires.

By the early 1900s, a drastic change in the ecology of eastside forest ecosystems had begun with the attempt 

to exclude fire (Agee 1990, Kauffman 1990). The complex ecological role of fire was not recognized, and 

many educated people considered fire to be a scourge introduced by human negligence. At the same time, 

grazing was removing fine fuels that would have allowed surface fires to spread. By the mid-1900s all fires 

of low and moderate intensity could be extinguished (Agee 1990). By the late 1900s, in the absence of fire 

and often aided by the partial cutting of large overstory trees, succession had transformed these forests into 

dense thickets of shade-tolerant tree species. On moist and upper elevation sites, forests had become older 

across most of the landscape. Some of these conditions had existed in the past in some stands, but never 

before had most of the landscape been dominated by dense stands or understories of shade-tolerant species.

These dense stands of small trees are highly susceptible to drought stress, insect and disease epidemics, and 

severe wildfires. Without the intervention of active management, these ecologically unbalanced forests will 

continue to diverge from pre-1900 composition and structure. Fire exclusion in frequent-fire forest types 

such as ponderosa pine is an ecological anomaly, and no one knows what the long-term effects will be, but 

it appears that insect and disease epidemics and severe wildfires are increasing in importance. Since the late 

1970s, an abundance of large, severe wildfires in eastside forests suggests that attempts to eliminate fire have 

simply led to a different fire regime, disastrous fires burning in heavy fuels in ecosystems formerly supporting light to moderate fires at short intervals (Arno and Brown 1991).

Concomitant with this trend, there has been a great expansion of residential development in the eastside 

forests. The ability of fire suppression to control large fires is now severely restricted by the necessity of 

protecting large numbers of residences in forest areas. Fires in the Spokane area in October 1991 destroyed 

more than 100 homes during an off-season fire bust.

Ironically, protection of fire-dependent forests has made it almost certain that they will be severely disrupted 

as a scenic resource and as a habitat for some cover-dependent wildlife species. The extensive forest mortality sweeping through the Blue Mountains of eastern Oregon is symptomatic of the fragility of an unbalanced 

hredependent ecosystem (hutch and others 1993). Today’s changing susceptibility to wildfire damage is 

exemplified by the numerous wildfires in modern stands which have killed ancient ponderosa pine or larch 

trees, that had withstood many natural underburns during previous centuries. In contrast, there have been 

numerous documented incidents where stand-replacing wildfires burning through ponderosa pine forests encountered stands that had been managed with prescribed fire or other fuel reduction treatments. In all these 

cases, the wildfires became less intense underbums and were controllable by firefighters.

1

 Scientific names for all taxa mentioned are given in Appendix A.
19

Stand-replacement fires occur because of the simultaneous occurrence of ignition, high fuel continuity, 

excessive fuel loading, and hot, dry environmental conditions. Stand-replacement fires are the normal fire 

regime for some of the wetter, high-elevation conifer series (subalpine forests) that burn intensely but with 

low rates of fire return (Agee 1993). The public’s concern is with low-elevation ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir/

grand fir climax zone where the fire regime has changed from low-severity, high-frequency surface fires to 

low-frequency, high-severity crown fires. Now we have landscapes rather than stands with high-severity fire 

hazard.

The potential number of lightning strikes is expected to remain at historical levels, and weather conditions 

will probably allow large-scale fires to develop regularly each summer. Reducing fuel continuity and lowering fuel loads are our main approaches to reducing hazard of catastrophic fire. These intensive management 

activities are practiced at the stand level but are directed at protecting the associated landscape. Reducing 

fuel levels is an activity in prevention, reducing the rate of spread, and promoting surface rather than crown 

fires. Reducing fuel continuity is an activity of containment and control directed at the landscape level. The 

short-term solution to reducing hazard should be compatible with long-term goals of ecosystem sustainability, thus traditional straight-line fire breaks are not the solution. Rather, we need an interconnected network 

of natural fire barriers and treated stands as zones of opportunity for controlling wildfires. Once such a network is created, the potential for prescribed burn projects to restore natural fire regimes would be less risky. 

Such a network could limit fire extent, and provide landscape heterogeneity.

The major problem with this approach is the economic removal or prescribed burning of small-diameter 

trees that provide excessive fuel loading, increased continuity among stands, and fuel ladders to overstory. 

Lambert (1993) discusses the need for developing technology for this activity.

Within landscapes, we do not know which stands to select for treatment that will provide the greatest reduction in landscape hazard; however, the selection of those stands that add to natural firebreaks would be desirable. Fire behavior models are being developed that should assist in the selection of stands to reduce hazard 

of catastrophic fire, but those models are not available at this time. Procedures for reintroducing fire into 

landscapes once catastrophic fire hazard has been reduced are provided later in this report (see Arno and 

Ottmar).
20

PROCEDURES TO REDUCE LANDSCAPE HAZARD FROM INSECT OUTBREAKS

by Richard R. Mason and Boyd E. Wickman

Landscapes are defined as broad landforms with their included vegetation,and habitats. Because they can 

affect ecological processes over large areas, the patterns of vegetation within landscapes are believed to have 

an important influence on the dynamics of insect pests. Landscapes influence insect populations primarily 

by affecting both the distribution of the insect’s food and the habitat of their natural enemies (Perry 1988, 

Schowalter 1988).

In general, survival and spread of insect pests in landscapes are constrained more by heterogeneous than 

by homogeneous conditions. Defoliators and bark beetles, for example, are usually at more risk in locating 

and exploiting favored hosts in an environment with a mosaic of forest types than in a single contiguous 

type (Schowalter and others 1986). Such spatial patterns sometimes affect similar species in different ways, 

however (Turner 1989). Species capable of dispersing long distances before laying their eggs, such as moths 

of the western spruce budworm, may be more adversely affected by large, patchy landscapes than are insects 

whose females do not fly at all, such as the Douglas-fir tussock moth. Landscapes with a variety of tree 

species and habitats also tend to support a diverse fauna of natural predators and insect parasites, which are 

critical to limiting generation survival and stabilizing population numbers.

The above logic is the basis of a venerable, ecological axiom that “diversity promotes stability” (Elton 1958, 

Graham 1952). The principle today, however, is controversial and has been challenged by many population 

ecologists on both theoretical and empirical grounds (May 1973, Pimm 1984, Stark 1973). The conventional 

wisdom that a return to the more diverse landscape patterns of presettlement times will reduce the risk of 

insect outbreaks is, nonetheless, still a popular notion in many quarters (Gast and others 1991). Skepticism 

is not directed at the desirability of increasing the mosaic of forest patches to improve landscape and species 

diversity, which will certainly lower vulnerability to pest damage, but at the concept that these practices will 

necessarily reduce the frequency of insect outbreaks.

The patterns of forested landscapes that exist today are basically the product of long-term interactions of 

soil, climate, and biota, modified frequently by disturbances like wildfires and recent human activities. 

Defoliators and bark beetles, today’s major insect pests, played significant roles in shaping those landscapes, 

having coevolved over time with the forests and having served as important agents of change (Wickman 

1992; Wickman and others, in press). Outbreaks of these insects were commonly part of the natural process 

by which many of the existing mosaics of eastside stands were formed (Anderson and others 1987, Swetnam 

and Lynch 1989, Weaver 1961). In some ways, the diverse landscapes that are the vision of tomorrow might 

be better achieved by permitting frequent, short-term outbreaks of some of these “pests,” particularly in forests where natural processes like fire have been limited (see Daterman 1993). Also, the population fluctuations of defoliators, and to some degree bark beetles, often are driven by dynamic processes that are part of a 

large population system sometimes operating at a regional scale; such as does the Douglas-fir tussock moth 

(Berryman and others 1987, Mason 1978, Shepherd and others 1988). These processes are unlikely to be 

altered meaningfully by changing landscape patterns. The degree to which insect outbreaks can be reduced 

in the interior Pacific Northwest by modifying these patterns in landscapes is untested, for the most part, and 

therefore remains somewhat speculative.

Once an outbreak erupts, its severity and duration frequently are related to the abundance and susceptibility 

of host species types. These conditions can be controlled on stressed sites by selected management practices. 

The best opportunity for reducing unwanted outbreaks is to implement the procedures already recommended 

for the silvicultural control of insects at the stand scale and extend them to entire landscapes (Baumgartner 

and Mitchell 1984). The need for carrying out such practices will depend ultimately on management objectives for the sites in question and whether or not insect outbreaks actually are obstacles to these objectives. 
21

Silvicultural control refers to the manipulation of stands in ways that hold effects of insect pests to a minimum (Graham 1952). In modern pest management, intensive management practices control species composition and stand characteristics, such as tree density, age, growth, and structure, in a way that reduces both 

susceptibility and vulnerability to significant infestations (Baumgartner and Mitchell 1984, Heddon and 

others 1981). These manipulations can be accomplished by any number or combination of routine forestry 

practices like cutting, planting, prescribed burning, or mechanical and chemical treatments. Recommended 

prescriptions applied on a large landscape scale should be particularly effective in reducing hazard because 

the possible contagious effects of nearby untreated stands also are minimized. Such preventive management 

strategies used at the landscape scale will improve general forest health.

Specific recommendations for individual pest problems have been covered elsewhere in this assessment by 

Mitchell and others, but will be reviewed briefly here. A common theme running through all analyses is that 

two phenomena are overwhelmingly responsible for the increased stress conditions found on many eastside 

sites. These are the dramatic shift from forest types once dominated by seral stands of pine to climax stands 

of fir and the overstocking of millions of acres with more trees than the sites can support (Wickman 1992).

Sixty years ago, 74 percent of the commercial forest land east of the Cascade Range in Oregon and Washington was classified as ponderosa pine type, mostly old-growth (Cowlin and others 1942). Through natural 

succession aided by fire exclusion and the selective cutting of pine, a significant portion of this type has been 

replaced by mixed-conifer stands, frequently with an overabundance of fir. These stands today have become 

prime targets for catastrophic outbreaks of western spruce budworm and Douglas-fir tussock moth (Anderson and others 1987, Williams and others 1980). Other portions of the former oldgrowth pine type are now 

occupied by overstocked stands of second-growth pine that are periodically ravaged by the mountain pine 

beetle (Gast and others 1991).

Clearly, a partial solution to reducing the hazards to these insects is to reverse succession by reintroducing 

fire into the systems, especially on the warm, dry sites once dominated by ponderosa pine and known to be 

at high risk to infestation. Prescription burning will not only reduce the number of susceptible fir trees, but 

also will favor the re-establishment and maintenance of species like pine and larch that are resistant to periodic outbreaks of the main defoliators. Controlling the density of pine on stressed sites by precommercial 

thinning that decreases stocking to efficient basal areas will maintain tree vigor and reduce risk from bark 

beetle outbreaks (Barrett 1979, Mitchell and others 1983). Such preventive practices of conversion to nonhost 

species and general stand improvement will reduce vulnerability to a variety of insect outbreaks and restore 

forest health to the whole landscape.

As already emphasized, insect outbreaks are natural phenomena in eastside forests and will continue to be 

problems wherever favored tree hosts are growing in abundance, especially in those environments conducive 

to rapid population buildup (Mason and Wickman 1988). The degree of concern with which outbreaks are 

viewed will depend ultimately on the principal uses designated for the forest. Where timber production is 

a primary objective, damaging outbreaks may be unacceptable and integrated pest management strategies, 

sometimes requiring direct control, will need to be implemented. The tracking of populations of the major 

pests is a necessary first line of defense in any integrated pest management program (Ruesink and Kogan 

1982). Mixed-conifer types, which have always comprised a significant portion of the natural landscape at 

mid-elevations, will continue to be at risk to tussock moth and budworm outbreaks. These types should be 

monitored annually to evaluate the status of populations and predict trends. This monitoring will not only 

give an early alert of impending outbreaks, but also will help gauge the effectiveness of silvicultural and 

restoration projects in stabilizing populations of the major pests (Spellerberg 1991). Efficient procedures are 

available for monitoring populations of the Douglas-fir tussock moth and western spruce budworm at the 

landscape scale (Mason and others 1989, Shepherd and Otvos 1986). Their use should be encouraged for 

building databases of insect abundance to document long-term behavior of populations over different landscape conditions.
22

REDUCING HAZARD FOR ENDANGERED SALMON STOCKS

by Gordon H. Reeves and Fred H. Everest

A suite of factors have contributed to the decline of anadromous salmonids in the upper Columbia River. 

These factors include over-exploitation in sport and commercial fisheries, upstream and downstream passage problems at hydroelectric dams, and habitat loss and degradation. For the anadromous salmonids that 

go to the rivers in the upper Columbia River basin, the greatest losses occur at the eight dams downstream. 

Because of the magnitude of these losses, spawning and rearing habitats acquire additional importance for 

the survival of these fish, especially in the near term (that is, next 20 to 30 years).

Fish habitat in the upper Columbia River basin has been degraded by recent and past land management 

activities. Habitat simplification has resulted in a decrease in the diversity of habitat types, reduced levels of 

large woody debris, and declining water quality (McIntosh and others 1993, Wissmar 1993). These changes 

have been most pronounced in the areas of low gradient and wide flood plains, which are the more productive parts of the watershed (McIntosh and others 1993).

The status of fish stocks seems to be related to the condition of freshwater habitat. McIntosh and others 

(1993) found habitat was in better condition (that is, closer to pristine conditions and Forest Service standards) in the Wenatchee and Methow River basins compared to other systems in eastern Oregon and Washington. The Wenatchee and Methow River basins contain large tracts of wilderness and roadless areas. Fish 

populations in these systems are also in better condition than are populations in systems that have more 

degraded habitats.

Conservation and restoration of aquatic resources should be focused at the watershed scale. McIntosh and 

others (1993) and Johnson and others (1991) suggest that “key watersheds” could provide the nuclei of a 

broad-scale restoration effort for sensitive fish species and salmon stocks. Key watersheds are described as 

those having at-risk fish species and stocks and high-quality water and fish habitat. Even if a habitat was 

in a degraded state in a key watershed, it had a good potential of being restored. Key watersheds in eastern 

Oregon and Washington were identified as a foundation for the protection and restoration effort of at-risk 

fish species and stocks (McIntosh 1993-see table 22, figs. 1 and 21). Another strategy for the protection and 

restoration of anadromous and resident fish populations and their habitat is being developed by the Forest 

Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1992). Their report includes key watersheds and other components 

similar to those proposed by Johnson (1991).

Recommendations have been made recently for maintaining and restoring habitat of potentially threatened 

and endangered fish species and stocks on Federal lands: Johnson (1991) provide a “watershed and fish 

habitat emphasis option” for the management of late successional forests. This option focuses on restoring 

ecological functions and processes in streams, protecting existing good habitat of sensitive fish species and 

salmon stocks, and restoring habitat in watersheds having the greatest probability of success. They recommend establishing wider riparian corridors, eliminating timber harvest in all riparian areas, reductions in 

road mileage, not building roads in roadless areas, improved road drainage, and extended rotations in key 

watersheds. Anderson and others (1992) developed a restoration program for the Grande Ronde River and 

recommend a horizontal no-cut buffer equal to 75 feet times the stream order plus the width of the flood 

plain. This width is recognized as conservative but was based on the current status of endangered fish species and their habitat. Recommendations are made to increase pool frequency and depth, and large, woody 

debris levels. The standard for substrate conditions in spawning habitat was an area-weighted average of 

fines (less than 1.00 mm) of less than 15 percent. Maximum water temperature of subwatersheds up to the 

sixth order should not exceed 61° F on any one day, the 7-day average maximum should not exceed 58° F, 

and the minimum of perennial streams should be above 32° F.

Programs designed to restore fish habitat should be coordinated with restoration of terrestrial systems. A 

major factor responsible for the degradation of fish habitat has been the loss of large wood in the channel. 
23

Removal of trees from riparian zones may delay the recovery of fish habitat. At a minimum, the largest trees 

(that is, those > 12 inches in diameter at breast height) should be left in riparian areas for future sources of 

in-stream wood. This would apply to all streams, as recommended by Anderson and others (1992). Smaller 

trees could be removed as part of a program for riparian vegetation restoration. Additionally, measures 

should be taken to reduce possible effects resulting from salvage activities in riparian as well as upslope 

areas on sediment loads and water temperature.

Anderson (1992) suggests other practices that are necessary for restoring fish habitat. These include improved livestock management in riparian zones, obliteration and upgrading of existing drawbottom roads, 

reduced road density, rehabilitation of water quality problem areas, and relocation of recreation sites that are 

in conflict with desired future conditions. Successful restoration of fish habitat in the upper Columbia River 

basin will require an integrative approach involving in-channel and riparian areas as well as terrestrial areas.
24

Section References

Agee, J.K. 1990. The historical role of fire in Pacific Northwest forests. In: Walstad, J.D.; Radosevich, S.R.; 

Sandberg, D.V., eds. Natural and prescribed fire in Pacific Northwest forests. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State 

University Press: 25-38.

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire and weather disturbances in terrestrial ecosystems of the eastern Cascades: In 

Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume III: Assessment. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Anderson, J.W. 1992. Upper Grande Ronde River—anadromous fish habitat protection, restoration and 

monitoring plan. [Location of publisher unknown]: [publisher unknown]. 22 p. In cooperation with: 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 

Reservation, Nez Perce Tribe, and Oregon State University.

Anderson, L.; Carlson, C.E.; Wakimota, R.H. 1987. Forest fire frequency and western spruce budworm 

outbreaks in western Montana. Forest Ecology and Management. 22: 252-260.

Arno, S.F.; Brown, J.K. 1991. Overcoming the paradox in managing wildland fire. Western Wildlands. 17(1): 

40-46.

Arno, S.; Ottmar, R.D. 1993. Reintroduction of fire into forests of eastern Oregon and Washington. In: 

Everett, R.L., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration of stressed 

sites and processes. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station.

Barrett, J.W. 1979. Silviculture of ponderosa pine in the Pacific Northwest: the state of our knowledge. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-97. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 106 p.

Baumgartner, D.M.; Mitchell, R., eds. 1984. Silvicultural management strategies for pests of the interior

Douglas-fir and grand fir forest types: Proceedings of a symposium; 1984 February 14-16; Spokane, WA. 

Pullman, WA: Washington State University. 199 p.

Berryman, A.A.; Stenseth, N.C.; Isaev, A.S. 1987. Natural regulation of herbivorous insect populations. 

Oecologia. 71: 174-184.

Cowlin, R.W.; Briegleb, P.A.; Moravets, F.L. 1942. Forest resources of the ponderosa pine region of 

Washington and Oregon. Misc. Publ. 490. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 99 p.

Daterman, G. 1993. Protection of unique habitats and riparian areas from insect attack. In: Everett, R.L., 

comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration of stressed sites and 

processes. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station.

Elton, C.S. 1958. The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. London: Chapman and Hall. 181 p.

Gast, W.R., Jr.; Scott, D.W.; Schmitt, C. [and others]. 1991. Blue Mountains forest health report - new 

perspectives in forest health. Clapp, R.A., Jr., ed. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; Forest 

Service; Pacific Northwest Region; Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests.

Graham, S.A. 1952. Forest entomology. New York: McGraw-Hill Co. 351 p.
25

Heddon R.L.; Barras, S.J.; Coster, J.E., eds. 1981. Hazard-rating systems in forest insect pest management. 

Proceedings of symposium, 1980 July 31-August 1; Athens, GA. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-27. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 169 p.

Johnson, N.K.; Franklin, J.F.; Thomas, J.W.; Gordon, J. 1991. Alternatives for management of latesuccessional forests of the Pacific Northwest. A report to the Agriculture Committee and the Merchant 

Marine and Fisheries Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. On file with U.S. Congress, 

Washington, DC. 59 p.

Kauffman, J.B. 1990. Ecological relationships of vegetation and fire in Pacific Northwest forests. In: 

Walstad, J.D.; Radosevich, S.R.; Sandberg, D.V., eds. Natural and prescribed fire in. Pacific Northwest 

forests. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 39-52.

Lambert, M.B. 1993. Establish stable stand structure and increase tree growth: new technologies in 

silviculture. In: Everett, R.L., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: 

Restoration of stressed sites and processes. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Hessburg, P.F.; Ottmar, R.D.; [and others]. 1993. Historical and current vegetation pattern 

and associated changes in insect and disease hazard and fire and smoke conditions in eastern Oregon 

and Washington. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume III: 

Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station.

Mason, R.R. 1978. Synchronous patterns in an outbreak or the Douglas-fir tussock moth. Environmental 

Entomology. 7: 672-675.

Mason, R.R.; Wickman, B.E. 1988. The Douglas-fir tussock moth in the interior Pacific Northwest. In: 

Berryman, A.A., ed. Dynamics of forest insect populations. New York: Plenum Press: 179-209.

Mason, R.R.; Wickman, B.E.; Paul, H.G. 1989. Sampling western spruce budworm by counting larvae on 

lower crown branches. Res. Note PNW-RN-486. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 8 p.

May, R.M. 1973. Stability and complexity in model ecosystems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 235 p.

McIntosh, B.A.; Sedell, J.R.; Smith, J.E.; [and others]. 1993. Management history of eastside ecosystems: 

Changes in fish habitat over 50 years, 1935 to 1992. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem 

health assessment—Volume III: Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Mitchell, R.G.; Waring, R.H.; Pitman, G.P. 1983. Thinning lodgepole pine in Oregon to increase tree vigor 

and reduce mountain pine beetle damage. Forest Science. 29: 204-211.

Mutch, R.W.; Arno, S.F.; Brown, J.K. [and others]. 1993. Forest health in the Blue Mountains: a management 

strategy for fire-adapted ecosystems. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-310. Portland, OR, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 14 p.

Perry, D.A. 1988. Landscape pattern and forest pests. Northwest Environmental journal. 4: 213-228.

Pimm, S.L. 1984. The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature. 307: 321-326.

Pyne, S.J. 1982. Fire in America: a cultural history of wildland and rural fire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton 

University Press. 654 p.
26

Ruesink, W.G.; Kogan, M. 1982. The quantitative basis of pest management: sampling and measuring. In: 

Metcalf, R.L.; Luckmann, W.H., eds. Introduction to insect pest management. New York: John Wiley and 

Sons: 315-352.

Schowalter, T.D. 1988. Pest response to simplification of forest landscapes. Northwest Environmental 

journal. 4: 342-343.

Schowalter, T.D.;-Hargrove, W.W.; Crossley, D.A. 1986. Herbivory in forested ecosystems. Annual Review 

of Entomology. 31: 177-196.

Shepherd, R.F.; Bennett, D~D.; Dale, J.W. [and others]. 1988. Evidence of synchronized cycles in outbreak 

patterns of Douglas-fir tussock moth, Orgyia pseudotsugata (McDunnough) (Lepidoptera:Lymantriidae). 

Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada. 146: 107-121.

Shepherd, R.F.; Otvos, I.S. 1986. Pest management of Douglas-fir tussock moth: procedures for insect 

monitoring, problem evaluation and control actions. Inform. Rep. BC-X-270. Victoria, BC: Canadian 

Forestry Service, Pacific Forestry Research Center. 14 p.

Spellerberg, I.F. 1991. Monitoring ecological change. New York: Cambridge University Press. 334 p.

Stark, R.W. 1973. The entomological consequences of even-aged management. In: Proceedings of evenaged 

management symposium; 1972 August 1; [location of meeting unknown]. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State 

University: 99-111.

Swetnam, T.W.; Lynch, A.M. 1989. A tree-ring reconstruction of western spruce budworm in the southern 

Rocky Mountains. Forest Science. 35(4): 962-986.

Turner, M.G. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecological 

Systems. 20: 171-197.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1992. Background report for development of Forest Service management 

strategy for Pacific salmon and steelhead habitat. Prepared by: Pacific Salmon Work Group and Field 

Team. On file with: Forest Service, Washington, DC. 41 p.

Weaver, H. 1961. Ecological changes in the ponderosa pine forest of Cedar Valley in southern Washington. 

Ecology. 42(2): 416-420.

Wickman, B.E. 1992. Forest health in the Blue Mountains: the influence of insects and disease. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-295. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 15 p.

Wickman, B.E.; Mason, R.R.; Swetnam, T.W. [In press]. Searching for long-term patterns of forest insect 

outbreaks. Proceedings of conference on individuals, popuiations, and patterns; 1992 September 710; 

Norwich, UK. [Location of publisher unknown]: [Publisher unknown].

Williams, J.T.; Martin, R.E.; Pickford, S.G. 1980. Silvicultural and fire management implications from a 

timber type evaluation of tussock moth outbreak areas. In: Martin, R.E.; Edmonds, R.L.; Faulkner, D.A. 

[and others], eds. Proceedings of 6th conference on fire and forest meteorology; 1980 April 22-24; Seattle, 

WA. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters: 191-196.

Wissmar, R.C.; Smith, J.E.; McIntosh, B.A. [and others]. 1993. Ecological health of river basins in forested 

regions of eastern Washington and Oregon. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health 

assessment—Volume III: Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station.
27

CONSERVING BIODIVERSITY AND 

LONG-TERM SITE PRODUCTIVITY
28
29

CONSERVING BIODIVERSITY AND LONG-TERM SITE PRODUCTIVITY

Once the hazard of catastrophic loss of biodiversity, site productivity, resource commodities, and human 

health have been reduced, restoration efforts can focus on practices that provide for their long-term conservation. Re-establishing ecological processes and disturbance effects that create and maintain desired 

sustainable ecosystems provides a coarse-scale, long-term approach to conserving biodiversity and site 

productivity. However, specific genetic, species, community, and landscape diversity elements may be lost if 

not addressed at the same time. As an example, sensitive old-forest species such as the northern spotted owl 

may currently depend upon anomalous forest conditions with higher insect and fire hazard than historical old 

forest stands (Thomas and others 1993). Attempts to reduce hazard levels should consider potential adverse 

impacts to the owl or other old forest-dependent species that currently have fewer traditional old-growth 

stands available to them. We need to make progress in improving forest health and ecosystem sustainability 

while we conserve ecosystem species, components, and processes.

Conservation is preferable to restoration as it is much easier to maintain than to restore species populations 

or terrestrial and aquatic structures and processes. Biological conservation should maintain genetic, species, 

community, and landscape diversity. In this section, we address conservation and restoration of the forest 

gene pool, wildlife species, unique habitats, indigenous plant species, and soil productivity.

Conservation of genetic biodiversity is a concern because repeated selective harvest treatments could remove 

the most robust genotypes (Daniels 1993). Under altered eastside ecosystems, the potential also exists to 

have genotype-environmental mismatching where current genotypes are ill-adapted to altered site conditions. Gene resource management, including restoration, depends on an understanding of genotypeenvironment mismatching and managing for desired phenotypic response of entire systems rather than individual 

species.

Conservation of wildlife depends on knowing which sensitive species are at risk and where the remnant populations occur. “Gap analysis” (Scott and others 1993) provides a way to identify areas of high biodiversity 

that remain unprotected by State or Federal jurisdiction or are currently at hazard from fire or insects. Gap 

analysis could prove a useful tool in identifying key restoration activities (Martin 1993). Wildlife habitat 

restoration should be a prime consideration in current salvage logging operations so that stand and landscape 

legacies are left for wildlife species (Bull 1993).

Unique habitats such as old-growth or riparian areas are susceptible to insect attack in eastside forests, and 

their rarity suggests that steps should be taken for their protection (Daterman 1993). New pheromone techniques are suggested to cause insects to avoid unique sites, and microbial insecticides are suggested when 

epidemic levels of defoliators occur.

Noxious weeds have increased substantially in density and extent in forested lands of eastern Oregon and 

Washington (Harrod 1993). The replacement of indigenous species by noxious weeds is a serious threat to 

biological diversity. Because of insect outbreaks and increased potential for fire, the spread of noxious weeds 

into new areas is likely in the future. Prevention of infestation is the first step, followed by control, and then 

replacement with desirable indigenous species (Harrod 1993).

Conservation of long-term site productivity is key to conserving future management and societal options. 

Alteration of soil properties by harvesting or grazing activities or by erosion after severe fire has adversely 

impacted soil productivity (Meurisse and Geist 1993). Standards have been established that limit soil disturbance to less than 80 percent of the activity area. Other techniques, such as helicopter logging or harvesting 

on frozen ground, can be used to conserve the soil resource.
30

REFERENCES

Bull, E.L. 1993. Conserving wildlife habitat. In: Everett, R.L., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health 

assessment—Volume IV: Restoration. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Daniels, J. 1993. Restoring ecosystem processes: forest genetics perspective. In: Everett, R.L., comp. 

Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Daterman, G. 1993. Protection of unique habitats and riparian areas from insect attack. In: Everett, R.L., 

comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Harrod, R.J. 1993. Practices to reduce and control noxious weed invasion and its control. In: Everett, 

R.L., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Martin, S. 1993. Priority wildlife habitats and restoration management. In: Everett, R.L.; comp. Eastside 

forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Meurisse, R.T.; Geist, J.M. 1993. Conserving soil resources. In: Everett, R.L., comp. Eastside forest 

ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Scott, J. M.; Davis, F.; Csuti, B. [and others]. 1993. Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of 

biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs. 123. 41 p.

Thomas, J.W.; Raphael, M.G.; Anthony, R.G. [and others]. 1993. Viability assessment and managment 

considerations for species associated with late-successional and old-growth forests of the Pacific 

Northwest. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 523 p.
31

CONSERVING BIODIVERSITY: FOREST GENETICS PERSPECTIVE

by Jess D. Daniels

The issue of forest ecosystem health is obviously complex. A host of underlying interactions—some quite 

evident, and others hardly discernible-must be understood if we hope to eventually restore and enhance the 

health of eastside forests. From a genetics perspective, forest health problems can be viewed simply as a consequences of the mismatching of genotypes (that is, individual organisms with specific genetic constitutions) 

and environments (the complex of biotic and abiotic factors influencing the expression of an individual’s 

genetic potential). Regardless of the causative factors involved, the phenotypic effect (observable result) of 

mismatching is that individuals and populations lack adequate adaptedness (genetic capability) to endure 

environmental stresses without suffering the irreversible strains associated with cell death (Rehfeldt 1991). 

Mismatching of genotypes and environments can occur as the result of natural processes and human activities that directly affect either the genetic or the environmental components of an ecosystem. From a theoretical ecosystem perspective, we expect that whatever affects one component will indirectly influence other 

components, because the ecosystem is conceived as an integrated, interactive complex.

To properly assess genotype-environment mismatching, we must try to view it from two different perspectives—the genetics of forest populations and the environments that they inhabit. This will lead to a better 

understanding of the resultant problems and the prospects for remediation. Such a two-pronged approach 

admits two distinct possibilities:

▪ Mismatching resulting from changes in the genetic constitution of a given population that negatively 

affects its adaptedness to the environmental conditions peculiar to its site. (For convenience, this can 

be called genetic maladaptation.)

▪ Mismatching resulting from changes in the environmental conditions of a given site that negatively 

affects the adaptedness of the resident population(s). (This can be called environmental maladaptation.)

The first possibility (so-called genetic maladaptation) results from what geneticists call the dysgenic effects 

of events adversely affecting the genetic constitution of populations (in contrast to eugenic effects that are 

deemed to be beneficial to the health and productivity of the population). Such adversely affected populations might be called genetically inferior, if they are the result of natural processes; if they result from 

human actions, they might better be called genetically degraded populations. Environmental maladaptation 

permits a similar distinction to be drawn among sites that are naturally adverse (harsh sites) and those that 

have been adversely modified by human activity (degraded sites). Of course, there is the possibility of site 

degradation resulting from presumably natural events (for example, wildfire followed by erosion of denuded 

land). In such cases, the agent of environmental change is not as important as the relative rapidity of that 

change. This is the essential distinction to be made relative to the effects of global climate change on forest 

populations and ecosystems. From the perspective of the populations involved, these postulated large-scale 

environmental changes constitute wholesale environmental maladaptation radically affecting long-term productivity of forest populations and entire ecosystems.

The purpose of this report is to clarify the genetic dimensions of eastside forest health problems relative 

to the various possibilities for genotype-environment mismatching described above, all of which can have 

adverse effects on ecosystem function, productivity, and sustainability. This “genetic perspective” on forest 

ecosystem health is not easily attained. Even though the basic genetic principles and concepts are generally 

well understood, the genetic phenomena and their specific effects are neither readily discerned in nature 

nor directly observed through experimentation. The difficulty is compounded by our essential ignorance of 

the genetics of ecosystem biota—the innumerable species and intraspecific populations that comprise the 
32

“gene pools” of eastern Oregon and Washington forests. “Genecology” is the study of the genetical basis of 

ecological differentiation within populations of species (Davis and Heywood 1963). Genecology affords an 

integrated view from both the genetic and environmental perspectives.

Characterization of Stress Sites and Processes

The problems associated with forest ecosystem health, productivity, and sustainability in eastern Oregon and 

Washington can be assessed in terms of the two types of maladaptedness (genetic maladaptation and environmental maladaptation) resulting from genotype-environment mismatching. Because scientific data are 

generally lacking, we must rely on an understanding of the genetic principles, forces, and phenomena that 

shape forest populations. Both natural forces and human influences are implicated, and we will attempt to 

clarify their respective genetic effects on eastside forests.

Natural Forces, Genetic Principles, and Phenomena

Powerful natural forces shape the genetic characteristics of forest populations that make them more or less fit 

to inhabit their respective environments. In a recent paper, Howe (1989) briefly reviews the four major evolutionary forces (mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection) and underlying genetic principles 

and phenomena (heritability, selection differential, genetic gain, asymmetrical response to selection). The 

operation of these principles over evolutionary time scales has produced a natural system of genetic variability that differs for every species. This system comprises the sum of the genetic variability existing among individuals within a population and among populations of a species. Populations of a species tend to be locally 

adapted (that is, physiologically attuned) to certain portions of the environmental gradient occupied by the 

species as a whole. Rehfeldt (in press) emphasizes the profound significance of all this when he says “The 

system of genetic variability controls the physiological ecology and phytosociology of species. Ecological 

distributions, responses to environmental stress, host-pest interactions and, therefore, silvical characteristics 

are all determined by the system of genetic variability.”

Rehfeldt (1991) has studied these genetic systems in various western conifer species and described a number of different evolutionary modes and adaptive strategies characteristic of certain of these species. He has 

found that some species (for example, interior Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine) are specialists; they are genetically differentiated across their respective ranges into identifiable populations that have adapted to different 

environmental niches or segments of clines. Other species (such as western white pine and western larch) are 

generalists that exhibit relatively little, if any, genetic differentiation throughout their respective ranges. Still 

other species (such as ponderosa pine) exhibit genetic variation patterns that are intermediate between those 

of specialists and generalists.

Extant populations are well adapted to their respective environments. As adaptedness of naturally occurring 

local populations approaches the optimum, then theoretically, the long-term productivity of these local populations will approach the optimum. Presently, however, this is unverifiable because current testing programs 

do not intensively sample the total range of environmental variation across a species range. Rehfeldt (1991) 

acknowledges a number of reasons to question this basic assumption, including contrary evidence (Raymond 

and Lindgren 1989, Roberds and Namkoong 1989), possible effects of changing climate (Stettler 1990), and 

the probability that adaptedness of all populations has not yet achieved the optimum.

Rehfeldt’s models describe genetic variation patterns resulting from natural selection, but other forces also 

have played a part in molding the genetic character of eastside forests. Unfortunately, scientific data required 

to identify and clarify the effects of such forces and phenomena are virtually nonexistent, leaving us to hypothesize about them on the basis of theoretical possibilities. Howe (1976) briefly discussed the evolutionary 

possibilities associated with wildfires as a natural part of northern Rocky Mountain terrestrial ecosystems. 

The possibilities for random genetic drift are most apparent, given that major wildfires can leave islands of 

live trees partially or wholly isolated from external pollen sources. In Howe’s opinion, “These may be ideal 
33

situations for major changes in gene frequencies by chance alone. If so we would expect to find many currently non-adaptive traits ...more and different genetic variation than would be created by the normal sexual 

process in large breeding populations.” Thus, it is possible that random genetic drift resulting from wildfire 

has produced local populations not particularly well adapted to their specific sites; genetic drift could have 

distinctly dysgenic effects on populations inhabiting naturally regenerated burned-over areas.

Howe (1976) mentions a second evolutionary possibility associated with wildfire that has even more direct 

forest health implications. Noting that fire may function as a selection agent, he postulates the “possible 

suppression of the development of genetic resistance in tree species to some indigenous pests.” The selection 

pressure of the pest is periodically relieved by recurrent wildfire with the result “...that insufficient generations of the host are exposed to build genetic resistance.” Roth (1953, 1966) suggests this possibility in the 

case of ponderosa pine and dwarf mistletoe. Presumably, fire suppression could have long-term beneficial 

effects by allowing natural selection for pest resistance to progress without interruption in local populations. This likely would entail greater losses in the short term due to increased depredations (of, for example, 

spruce budworm), as suggested by Heinselman (1971).

Human Influences and Management Practices

Certainly, human activity (planned and unplanned) has had some dysgenic effects on eastside forests, resulting in conditions characterized above as poor genotypes on poor sites and poor genotypes on good sites. 

These can be considered from two perspectives: activities affecting naturally regenerated forests and activities associated with artificially regenerated forests.

Influences on Natural Regeneration 

Howe (1989) succinctly summarizes the potential genetic effects of various forest management practices, 

with emphasis on the dysgenic consequences on naturally regenerated forests. In a very real sense, the silviculturist is a practicing geneticist; all silvicultural operations entailing phenotypic selection of some trees or 

stands for removal or retention potentially can affect the genetic characteristics of trees and stands produced 

by the residual trees. A serious concern is high-grading of stands associated with “diameter-limit cutting” for 

timber harvest. Removing only the best (most commercially valuable) phenotypes will result in serious degradation of the residual forest itself and even more serious genetic losses in subsequent generations produced 

by inferior genotypes left to naturally regenerate the site. Howe emphasizes the serious genetic risks associated with the use of diameter-limit cutting in uneven-aged silvicultural systems. This constitutes dysgenic 

selection, because younger, fast-growing trees are removed along with older trees of the same size class. 

Over time, the best growing genotypes are systematically removed from the population, thereby resulting in 

a steady decline in genetic growth potential and probably a concomitant increase in pest susceptibility. Summing up, Howe (1989) warns against “...all cutting practices which leave the site occupied predominantly by 

poor phenotypes which contribute substantially to the regeneration.” In his estimation, such practices are “...

genetically dangerous, almost always leading to dysgenic consequences either from asymmetry of response 

to selection or from the leaving of trees carrying genes for increased susceptibility to insects or disease.”

Bassman and Fins (1988) considered the genetic implications of cultural treatments in immature stands 

(thinning, timber stand improvement, fertilization). They pointed out the potential dysgenic effects of highgrading associated with crown thinning and selection thinning of young stands. Selection thinning and 

timber stand improvement may be expected to have positive effects on quality characteristics, but there is a 

real danger of genetic degradation due to negative selection with regard to size and vigor.

Influence of Artificial Regeneration

With artificial regeneration systems, the most serious risk is associated with the selection and use of seed 

sources not well adapted to the particular planting site environments—so called off-site plantations. For-
34

esters generally are well aware of this risk. Current reforestation programs operate acconjing to a regional 

system of localized seed zones and conservative seed transfer guidelines which were designed to reduce the 

likelihood of mismatching seed sources to planting sites. The main thrust of the aforementioned genecological research in the region has been directed toward scientific refinement and redefinition of seed zones and 

seed transfer guidelines for commercially valuable conifer species. These and other research results (such 

as electrophoretic analysis of isoenzyme variation patterns) also are used for refinement and redefinition of 

breeding zones for current tree improvement programs throughout the region. Breeding zones are analogous 

to seed zones; the former pertain to orchard (genetically improved) seedlots and the latter to woods-run (essentially wild) seed collections.

In general, current zone delineation has erred on the conservative side, with more than enough zones to 

prevent serious maladaptation problems. Where current seed collection and transfer guidelines have been 

carefully followed, there is no reason to expect that the adaptedness of forest plantations has been negatively 

affected. Given the operational difficulty of strictly adhering to conventional reforestation specifications, 

however, there are bound to be some plantations not conforming to set standards. Some could be so poorly 

mismatched that they should be considered at risk populations that may need remediation. These situations 

can be identified only by a careful audit of reforestation records at the local level. Knowledgeable experts can 

then assess the risks associated with specific off-site plantations and recommend appropriate action.

Genetic Improvement 

Applied genetics, (tree improvement) has had a limited effect on eastside forests. For the most part, tree improvement programs in eastern Oregon and Washington have not yet begun to produce operational quantities 

of seed for reforestation. Pacific Northwest Region (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service) seed orchards are in the establishment stage and still many years away from operational production status (Theisen 

1990; S. Martinson, telephone communication). Weyerhaeuser Company has older seed orchards now 

producing operational quantities of ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine seed for company lands in south-central Oregon. This seed is certified by the State seed-certifying agency in expectation of eventually marketing 

some of it for use by other landowners in appropriate seed zones (Cress and Daniels 1990).

Some disease-resistant seed currently is being used by the Forest Service. The Pacific Northwest Region is 

using western white pine seed collected from parent trees that have been screened for blister rust resistance. 

This is an interim seed source that eventually will be replaced with seed produced in seed orchards now in 

developmental stages. Western white pine is known to be an extreme generalist; there is no apparent need for 

localized zones throughout its range in Oregon and Washington. This opens the possibility of using rust-resistant seed from older orchards in other regions for reforestation programs in eastern Oregon and Washington. The most likely prospect for this would be to transfer seed from the program in the Northern Region to 

the Colville National Forest in Region 6 (S. Martinson, personal communication). Unfortunately, there is not 

yet a surplus of Northern Region seed for use by the Pacific Northwest Region. Nevertheless, applied genetics is now making a valuable contribution to the improved health and productivity of eastside stands and 

ecosystems ravaged by this introduced disease. The genetic impact will be much greater in the future when 

current orchard programs come to fruition.

Philosophy of Restoration Activity

Genecology is the touchstone for understanding the genetic dimensions of the forest ecosystem health issue. 

It is the philosophical and scientific underpinning for all gene resource management, including activities 

directed at restoring or improving the genetic components essential to forest health and productivity. Rehfeldt (1991) puts it in these words: “Gene resource management thus begins with an understanding of the 

system of genetic variability. The genetic resource cannot be preserved, conserved, controlled, manipulated, 

or reconstituted without an understanding of the manner by which species have achieved adaptedness to 

heterogeneous environments. This is particularly true when dealing with environmental change, regardless 
35

of whether the change is stimulated by management, mismanagement, or nature. Until the system of genetic 

variability is understood, comprehensive programs of gene resource management cannot be implemented.”

If the objective is to effectively manage entire ecosystems toward some desired future goal of optimal 

productivity and long-term sustainability, this gene resource management philosophy would dictate that we 

will never be able to do it properly without clearly understanding the genetic systems of the floral and faunal 

components of the ecosystems involved. As Rehfeldt (1991) puts it, “A plight sorely in need of alleviation is 

the lack of understanding of genetic variation for all but a few of the economically important species.” He 

is optimistic, however, in his appraisal of this situation and concludes that much of the needed information 

could be acquired via “...a five-year testing program that incorporates modern laboratory procedures with 

common garden studies.” To this writer, the challenge seems much more formidable than that, given that 

these investigations should encompass a host of organisms (plants, animals, microorganisms) about which 

we know virtually nothing of their genetic systems. This is not to deny that a more comprehensive genecological research program could produce very significant and useful results in a relatively short timeframe. 

But ultimately the scope must be broadened to include many more organisms perceived to be an integral part 

of the interactive complex constituting an ecosystem.

It is the complexity of interactive relations among all these biological components that poses the biggest 

challenge for effective ecosystem management and the scientific research that must support it. For any one 

species (one managed for commodity production), all other associated species (and populations) constitute 

the biotic elements of a complex, heterogeneous, dynamic environment to which that particular “target” 

species must be adequately adapted if it is to remain a viable and productive part of the functioning ecosystem. If the goal of management is optimal ecosystem functioning that presumably ensures sustainable 

ecosystem productivity, then we must learn much more about these very complex genotype-environment 

interactions than we presently understand. This will require more complicated experimentation than we have 

been accustomed to in conventional silvicultural and forest genetics research. The focus must shift from the 

phenotypic response or status of a single species to the phenotypic response or status of the entire system. 

This means that we must be able to measure and model the interactive responses of all the ecosystem biota. 

It becomes incredibly more difficult, if we must be able to characterize and quantify the response of all the 

various individual biotic components (for example, species or populations), rather than simply treating them 

as intercorrelated environmental variables collectively influencing a particular target species or population. 

It is imperative that managers and researchers have a clear and common understanding of the objectives of 

ecosystem management as they pertain to remediation of current problems and to avoidance of future problems associated with both types of genotype-environment mismatching (genetic maladaptation and environmental maladaptation).

Genecological research must be directed toward clarifying these complex relations within existing ecosystems to provide a sound basis for modeling effects of actual and proposed changes in both biotic and abiotic 

components of eastside ecosystems. This work must be augmented with research aimed at providing data on 

genetic effects of current silvicultural practices and alternative methods. A case in point is the current shift 

in forest management philosophy toward natural regeneration and uneven-age management. Genetic theory 

tells us that there are genetic risks associated with such methods (dysgenic selection and increased inbreeding) that should be carefully assessed before these practices are mandated on a regional scale. Unfortunately, 

very little scientific data are available for such assessments; this is but one example of the many management 

scenarios that should be critically evaluated from the genetics perspective. This is a high priority research 

area that must be included in a comprehensive research and development program for the east side.

Another area that must be included in a comprehensive eastside research and development program is environmental monitoring, characterization, and mapping (EMCAM). There is a woeful lack of quantitative 

data pertaining to the environmental conditions that actually prevail throughout the vast expanses of eastern 

Oregon and Washington. Only a limited few authors have used specific physical environmental variables 

(for example, edaphic characteristics; Monserud and Rehfeldt 1990) and more precise ecological classifica-
36

tion (for example, habitat types; Campbell and Franklin 1981) to improve genecological models. It is evident, 

however, that there is room for improvement of current genecological models, as they account for only a portion (and in some cases only a small fraction) of the phenotypic variation within the experimental datasets. 

More precise environmental characterization could be essential to future modeling efforts with organisms 

other than forest tree species. Regardless, precise environmental monitoring, characterization, and mapping 

would provide a common scientific basis for evaluating and comparing the efficacy of various other environmental classification and stratification systems in use or proposed for specific research and management applications (for example, habitat types, seed zones). This environmental data base would prove invaluable in 

the development and verification of many different kinds of models pertaining to eastside forest ecosystem 

function and productivity. Ultimately EMCAM would prove invaluable for monitoring and predicting local 

effects of global climate change. This level of precision would greatly improve the effectiveness of planning 

and implementing remediation programs throughout the region.

Recommendations

The following actions and considerations are recommended:

▪ Strengthen and expand genecological research to encompass a much broader array of eastside species. This should include testing the current methodology on species other than forest trees, evaluating efficacy of such methods, and clarifying methodological modifications that might be needed. 

Incorporate research results into operational guidelines and specifications for operational collection 

and use of woods-run seed and ensure operational compliance. Where necessary, modify breeding 

zones and tree improvement strategies in accordance with research findings for various species.

▪ Continue operation and development of tree improvement programs for commercially important forest tree species to assure successful regeneration of eastside forests with appropriate levels of adaptedness, genetic diversity, and productive potential. Initiate and develop similar programs for other 

plant species (for example, forbs, shrubs) that could be used to advantage in wildlife habitat management or remediation of harsh and degraded sites. Take full advantage of opportunities for cooperative 

programs to include government, industrial, and nonindustrial lands in the region.

▪ Initiate a multidisciplinary research project (silviculture, genetics and tree improvement, ecology, 

wildlife biology) aimed at early assessment and long-term verification of the genetic effects of various forest management practices on certain target species (for example, commercial tree species, 

wildlife species) and on ecosystem function, productivity, and sustainability.

▪ Assemble an interagency team (geneticists, silviculturists, ecologists, pathologists, entomologists) 

with responsibility for assessment of possibilities and strategies for avoidance or remediation of risks 

and problems associated with genotype-environment mismatching in eastern Oregon and Washington 

forests. The team should consider the relative, long-term genetic risks associated with conventional 

and alternative silvicultural approaches and forest management systems (for example, uneven-aged 

management) and develop strategies and operational guidelines for selecting appropriate methods 

and minimizing risks.

▪ Organize an interdisciplinary team of scientists (geneticists, ecologists, physiologists, meteorologists, 

climatologists, remote-sensing specialists, and so forth) to seriously consider the design and specifications for a region-wide environmental monitoring, characterization, and mapping (EMCAM) 

project to provide a database that could be integrated with other databases pertaining to various aspects of ecosystem function and productivity. This should specifically include integration with global 

climate change research.
37

CONSERVING WILDLIFE HABITAT

by Evelyn L. Bull

This paper presents options for forest management direction, with wildlife as the key emphasis, for northeastern Oregon forests affected by the western spruce budworm. Eastside, mixed coniferous stands are 

experiencing outbreaks of western spruce budworm, which have resulted in extensive defoliation and death 

in many stands. Insect pests are always present in forest ecosystems, and insect outbreaks, which have occurred at regular intervals, are a natural part of ecological processes.

The current insect outbreak is of greater intensity than any experienced in the past 50 years in northeastern Oregon. In the previous 40 years, northeastern Oregon forests have experienced three major insect 

outbreaks: western spruce budworm in the 1950s, Douglas-fir tussock moth in the early 1970s, and mountain pine beetle in the mid-1970s. Many theories have been proposed on the cause of the current budworm 

outbreak, but the outbreak was probably caused by a combination of factors including drought, preferential 

harvest of seral tree species (ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and larch), fire suppression, and succession to 

grand fir dominance.

Wildlife-related factors contributing to the budworm outbreak include removal of old-growth stands that 

support the highest densities of birds and arthropods that prey on insect pests, and reduction in densities of 

snags and logs that also support birds and ants that prey on insect pests. Little management attention has 

been given to the role played by natural predators (ants, predatory insects, birds) in maintaining sparse insect populations and reducing the frequency and severity of outbreaks.

The objective for ecosystem management should be a diversified ecosystem that maximizes natural insect 

predators so the system remains in dynamic equilibrium with less dramatic extremes to minimize tree loss. 

More specifically, desired conditions for wildlife enhancement of forest stands depend on the specific objective. Assume, for example, that the objective is to maintain maximum densities of cavity nesters in a stand. 

For white-headed woodpeckers, this objective would mean retaining old-growth ponderosa pine with a high 

density of snags and favoring regeneration of ponderosa pine. For pileated woodpeckers, the objective would 

include maintaining three to four snags and 40 logs per acre in forested stands, favoring regeneration of ponderosa pine and western larch for future nest trees, favoring regeneration of grand fir stands for roost trees 

and nesting and foraging sites, retaining snags greater than 20 inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h), 

and maintaining adequate cover (live trees if present and dead trees if live ones are not present) to prevent 

predation on the birds (Bull and Holthausen 1993). For three-toed woodpeckers, this objective would mean 

encouraging regeneration of spruce, lodgepole pine, and subalpine fir while maintaining a stand with a high 

enough density of snags for nesting and foraging and enough live trees for foraging and cover. If the objective were to provide nest habitat for long-eared owls, dense thickets of Douglas-fir should be retained and 

mistletoe brooms encouraged. The mistletoe brooms provide nest sites, and the thickets provide cover that 

protects the owl from avian predators (Bull and others 1989).

Because Forest Plans provide protection for only a limited amount of old-growth in discrete and isolated 

blocks, fewer options will be available to provide for wildlife species dependent on old-growth on a landscape scale. If other live, old-growth stands are not available to substitute for dying stands, little can be done 

to salvage of old-growth stands without violating Forest Plan requirements. Large-diameter, dead trees are 

far better for the birds than no big trees at all.

Experiments are underway to determine the effect of single-tree selection in old-growth to encourage regeneration, and, at the same time, retain the characteristics of old-growth so that those wildlife species associated primarily with it will continue to use the stand. In the long term, additional stands should be targeted 

to become old-growth, and a mix of tree species should be planted because some wildlife species depend on 

ponderosa pine for nesting or foraging, some depend on grand fir for roost sites, and some depend on mistletoe brooms in Douglas-fir for nest platforms.
38

Measures can be taken to promote the appropriate herbaceous forage species if the objective is to enhance 

elk foraging habitat. Prescribed burning has been used to improve winter range of elk in some areas; however, burning should be used only when the specific objective warrants it.

Prescribed burning is sometimes also recommended to reduce fuel-loading or eliminate encroachment of 

Douglas-fir and grand fir in a stand. Burning can reduce the amount of downed, woody material but also 

may eliminate foraging strata for pileated woodpeckers, cover for small mammals and herptiles, and substrate used by ant colonies for nesting. Elimination of these structures will, in turn, affect insect pest densities because pileated woodpeckers and ants prey on these pests. Broadcast prescribed burning can cause 

large losses of nutrients from the forest floor and surface soil. Many of the eastside forests are limited in key 

nutrients, such as nitrogen and sulfur, that are readily lost by burning (Tiedemann and Klemmedson 1992). 

In addition, broadcast burning may cause unacceptable smoke pollution. Alternatives to burning to reduce 

fuel-loading and encroachment of undesirable tree species should be examined.

The management direction would be different if the objective were to salvage stands, yet retain as much 

wildlife value as possible for each watershed. Given this objective in a salvage operation, leaving live trees 

that provide forage for many birds and mammals, nest sites for raptors, replacements for snags, and cover 

and shelter for most forest birds is critical. Large-diameter snags (> 20 inches d.b.h.) should be left because 

these trees are in short supply, are least likely to be replaced, and are preferred for woodpecker nest sites. 

At least 40 logs per acre should be left, preferably > 15 inches d.b.h. These logs provide foraging habitat for 

woodpeckers, cover for mammals, and nest sites for ants. Hollow, standing cull trees should be left because 

species like the Vaux’s swift, bats, woodpeckers, and mammals depend on them. Their value can be demonstrated by the fact that a pair of Vaux’s swifts every day feed their nestlings 4000 to 7000 insects, including 

western spruce budworm (Bull and Beckwith, in press). These recommendations suggest that salvage operations should concentrate on removing the smaller dead trees, smaller logs, and fine fuels other than those on 

the forest floor. The remaining live trees and large snags and logs will pose much less fire hazard than if the 

reverse is done.

For desired future conditions within a watershed, a diversity of seral stages and a diversity of tree species should be maintained. Planting must suit the site and include a variety of species because insect pests 

specialize on each tree species; diversity is the best defense. Old-growth, relict stands are perhaps the most 

important to retain because they are in the shortest supply, are keys to genetic sources, and contain the highest density of predators of insect pests. This recommended emphasis for diversity within watersheds will 

provide a more balanced ecosystem and habitat for a greater variety of wildlife species, but it has its costs. 

This management direction allows more biomass to be recycled on site and less to be removed for saw logs.
39

PRIORITY WILDLIFE HABITATS AND RESTORATION 

MANAGEMENT

by Sandra K. Martin

Wildlife deserves consideration in the implementation of restoration projects. Animal species contribute to 

biodiversity, and they are integral components and purveyors of processes within the ecological webs found 

in all forest systems. Many wildlife species also require special legal and administrative attention in management decisions made on Federal lands. Finally, wildlife and issues surrounding these species’ wellbeing are of tremendous import to many interest groups and the general public. Wildlife issues are often ,he 

primary, relevant, emotional conduit for many citizens, focusing any interest they may have in wildlands and 

natural resource management. For these ecological, legal, and sociological reasons, wildlife should be incorporated into the decision process for setting priorities for forest health restoration projects. A key element for 

wildlife interests is defining the geographic location of sensitive wildlife species and associated hazard from 

current declines in forest health and planned restoration activities.

The desire to maximize beneficial effects of habitat management and the requirements of law have been 

influential in the development of data bases and geographical information systems (GIS) in recent years to 

assist managers and biologists in decision processes. These tools will also be useful in providing information 

about wildlife when priorities are set for restoring sites where forest health is declining.

Information on the location of wildlife or important habitats on National Forest lands has primarily been 

collected by the USDA Forest Service Districts in response to specific project needs. Information exists in 

various formats with little current standardization among National Forests, except for some threatened and 

endangered species such as the northern spotted owl. In response to frequent requests for information on 

some of these species, data have not only been compiled for the entire National Forest but are available in 

computerized data bases and sometimes as GIS-based map layers. Some National Forests have compiled 

wildlife observations and information from surveys into data bases in the Supervisor’s Office, but much 

information remains scattered among files and reports in District offices throughout the region.

At present, corporate data bases of wildlife species and habitat occurrence information for National Forests 

are rudimentary for the Region as a whole. Information on the northern spotted owl represents the most 

detailed and complete regional data base in the Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6) of the Forest Service. 

This tabular data base includes specific occurrence information by year and by legal location with detail to 

the quarter-section.

Wildlife habitat relationship models were compiled and summarized for the Blue Mountains by Thomas 

and his colleagues (1979) and for western Oregon and Washington by Brown (1985). Extensive tabular data 

from these volumes are available in computerized form in several software formats. Wildlife habitat relation 

models will predict species presence or absence for an area, given that habitat information is available. These 

models, with varying degrees of reliability, are generated from the scientific literature, which differs markedly in depth from species to species.

Plans are underway to improve the accessibility of information on all wildlife species on National Forest 

lands in the Pacific Northwest Region with priority given to threatened, endangered, and sensitive wildlife. 

Regional staffs are exploring use of a tabular, computerized, wildlife occurrence data base and could shift to 

GIS data bases in the next several years.

The Washington Department of Wildlife has developed a computerized, point-occurrence data base, available in digital format, for 150 nongame species. The greatest detail and abundance of data are for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (for example, the northern spotted owl) that require administrative 

response by government agencies and private citizens engaged in natural resource management in the State. 

The most complete information in this data base is for State and private lands in Washington. The Depart-
40

ment has had intermittent time and resources available for interfacing with Forest Service units, with the 

result that wildlife occurrence on National Forest lands within the State is sporadically documented.

In the past 4 years, the Washington Department of Wildlife has been developing the Priority Habitats and 

Species Program. A GIS-based data base is being produced for this program, and includes game species and 

nongame wildlife. Priority species are defined as those of concern because of their population status, recreational importance, or sensitivity to habitat alterations (Washington Department of Wildlife 1992). Priority 

habitats are defined as having one or more of the following attributes: high species densities, high species 

richness, significant breeding habitat, significant seasonal range, significant movement corridors, limited 

availability, or high vulnerability. GIS-based maps are maintained in an ARC INFO system, with accompanying tabular data available in computerized data bases. Not all areas within the State have been incorporated into this project. Currently, State and private forested lands are included, as are urban growth areas and 

the shrub-steppe zone of eastern Washington. The inclusion of Federal lands is a goal, and development of 

a data base for the Wenatchee National Forest was the pilot for this aspect of the program. This information 

may be available by mid-1993, but few other National Forest data have yet been incorporated.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has developed a computerized data base titled the Oregon Species Information System with information on 670 fish and wildlife species. Data for each species include, at 

the least, distribution by ecoregion and by county within the State, with augmentation from a list of casual 

observations provided by State biologists.

Habitat associations in Oregon Species Information System are generated for each species from the scientific literature. This data base can be queried for species found in a specific county and a specific habitat 

type. The data base can be used as a data source for ARC INFO; so that map displays of data queries can be 

generated. The Nature Conservancy has been active in developing Natural Heritage data bases across the 

country for fish, wildlife, and plants. In Washington, The Nature Conservancy’s efforts provided the seed 

for the growth of the Nongame Data base Program in the Washington Department of Wildlife. In Oregon, 

The Nature Conservancy continues to maintain and update a Natural Heritage data base in a computerized 

format. This private group conducts data sharing with Forest Service units, though botanical data from National Forests are much more complete than are wildlife data.

In recent years, the concept of biodiversity has spawned an interest in mapping species richness and vegetation types as surrogates for diversity or unique assemblages of species. These GIS-based analyses, first generated in Idaho in the 1980s by the State Fish and Game Department, are currently underway in most States, 

including Oregon and Washington, under the auspices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The methodology and analyses are referred to as “gap analysis” because one initial goal of such projects was to identify 

gaps in networks of existing reserves where biodiversity could be preserved and protected (Groves 1992).

In gap analysis, several types of GIS data layers are generated for a given area, such as a State--vegetation, distributions of animal species, and locations of parks, reserves, or other management designations of 

interest (Scott and others 1993). The integration of data layers on animal distributions can disclose patterns 

of species richness, and correlation with vegetation information can provide wildlife habitat relationship 

models (or be used to test models already in existence). The resulting maps, reports, and data bases from gap 

analysis can provide powerful landscape- and regional-scale tools for tracking species’ occurrence, identifying gaps in preserve networks, and predicting effects of proposed habitat alteration.

Gap analysis for Oregon, initiated in 1989, will be completed in 1993. The digital vegetation map for Oregon’s gap analysis is in ARC INFO format and is housed at the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

in Portland. Potential ranges for wildlife species were generated by linking wildlife habitat relation models 

from Oregon Species Information System with the vegetation map. The resulting species distribution maps 

are under review by State wildlife experts.
41

In Washington, gap analysis is in similar stages of process, with completion anticipated by late 1994. The 

products from this analysis eventually will be housed at the Washington Department of Wildlife in Olympia, 

but work on the project is currently underway at various of sites across the State, including the University of 

Washington and Washington State University.

The Washington analysis group is using a national standard of 100 hectares as the minimum mapping unit 

for the vegetation layer. Animal occurrence information is being generated by searching for information 

in museums across the State. Tabular data bases, which document habitat requirements for all species, are 

also being generated for all species from various sources, including the scientific literature and the personal 

knowledge of experts. The resulting digital data bases will be in ARC INFO and ERDASS formats.

In a process of setting priorities for restoration management of National Forest lands, a valuable way to 

interface information on distributions of endangered, threatened, or rare wildlife or unique and important 

wildlife habitats would be to use map-based data as an overlay in a graphic display system. This type of data 

storage and analysis capability is a current goal for fish and wildlife staffs in several government agencies in 

the Pacific Northwest, but so far, little such information exists for Federal lands in the region.

In summary, the Washington Department of Wildlife soon will have a GIS-based map of priority habitats 

available for the Wenatchee National Forest and for some National Forest acreage found in areas of checkerboard ownership with State and private forested lands in the State. The Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife can feed information from a relational data base into a GIS and produce maps at a resolution of 

county units. This data base is for the entire State of Oregon, including National Forests. Additionally, each 

National Forest in Region 6 has varying amounts of wildlife data entered into local GIS systems, although 

much of this information is concerned with a few species, such as the northern spotted owl.

Changes in wildlife habitat occur over time in any ecosystem. But changes associated with declining forest health in western North America may be significantly more dramatic than gradual successional changes 

in both geographic scope and the suddenness of the habitat alteration. Many affected forests in the Pacific 

Northwest are mature or old-growth and provide dense, structurally complex habitat to wildlife species 

dependent on these habitat features. As forest health declines precipitously, vast acreages are undergoing 

extensive defoliation, which may be followed by massive tree mortality.

Extensive defoliation of the forest canopy has the potential to place habitat quality for forest interior wildlife species in steep decline in the short term. Recent work on many wildlife species in mature and old-growth forests has 

concluded repeatedly that high levels of canopy cover, or related parameters, contribute to habitat quality. If substantial tree mortality is a permanent effect of infestations by defoliators or other insects and diseases, the reduction in habitat quality for wildlife species associated with mature forests will be intense and long term. Scenarios 

involving catastrophic fire, salvage logging, or even unprecedented densities of dead, standing trees would all 

result in shifts in successional stage of forest wildlife habitat from late to early seral stages.

The integrated wildlife data base generated by gap analysis could be used to identify areas with maximum 

biodiversity or sites with selected wildlife, such as threatened, endangered or sensitive species. The definition of priority wildlife habitats in any restoration management plan will no doubt include an emphasis on 

biodiversity at several appropriate scales and the protection of critical habitat for key species. Gap analysis 

should be available for Oregon near the end of 1993 and for Washington in late 1994.

Every source of GIS-based information mentioned above has shortcomings related to the task of setting 

priorities for restoration of areas on National Forest lands. Some sources do not yet cover much National Forest acreage (Washington Department of Wildlife Priority Habitats Program). Those data sets that do include 

National Forests have low resolution in GIS format (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). Gap analysis 

conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State governments in Oregon and Washington are not 

yet complete, but when they are, resolution also may be too coarse for site-specific queries below the subdrainage scale.
42

Now, and for the next few years, sites proposed for restoration management must be reviewed for wildlife 

priorities by querying existing knowledge sources site by site for information on species presence. In general, the lowest resolution possible is township, range, and section; (640 acres). Several knowledge sources 

should be investigated for each site, including State data bases and sources available from the relevant 

National Forest. Data base format differs among National Forests, though for most endangered, threatened, 

or sensitive species information is available in hard copy report or tabular format in Supervisors’ offices. 

Summing and cross-checking information from these various sources will be a required step in generating a priority list of sites that is based on presence of rare and unique wildlife or critical habitats. This work 

will require the expertise of wildlife biologists with technical knowledge in a variety of subdisciplines that 

reflects the biodiversity of the National Forests.

The arduous labor of such a process will decrease as more and more data bases come on-line in GIS-based 

formats. Reliability of the analyses also will increase as on-going research, surveys, and monitoring update 

these corporate data bases.

The utility of regional wildlife information will become starkly apparent when restoration management gets 

underway. This program may provide a catalyst for intensified development of corporate regional wildlife 

data bases focused on National Forest lands. In Oregon and Washington, State governments and the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service will soon have several products that could serve as admirable beginning points 

for reliable, adequately detailed wildlife-distribution data bases. Such tools will be essential to successfully 

implement landscape-scale management with a variety of goals, including restoring forest health in the 

inland Pacific Northwest.

Acknowledgment

Those providing information for this report included Kelly Cassidy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Seattle; 

Lea Knudsen, Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia; Donovan Leckenby, Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, Portland; Patrick Murphy, USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee; Tom O’Neill, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis; Elaine Ryback, USDA Forest Service, Portland; and Karen Wilson, 

USDA Forest Service, Portland.
43

PROTECTING UNIQUE HABITATS AND RIPARIAN AREAS 

FROM INSECT ATTACK

by Gary E. Daterman

The unique habitats referred to here are mainly old-growth areas, many of which include riparian zones. 

Outbreak populations of western spruce budworm, a major defoliator, and the Douglas-fir beetle and other 

bark beetle species are currently running rampant in eastside forests of Oregon and Washington.

As a result of outbreaks of populations of bark beetles and other insects, old-growth areas, riparian zones, 

and other high-value timbered sites (such as campgrounds) are being severely affected. This condition is not 

surprising for old-growth sites where large, often overmature, trees are purposely retained for their contribution to the desired old-growth character of the site. Many of these overmature trees will be highly susceptible to attack by bark beetles. Thus, because of high beetle populations and large numbers of susceptible 

trees, heavy tree mortality can be expected to occur in such areas. Drought conditions coupled with defoliation by western spruce budworm further weaken tree resistance, thus making them even more susceptible to 

bark beetle attack and further accelerating the degradation of the habitat condition.

An added consideration here is that once outbreak populations of bark beetles are present in an area, the will 

have dramatic effects on the structure and composition of these unique stands, regardless of the health and 

resistance of their host trees. Such outbreak populations of a bark beetle species like spruce beetle or Douglas-fir beetle can successfully attack and kill even the more healthy and resistant trees.

To greater or lesser degree, old-growth and riparian areas contain trees highly susceptible to insect attack 

throughout the eastside forests of Oregon and Washington. If outbreak populations of insects exist near these 

unique habitats, the habitats are in jeopardy. Further, because the insects are mobile, all of these areas will 

eventually be pressured by insect attack. Because these unique habitat areas are already relatively scarce and 

in various states of degradation, steps must be taken for their protection. If not protected, they will be further 

reduced in quantity and quality. The consequences mean reduced ecosystem health in terms of reduced richness in biological diversity (both in abundance of species and their numbers), degraded water quality and 

fish habitat, and reduced social and economic values dependent upon the habitats (game and nongame fish 

and wildlife, mushrooms, recreational values, scenic beauty). Furthermore, due to the unprecedented high 

levels of tree mortality and related fuel loads occurring in many of these areas, there is a high probability of 

stand replacement fires affecting their integrity.

Philosophy for Protection and Restoration

The key to restoration of existing unique habitats, and improving them in abundance and quality for the 

future, calls for short-term protection measures and a long-term strategy to reduce the effect of disturbance 

agents on stand structure and composition to the extent possible through cultural and management practices. 

The long-term approaches are covered elsewhere in this document. This particular section addresses the 

need for protecting remaining old-growth and other unique habitats from insect attack in the short term to 

prevent further degradation and loss.

The unique habitats discussed here are integral components of eastside forest ecosystems. Forest ecosystem 

health depends on restoring and conserving old-growth and other unique habitats to maintain and enhance 

biological diversity. Several threatened, endangered, and sensitive species depend on these unique habitats, 

as do many other species that compose the biological richness of eastside forests. More specific information 

about the particular species that occupy these habitats and their requirements may be found in other sections 

of this document.

Urgently needed are measures to prevent further bark beetle-caused mortality of the larger trees in oldgrowth and riparian areas. True firs, Douglas-fir, Engelmann spruce, lodgepole pine, and ponderosa pine are 
44

at particularly high risk of being killed by bark beetles, and the true firs and Douglas-fir are also at risk of 

being weakened by western spruce budworm and Douglas-fir tussock moth. Past and most current efforts to 

reduce bark beetle mortality have been aimed mainly at removing infested trees and logs to reduce continued buildup of beetle populations. Recently, supplementary efforts have used pheromone lures to make this 

salvage process more effective, and additional new pheromone technology could soon become available, 

leading to more effective beetle management and habitat protection.

Alternative Actions for Protecting and Restoring Unique Habitats 

Bark beetles—The standard practice for managing bark beetle infestations is the timely removal of infested 

stems to prevent further buildup of beetle populations in the general area. Often, this tactic is only marginally successful because not all infested trees are found or because colonized stems are removed after the 

beetles have emerged in the spring and already attacked and colonized new hosts.

A recent improvement on the standard approach has been the intensive use of winter logging for more timely 

removal of the infested material. In addition, some land managers have placed synthetic aggregation pheromone dispensers in strategic locations to induce bark beetle attack in stands scheduled for harvest, or in 

stands of lesser value than the unique habitat areas or other highly valued locations. This action is then conscientiously followed up by timely removal of the infested trees, usually by winter harvest with helicopters.

Additional, very promising pheromone technologies are currently being field tested. When operational and 

registered for commercial sales, these new methods are expected to greatly enhance the capability for protecting high-value stands from bark beetle attack. The first of these methods uses a synthetic antiaggregation 

pheromone, which induces an aversion or repellent response in flying beetles, to cause host-seeking beetles 

to fly elsewhere for a potential host tree. These materials are chemically identified and available in synthetic 

form and in commercial dispensers for either ground or aerial application. Effective antiaggregation pheromone blends are known for Douglas-fir beetle, spruce beetle, and the mountain pine beetle (Amman and others 1989, 1991; Furniss and others 1976; McGregor and others 1984; Shea and others 1992. These repellent 

materials are scattered in a prescribed way on the site to be protected, thereby causing host-seeking beetles 

to fly elsewhere. This method is very near operational for Douglas-fir beetle, requiring only registration by 

the Environmental Protection Agency and some additional field testing. The method may be available for use 

by land managers by 1994. For spruce beetle, mountain pine beetle, and possibly other species, operational 

use is less imminent, but land managers may have it in hand by 1995 or 1996.

A second method is to employ high-strength aggregation pheromone lures in a trapping device to reduce 

populations of bark beetles. This approach is somewhat like the current method that depends on lures placed 

on trees in stands of lower value or those scheduled for harvest. An important difference is that the trap 

captures plus the “spillover” attacks in nearby trees absorb more beetles than will the “tree baits” alone. This 

effect occurs because the traps remove a large number of beetles from the population and remain attractive throughout the flight season, thereby causing repeated spillover attacks, that absorb more of the beetle 

population. In contrast, the baited trees lose their attractiveness once they are fully colonized by attacking 

beetles. Again, if the traps are placed where spillover will not create a higher risk to unique habitat areas 

or other high-value stands and trap placement can be accommodated and integrated into an annual harvest 

or salvage plan, the spillover aspect should not be a problem. Additional field research must be completed, 

however, before this particular approach can be recommended for operational use. The integrated application of antiaggregation and aggregation pheromone strategies across the landscape should result in the most 

effective approach for bark beetle management.

Defoliators—Defoliators, particularly the Douglas-fir tussock moth and the western spruce budworm, also 

can be hazardous to the continued health and existence of unique habitats. The tussock moth can severely 

defoliate trees in a relatively short time and even cause tree mortality. Budworm defoliation is usually less 

severe, extends over several seasons, and only rarely is the direct cause of tree mortality. In both cases, however, the defoliation can weaken trees and cause increased susceptibility to mortality caused by bark beetles.
45

Outbreaks of western forest defoliators are generally treated with the microbial insecticide B.t. (Bacillus 

thuringiensis) (Beckwith and Stelzer 1987; Beckwith and Daterman, in press). This biological insecticide 

is specific for lepidopteran insects and is efficacious for tussock moth and spruce budworm, but it also 

may cause mortality of other Lepidoptera if they happen to be present in a vulnerable life stage at the time 

of spray application. These nontarget Lepidoptera represent a significant concern because they may have 

important roles in ecosystem processes. As an example, bird and mammal species, possibly even threatened, endangered and sensitive species, may depend on these insects for food. This possibility is sometimes 

justification for opposition to the use of insecticide sprays, even microbial insecticides like B.t., in forest 

ecosystems. Usually, however, a more realistic concern is for the health and well-being of the habitat itself. 

Clearly, if lack of treatments for the defoliators would lead to greater tree mortality by bark beetles or by the 

defoliators themselves, habitat degradation could be expected. Such habitat degradation could prove much 

more devastating to the nontarget Lepidoptera and other species inhabiting the ecosystem than the potential 

side effects of the microbial insecticide sprays, particularly in the long term.

Recommendations for Protecting and Restoring Unique Habitats

Because of the abundance of trees susceptible to insect attack within unique habitats, and the high value 

of the habitats as integral and necessary components of eastside forest ecosystems, major efforts must be 

made to protect and maintain these areas. As practiced in the past, and to this day in many locations, salvage 

removal of infested stems has not been timely or adequate for managing tree-killing bark beetle species. Additionally, beetle management activities sometimes are restricted to the stand scale.

Where substantial tree killing by bark beetles is occurring near unique habitat sites (within several miles), 

a bark beetle management plan for the ecosystem should be implemented on a landscape scale. The philosophy of this approach will be to identify and remove all infested host material from the ecosystem before 

beetles can emerge and increase their populations by infesting additional trees. The management plan must 

be landscape in scale because of the strong flight capability of the beetles and related capacity to move long 

distances into new hosts. Managers should also use commercial tree baits to manipulate beetle populations 

into trees and stands targeted for removal, in contrast to high-value areas for retention, such as old-growth 

areas and other unique habitats.

As new pheromone-based methods are perfected, they should be used to supplement these management recommendations. Specifically, when repellent pheromone methods are available commercially, they should be used to 

prevent bark beetle attacks in unique habitats. This method should be available very soon for large-scale use to 

prevent Douglas-fir beetle attack and in the near future for spruce beetle and mountain pine beetle.

A further recommendation is to treat unique habitat areas with microbial insecticides when they are threatened by outbreak populations of defoliators such as western spruce budworm or Douglas-fir tussock moth. 

Although such sprays also could kill some nontarget species of Lepidoptera, the benefit of protecting the 

health of old-growth or riparian areas would be preferred for purposes of achieving the long-term desired 

condition for the forest ecosystem.

Other Considerations and Recommended References

The long-term objective for eastside forest ecosystems is to restore them to a condition that is resistant to 

undue harm from disturbances caused by pests and other natural agents. Increased resistance from insect 

attack and damage is certainly possible for individual trees, stands, and landscapes. That insects are impressively resourceful in locating suitable host material must also be considered. For bark beetles, such hosts can 

be windfalls, lightning-killed trees, disease-weakened trees, fire-damaged trees, and the like. If left to their 

natural tendencies, bark beetles can proliferate into outbreak populations by beginning their colonizations on 

such weakened or storm-killed hosts. Once their populations reach epidemic proportions, these beetles can 

once again become tree-killing threats to unique habitats and other high-value ecosystem resources.
46

Therefore, maintaining vigilance and an active pest management policy for protecting old-growth and other 

unique habitats from undue insect damage is essential. Such management policies should be developed on a 

landscape in scale for area-wide management of potential insect problem populations and, as outlined above, 

take full advantage of pheromone technologies and microbial insecticides to prevent or reduce insect-caused 

damage. For additional references on use of pheromones to manage forest insect pests, see Borden (1990) 

and Daterman (1990).
47

PRACTICES TO REDUCE AND CONTROL NOXIOUS WEED INVASION

by Richy J. Harrod

Ecologically, weeds are considered colonizers or pioneering species of open or disturbed habitats and largely 

result from human activity (Baker 1965, 1986; Taylor 1990). Socially, weeds may be considered those plants 

growing where they are not wanted (Ashton and Monaco 1991). Perhaps the most applicable definition of 

a weed is an “exotic” plant that colonizes disturbed habitats or invades undisturbed native plant communities and may have deleterious effects on native plants, wildlife, crops, or livestock (Harrod and others, in 

press). The term “noxious weed” is a legal designation and does not necessarily have biological meaning. For 

example, Washington State (RCW 17.10.010) uses the term noxious weed to mean “...any plant which when 

established is highly destructive, competitive, or difficult to control by cultural or chemical practices.”

Undisturbed native forest and range plant communities are fairly resistant to invasion by weeds. Many weeds 

introduced from foreign lands during the last century, however, can compete successfully with native plants. 

Overgrazed grasslands, waterways, roadsides, and other disturbed or open habitats are particularly susceptible. As a result, the “natural” successional character of eastside forest and range ecosystems has been 

altered.

Alien plants can alter ecosystems by negatively affecting native plants and animals and the communities 

they comprise (Hobbs and Huenneke 1992, Tyser and Worley 1992, Vitousek 1986). Purple loosestrife, a European weed, invades wetland ecosystems, displacing native plant species and forming monospecific stands 

(Thompson and others 1987). This change in plant species composition may have secondary effects on 

waterfowl, fish, and aquatic insects. Other changes are more subtle. Goodwin (1992) reports that nonmycorrhizal weeds cause fungal populations to decline in steppe communities that are dominated by mycorrhizal, 

native bunchgrasses. The actual extent of the potential threat weeds pose to native ecosystem composition, 

function, and process is yet to be determined.

From a social perspective, changes in native plant communities mean loss of recreational opportunities, loss 

of forage production for livestock, or both. Weeds account for a third of all crop losses in the world (Strobel 

1991). Knapweeds alone have been estimated to cost $900,000 annually in forage reduction in British Columbia (Strang and others 1979), and Bucher (1984) estimates annual forage loss in Montana to be $4.5 million. Agriculturists in eastern Oregon and Washington often are forced to abandon fields because of severely 

reduced yields and the high cost of control. The need for managing and controlling weeds that are apparently 

altering natural resources is obvious.

Philosophy of Restoration Activity

The desired future conditions of native forest and range ecosystems is to maintain compositional, structural 

and functional components, and successional processes that reflect the range of natural variability for a given 

ecosystem. Managing and controlling noxious weeds on forests and range lands are of paramount importance in preventing detrimental effects to native plant and animal communities.

A successful weed management program must integrate weed management tactics into long-term strategies for dealing with weeds (Ashton and Monaco 1991). Prevention should be an integral part of any weed 

management program, in both the short and long terms. Existing weed problems must first be identified 

and then a strategy developed that takes into account short- and long-term effects on the weed population. 

Noxious weeds and their distribution should be inventoried before control is implemented. A major goal of 

weed control is to restore or maintain ecosystem components and processes. Weed control methods should 

therefore be selected after careful consideration of environmental, cultural, economic, and management factors (Harrod and others, in press).
48

Restoration Actions

Six methods of weed of control—biological, prescribed burning, manual, mechanical, herbicidal, and cultural—are described below. The most effective results are achieved when they are used in combination.

Biological control—Noxious weeds were usually introduced without the natural predators and competitors 

that coevolved with them in their native lands. These plants, therefore, often have an inherent advantage over 

the native species they are competing with. The concept of biological control is to introduce one or more of 

the weeds’ natural enemies, including host-specific fungal pathogens, herbivores, or parasites. Biological 

controls also may include competitive plants, such as many grass species, which crowd out noxious weeds 

(Larson and McInnis 1989).

Biological controls are currently only a limited alternative to other types of control (Ashton and Monaco 

1991). Results often are slow to occur or are ineffective, and not every noxious weed has an effective biological control agent. Complete control of noxious weeds through the use of natural predators can never be 

achieved (Harrod and others, in press); however, biological controls are cost effective, and sometimes—such 

as control of tansy ragwort by the cinnabar moth—can significantly reduce the rate of spread (Dan Sharatt, 

personal communication).

Prescribed burning—Although not fully tested, prescribed fire may remove or at least inhibit competitive 

noxious weeds so that native species can reclaim sites. For example, preliminary results (Harrod and Everett, 

unpublished study) suggest that fire may reduce the ability of a population of diffuse knapweed to produce 

seed in the current year. Some bolting stems appear to be returned to rosette stage, which may allow grasses 

(that appear to be stimulated by fire) to gain a competitive advantage.

Manual control—Manual control methods include such procedures as handpulling or clipping. These 

methods are the most selective and specific means of removing noxious weeds. Newly established weed 

populations are most effectively controlled by handpulling, particularly if the use of chemicals or other 

methods cannot be used (along streams, for example). At the same time, manual methods are time consuming, expensive and impractical for large-scale weed control. Some weeds may not be controlled by manual 

methods because of their life histories or morphological characteristics. For example, dalmatian toadflax is a 

rhizomatous weed that has been shown to be enhanced by pulling (Harrod 1989). Repeated and regular pulling would be needed before root reserves could be depleted. Obviously, before manual methods are chosen 

and implemented, the biology of the target weed should be known.

Mechanical control—Machines can be used to remove or reduce cover of unwanted vegetation. Mechanical control saves time and money because large areas can be treated by one person in a short time. Mowing 

is the most common mechanical method used along roadsides, drainage ditches, or fields. Timing mechanical treatment is important as it is with other means of control. For example, diffuse knapweed is an obligate outcrosser (Harrod 1991), so mowing before flowering may greatly reduce seed production. Repeated 

mowing may be necessary to control some species, but other species may not be greatly affected at all. 

Yellow starthistle has been observed to bloom and set seed at mowing height (Dan Sharatt, personal communication). Again, knowing the biology of the target weed will greatly increase the likelihood of selecting an 

effective control method.

Herbicidal control—Chemicals can be used to control noxious weeds rapidly and efficiently. Herbicides 

may be applied in several ways including by aircraft, spraying implements, or backpack sprayers. Timing of 

application is very important and depends on the type of chemical used. Herbicides are grouped into categories based on chemical similarity, mode of action, movement within plants, selectivity, and application and 

use patterns (Ashton and Monaco 1991). It is important that applicators be properly trained before handling 

and using herbicides. Environmental consequences must be analyzed and considered before herbicides are 

applied.
49

Cultural control—Cultural practices are those human activities affecting weed management. Seeding with 

competitive grasses in newly disturbed areas such as roads is an example of a cultural practice. The emphasis is on prevention. Projects should be carried out with the idea that weed invasion or establishment will be 

minimized. Control of weeds is more likely if only small populations become established.

New methods for evaluation and testing—The chemical industry has responded to the need for weed 

control by producing herbicides, but herbicides can pose serious environmental and human health problems, 

particularly if misused (Strobel 1991). Biological controls have become popular alternatives to other means 

of control because of their specificity and neutral effects on the environment. Generally, organisms such 

as insects or fungal pathogens are released to attack and damage weed species. Concerns exist about the 

possibility that these biological agents may become problems themselves. Strobel (1991) has been studying 

a biological approach that bypasses the need to release whole organisms and the potential for native species 

to become pathogenic hosts. He and his colleagues have isolated a species-specific phytotoxin called maculosin, produced by a fungal pathogen, that causes necrosis and chlorosis when, applied to spotted knapweed 

leaves.

It is apparent that more research in biological control should be carried out. Naturally occurring phytotoxins 

could be produced and extracted naturally or even synthesized. The biologic, economic, and social benefits 

derived of such materials may extend far beyond our current situation.

Recommendations for Restoring Infested Areas

The most important aspect of noxious weed management is prevention. Human-caused disturbances of 

ground and plant communities should be carried out in ways that keep weeds from becoming established 

which requires a change in management emphasis and increased awareness. Prevention must occur simultaneously with restoration activities in areas already infested. Restoration activities include not only control of 

weeds, but also re-establishment of native plants and animals along with ecosystem structure and function.

Restoration actions recommended include:

• Ensure that noninfested disturbed and undisturbed areas are protected from invasion by weeds 

through revegetation or other preventive means.

• Identify management practices that cause or enhance the spread of weeds, and immediately modify 

those practices.

• Assess new restoration methods for reclaiming invaded sites with native species that are genetically 

adapted and local to the site.

• Determine which weeds are causing the most serious stresses outside the range of natural variability 

of ecosystem processes.
50

CONSERVING SOIL RESOURCES

by Robert T. Meurisse and J. Michael Geist

Soils are an integral part of terrestrial, aquatic, and riparian ecosystems. Therefore, understanding the role 

of soils is crucial to understanding stress processes within ecosystems. Due to their composition; soils have 

defined sets of inherent properties and potentials; however, activities imposed on them can alter, and indeed 

have altered, the soil system to varying degrees. Some alterations can be beneficial such as manipulating 

soil moisture and nutrients to improve the status of some chosen vegetation. But some manipulations of 

soils can be detrimental and increase stresses by reducing the soils’ ability to supply nutrients, water, and 

other soil properties and processes. A common example of such alteration of physical soil properties is the 

excessive use of heavy equipment for timber harvest. Historical excesses in animal use of riparian areas and 

road construction also have changed physical and chemical soil properties, and have also increased stressed 

conditions. Other ecosystem stresses have occurred from episodic wildfires of high intensity and duration 

that resulted in severe soil erosion. These stresses affected not only vegetation on site from loss of topsoil, 

but also off-site aquatic systems from excess sediment.

Soil is formed from the interaction of parent material, climate, biota, and topography acting through time. 

Each resultant soil has certain capabilities and limitations. Some of the limitations can be augmented by applying specific management practices; however, soil limitations can be exacerbated if practices are improperly applied. Thus, knowledge of the soil properties and processes, including their variability, is fundamental 

to restoring and sustaining healthy and diverse ecosystems.

Soils are critical ecosystem components, acting as both “factories” and “regulators” of system processes, 

as well as being ecosystems in themselves. As components, they make up the principal environment for the 

primary producers, the plants. Soils behave as “factories” because they manufacture new components from 

more elemental materials. For example, humus is produced from raw organic material. Soils modify precipitation and air temperature so that soil climate is different from the general climate. Thus the amount of moisture and status of heat in soils regulate basic ecosystem functions such as nutrient cycling, carbon cycling, 

energy flows (reception, storage, transformation, and transmission), and hydrologic function. As ecosystems, 

soils harbor millions of bacteria, fungi, insects, earthworms, and related organisms in very small volumes of 

material. Some of these organisms can be pathogens which negatively stress the environment, while others can be a positive influence. Additionally, numerous vertebrate fauna, such as gophers, inhabit the soil. 

Through burrowing processes, these inhabitants incorporate significant quantities of organic material and 

“till” the soil-thus altering soil structure and porosity. Soil organisms, both large and small, function in 

myriad ways to make nutrients and water available to higher plants.

The Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (1960) and the National Forest Management Act (1976) require that 

we manage “without impairment of the productivity of the land.” Productivity can be defined in a variety of 

ways. In general, it is the rate of dry matter production over a specified period A general functional model 

illustrates the role of soil properties and processes in regulating productivity. This model, in terms of “state” 

variables, is: P = f(SM, SN, SA, L, H, V) where productivity (P) is a function of available soil moisture (SW 

available nutrients (SN); aeration (SA); light (L) (quantity and quality); heat (H); and vegetation (genotype 

and phenotype) (Meurisse 1988). Of these variables, moisture, nutrients, aeration, and heat are a direct 

function of soil properties and conditions interacting with the vegetation. Whether inherent in the specific 

soil type or altered as a result of management practices, moisture, nutrients, and aeration relate directly to 

“stress” conditions. Heat fluxes can also be altered to either increase or decrease stress.

Management practices may increase or decrease stress. By having an understanding of specific soil properties and conditions, and applying that understanding through specific management decisions, stresses can be 

minimized. Soil degradation can be prevented and proper management can be prescribed to make optimal 

use of the soil resources, such as water and nutrient supplies. Stresses can also be alleviated by restoration of 

previously degraded soils. There are many examples of management successes.
51

A general overview of soils and associated vegetation in the interior northwest and western montane areas 

are described by Harvey and others (1989), Meurisse and others (1991), Geist and Cochran (1991) and Harvey and others (1993). These sources describe the great diversity and capabilities of soils in the region. They 

also emphasize the need for making decisions based on site-specific knowledge and knowledge of landscape 

heterogeneity and pattern of soil/vegetation conditions.

Philosophy of Restoration Activity

The goal of soil restoration is to manage complex soil resources in such a way as to optimize their basic capabilities and suitabilities, and to maintain or enhance their properties and qualities. Management practices 

should provide for adequate aeration of soils, moderate heat fluxes, and minimize stress conditions related to 

the supply of moisture and nutrients. Although desired future societal values are difficult to predict, appropriate management should maintain flexibility in providing for future options. First priority must be given to 

preventing influences on soil properties that impair soil capabilities or functional processes. Where damage 

has occurred from past practices or events, including catastrophic fires, restoration of soil conditions must 

proceed in concert with other ecosystem restoration practices for the reduction of stress.

One means of expressing desired soil conditions is to establish quality standards that can be measured and 

evaluated (Geist and others 1991). Regional soil quality standards have been in place in the Pacific Northwest Region since 1976 (Meurisse 1988). The standards are established for specific soil conditions and define 

detrimental conditions. Briefly, the standards state that a minimum of 80 percent of a management activity 

area, including permanent roads, will be left with an acceptable productivity potential for trees and other 

managed vegetation. About 5 percent is in permanent transportation system. So, 85 percent of the actual 

activity area must be in an acceptable condition to meet soil quality objectives for maintaining productivity 

and hydrologic function.

Specific detrimental conditions are as follows:

• Soil compaction—volcanic ash/pumice soils: an increase in soil bulk density of 20 percent or more 

over the undisturbed level;

• Other soils: an increase in soil bulk density of 15 percent or more over the undisturbed level or a 

macro pore space reduction of 50 percent or more;

• Puddling: depth of rutting of 6 inches or more;

• Soil displacement: removal of 50 percent or more of the topsoil or humus-enriched Al, AC horizon, 

or both from an area 100 square feet or more which is at least 5 feet in width;

• Severely burned: the top layer of mineral soil has been significantly changed in color, usually to red, 

and the next half-inch blackened from organic matter charring.

• Surface erosion: erosion standards are in terms of providing minimum effective ground cover for 

each of four erosion hazard classes. Standards are intended as “point-in-time”working guides that 

will be adjusted as new science dictates.

There are not specific Regional standards for amount of organic matter to leave on the surface. However, 

National Forest land management plans have included standards for amounts in various size classes for large 

woody materials. Refinements of these standards are in progress.

Another means of expressing desired condition is to have an adequate understanding of soil capabilities, and 

develop and apply management prescriptions compatible with those capabilities. For example, many forest 

stands have developed with stocking levels in excess of the ability of the soils to supply adequate moisture 

and nutrients to maintain vigor (Agee 1993, Harvey and others 1993). Stocking level control is critical for 

maintaining health and vigorous plant growth. This can be accomplished by either appropriate use of fire or 
52

by mechanical treatment. However, there is some evidence that growth reductions can occur under certain 

conditions with fire.

Alternative Restoration Actions

Prevention methods using logging and site preparation methods: Prevention of detrimental soil conditions 

can be achieved in a variety of ways. Some of the more common means are designated skid trails, specification of soil conditions when ground equipment is permitted based on such things as moisture content, frozen 

ground, or snow depth; and use of logging systems such as helicopter and cable yarding (Froehlich and 

others 1981). Treatment of residues by broadcast burns within prescription, or crushing, may be acceptable 

for specific soil/site conditions. Tractor piling of residues covers extensive areas and can cause excessive soil 

compaction and displacement. Also, harvest practices with equipment such as feller bunchers that go to each 

tree also can cause extensive soil compaction or puddling.

Harvest equipment technology is changing rapidly. New developments lead to new questions about effects 

on the soil resource. More effort is needed to understand the effects from various equipment and to seek 

ways to use it without causing excessive soil damage. Often, careful planning of the entire operation from 

harvest to reforestation can be accomplished without excessive damage if expertise is available to assist with 

the plans.

Silvicultural systems that minimize number of entries, such as even-aged management, offer advantages for 

preventing soil damage. Where uneven-aged silviculture is desired, methods that limit the amount of ground 

covered or that occur with prescribed cushions from residues, frozen ground, or adequate snow depths may 

meet the soil quality standards.

Implementing Practices To Restore Productivity

Restoration of soil physical properties can be accomplished with properly prescribed and implemented soil 

tillage techniques. There is extensive use of this practice, especially subsoiling. However, it has not always 

been applied with appropriate equipment or prescriptions; thus, the results have often fallen short of optimum. Questions remain about the degree of restoration by such methods. Also, questions remain about the 

effect subsoiling has on soil-borne root diseases such as Armillaria. New guidelines are being developed as 

new information is obtained.

An alternative approach for restoring physical properties is the use of specific vegetation adapted to sitespecific conditions (Everett and others 1991). Though this method is a much longer process, it has the advantage 

of a more aesthetically pleasing appearance. Use of species that can fix nitrogen has the potential to improve 

nitrogen availability over time.

Where nutrients are severely limiting, leading to stressed conditions, fertilizers can be a means of quickly 

reducing nutrient stress. Such practices are costly but can increase productivity and wood recovery value (by 

altering taper) and enhance nutrient cycling in some cases. There can also be some complicated and confounding interactions, such as with insects, that are not completely understood.

Where surface organic matter has been reduced by harvest removals or repeated fires, additions of organic 

matter may be enhanced by leaving appropriate amounts of logging residues and crushing it for greater soil 

contact. In some cases, nutrient cycles can be accelerated to release nutrients by use of prescribed fire. In 

some places, usually on the colder sites, with little or no management, surface organic layers have accumulated to considerable depths. In such cases nutrients may be tightly bound and only slowly available for tree 

growth. Prescribed fire may be an effective tool for short-term nutrient enhancement. 
53

Recommendations for Restoration

Restoration of soil-ecosystem processes must be multifaceted. First, it is critical to have an adequate understanding of the soil resources, their properties, variability, and their processes at multiple scales. These 

scales must be from site-specific to landscape or watershed levels. There also is a need to have a measurement of the extent of current soil conditions and damage from prior activities in order to determine specific 

soil treatment needs. Additionally, there is need for an integrated inventory, monitoring, analysis, and planning process that effectively assesses soil-ecosystem potentials and opportunities at multiple scales. Restoration should be a total effort so that whole watersheds are treated as a unit rather than treating a stand without 

considering the adjacent riparian areas. Thus, salvage and reforestation must include treatment of the basic 

ecosystem, including soils.

A broad spectrum of restoration needs must be addressed in choosing restoration treatments. Treatments 

must be integrated and include restoring and maintaining riparian conditions, reducing soil compaction in 

uplands, and minimizing any further degradation of soil conditions and processes.

There is need for an effective, integrated, ecosystem monitoring system to monitor ecosystem composition, 

structure and function. Field guides are needed for managers and practitioners to evaluate stress conditions 

and opportunities for treatment. Additional research is needed to evaluate effects of mechanized equipment 

on soil properties and to evaluate restoration methods. Pioneering efforts toward accomplishing these three 

objectives are being conducted by the “Stressed Sites RD&A Project” in La Grande, Oregon. Expansion of 

this project would help accomplish these much needed products in a shorter time period.
54

Section References

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire and weather disturbances in terrestrial ecosystems of the eastern Cascades: In 

Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume III: Assessment. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Amman, G.D.; Thier, R.W.; McGregor; M.D.; Schmitz, R.F. 1989. Efficacy of verbenone in reducing 

lodgepole pine infestation by mountain pine beetle in Idaho. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research. 19: 

60-64.

Amman, G.D.; Thier, R.W.; Weatherby, J.C. [and others]. 1991. Optimum dosage of verbenone to reduce 

infestation of mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine stands of central Idaho. Res. Pap. INT-446. Ogden, UT: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 5 p.

Ashton, F.M.; Monaco, T J. 1991. Weed science—principles and practices. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 

Inc.

Baker, H.G. 1965. Characteristics and modes of origin of weeds. In: Baker, H.G.; Stebbins, G.L., eds. The 

genetics of colonizing species. New York: Academic Press: 50-76.

Baker, H.G. 1986. Patterns of plant invasion in North America. In: Mooney, H.A.; Drake, J.A., eds. Ecology 

of biological invasions of North America and Hawaii. New York: Springer-Verlag: 44-57.

Bassman, J.H.; Fins, L. 1988. Genetic considerations for culture of immature stands. Sci. Pap. SP-7667. 

Pullman, WA: Washington State University Agricultural Research Center. 7 p.

Beckwith, R.C.; Daterman, G.E. [In press]. Current use and future potential of insect pathogens and 

pheromones in the management of forest insect pests in the United States. Canadian Entomologist.

Beckwith, R.C.; Stelzer, M.J. 1987. Persistence of Bacillus thuringiensis in two formulations applied by 

helicopter against the western spruce budworm (Lepidoptera:Tortricidae) in north central Oregon. Journal 

of Economic Entomology. 80: 204-207.

Borden, J.H. 1990. Use of semiochemicals to manage coniferous tree pests in western Canada. In: Ridgway, 

R.L.; Silverstein, R.M.; Inscoe, M.N., eds. Behavior-modifying chemicals for insect management. New 

York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.: 281-315.

Brown, E.R., tech. ed. 1985. Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forests of western Oregon and 

Washington. R6-F&WL-192. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Bucher, R.F. 1984. Potential spread and cost of spotted knapweed on range. Montguide MT 8423. [Location 

of publisher unknown]: Montana Cooperative Extension Service. [Abstracted from Bucher, R.E.,”The 

potential cost of spotted knapweed to mountain ranger users”. Bull. 1316. Montana Cooperative Extension 

Service].

Bull, E.L.; Beckwith, R.C. [In press]. Diet and habitat of Vaux’s swifts in northeastern Oregon.

Bull, E.L.; Holthausen, R.S. 1993. Habitat use and management of pileated woodpeckers in northeastern 

Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 57: 335-345.

Bull, E.L.; Wright, A.L.; Henjum, M.G. 1989. Diet and nesting of long-eared owls in northeastern Oregon. 

Condor. 91: 908-912.
55

Campbell, R.K.; Franklin, J.F. 1981. A comparison of habitat type and elevation for seed-zone classification 

of Douglas-fir in western Oregon. Forest Science. 27: 49-59.

Cress, D.W.; Daniels, J.D. 1990. Forest seed orchards of western Oregon, western Washington, and northern 

California. Centralia, WA: Daniels & Associates, Inc.; Northwest Seed Orchard Managers Association. 323 p.

Daterman, G.E. 1990. Pheromones for managing coniferous tree pests in the United States, with special 

reference to the western pine shoot borer. In: Ridgway, R.L.; Silverstein, R.M.; Inscoe, M.N., eds. 

Behavior-modifying chemicals for insect management. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.: 317-343.

Davis, P.H.; Heywood, V.H. 1963. Principles of angiosperm taxonomy. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand & Co. 

558 p.

Everett, R.; Zabowski, D.; McColley, P. 1991. Vegetative restoration of western-montane forest soils. In: 

Proceedings—management and productivity of western-montane forest soils; 1990 April 10-12; Boise, 

ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-280. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station: 161-165.

Froehlich, H.A.; Aulerich, D.E.; Curtis, R. 1981. Designing skid trail systems to reduce soil impacts 

from tractive logging machines. Res. Pap. 44. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Forest Research 

Laboratory, School of Forestry. 13 p.

Furniss, M.M.; Baker, B.H.; Hostetler, B.B. 1976. Aggregation of spruce beetles (Coleoptera) to seudenol 

and repression of attraction by methylcyclohexenone in Alaska. Canadian Entomology. 108: 1297-1302.

Geist, J.M.; Cochran, P.H. 1991. Influences of volcanic ash and pumice deposition on productivity of 

Western interior forest soils. In: Proceedings—management and productivity of western-montane forest 

soils; 1990 April 10-12; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-280. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 82-89.

Geist, J.M.; Meurisse, R.T.; Max, T.A. 1991. Monitoring soil properties to maintain productivity. In:

Proceedings—management and productivity of western-montane forest soils; 1990 April 10-12; Boise, 

ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-280. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station: 90-94.

Goodwin, J. 1992. The role of mycorrhizal fungi in competitive interactions among native bunchgrasses and 

alien weeds: a review and synthesis. Northwest Science. 66(4): 251-260.

Groves, C. 1992. Beyond endangered species: gap analysis. Idaho Wildlife. Winter: 26-27.

Harrod, M. 1989. The control of Linaria dalmatica through clipping and handpulling. Cheney, WA: Eastern 

Washington University. M.S. thesis.

Harrod, R.J. 1991. Pollination ecology of Centaurea diffusa (Compositae). Bellingham, WA: Western 

Washington University. M.S. thesis.

Harrod, Rj.; Taylor, R.J.; Gaines, W.L. [and others]. [In press]. Noxious weeds in the Blue Mountains. 

In: Jaindl, R.; Quigley, T., eds. Search for a solution—sustaining the land, people and economy of the 

Blue Mountains, a synthesis of our knowledge. La Grande; OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Blue Mountains Natural Resources Institute.
56

Harvey, A.E.; Geist, J.M.; McDonald, G.I. [and others]. 1993. Biotic and abiotic processes in eastside 

ecosystems: the effects of management on soil properties, processes, and productivity. In: Hessburg, 

P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume III: Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Harvey, A.E.; Meurisse, R.T.; Geist, J.M. [and others]. 1989. Managing productivity processes in the inland 

Northwest-mixed conifers and pines. In: Perry, D.A.; Meurisse, R.T.; Thomas, B. [and others], eds. 

Maintaining the long-term productivity of Pacific Northwest forest ecosystems. Portland, OR: Timber 

Press. 256 p.

Heinselman, M.L. 1971. The natural role of fire in northern conifer forests. In: Slaughter, C.W. [and others], 

eds. Proceedings of a symposium, fire in the Northern environment; [dates of meeting unknown]; 

[location of meeting unknown]. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 61-72.

Hobbs, R.J.; Huenneke, L.F. 1992. Disturbance, diversity and invasion: implications for conservation. 

Conservation Biology. 6(3): 324-337.

Howe, G.E. 1976. The evolutionary role of wildfire in the northern Rockies and implications for resource 

managers. In: Proceedings, 14th annual Tall Timbers fire ecology conference; and Intermountain Fire 

Research Council and land management symposium; [dates unknown]; [location of meeting unknown]. 

[Location of publisher unknown]: [publisher unknown]: 257-265.

Howe, G.E.;. 1989. Genetic effects of even-aged and uneven-aged silviculture. Unpublished paper presented 

at the national silviculture workshop; 1989 July; Petersburg, AK.

Larson, L.L.; McInnis, M.L. 1989. Impact of grass seedings on establishment and density of diffuse 

knapweed and yellow starthistle. Northwest Science. 63(4): 162-166.

Martin, S. 1993. Priority wildlife habitats and restoration management. In: Everett, R.L., comp. Eastside 

forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Martinson, S. Genetics and Seed Improvement, Timber Management, Pacific Northwest Region, P.O. Box 

3623, Portland, OR 97208. Personal communication.

McGregor, M.D.; Furniss, M.M.; Oaks, R.D. [and others]. 1984. MCH pheromone for preventing Douglas-fir 

beetle infestation in windthrown trees. Journal of Forestry. 82: 613-616.

Meurisse, R.T. 1988. Site productivity protection and improvement: objectives, policy, and standards in 

the Pacific Northwest Region of the Forest Service. In: Proceedings—Alaska forest soil productivity 

workshop; 1987 April 28-30; Anchorage, AK. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-219. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 63-68.

Meurisse, R.T.; Robbie, W.A.; Niehoff, J.; Ford, G. 1991. Dominant soil formation processes and properties 

in western-montane forest types and landscapes. In: Proceedings—management and productivity of 

western-montane forest soils; 1990 April 10-12; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-280. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 7-19.
57

Monserud, R.A.; Rehfeldt, G.E. 1990. Genetic and environmental components of variation in site index in 

inland Douglas-fir. Forest Science. 36: 1-9.

Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act. Act of 1960. (16 U.S.C. 528(note)).

National Forest Management Act. Act of 1976. (16 U.S.C. 1600(note)).

Raymond, C.A.; Lindgren, D. 1989. A model of genetic flexibility. In: Lindgren, D., ed. Provenances and. 

forest tree breeding for high latitudes. Report 6. Umea, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural 

Sciences: 159-177.

Rehfeldt, G.E. 1991. Gene resource management: using models of genetic variation in silviculture. In: 

Proceedings, Genetics/silviculture workshop; 1990 August 27-31; Wenatchee, WA: [Location of publisher 

unknown]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 31-44.

Rehfeldt, G.E. [In press]. Evolutionary genetics, the biological species, and the ecology of cedar-hemlock 

forests. In: Baumgartner, D.M. [and others], eds. Proceedings, Interior cedar-hemlock-white pine forests: 

ecology and management; 1993 March 2-4; Spokane, Washington. Pullman, WA: Washington State 

University.

Roberds, J.H.; Namkoong, G. 1989. Population selection to maximize value in an environmental gradient. 

Theoretical Applications in Genetics. 77: 128-134.

Roth, L.F. 1953. Pine dwarf mistletoe on the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest. Res. Note PNW-91. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment 

Station.

Roth, L.F. 1966. Foliar habit of ponderosa pine as a heritable basis for resistance to dwarf mistletoe. In: 

Gerhold, H.D. [and others], eds. Breeding pest-resistant trees. New York: Pergamon Press. 505 p.

Scott, J. M.; Davis, F.; Csuti, B. [and others]. 1993. Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of 

biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs. 123. 41 p.

Sharatt, D. Personal communication. On file with: R. Harrod, Leavenworth Ranger Station, 600 Sherbourne, 

Leavenworth, WA 98826.

Shea, P.J.; McGregor, M.D.; Daterman, G.E. 1992. Aerial application of verbenone beads reduces lodgepole 

pine mortality by mountain pine beetle. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 22: 436-441.

Stettler, R.F. 1990. The global forest experiment. Unpublished lecture presented at the workshop, “Ecology 

of forest landscapes of the northern Rocky Mountains,” 1990 April 8-13; Missoula, MT.

Strang, R.M.; Lindsay, K.M.; Price, R.S. 1979. Knapweeds: British Columbia’s undesirable aliens. 

Rangelands. 1(4): 141-143.

Strobel, G.A. 1991. Biological control of weeds. Scientific American. July: 72-78.

Taylor, R.J. 1990. Northwest weeds. Missoula, MT: Mountain Press Publishing Co.

Theisen, P.A. 1990. Overview of USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest tree improvement program. In: 

Genetics education for Northwest ecosystems shortcourse; 1990 March; Portland, OR. Pullman, WA: 

Washington State University. [Unpublished paper].
58

Thomas, J.W., tech. ed. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and 

Washington. Agric. Handb. 553. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Thompson, D.Q.; Stuckey, R.L.; Thompson, E.B. 1987. Spread, impact, and control of purple loosestrife 

(Lythrum salicaria) in North American wetlands. Fish Wildl. Res. 2. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

Tiedemann, A.R.; Klemmedson, J.O. 1992. Potential impacts of prescribed burning on sustainable forest 

productivity. Natural Resource News; La Grande, OR: Blue Mountains Natural Resources Institute. 2: 9.

Tyser, R.W.; Worley, C.A. 1992. Alien flora in grasslands adjacent to road and trail corridors in Glacier 

National Park, Montana (U.S.A.). Conservation Biology. 6(2): 53-262.

Vitousek, P. 1986. Biological invasions and ecosystem properties: can species make a difference? In: 

Mooney, H.A.; Drake, J.A., eds.. Ecology of biological invasions of North America and Hawaii. New 

York: Springer-Verlag.

Washington Department of Wildlife. 1992. Priority habitats and species. Unpublished draft report. Olympia, 

WA.
59

RESTORATION OF ECOSYSTEM PROCESSES 

AND DISTURBANCE EFFECTS
60
61

RESTORATION OF ECOSYSTEM PROCESSES AND DISTURBANCE 

EFFECTS

We must address restoration of ecosystem processes and disturbance effects that create sustainable forests 

before we can speak to the restoration of stressed sites; otherwise, we will forever treat the symptom and not 

the problem. Eastern Oregon and Washington forest ecosystems are dynamic and constantly shift in character and composition because of successional processes and disturbance events (Johnson and others 1993). 

One of the most significant management impacts on the sustainability of forest ecosystems has been the 

disruption of ecosystem processes through actions such as fire suppression (Mutch and others 1993), dewatering of streams for irrigation (Wissmar and others 1993), truncation of stand succession by timber harvest 

(Walstad 1988), and maintaining numbers of desired wildlife species such as elk in excess of historical levels 

(Irwin and others 1993). Several ecosystem processes are in an altered state because we have interrupted 

the cycling of biomass through fire suppression or have created different cycling processes through resource 

extraction (timber harvest, grazing, fish harvest).

Management actions such as flood control, fire prevention, and insect spray programs that reduce disturbance levels have many short-term benefits to society but may increase fire and insect hazard conditions in 

future forests and prevent long-term benefits of flooding to aquatic and riparian systems. Fire suppression 

has interrupted the rapid but moderate biomass cycling process in high-frequency, low-severity fire regime 

zones (Agee 1993). The longer this process is postponed, the more severe the adjustment (greater fire intensity and extent) and the longer the postfire recovery period. Severity and extent of wildfires have increased in 

recent years in eastside forests (Mutch and others 1993).

Fire suppression has accelerated tree biomass conversion by insects and disease through increased amounts 

and continuity of host plant species (Lehmkuhl and others 1993). Insect outbreaks are not occurring more 

often than in historical times, but they are of greater intensity and duration (Hessburg and others 1993). Insects and disease play a required role in the development of landscape heterogeneity and associated wildlife 

habitats; our goal is not to exclude these natural processes but to reduce their intensity and extent through 

landscape and stand manipulations (Hessburg and Everett, in press; Mason and Wickman 1993; Torgersen 

1993).

Hydrologic stability has been impacted by timber harvest, road building, and livestock grazing (Wissmar 

and others 1993). High streamflow events are more common and severe in intensively managed watersheds 

than those under custodial management (McIntosh and others 1993, Wissmar and others 1993). Loss of riparian vegetation, increased stream temperatures, and increased sedimentation are adversely impacting fisheries (Anderson 1992). Robison and Bennett (1993) suggest that restoration must consider hillslope, riparian, 

and stream channel processes to be effective.

Public forums on forest health have requested management practices that reintroduce fire into eastside 

ecosystems, reduce density and continuity of host species creating the current insect outbreaks, and restore 

hydrologic stability and fisheries to disturbed streams (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1991, 1993). These 

practices may be used to mimic ecosystem processes and disturbance effects that created historical habitat 

conditions for species, resources, and aesthetics, or society may prefer alternative sustainable systems and 

rates of change.
62

References

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire and weather disturbances in terrestrial ecosystems of the eastern Cascades. In: 

Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume III: Assessment. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Anderson, J.W. 1992. Upper Grande Ronde River—anadromous fish habitat protection, restoration and 

monitoring plan. [Publisher’s location unknown]: [publisher unknown]. 22 p. In cooperation with: 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 

Reservation, Nez Perce Tribe, and Oregon State University.

Hessburg, P.F.; Everett, R.L. [In press]. Managing landscape patterns and insect and disease disturbances on 

National Forests on the interior northwest. In: Proceedings, SAF National Convention, 1993 November 

7-10; Indianapolis, IN. Bethesda, MD: Society of American Foresters.

Hessburg, P.F.; Haynes, R.W.; Everett, R.L. 1993. What are alternative ecosystem management scenarios? 

What process should be used to evaluate alternative rates of investment in ecosystem management; 

question 5. In: Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment-Volume I: Executive summary. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Irwin, L.L.; Cook, J.C.; Riggs, R.A.; Skovlin, R. 1993. Effects of long-term grazing by big game and 

livestock in the Blue Mountains forest ecosystems. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem 

health assessment—Volume III: Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Johnson, C.G.; Clausnitzer, R.R.; Mehringer, P.J.; Oliver, C.D. 1993. Biotic and abiotic processes of eastside 

ecosystems: the effects of management on plant and community ecology, and on stand and landscape 

vegetation dynamics. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume III: 

Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station.

Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Hessburg, P.F.; Ottmar, R.D. [and others]. 1993. Historical and current vegetation pattern 

and associated changes in insect and disease hazard, and fire and smoke conditions in eastern Oregon 

and Washington. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume III: 

Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station.

Mason, R.R.; Wickman, B.E. 1993. Procedures to reduce landscape hazard from insect outbreaks. In: 

Everett, R.L., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

McIntosh, B.A.; Sedell, J.R.; Smith, J.E. [and others]. 1993. Management history of eastside ecosystems: 

changes in fish habitat over 50 years, 1935 to 1992. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem 

health assessment—Volume III: Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
63

Mutch, R.W.; Arno, S.F.; Brown, J.K. [and others]. 1993. Forest health in the Blue Mountains: a management 

strategy for fire-adapted ecosystems. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-310. Portland, OR, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 14 p.

Robison, T.; Bennett, M. 1993. Restoration of hydrologic processes. In: Everett, R.L.; comp. Eastside forest 

ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Torgerson, T.R. 1993. Maintenance and restoration of ecological processes regulating forest-defoliating 

insects. In: Everett, R.L., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1991. Forest health workshop; 1991 November 20; Pendleton, OR. La 

Grande, OR: Forest Service, Blue Mountains Natural Resources Institute. 24 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1993. Forest plan implementation strategy: forest health. Colville, WA: 

Forest Service, Colville National Forest. 3 p.

Walstad, J.D. 19$&. Forest vegetation management: moving toward ecologies of scale. Seattle, WA: The 

Northwest Environmental journal. 4: 199-212.

Wissmar, R.C.; Smith, J.E.; McIntosh, B.A. [and others]. 1993. Ecological health of river basins in forested 

regions of eastern Washington and Oregon. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health 

assessment—Volume III: Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station.
64
65

REINTRODUCTION OF FIRE INTO FORESTS OF EASTERN 

OREGON AND WASHINGTON

by Stephen F. Arno and Roger D. Ottmar

As long as eastside forests remain wildlands—are not converted to agricultural fields, industrial compounds, 

commercial or residential sites—they are subject to burning. Management or protection strategies can, 

however, greatly influence how they will burn. Allowing forest fuels to accumulate due to fire suppression 

will lead to severe, uncontrollable fires that threaten watershed, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources along 

with forest residential areas. These severe fires can also produce immense smoke episodes that may require 

evacuation of sizable areas, as was demonstrated during the 1987 fire season in northern California and 

southwestern Oregon.

Some people have suggested that natural fire should be reintroduced only by allowing lightning fires to burn 

or by using prescribed fires without cutting trees. This is possible in some forest types and large wilderness 

areas, such as the 1.3-million-acre Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. However, most of the drier, eastside forest 

types have undergone dramatic structural changes in the absence of fire during several natural fire cycles. 

Dense understones and thickets of drought-stressed trees now characterize many of these stands, making it 

virtually impossible to return them to their pre-1900 ecological conditions using fire alone.

In the dry eastside forests, open stands of ponderosa pine and other seral species characterized much of 

the pre-1900 landscape. These forest conditions would be more suitable to sustain wildlife habitat, scenery, 

and other resource values than are modern, dense stands, given the continual threat of wildfire. In some of 

the higher elevation types, notably lodgepole pine, pre-1900 conditions were characterized by a landscape 

mosaic containing many young stands, which are less combustible. Coincidentally, these open and young 

pine stands (and other stands dominated by seral tree species) are more resistant to large epidemics of forest 

insects and diseases. Maintaining a semblance of the pre-1900 forest structures shaped by fire also perpetuates important wildlife forage species such as willow, Rocky Mountain maple, bitterbrush, and serviceberry, 

as well as large snags of ponderosa pine and larch, which are important for cavity nesting birds and mammals. All the aforementioned species are fire dependent and decline with forest fire suppression.

It may be possible in some cases to design silvicultural treatments without fire that help maintain some longterm wildland forest resource values. These approaches, however, are fraught with difficulties. For instance, 

widespread applications of herbicides and scarification by bulldozer are the usual substitutes, and both of 

these are subject to numerous environmental problems such as pollution, soil compaction, erosion, and the 

invasion of introduced weeds. Moreover, the heat-killing and nutrient-converting attributes of fire are not 

duplicated by substitute treatments. An example of the unique attributes of an underburn is its ability to kill 

most of the small shade-tolerant trees, many of which survive all but the most severe dozer scarification.

In most cases in the dry, eastside forest types, a carefully selected combination of silvicultural improvement 

cutting coupled with prescribed fire treatments is effective for restoring and maintaining forest cover that 

is resistant to severe insect, disease, and wildfire damage. In higher elevation and moist forests, patch and 

irregularly shaped block cuttings combined with broadcast burning also may be quite appropriate, leaving 

some standing dead trees in the units.

Alternatives for reintroducing fire in eastside forests differ with the pre-1900 fire regime type (examples 

follow) and with the level of roading and development appropriate for the area. In low-severity, high-frequency fire regimes (for example, forests that once supported ponderosa pine), understory reduction cutting 

or improvement cutting is often necessary in conjunction with a sequence of two prescribed burns to reduce fuel loadings to within the normal range before 1900. Planting may be necessary to re-establish young 
66

ponderosa pine and larch. After this “restoration forestry” treatment, it may be possible to maintain pre-1900 

stand structures with periodic prescribed burning alone. The addition of silvicultural maintenance cuttings 

in combination with prescribed fire will aid long-term stand maintenance because favorable burning periods 

are limited by weather and availability of personnel and silvicultural cuttings can aid the use of fire.

Reintroducing natural fire in high-intensity, low-frequency fire regimes is possible in large natural areas 

such as the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. In smaller areas, manager-ignited prescribed fires can sometimes 

be used, as has been done in lodgepole pine stands in the Uncompahgre, Gunnison, and Grand Mesa National Forests of Colorado. Such applications in eastside Pacific Northwest forests are generally complicated 

by the interspersion of private lands, communities, resorts, and other developments across most of the forest 

landscape. One alternative for dealing with this situation is to develop large swaths of forested firebreaks 

between wildlands and private lands and developments (areas at risk from an escaped fire). This would have 

the additional advantage of providing protection from wildfire damage. Another alternative for restoring 

high-intensity fire regimes is to cut or harvest irregular blocks in the shape of desired units and then burn 

them by using slash as the fuel at a time when there is little danger of fire spreading into the adjacent green 

stands. It is often desirable to leave individuals or groups of trees in such units to provide seed sources, 

snags, shade shadows for regeneration, or other features similar to those of a natural burn.

Many people believe prescribed fire in combination with mechanical treatment or other management alternatives is necessary to restore fire-adapted ecosystems to a more healthy state. Although in many situations 

fire may produce positive effects that cannot be accomplished by mechanical or chemical means, it has 

the potential to degrade visibility, violate current air quality standards, and impact human health (Peterson, in press). If fire is to be reintroduced into the ecosystem, society has the right to know the tradeoffs of 

prescribed fire and the potential for wildfire and air quality effects so they can make creditable, informed 

decisions about the appropriate role of prescribed fire in restoring forest health. Managers must plan for and 

apply smoke mitigation techniques to reduce air quality effects.

Reintroduction of fire into the ecosystem will require a landscape-level effort. A new or adapted fire management strategy should be designed by a select team of prescribed fire and scientific experts. The team 

could assess the transitional problems, integrate fire effects and fire ecology research into proposed solutions, identify and demonstrate new and innovative prescribed fire techniques, and address regulations and 

environmental concerns, including the production and dispersal of smoke.

Fires frequented the landscapes of eastern Oregon and Washington before fire suppression activity, and 

because fire produces smoke, the area was often hazy during the dry season. Historians note that vast areas 

of the landscape were shrouded in smoke during the summer months because of the numerous fires dotting 

the landscape. As fire suppression forces became more efficient and mechanized after 1930, acreages burned 

by wildfire were reduced and smoke occurrence lessened. However, as natural fire was eliminated from the 

landscape, fuels built up to alarming levels. Currently, acreages burned by wildfire are on the increase along 

with smoke production (Ottmar, in press).

Is it correct to say that the earlier forest ecosystem structures (dependent upon fire) were healthier and more 

desirable than present structures? If so, what are the tradeoffs in air quality with a prescribed fire program 

versus inevitable severe wildfires? Because managed fires are planned in advance, mitigation techniques are 

available to reduce air quality effects. Uncontrollable wildfires are not planned, therefore, there is no opportunity to employ mitigation. Severe wildfire does have one advantage over prescribed fire: it may not occur 

for a long time in a given area. Will the public be willing to accept smoke from prescribed fires spread over 

a period of years, or is it preferable to gamble that a catastrophic wildfire, which sends out large amounts and 

greater concentrations of smoke perhaps lasting several weeks, will not occur for many years?

For example, the amount of smoke produced by reintroducing prescribed fire into the Blue Mountains of 

eastern Oregon for forest health concerns is estimated at about 37,500 tons of particulate matter 2.5 microns 

or less in diameter (PM2.5) per year (Ottmar, in press). This rate would represent an increase of 7500 tons of 
67

PM2.5 per year over current prescribed fire levels. A portion of the PM2.5 production could be reduced and 

the effect lessened by burning when fuel moisture contents are high and less fuels consume, by removing or 

mechanically treating fuels so that burning is not needed, and by burning when dispersion conditions and 

wind directions are favorable.

In comparison, a 250,000-acre wildfire would produce over 50,000 tons of PM2.5 over a relatively short 

time, and these emissions would be at the mercy of current wind dispersion conditions. The potential to 

severely effect a sensitive airshed would be much greater. The potential for this severe wildfire to damage 

watershed values, fish habitat, and scenic resources is also great.

The public has previously chosen to bear the costs associated with clean air. Will the public rate short term 

air quality values higher than forest health values by choosing to accept wildfire in place of prescribed fire? 

Probably the answer is yes, unless a strategic plan is developed to address all regulatory requirements such 

as Prevent Significant Deterioration guidelines, visibility, emissions reduction, and health risks associated 

with prescribed fire; an education program is initiated to inform public of tradeoffs; the public regulatory 

agencies are involved with fire-management planning; and a strong research program is provided.

Fire is not a tool to use on all sites or in all situations. It is, however, a tool that should be available and 

understood when designing a management strategy for our natural resources. Proper application of fire, in 

harmony with other management techniques, often may be the best option for meeting specific objectives 

while creating the least amount of adverse environmental damage. The National Forest Management Act, the 

Endangered Species Act, and other legislation serves as guides for management of public wildlands aimed at 

maintaining more or less natural ecosystems. Attempts at fire exclusion greatly threaten this goal in the drier 

forest types.
68

MAINTENANCE AND RESTORATION OF ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES 

REGULATING FOREST-DEFOLIATING INSECTS

by Torolf R. Torgersen

Natural ecosystems contain a multitude of functional processes that provide stability. Even healthy systems 

with well-developed regulatory processes will go through cyclic or sporadic fluctuations. The pattern that 

seems to be emerging is one of sporadic outbreaks of defoliating insects (Wickman 1992, Wickman and others 1993) that cause declining tree vigor, reduced growth, top-kill, and eventually some mortality-largely of 

trees poorly adapted to the site. Weakened trees may be invaded by bark beetles that hasten tree death. These 

dead trees remain a part of the ecosystem in the form of structural components for nesting or colonization, 

foraging, and protection of forest-dwelling animals, and ultimately, in nutrient cycling.

Insects are always present in the forest, but we tend to pay attention to them only when they disrupt our 

management expectations for timber or nontimber resources. For example, we tend to notice insects like the 

western spruce budworm, Douglas-fir tussock moth, mountain pine beetle, and Douglas-fir beetles only during outbreak periods when we see defoliation or re-topped and dying trees. From a management standpoint, 

what is more significant and often ignored are those long periods of time between outbreaks when the insects 

seen to have disappeared.

Studies of the population dynamics of important forest insects such as the budworm and tussock moth have 

shown that natural enemies are an important component in the complex processes that keep these pests in 

check. Some of the fundamental knowledge of the major natural enemies of these insects was developed 

through studies done in eastside forests. But similar studies of natural mortality processes have been done 

throughout the montane West—in east-central Washington, south-central and northeastern Oregon, northcentral Idaho, northern California, and western Montana (Brookes and others 1978, 1987; Campbell and 

others 1984; Mason 1992; Mason and others 1983; Mason and Wickman 1988; Torgersen and others 1990). 

These studies not only identified the presence of a large assemblage of natural enemies, but also quantified 

some of their effects on budworm and tussock moth populations.

We know that Western mixed-conifer forests have experienced sporadic outbreaks of defoliating insects for 

hundreds of years (Swetnam and Lynch 1989, Wickman and others 1993). Severe defoliation of grand and 

Douglas-fir has caused, and continues to cause, death and varying amounts of top-kill of these tree species. 

The concern is that current outbreaks appear to be more severe and involve larger areas than those in the 

past. If this is true, it means that we may have destabilized eastside ecosystems which could have dramatic 

consequences in terms of long-term ecosystem sustainability. Given enough time, the system may establish 

a sort of dynamic equilibrium, but in the interim there could be unacceptable consequences in terms of societal expectations for timber supplies and green forests.

Philosophy of Maintenance and Restoration of Regulatory Processes 

The objective of ecosystem management should be to maintain or restore forest structural components that 

promote the proper functioning of important ecological processes. For example, in terms of regulating forest 

insect pests, such as the budworm, tussock moth, and larch casebearer, the processes of parasitization and 

predation have been identified and largely quantified (Mason and Torgersen 1983, Mason and Wickman 

1988, Ryan 1986). Thus, there is compelling evidence to manage for ecosystem components that conserve 

and encourage the functioning of these processes.

There is a broad diversity of organisms involved in these mortality processes. At least 110 species of parasitic wasps and flies attack the budworm and tussock moth. Nearly all occur on the east side and throughout 

the range of the pests (Carolin and Coulter 1959, Torgersen 1981). Parasitization by this array of species can 
69

be substantial. More than half of all tussock moth eggs in a site may be destroyed by a single species of parasitic wasp (Torgersen and Mason 1985). Other studies suggest that parasitization together with other mortality processes can affect the population behavior of the budworm (Torgersen and others 1984). Parasitoids are 

also dominant factors in the dynamics of tussock moth and larch casebearer populations and contribute to 

maintaining these insects at nondamaging levels (Mason and others 1983, Ryan and others 1987).

Research on predators and predation processes has contributed to our knowledge of how defoliator populations are regulated. The earliest research on insectivorous birds and ants as predators of tussock moth and 

budworm was done in eastside ecosystems. Studies in southern Oregon showed that the tussock moth is 

preyed upon by birds (Torgersen and others 1984). Other eastside studies on the budworm showed that trees 

where birds and ants are excluded have 10 times as many budworms as trees with the predators (Campbell and others 1983, Campbell 1987). Subsequent observations have documented that there are at least 32 

species of birds that feed on the budworm and tussock moth; 20 of these are neotropical migratory species 

(Sharp 1992). The mountain chickadee and red-breasted nuthatch dominated both observations of actual 

predation on the budworm and tussock moth and density of individual species (Langelier and Garton 1986, 

Torgersen and others 1984, 1990). Korol (1985) indicated that 19 species of birds prey on the mountain pine 

beetle; woodpeckers are the primary avian predators of bark beetle larvae and adults (Dahlsten 1982). Birds 

also function in spreading diseases of insects, dispersing seeds of some forest trees and shrubs, and contributing to nutrient cycling by spreading wood-rotting fungi (Otvos 1979).

Arthropod predators of defoliators and bark beetles include spiders, ants, true bugs, nerve-winged insects, 

beetles, flies, and wasps. Over a dozen species of forest-dwelling ants prey on budworm and tussock moth 

(Bain 1974; Markin 1975, 1979; Torgersen and others 1990; Youngs and Campbell 1984). Among these, 

carpenter ants and thatch mound-building ants live underground or in association with stumps, logs, and 

snags, but ants forage in the crowns of living trees where they tend aphids or hunt for prey on the foliage. 

In one study, 85 percent of the budworm pupae artificially stocked on experimental branches were killed by 

ants within 3 days of stocking (Campbell and Torgersen 1982). Ants significantly reduce budworm populations on conifer seedlings in sites regenerated by seed-tree cuts (Campbell and others 1984). Ants are also 

a primary dietary component for pileated woodpecker. (Beckwith and Bull 1985), a bird designated as a 

Management Indicator Species by the USDA Forest Service (Irwin 1987). Thus, management actions that 

favor populations of forest-dwelling ants are important both for regulation of pest insects and for providing a 

prey base for an Indicator Species.

Predation of defoliating insects by spiders is less well known than that of birds and ants but it is recognized 

as an important predatory component in forest ecosystems. This group comprises a major portion of the 

foliagedwelling arthropod fauna in mixed-conifer forests in the montane West (Mason 1992, Moldenke and 

others 1987). Documentation of spider predation and its effects on population dynamics of tussock moth and 

budworm has been reported by Torgersen and Dahlsten (1978), Mason and Torgersen (1983), Fellin (1985) 

and Mason and Paul (1988). Nothing is known of potential effects of silvicultural practices on spiders.

Mortality processes are interrelated in various ways, but one of the structural features they have in common 

is dead wood—both standing snags and downed, woody material. Therefore, restoration activities should include dead wood components. Data are now being analyzed that will clarify the question of how much dead 

wood, in what size classes, and of what species and decay classes is appropriate in the ecological management of eastside mixed-conifer stands (Torgersen and Bull, in preparation).

Recommendations for Restoration

An appropriate philosophy to adopt in restoration planning is to recognize that we are working with an incomplete ecological picture; major functional systems may yet be discovered. Continuing research is needed 

to discover and elucidate interrelations that will help managers to conduct ecologically sound management.
70

To prevent possible further destabilization of eastside forest ecosystems, given our current limited knowledge of ecosystem function, we should maintain old, relict stands. Precisely because these stands have 

survived a long time suggests that they may contain key elements necessary for the pursuit of sustainable 

ecosystem management. Loss of old-growth will result in loss or depletion of species that are narrowly 

adapted to such stands and the standing and downed, dead wood components associated with them (Thomas 

and others 1975). As Leopold (1953) cautioned, “To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering.”

Salvage of insect-killed trees is currently being used to prevent further buildup of woody fuels, to capture 

merchantable volume before it deteriorates, and to improve conditions for stand replacement by shadeintolerant early successional species. In sales involving removal of standing, insect-killed trees, current Forest 

Service standards and guidelines for residual dead woody debris are being used. Recent research may yield 

information useful for updating standards and guidelines governing amounts of woody debris to be left 

as substrate for predators and other dead-wood-dependent species (Bull and Holthausen 1993, Maser and 

Trappe 1984, Torgersen and Bull, in preparation).

Prescribed burning is emerging as a preferred method for reducing fuel levels and for stand conversion. 

Fellin (1980) determined that burning of logging residue could adversely affect some forest floor arthropods, 

particularly ants, beetles, and spiders. Research is needed on the effects of fire on key soil arthropods, on 

mid-successional nitrogen-fixing shrubs, on the amount and condition of large woody debris, nutrient losses, 

and air and stream pollution (Tiedemann 1981, Tiedemann and Klemmedson 1992). Site- and landscapesensitive alternatives for integrated use of fire and mechanical methods of debris management need to be 

investigated before large-scale prescribed burns are done.

Various studies on the effects of thinning, selection cuts, clearcutting, and prescribed fire on forest-dwelling 

birds have shown that certain species of birds increased and other species decreased as a result of various 

silvicultural prescriptions or harvest regimes (Austin and Perry 1979, Franzreb 1977, Szaro and Balda 1979, 

Tobalske and others 1991). The array of effects of forest management prescriptions on birds alone, much 

less other vertebrates, attests to the variety of habitat needs of forest-dwelling animals and the complexity of 

management alternatives that affect stand structure (Hunter 1990). Thomas and others (1975) and Meslow 

(1978) reviewed the literature and pointed out that the species composition of birds changes with forest successional stages under natural or human-influenced conditions. They indicated their concern that as forest 

management for timber values becomes more intense, forest structure will become more homogeneous and 

the attendant fauna will become less diverse. In particular, they suggest that truncated succession of grass, 

forbs, and shrub stages may result in a loss of avian species needing these early successional stages. Prescribed fire may increase the length of time in these early successional stages and favor some of the birds associated with them (Thomas and others 1975). The admonition here as elsewhere is to proceed with caution 

based on current knowledge and develop new information as avenues of investigation become apparent.

The use of chemical insecticides for suppressing forest-defoliating insect populations has been a common 

practice since the 1940s. Carbaryl is the primary insecticide registered for suppression of budworm. Studies 

have established that effects of treatment on selected parasite species in their budworm hosts were negligible, 

and that parasitization recovered in about 2 years (Schmid 1981; Torgersen and others, in review). Based on 

the work of Roush and Akre (1978) and Murphy and Croft (1990), carbaryl was found to have short-term 

effects on foraging ants in areas treated with this insecticide for suppression of tussock moth and budworm. 

Definitive studies are still needed to determine the effect of this chemical on other forest-dwelling solitary 

and social wasps and bees, parasitic flies and wasps, and predaceous arthropods in general. Use of the bacterial insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.) against defoliators is much preferred, but like carbaryl, its effects 

on budworm populations last only two or three seasons (Torgersen, in press). The disadvantage of using B.t. 

is that it does not discriminate between the target pest and larvae of other moths and butterflies, some of 

which may be pollinators or prey for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species of plants or animals.
71

It is important for managers to recognize that no matter what is done, there always will be outbreaks of insect pests. Without careful attention to the values of diversity in forest structure and species, we may further 

destabilize eastside ecosystems. Destabilization will translate into more severe outbreaks or ones that occur 

more regularly, or both. Given that pest insects and pathogens will always get their “cut” of forest productivity, and that the dead trees thus created are a vital part of the system, research should be supported that will 

quantify what that “cut” is in terms of the harvestable resource.
72

RESTORATION OF HYDROLOGIC PROCESSES

by Tom Robison and Mel Bennett

A watershed is the total area of land above a given stream location that contributes water to the stream at that 

point (Schwarz and others 1976). A watershed has three main parts: the stream channel, the riparian zone 

adjacent to the stream, and the surrounding hillslopes. Hydrologic processes, that is, infiltration, percolation, 

surface and subsurface water flow, are the various pathways of water moving through the watershed that link 

the three components into one system.

Stream channels and landscapes have evolved into a state of dynamic or quasiequilibrium over time, given 

the unique combination of geology, geomorphology, climate, and vegetation in the watershed. Healthy ecosystems have an inherent resiliency to quickly adjust to extreme events without degradation to the system 

(Heede 1980). In a healthy ecosystem, the stream moves laterally across the flood plain by increasing point 

bars and widening outer curves but is stable in a vertical dimension. It neither aggrades (builds up) nor degrades (cuts down) the base level. The amount of sediment supplied to the channel system is moved through 

the system by the available water. The stream has a predictable shape and form (Leopold and Maddock 

1953).

The riparian zone is the land bordering the stream that acts as a buffer between hillslope processes and the 

stream channel. The riparian zone shades the stream, stabilizes streambanks, and adds vegetative material to 

the channel. It slowly releases a base flow of water to the stream channel during low flow periods of the year. 

It functions as a floodplain by dissipating the energy of flood flows, reducing the velocity of streamflow, and 

trapping sediment.

The hillslopes of the watershed are the surfaces that intercept water and route it to the channel. Their health 

is directly related to the condition of vegetation and the soil that affects how the hillslopes handle water.

An assessment of the health of hydrologic processes for a watershed should involve an assessment of all 

three components of the watershed system: the stream channel, the riparian zone, and the hillslopes. Rarely 

has such a comprehensive assessment been completed for a broad geographic area. More typical is a functional assessment that looks at one component of the watershed for a smaller geographic area.

Streams surveyed in the 1930s and 1940s were recently resurveyed and analyses were made of change over 

time (McIntosh and others 1993, Wissmar 1993). Because the stream channel is an indicator of the health of 

all the hydrologic processes within the watershed, surveys of change-in-condition over time suggest change 

in the overall health of watersheds and their hydrologic processes.

Five large watersheds were selected for a detailed assessment: the Methow and Wenatchee River basins of 

north-central Washington, the Little Naches River of the Yakima system in central Washington, the John 

Day River of north-central Oregon, and the Grande Ronde basin of eastern Oregon. Comparisons between 

stream surveys taken in 1935-36 and 1990 for the Little Naches River indicated significant changes in various stream channel characteristics over that time. The average size of stream bottom substrate material is 

much larger. There is a greater percentage of exposed bedrock in the stream bottom. Spawning gravels have 

been flushed out of the system. The stream bed seems to be scouring, downcutting, or degrading over a long 

period of time. The change in stream channel morphology appears to be the result of confinement of the 

main channel. The input of fine sediment has increased. Off-channel fish habitat, channel complexity, riparian cover, edge area, and quantity of spawning gravels have decreased over time.

Four streams were surveyed in the Wenatchee River watershed, three in areas of low-intensity land management, one in a high-intensity managed area. Over time, pool habitat has increased in all streams, however, 

the rate of increase was twice as great for streams within the low-intensity managed areas. A major differ-
73

ence between the two areas is the fully functioning flood plains of the low-intensity managed area. Streams 

have nearly three times the large woody debris and a much more complex stream habitat than that in the 

high-intensity managed area.

The riverine system of the John Day watershed has dramatically changed. Base streamflow volume has 

increased in all intensively managed areas of the watershed but has remained the same in the wilderness 

area. High streamflow events are more common and severe in intensively managed areas. Changes to riparian vegetation have been drastic. Stream shading has decreased with the result that stream temperature, both 

summer and winter, is a critical limiting factor for salmonids.

Comparison of current and historical stream surveys for three major drainages of the Methow River watershed indicated that pool frequencies have doubled in high-intensity managed areas and more than tripled in 

low-intensity managed areas. The area with the most intense land use over the past 50 years shows the lowest 

level of improvement in pool habitat.

There has been a 60-percent loss in pool habitat for the Grande Ronde River since 1941. The percentage of 

fine sediments in spawning habitat has increased. Riparian habitat has degraded. Water temperatures on 

both winter and summer have increased. Analysis of long-term streamflow and climatic records indicates 

that since 1904 summer low flows have increased but annual and winter precipitation has decreased. The 

timing of peak flow is one month earlier.

For each watershed, the nature of historical land use varies but involves a combination of mining, grazing, 

water impoundments and irrigation diversions, timber harvest, roads, and fires during the last 100 or more 

years. Typically, the dominant disturbance has changed over that time from one activity to another. Intensively managed watersheds usually need less sediment, more shade, more large woody debris, and increased 

habitat complexity to restore fish habitat to a level that will support self-sustaining fish populations. The frequency of large pools has decreased 28 percent over the past 50 years, however, it has increased 77 percent 

for low-intensity managed watersheds, and the trend for these basins is toward improved habitat.

What are the consequences of land use patterns on these river basins? In the Little Naches River, 90 percent 

of the annual run of salmon and steelhead trout is now eliminated. The impact on survival of smolts in the 

Grande Ronde basin could be immense from the increased water temperatures alone. The Methow River 

populations of wild anadromous fish have declined. Whatever the specific cause and effect, the conclusion 

is that the ability of these systems to sustain continued production of a variety of quality watershed, water, 

and water habitat beneficial uses is in jeopardy. The potential continues for accelerated flood damage and 

destruction from watersheds that cannot handle extreme climatic events.

There are obstacles to changing this situation, finding solutions, preventing further effects, and initiating recovery. The nature of cumulative effects is a major obstacle in itself. Cumulative effects are by definition not 

limited to the site boundary of a land use activity but are additive with those effects from all disturbing activities within the entire watershed. The effects transcend property and political boundaries, and the effects 

continue for many years. Resolution requires coordinated land use by all landowners within the watershed.

Another obstacle is the perpetuation of a system of resource planning and budgeting that puts emphasis on 

products instead of ecosystem processes and on individual resources instead of integrated management. The 

approach to management of watershed ecosystems should be to understand and manage them to perpetuate 

their health and diversity. Benefits, uses, and products should be secondary, not the primary factor driving 

management decisions.

Additional obstacles are the cost of rehabilitation efforts, existing commitments to historical patterns of land 

use, historical use of riparian corridors for transportation and increasing urbanization of riparian zones, inability of surface water to meet consumptive water demand, and historical water uses.
74

Restoration Philosophy

Entire watersheds including side slopes, riparian zones, and stream channels should be maintained in a state 

of dynamic equilibrium, such that they are resilient to a range of natural events from average to extreme 

and hydrologic processes are maintained in good health. Watershed hillslopes should be vegetated to handle 

water at the potential infiltration and percolation rates. Off-site erosion should be contained within a predisturbance range of landform development processes. Riparian zones should function as flood plains by 

dissipating energy, trapping sediment, buffering hillslope processes, providing shade, contributing vegetative 

material to the channel, and yielding slow-release streamflow. Stream channels should move laterally across 

the riparian zone without aggrading or degrading the overall longitudinal profile. Stream channels should 

exhibit a shape and form typical for the physical and climatic characteristics of the basin.

The above is a statement of a desired future condition, an objective to move toward. It should be specific to a 

given watershed and related to the inherent uniqueness of geology, geomorphology, climate, and vegetation 

that make up that particular system. It should be specific and measurable so that progress toward attainment can be monitored. It should be based on an understanding of the natural range in variability of system 

components, that is, stream channel morphology, water temperature, riparian vegetation composition and 

structure, and hillslope water movement. It should be a guide in development and design of site-specific, 

project-level management activities.

At the project level of planning, a number of concepts should be used to ensure maintenance of watershed 

system health. These include use of ecosystem management planning techniques that assess cumulative 

effects and recognizes the linkages among hillslope processes, riparian areas, and stream channel systems. 

Each of these different components of the landform should have a unique and site-specific management 

strategy (Chaney 1990; Platts 1979, 1980).

Planning should consider road density, area of vegetative management disturbance, inherent hydrologic 

recovery rates, water temperature levels, stream sediment levels, condition of the hillslopes, riparian area, 

and the stream channel in determining risk of cumulative watershed effects (U.S. Department of Agriculture 

1993). Watershed planning should be coordinated both spatially and temporally with all landowners within a 

river basin.

Roads deserve special attention. Transportation planning should be considered on an integrated, area-wide 

basis to minimize total number of road miles and road density within any watershed, select the best locations for road construction, and meet the needs of all road users. Roads should be located on suitable sites 

that do not constrain riparian zones or stream channels. Roads should have sediment filters at stream crossings, drainage features, and rolling grades to minimize cuts and fills. Roads should avoid unstable areas. 

Roads should be designed with a primary objective of protecting the ecosystem. Unsurfaced roads should be 

seasonally closed during adverse weather conditions. Roads should be relocated away from stream channels 

and, if possible, away from riparian zones. When it is not possible to relocate the road, the level of maintenance should be increased, surfacing improved, and seasonal road closures used to minimize movement 

of sediment from the road to the stream channel. Old road surfaces should be outsloped and revegetated. 

Culverts should be removed, and over-steepened fillslopes cut back.

Range ecosystems should have adequate vegetative cover to ensure proper soil stability essential to maintaining satisfactory range condition (Blaisdell and others 1982). Prescribed fire management and other fuel 

reduction methods should be used to lessen the risk of catastrophic wildfire that destroys soil organic material and removes all vegetative cover thereby predisposing the soil to erosion from rainstorms. Prevention 

rather than corrective measures should be used to control all types of erosion.

Attainment of desired future condition should be monitored as an integral part of ecosystem management. 

Objectives are set on a watershed basis but can only be attained incrementally through projects on a sitelevel basis. Monitoring should be continuous to measure movement toward the desired future condition for 

the entire watershed.
75

Restoration Work

Restoration work where needed should be related to the larger goals. Watershed restoration work often has 

been accomplished as individual projects based on site-specific needs without consideration of activities in 

the larger system. Restoration work should be coordinated to meet needs of all processes, be they hillslope, 

riparian or stream channel. Most important, restoration work should be initiated only when the cause of the 

problem is understood and corrective action has been taken. Often this involves a change in land use pattern. Restoration work by itself without change in land use will be temporary and will not result in long-term 

improvement (Chaney and others 1990, Elmore and Beschta 1987).

Project-level restoration work should start with a watershed assessment that shows how the components 

of the watershed system interact and identifies the weak links. The assessment should identify the current 

condition, the potential, and the steps needed to get there. It should state a desired future condition as the 

ultimate goal of all management within the watershed. Monitoring efforts can then focus on whether conditions are moving toward that goal. When a watershed assessment has been completed, project restoration 

work becomes integrated with management of the watershed, becomes more efficient and effective, and has 

a better chance of resulting in lasting improvement.

Restoration work in a degraded stream channel should begin from a stable point and work upstream. Channel downcutting progresses in an upstream direction with every upstream channel reach in jeopardy of being 

lowered. Beginning from a stable point and working upstream increases the chances that improvement work 

will be lasting and effective. Where the incised channel has resulted in a lowered water table in the riparian zone, it is necessary to raise the water table back to the point where riparian vegetative species can be 

maintained. Vegetation restoration projects, on the other hand, should begin from the top of the watershed 

and work toward the outlet.

Summary

This report is not a hydrologic assessment of eastside Washington and Oregon watersheds, but rather an attempt to survey available information from which inferences could be made about the health of hydrologic 

processes. Information on historical and current land use compared with stream survey data from two points 

in time was used as a basis for making intuitive comments about watershed health. The conclusion is that 

cumulative effects from land uses have had and continue to have an effect on how water and sediment move 

through eastern Washington and Oregon watersheds. As a result, the dynamic equilibrium and health of 

these hydrologic systems, and the quality of the beneficial uses these watersheds produce, are at risk.

Hydrologic health assessments on a watershed basis should be made for the entire study area. These assessments should start with an analysis of the condition of the processes now occurring in relation to the potential condition of the processes for watersheds with specific geology, geomorphology, climate and vegetation characteristics. Second, a desired future condition of these processes should be selected and a strategy 

chosen for achieving that condition. Third, individual projects as they are completed within the watershed 

boundary should be monitored to measure progress toward attaining the overall watershed desired future 

condition.

Acknowledgment

The authors appreciate the review of the manuscript and recommendations from Dennis Harr and Charles 

Slaughter.
76

Section References

Austin, D.D.; Perry, M.L. 1979. Birds in six communities within a lodgepole pine forest. Journal of Forestry. 

77: 584-586.

Bain, O.G. 1974. Observations on the behavior and effectiveness of three ant species (Hymenoptera: 

Formicidae) attacking the western spruce budworm, Choristoneura occidentalis (Lepidoptera:

Tortricidae), in western Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana, School of Forestry. M.S. thesis.

Beckwith, R:C.; Bull, E.L. 1985. Scat analysis of the arthropod component of pileated woodpecker diet. 

Murrelet. 66: 90-92.

Blaisdell, J.P.; Murray, R.B.; McArthur, E.D. 1982. Managing intermountain rangelands—sagebrushgrass ranges. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-134. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 41 p.

Brookes, M.H.; Campbell, R.W.; Colbert, J.J. [and others], tech. coords. 1987. Western spruce budworm. 

Tech. Bull. 1694. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Cooperative State 

Research Service. 198 p.

Brookes, M.H.; Stark, R.W.; Campbell, R.W. 1978. The Douglas-fir tussock moth: a synthesis. Tech. Bull. 

1585. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Science and Education Agency. 

331 p.

Bull, E.L.; Holthausen, R.S. 1993. Habitat use and management of pileated woodpeckers in northeastern 

Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 57: 335-345.

Campbell, R.W. 1987. Population dynamics. In: Brookes, M.H.; Campbell, R.W.; Colbert, J.J. [and others], 

tech. coords. Western spruce budworm. Tech. Bull. 1694. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Cooperative State Research Service: 80-81.

Campbell, R.W.; Carlson, C.E.; Theroux, L.J.; Egan, T.H. 1984. Some effects of predaceous birds and ants 

on the western spruce budworm on conifer seedlings. Res. Pap. PNW-315. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. 5 p.

Campbell, R.W.; Torgersen, T.R. 1982. Some effects of predaceous ants on western spruce budworm pupae 

in north central Washington. Environmental Entomology. 11: 111-114.

Campbell, R.W.; Torgersen; T.R.; Srivastava, N. 1983. A suggested role for predaceous birds and ants in the 

population dynamics of the western spruce budworm: Forest Science. 29: 779-790.

Carolin, V.M.; Coulter, W.K. 1959. The occurrence of insect parasites of Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem.), 

in Oregon. Journal of Economic Entomology. 52: 550-555.

Chaney, E.; Elmore, W.; Platts, W.S. 1990. Livestock grazing on western riparian areas. Eagle, ID: 

Northwest Resource Information Center, Inc.; produced for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 45 p.

Dahlsten, D.L. 1982. Relationships between bark beetles and their natural enemies. In: Mitton, J.B.; 

Sturgeon, K.B., eds. Bark beetles in North American conifers—a system for the study of evolutionary 

biology. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press: 140-183.

Elmore, W.; Beschta, R.L. 1987. Riparian areas: perceptions in management. Rangelands. 9(6): 260-265.
77

Fellin, D.G. 1980. Effect of silvicultural practices, residue utilization, and prescribed fire on some forest floor 

arthropods. In: Environmental consequences of timber harvesting in Rocky Mountain coniferous forests, 

symposium proceedings; 1979 September 11-13; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-90. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 287-316.

Fellin, D.G. 1985. Western budworm and its hosts. In: Brookes, M.H.; Colbert, J.J.; Mitchell, R.G.; 

Stark, R.W., eds. Managing trees and stands susceptible to western spruce budworm. Tech. Bull. 

1695. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Canada-United States Spruce 

Budworm Program: 13.

Franzreb, K.E. 1977. Bird population changes after timber harvesting of a mixed conifer forest in Arizona. 

Res. Pap. RM-184. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 26 p.

Heede, B.H. 1980. Stream dynamics: an overview for land managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-72. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 26 p.

Hunter, M.L. 1990. Wildlife, forests, and forestry. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 370 p.

Irwin, L.L. 1987. Review of minimum management requirements for indicator species: pine marten and 

pileated woodpecker. Tech. Bull. 522. [location of publisher unknown]. National Council of the Paper 

Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 73 p.

Korol, J.J. 1985. A simulation of predation by non-game birds on the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus 

ponderosae Hopkins). Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia. Thesis. 174 p.

Langelier, L.A.; Garton, E.O. 1986. Management guidelines for increasing populations of birds that feed on 

western spruce budworm. Agric. Handb. 653. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. 19 p.

Leopold, A. 1953. Round River—from the journals of Aldo Leopold. [Leopold, L.B., ed.]. New York: 

Oxford University Press. 147 p.

Leopold, L.B.; Maddock, T. 1953. The hydraulic geometry of stream channels and some physiographic 

implications. Prof. Pap. 252. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 57 p.

Markin, G.P. 1975. Natural control of the Douglas-fir tussock moth by ants. Presentation, Entomological 

Society of America annual meeting; 1975 January; New Orleans, LA. Unpublished text. 5 p.

Markin, G.P. 1979. Ants as predators of the western spruce budworm. Presentation, Entomological Society 

of America annual meeting; 1979 November; Denver, CO. Unpublished text. 11 p.

Maser, C.; Trappe, J.M. 1984. The seen and unseen world of the fallen tree. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-164. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 56 p.

Mason, R.R. 1992. Populations of arboreal spiders (Araneae) on Douglas-firs and true firs in the interior 

Pacific Northwest. Environmental Entomology. 2: 75-80.

Mason, R.R.; Paul, H.G. 1988. Predation on larvae of Douglas-fir tussock moth, Orgyia pseudotsugata

(Lepidoptera:Lymantriidae), by Metaphidippus aeneolus (Araneae:Salticidae). Pan Pacific Entomology. 

64: 258-260.
78

Mason, R.R.; Torgersen, T.R. 1983. Mortality of larvae in stocked cohorts of the Douglas-fir tussock moth, 

Orgyia pseudotsugata (Lepidoptera:Lymantriidae). Canadian Entomologist. 115: 1119-1127.

Mason, R.R.; Torgersen, T.R.; Wickman, B.E.; Paul, H.G. 1983. Natural regulation of a Douglas-fir tussock moth 

(Lepidoptera:Lymantriidae) population in the Sierra Nevada. Environmental Entomology. 12: 587-94.

Mason, R.R.; Wickman, B.E. 1988. The Douglas-fir tussock moth in the interior Pacific Northwest. In: 

Berryman, A.A., ed. Dynamics of forest insect populations. New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation: 

179-209.

McIntosh, B.A.; Sedell, J.R.; Smith, J.E. [and others]. 1993. Management history of eastside ecosystems: 

changes in fish habitat over 50 years, 1935 to 1992. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem 

health assessment—Volume III: Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Meslow, C.E. 1978. The relationship of birds to habitat structure—plant communities and successional 

stages. In: DeGraaf, R.M., tech. coord. Proceedings, workshop on nongame bird habitat management in 

the coniferous forests of the western United States; 1977 February 7-9; [Location unknown]. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-64. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest 

and Range Experiment Station: 12-18.

Moldenke, A.R.; Fichter, B.L.; Stephen, W.P.; Griswold. C.E. 1987. A key to arboreal spiders of Douglas-fir 

and true fir forests of the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-207. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 48 p.

Murphy, C.F.; Croft, B.A. 1990. Forest ant composition and foraging following aerial spraying of carbaryl to 

suppress western spruce budworm. Canadian Entomologist. 122: 595-606.

Ottmar, R.D. [In press]. Prescribed fire versus wildfire: what are the tradeoffs? Two case examples. In: 

Proceedings, 1992 Northwest fire council annual meeting; 1992 November 19-20; Olympia, WA. 

[Location of publisher unknown]; [Publisher unknown].

Otvos, I.S. 1979. The effects of insectivorous bird activities in forest ecosystems: an evaluation. In: Dickson, 

J.G.; Connor, R.N.; Fleet, R.R. [and others], eds. Symposium proceedings—The role of insectivorous 

birds in forest ecosystems; 1978 July 13-14; Nacogdoches, TX. New York: Academic Press. 381 p.

Peterson, J.L. [In press]. Air quality regulations and their potential to limit burning for forest health in 

eastern Washington and Oregon. In: Proceedings, 1992 Northwest fire council annual meeting; 1992 

November 16-18; Olympia, WA. [Location of publisher unknown]; [Publisher unknown].

Platts, W.S. 1979. Livestock grazing and riparian/stream ecosystems—an overview. In: Cope, O.B., ed.; 

Proceedings, forum—grazing and riparian/stream ecosystems; [dates of meeting unknown]; [location of 

meeting unknown]. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station: 39-45.

Platts, W.S. 1980. Overview on the riparian/fish habitat issue in the western United States. Proceedings, 

Western Association of State Game and Fish Commissioners; [dates of meeting unknown]; [location of 

meeting unknown]. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station. 10 p.
79

Roush, C.F.; Akre, R.D. 1978. Impact of chemicals for control of the Douglas-fir tussock moth upon 

populations of ants and yellowjackets (Hymenoptera:Formicidae, Vespidae). [location of publisher 

unknown]. Washington State Entomological Society, Melanderia. 30: 95-103.

Ryan, R.B. 1986. Analysis of life tables for the larch casebearer (Lepidoptera: Coleophoridae) in Oregon. 

Canadian Entomologist. 118: 1255-1263.

Ryan, R.B., Tunnock, S.; Ebel, F.W. 1987. Biological control: the larch casebearer in North America. Journal 

of Forestry. 85: 33-39.

Schmid, J.M. 1981. Incidence of western spruce budworm parasites in New Mexico after aerial spraying 

with carbaryl. Res. Note RM-397. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 6 p.

Schwarz, C.F.; Thor, E.C.; Elsner, G.H. 1976. Wildland planning glossary. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-13STET. 

Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 252 p.

Sharp, B.E. 1992. Neotropical migrants on National Forests in the Pacific Northwest: a compilation of 

existing information. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 476 p.

Swetnam, T.W.; Lynch, A.M. 1989. A tree-ring reconstruction of western spruce budworm history in the 

southern Rocky Mountains. Forest Science. 35: 962-986.

Szaro, R.C.; Balda, R.P. 1979. Effects of harvesting ponderosa pine on nongame bird populations. Res. Pap. 

RM-212. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 8 p.

Thomas, J.T.; Crouch, G.L.; Bumstead, R.S.; Bryant, L.D. 1975. Silvicultural options and habitat values in 

coniferous forests. In: Smith, D.R., tech. ed. Proceedings of a symposium on management of forest and 

range habitats for nongame birds; 1975 May 6-9; Tucson, AZ. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-1. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 272-287.

Tiedemann, A.R. 1981. Stream chemistry, nutrient economy, and site productivity consequences of 

wildland management and wildfire. In: Baumgartner, D.M., ed. Symposium proceedings on interior West 

watershed management; 1980 April 8-10; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, 

Cooperative Extension Service: 183-201.

Tiedemann, A.R.; Klemmedson, J.O. 1992. Potential impacts of prescribed burning on sustainable forest 

productivity. Blue Mountains Natural Resources Institute, Natural Resource News. 2(2): 9.

Tobalske, B.W.; Shearer, R.C.; Hutto, R.L. 1991. Bird populations in logged and unlogged western larch/ 

Douglas-fir forest in northwestern Montana. Res. Pap. I NT-442. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 12 p.

Torgersen, T.R. 1981. Parasite records for the Douglas-fir tussock moth. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-123. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 38 p.
80

Torgersen, T.R. [In preparation]. Effects of B.t. and carbaryl on population behavior of western spruce 

budworm, Choristoneura occidentalis, in Oregon: Proceedings, transgenic plant gene products 

symposium, B.t. reregistration workshop; 1992 November 30-December 3; [Location unknown]. College 

Park, MD: Maryland Biotechnical Institute, Center for Public Issues in Biotechnology.

Torgersen, T.R.; Bull, E.L. [In preparation]. Occurrence of log-inhabiting ants (Hymenoptera:Formicidae) in 

pileated woodpecker home ranges in northeastern Oregon.

Torgersen, T.R.; Campbell, R.W.; Srivastava, N.; Beckwith, R.C. 1984. Role of parasites in the population 

dynamics of the western spruce budworm (Lepidoptera:Tortricidae) in the Northwest. Environmental 

Entomology. 13: 568-573.

Torgersen, T.R.; Dahlsten, D.L. 1978. Natural mortality. In: Brookes, M.H.; Stark, R.W.; Campbell, R.W., 

eds. The Douglas-fir tussock moth: a synthesis. Tech. Bull. 1585. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Science and Education Agency: 47-53.

Torgersen, T.R.; Mason, R.R. 1985. Characteristics of egg parasitization of Douglas-fir tussock moth, Orgyia 

pseudotsugata (McD.) (Lepidoptera:Lymantriidae), by Telenomus californicus Ash. (Hymenoptera:

Sceliomdae). Environmental Entomology. 14: 323-328.

Torgersen, T.R.; Mason, R.R.; Campbell, R.W. 1990. Predation by birds and ants on two forest insect pests 

in the Pacific Northwest. In: Morrison, M.L.; Ralph, C.J.; Verner, J.; Jehl, J.R., Jr. Avian foraging: theory, 

methodology, and applications. Studies in Avian Biology 13. Cooper Ornithological Society. Lawrence, 

KS: Allen Press, Inc: 14-19.

Torgersen, T.R.; Powell, D.C.; Hosman, K.P.; and Schmidt, F.H. [In review]. Population behavior of western 

spruce budworm and growth response of host trees after treatment with carbaryl: a 7-year analysis.

Torgersen, T.R.; Thomas, J.W.; Mason, R.R.; Van Horn, D. 1984. Avian predators of Douglas-fir tussock 

moth, Orgyia pseudotsugata (McDunnough), (Lepidoptera:Lymantriidae) in southwestern Oregon. 

Environmental Entomology. 13: 1018-1022.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1993. Determining the risk of cumulative watershed effects resulting from 

multiple activities. Portland, OR: Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 18 p.

Wickman, B.E.. 1992. Forest health in the Blue Mountains: the influence of insects and disease. PNW-GTR295. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

15 p.

Wickman, B.E., Mason, R.R.; Swetnam, T.W. 1993. Searching for long-term patterns of forest insect 

outbreaks. Proceedings, conference on individuals, populations, and patterns; 1992 September 7-10; 

Norwich, UK. [Location of publisher unknown]: [publisher unknown]. [Pages unknown].
81

RESTORATION OF STRESSED SITES
82
83

RESTORATION OF STRESSED SITES

Philosophy of Restoration

Change in forest and aquatic systems does not in itself denote degradation and the need for restoration. Disturbance and subsequent response are required to create and maintain heterogeneous landscapes and stream 

reaches characteristic of sustainable ecosystems (Everett and others 1993). Degradation may occur if change 

is more rapid or of greater extent, intensity, or frequency than historical or desired levels. When return 

frequency of disturbance exceeds the recovery time for restoration, a downward spiral of site potential can 

occur (Turner and others 1993). True site degradation occurs with the permanent loss of future options.

Restoration is a subset of reclamation: the restoration of biophysical capacity with the additional caveat of 

returning sites to previous, desired conditions (Weigand 1993). Society may desire new and novel conditions 

that better meet their expectations, but sustainability of these new conditions and the ability to provide for 

species and long-term site productivity are unknown. At a minimum, we need the reclamation of stressed 

sites to conserve future biological options. Additional restoration actions to achieve previous conditions are 

desirable to support biological conservation until we understand the tradeoffs associated with alternative 

ecosystem states.

To restore stressed sites, managers need to define the role of the site in the landscape, define the characteristics of the site that will support the landscape objectives, and identify the attributes of the site that must be 

managed to accomplish those objectives. This strategy follows the hierarchical landscape ecology principles 

of Urban and others (1987). One focus of restoration is creating the desired landscape configuration whether 

that landscape configuration is a historical one or a modified alternative preferred by society (Everett and 

others 1994). Restoration of landscapes should be closely integrated with restoration actions for unique habitats (Daterman 1993) and sensitive species (Thomas and Raphael 1993). Restoration activities resulting in 

conflicts between individual species and landscapes need to be identified and resolved.

In a hierarchical landscape approach, we must look at the landscape as well as the individual sites to determine the context and significance of individual site stress. Disturbed sites need not be restored if they reflect 

a historical or acceptable level of disturbance needed to maintain the desired landscape characteristics. 

Restoration of all sites, in all time frames and to constant standards and guides, ignores the requirement for 

disturbance to create and maintain sustainable ecosystems.

Broad View Of Stressed Sites 

The public forums on forest health (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1991, 1993) provided insight to the 

public’s broad view of what constitutes a stressed site. Stressed sites include overgrazed rangelands, degraded riparian areas, areas with excessive roading, degraded wildlife and fisheries habitat, and insectdamaged forests. Five kinds of stressed sites are mentioned specifically in Volume III, Assessment: riparian 

areas, rangelands, overstocked forestlands, excessively roaded areas, and unstable stream systems (Irwin and 

others 1993, McIntosh and others 1993, Oliver and others 1993, Wissmar and others 1993). The restoration 

of streams in eastern Oregon and Washington has been addressed previously (Anderson 1992, Reeves and 

Everest 1993, Thomas and Raphael 1993) and will not be discussed here.

Riparian areas have been overused by livestock, wildlife, and recreationists and degraded by timber harvesting activities (Elmore and others 1993). We need to restore riparian systems to their productive potential to 

maintain their integrity and provide sustainable flows of resources. Restoration activities range from simple 

species seedings to the complete rebuilding of entire stream reaches (Elmore and others 1993). Roads have 

been linked to loss in wildlife habitat effectiveness and a decline in water quality and fisheries (Megahan 

and others 1993). The most effective way to reduce the impacts of roads is to reduce their numbers.
84

Eastern Oregon and Washington forests have tree densities, especially Douglas-fir and grand fir understory 

species, in excess of historical levels (Caraher and others 1992, Lehmkuhl and others 1993). Excessive tree 

densities produce tree stress and act as a precursor to insect attack and fire. The reintroduction of fire to eastside ecosystems is restricted by air quality standards (Arno and Ottmar 1993); thus other means of restoring 

desirable stand structure are needed. New harvesting techniques are needed that remove small-diameter logs 

from overly dense stands, reduce fire hazard, and provide a flow of resources (Lambert 1993).

Rangelands are not meeting the multiple demands of diverse publics. Over 47 percent of riparian areas in 

Forest Service grazing allotments nationwide are not meeting management objectives (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture 1992). Conflicts are occurring over proper use by wildlife and livestock. Expectations for restoration of rangelands should be based on the current site potential and not on a historical potential that

no longer exists.
85

References

Anderson, J.W. 1992. Upper Grande Ronde River—anadromous fish habitat protection, restoration and 

monitoring plan. [Location of publisher unknown]: [publisher unknown]. 22 p. In cooperation with: 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 

Reservation, Nez Perce Tribe, and Oregon State University.

Arno, S.; Ottmar, R.D. 1993. Reintroduction of fire into forests of eastern Oregon and Washington. In: 

Everett, R.L., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Caraher, D.L.; Henshaw, J.; Hall, F. [and others]. 1992. Restoring ecosystems in the Blue Mountains—a 

report to the Regional Forester and the Forest Supervisors of the Blue Mountain forests. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 15 p.

Daterman, G. 1993. Protection of unique habitats and riparian areas from insect attack. In: Everett, R.L., 

comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration of stressed sites and 

processes. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station.

Elmore, W.; Kovalick, B.; Jurs, L.D. 1993. Restoration of riparian ecosystems. In: Everett, R.L., comp. 

Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment-Volume IV: Restoration. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Everett, R.L.; Hessburg, P.F.; Lehmkuhl, J.F.; [and others]. 1994. Old forests in dynamic landscapes - dry 

site forests of eastern Oregon and Washington. Journal of Forestry. 92(1): 22-25.

Everett, R.L.; Oliver, C.D.; Saveland, J. [and others]. 1993. Adaptive ecosystem management. In: Jensen, 

M.E.; Bourgeron, P.S., eds. In: Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume II: Ecosystem 

management: principles and applications. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Irwin, L.L.; Cook, J.C.; Riggs, R.A.; Skovlin, R. 1993. Effects of long-term grazing by big game and 

livestock in the Blue Mountains forest ecosystems. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem 

health assessment—Volume III: Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Lambert, M.B. 1993. Establish stable stand structure and increase tree growth: new technologies in 

silviculture. In: Everett, R.L., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: 

Restoration. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station.

Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Hessburg, P.F.; Ottmar, R.D. [and others]. 1993. Historical and current vegetation pattern 

and associated changes in insect and disease hazard, and fire and smoke conditions in eastern Oregon 

and Washington. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume III: 

Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station.
86

McIntosh, B.A.; Sedell, J.R.; Smith, J.E. [and others]. 1993. Management history of eastside ecosystems: 

changes in fish habitat over 50 years, 1935 to 1992. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem 

health assessment—Volume III: Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Megahan, W.F.; Irwin, L.; LaCabe, L. 1993. Forest roads and forest health. In: Everett, R.L., comp. Eastside 

forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Oliver, C.D.; Irwin, L.L.; Knapp, W.H. 1993. Management history of eastside ecosystems: historic practices, 

extent of their application, and their effects on sustainability of ecosystems. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. 

Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume III: Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 750 p.

Reeves, G.L.; Everest, F. 1993. Reducing hazard for endangered salmon stocks. In: Everett, R.L., comp. 

Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 114 p.

Thomas, JW.; Raphael, M.G. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and 

social assessment: a report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of Commerce; U.S. Department of Interior; and 

Environmental Protection Agency. [Irregular pagination].

Turner, M.G.; Gardner, R.H.; O’Neill, R.V.; Pearson, S.M. 1993. Multiscale organization of landscape 

heterogeneity. In: Jensen, M.E.; Bourgeron, P.S., eds. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—

Volume II: Ecosystem management: principles and applications. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1991. Forest health workshop; 1991 November 20; Pendleton, OR. La 

Grande, OR: Forest Service, Blue Mountains Natural Resources Institute. 24 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1992. Change on the range: new perspectives for rangeland research in the 

90’s. Washington, DC: Forest Service, Forest Environmental Research. 13 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1993. Forest plan implementation strategy: forest health. Colville, WA: 

Forest Service, Colville National Forest. 3 p.

Urban, D.L.; O’Neill, R.V.; Shugart, H.H., Jr. 1987. Landscape ecology: a hierarchical perspective can help 

scientists understand spatial patterns. BioScience. 37(2): 119-127.

Weigand, J.F. 1993. Economic issues in ecosystem restoration. In: Everett, R.L., comp. Eastside forest 

ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration of stressed sites, and processes. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Wissmar, R.C.; Smith, J.E.; McIntosh, B.A. [and others]. 1993. Ecological health of river basins in forested 

regions of eastern Washington and Oregon. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health 

assessment—Volume III: Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station.
87

RESTORATION OF RIPARIAN ECOSYSTEMS

by D. Wayne Elmore, Bernard L. Kovalchik, and Louis D. Jurs

The degradation of riparian and stream ecosystems is well documented in the literature (Elmore and Beschta 

1987, Kovalchik and Elmore 1991, Platts 1984). Effects include loss of riparian vegetation (thereby changing 

the composition and quantity of streamside vegetation) and altering channel morphology by widening and 

deepening streams (thereby lowering ground water tables, and decreasing summer stream flows, and increasing summer water temperatures and winter icing) (Armour and others 1991). Adverse changes in streams 

and riparian vegetation can result from many causes: changing climatic and precipitation patterns, more 

frequent flooding, altered beaver populations, heavy streamside grazing, improper use of upland watersheds 

or adjacent slopes, road construction, timber harvest and others (Elmore and Beschta 1987). Collectively, 

the result is deteriorated conditions for stream riparian function, wildlife habitat, and aquatic organisms 

(Chaney and others 1990).

The general assessment for the lands managed by the Forest Service (U.S. General Accounting Office 1988) 

was that most are in need of restoration. Recreational demands are especially high for riparian and stream 

zones, yet 70 to 90 percent of all natural riparian areas in the United States have possibly been altered 

(Hirsch and Segelquist 1978). The public has become increasingly aware of the enormous potential of 

western riparian areas, not only from a wildlife habitat perspective, but also from the perspective of stream 

riparian function. Riparian areas in good condition buffer flood flows and increase ground water recharge. 

The riparian vegetation filters sediment which helps to improve water quality. It also builds flood plains and 

increases areas for ground water storage which help hold streambanks and reduce erosion.

Current Forest Service policy calls for undertaking a national riparian strategy designed to improve markedly riparian conditions along lakes and streams by the year 2000. Therefore, the continued classification of 

riparian plant associations by the Forest Service is timely and desirable.

Philosophy of Restoration Activities

The desired future condition of riparian ecosystems must be based on management strategies that will allow 

our streams and riparian systems to approach their productive potential (Elmore and Beschta 1987). Potential desired outputs from riparian ecosystems include wildlife and fisheries habitat, water quality and quantity, livestock forage, recreation, and long-term maintenance of endemic plant and animal species.

To accomplish this, it must be recognized that each stream has unique combinations of channel morphology, streamside vegetation, hydrology, geology, and soils (Elmore and Beschta 1987). Management must be 

tailored to allow the basic riparian functions of sediment filtering, bank stability, aquifer recharge, and water 

storage to occur in each stream.

We also must remember that all riparian areas cannot be changed immediately to improve the functioning 

condition. Elmore and Beschta (1987) list some questions that may help assess priorities:

• Which riparian areas have the greatest potential for vegetative response?

• In which areas will vegetation succession occur quickly, and what pathways will this succession 

take? Classification, will help answer this.

• Which streams appear to have the greatest potential for storing subsurface water?

• Which streams have the greatest potential for filtering and storing sediment and improving water 

quality?
88

• Which riparian areas have the greatest potential for increased Animal Unit Months and how can the 

preferred timing and intensity of use be determined?

• To what extent will habitat for fisheries and wildlife improve?

It should be acknowledged that there are gaps in our knowledge base that preclude fully answering these 

questions. However, addressing these questions offers tremendous opportunity for innovative management 

as we advance the understanding of riparian areas and the wide array of benefits they provide.

Restoration of Stressed Sites—Stress Agents

Managed stress: These are unnatural system stresses caused by land use activities including overgrazing, 

agriculture, forestry, roads, watershed manipulation, and recreation. Some of the stresses that occur are manifested through noticeable effects such as accelerated erosion, dewatering of wetlands, bank cover reduction, 

siltation, increased stream temperatures, reduced habitat diversity, structural and functional simplification, 

and others. Some effects, especially those that may interrupt natural function or system processes, are less 

apparent.

Natural stress: Natural stress agents are mainly those dictated by climate or weather events. These include 

flooding, drought, and windstorms. Other natural stresses can include insect infestation, wildlife effects, ice 

damage, volcanism, earthquakes, fire, and similar phenomena often grouped together as “acts of God.” The 

effects from natural stress agents can be similar to those experienced in managed stress situations but tend to 

be of a localized nature. The ability of streams and their associated riparian areas to handle natural stresses 

is heavily influenced by the management prescriptions applied in the watershed.

Some natural systems will function normally at a level close to the threshold of system failure, thereby making them highly susceptible to added stress levels from either a managed or natural source. Ecosystems on 

highly erodible soils or those dependent on limited nutrient supplies or close-tolerance chemical balances are 

good examples. Managed riparian areas often can be placed in a precarious stress balance due to implementation of management objectives that attempt to force a particular system to function at or near the threshold 

of system component failure. Land use management objectives that feature the maximization of a single 

value or that encourage the maintenance of certain seral stages to favor a particular species are common 

examples.

The difficulty faced by the land manager considering site restoration options is how to balance the complex 

issues of natural resource commodity production with the sustainability of ecosystem function so that natural systems and processes will not fail.

Before we can begin to restore degraded riparian areas, we must be able to characterize the resource through 

some form of classification. Many synecologists are developing vegetation-based site classifications for 

uplands in the Western United States. The majority of these classifications either do not include the riparian zone or treat it broadly. With increased interest in riparian management, several comprehensive riparian 

classifications have been developed for portions of the National Forest System (Cowardin and others 1979, 

Kovalchik 1987, Youngblood and others 1985a, 1985b). Because Kovalchik (1987) uses geomorphology and 

is specific to eastern Oregon, we will use this riparian classification as an example in the rest of this paper.

The recurrence of similar plant associations across the riparian zone can be used to stratify the landscape 

(Daubenmire 1976). The vegetation, soils, water, and physical characteristics can be used to predict plant 

responses to management, productivity potential, and future species composition. However, not all questions 

about a piece of land can be answered by a plant association classification. Therefore, geomorphic classification must be considered to effectively describe and manage riparian ecosystems.
89

The objectives of classification are to:

• Describe the general geographic, topographic, edaphic, functional, and floristic features of riparian 

ecosystems.

• Describe successional trends and predict vegetative potential on disturbed riparian ecosystems.

• Present information on resource values and management opportunities.

Classification allows us to stratify sites for identification and to compare them to reference sites with respect 

to composition, structure, and function. Restoration information can be readily transferred among similar 

sites for greater efficiency.

Objectives for Restoration

The goal is restoring riparian ecosystems, not a single structure, function, or species. Before we can begin 

to restore a riparian system to meet land use objectives, we must know the present condition, potential of the 

site, and functions of the system. We also need a vision of where we want to go that is shared and designed 

by an interdisciplinary group. Some characteristics of a good objective are:

• The expected results must be measurable.

• The expected result(s) or intent are clearly written or stated.

• They are realistic and challenging but attainable.

• They contain specific timeframes within the constraints of the system.

• They are compatible with the overall mission or vision.

• They are worth achieving.

With these characteristics in mind, managers need to ask themselves six questions when designing and writing an objective:

1. What do we want?

2. Where do we want it?

3. Why do we want it?

4. When do we want it?

5. How much or how many do we want?

6. For how long do we want it?

To manage riparian ecosystems effectively, we must determine the needs of the stream and riparian area 

before we can decide how to partition its use among the wide array of competing natural resource interest 

groups: The management objectives and restoration plans should be based primarily on the functions of the 

system and should consider the needs and objectives of the uses of that system.
90

To successfully manage our riparian areas, from an ecosystem perspective, we must consider the following:

• Full floodplain function—preferably the 100-year flood plain.

• We must manage riparian areas within the context of the environment in which they are located, 

recognizing their unique value, and remembering that what works for one system may not work for 

another.

• We must recognize the importance of all stream systems, regardless of size, and view these streams 

and their associated riparian areas in a landscape perspective.

• Restoration activities within the stream channel and the riparian zone should re-establish natural 

ecological processes and communities.

• We must manage to maintain connectivity across landscapes. No other landscape feature is as effective as riparian areas in linking ecosystems:

Recommendations for Restoration

Physical manipulation of habitat elements is commonly used to help “fix” natural systems that have been 

stressed. Existing literature describes many different methods of altering habitat components to reach certain conditions. In riparian zones, one of the most common methods is to attempt replacement of missing 

vegetative or physical components through reseeding, replanting, or replacing the missing component with 

structures. In extreme cases, stream reaches have been completely rebuilt with various hydrologic and bioengineering techniques. Many of the manipulation techniques are extremely expensive, and project success 

over the long term is not well documented. If time is a less important project element, implementing land use 

management often can result in achieving desired future conditions at a more reasonable cost. For example, 

grazing systems, timber harvest systems, and even engineering designs for roads and trails have been developed that allow some classes of wetland and riparian sites to restore functional capability naturally, over 

time.

An example: the restoration of willow-dominated riparian zones—To restore forage and willow production 

in riparian zones, grazing systems must become oriented to the entire ecosystem, not just to the upland-area 

(Kaufmann and others 1983, Smith 1981). A combination of both woody-rooted and fibrous species provides 

physical protection to the hydraulic forces of eroding water and allows forbs, grasses, and sedges to bind the 

finer particles. In combination, this diversity of plant species is much more effective in promoting bank stability than is any one species by itself. Woody vegetation also is important for wildlife and fisheries habitat 

by providing food, cover, reproduction areas, and shade for reducing summer stream temperatures (Elmore 

1988). Most traditional grazing systems were developed for upland grasses, not riparian species (Platts 

1986). Although grazing systems, such as deferred or rotation, have improved the condition of most upland 

range in the last 50 years, they encourage concentrated livestock use in riparian zones during mid- and latesummer periods and have resulted in minimal improvements in riparian conditions (Platts 1986). Eventually, 

hydrologic changes reach a threshold, after which the stream proceeds into a cycle of gully development or 

braiding (fig. 1; Kovalchik and Elmore 1991).

Riparian habitats require site-specific management (Platts 1986). Several stream reaches, each with a different mosaic of plant associations and communities, may occur in a single grazing allotment (Kovalchik 1987). 

These communities have different tolerances to grazing (Benke and Raleigh 1978). Grazing systems that 

are compatible with one community may harm another (Kauffman and others 1983). Therefore, to maintain 

diversity of plant associations along each stream reach, grazing systems must be carefully designed for the 

communities that are present and desired, or both.
91

The switch from grazing herbaceous plants to browsing shrubs is the single most important factor in the 

change from willow-dominated plant associations to less stable communities. Unless grazing systems allow 

for sufficient, herbaceous, vegetative height growth during the mid- to late-summer period, they will generally fail to maintain willow-dominated plant associations. Sufficient forage height acts to prevent excess 

browsing, provides for regrowth of riparian plants after use, and leaves sufficient vegetation for streambank 

protection.
92

 The degree to which browsing of willows is compatible with long term stream and plant community maintenance depends on the relative number of willows present. Few willows (where there should be many) should 

dictate conservative use. Use can be greater where willows are abundant or where management objectives 

do not call for increased numbers of willows. Figure 2 rates common grazing systems by their effects on willow-dominated plant associations in fair to good condition (Kovalchik and Elmore 1991).

The requirements of riparian vegetation must be evaluated differently than in the past, and changes in management must be instituted to improve the ecological condition of stream and associated riparian systems 

(Elmore 1992). Furthermore, the watershed, not just the stream system, must be the focal point because the 

runoff from the uplands has a major effect on what happens in the stream system. If improvements in water 

quality and hydrologic regime are needed, then alteration of those practices affecting the whole watershed 

must be a significant component of riparian restoration programs (Elmore 1992).
93

ESTABLISH STABLE STAND STRUCTURES AND INCREASE TREE 

GROWTH: NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN SILVICULTURE

by Michael B. Lambert

Exclusion and suppression of fire, market selection and harvesting of single species, and construction of 

logging roads according to standards and density required to support contemporary harvest and transportation equipment (social direction and management practices) have degraded weakened ecosystems and their 

ability to withstand cyclic drought and resulting insect cycles (biological/environmental conditions and reactions) (Gast and others 1991).

The stressed site conditions of the eastside ecosystems are the outcomes of interacting forces from at least 

three sources: biological and environmental conditions and reactions, social direction and management practices, and operational capabilities. Improvements in efficiency and economy of future operational capabilities 

can help establish stable stand structures through selective thinning. Correct stocking levels can also help increase tree growth and fire/insect/disease resistance of stands. There is an urgent need to develop operational 

technologies which support economical, sustainable management practices of restoration and prevention.

The formidable task required of this technology to achieve restoration and sustainable forest management 

includes:

• Thinning of overstocked, low-vigor stands.

• Selection cutting for species adjustments.

• Salvage cutting to recover market value from deteriorating stands.

• Removal of fuel buildup to reduce the risk of stand-replacement fires.

• Removal of dead and dying trees to reduce insect and disease attack.

• Protection of soils from compaction and movement.

• Manipulation of vegetation in and near riparian areas.

• Forest operations requiring fewer, lower cost roads for hydrologic stability.

• Retention and controlled distribution of site nutrients.

• Enhanced structure of forest materials for wildlife habitat improvements.

• Mechanical removal of fuels to reduce effects of fire on air quality.

An approach is presented for forming a cooperative development effort to foster learning and rapid solutions 

wherein people work toward common goals by communicating with each other, helping each other, relying on each other’s strengths, and evaluating progress toward the goals. Rapid progress toward these goals 

requires continual refinement of objectives along the way.

Logging systems have changed very little and very slowly in the face of changing social, environmental, and 

ecosystem management requirements. One reason for this is because equipment design and operational practices follow current social direction and management practices. Managers tend to prescribe treatments that 

they know from experience can be accomplished with available technology. If social direction and management practices do not change, there is no reason to expect operational capabilities to improve. On the other 

hand, there is no need to sacrifice management objectives for want of technology because technology can be 
94

developed faster than new timber stands (Lambert 1990). The problem is how to organize people, funding, 

and requirements of several disciplines to make progress in the development of technology used in restoration. Equipment suppliers, engineers, operators, and land managers need to understand operational requirements and then work together to upgrade operational approaches that will relieve conditions on stressed 

sites.

Steps to arrive at the desired future conditions of restored forest structure, value, and productivity often 

include structural rearrangement of trees and other vegetation. Prescriptions for particular tree or canopy 

spacing, or thinnings to achieve diverse species or canopy layers are sometime desired. Specifications for the 

desired structure will come from the collective thinking of many scientists and ecosystem managers. Providing the appropriate equipment and the training in its use are the tasks of engineers, equipment manufacturers, dealers, and operators. There is an irony here. Managers prescribe treatments based on their knowledge 

of what is achievable on the ground, while equipment specialists provide systems designed to do the work 

that they expect will be prescribed. This circular approach makes only slow progress over long periods—too 

late to help sites that are stressed now.

A new philosophy must break the cycle of practices that are constrained by real or imagined limitations 

in operational capabilities and lack of cooperation among contracting parties. A spirit of togetherness and 

cooperation that fosters interdependence and trust is needed to break the cycle and lead to progress toward 

realistic solutions. The evolution of hardware and management prescriptions must progress hand in hand. 

Old strategies and operational procedures have brought us to the current; stressed conditions. Use of the 

same approaches will exacerbate the stresses. Future management of the ecosystems will require different 

approaches. But, when operators and purchasers are financially burdened, there is no incentive to capitalize 

or develop new operational systems. Existing logging operations have already reached their lower economic 

limits. With the value of stands declining, the old operational systems are no longer viable, however, the 

owners of those systems are unable or unwilling to upgrade their capabilities.

Operational economics have squeezed many logging companies out of business. Bankers learn that financing 

logging equipment is risky. Equipment suppliers are not encouraged to develop new systems because of poor 

sales prospects. The Forest Service is not chartered to fund or engage in equipment development activities. 

Forest Service research has some authority to function in research, development, and application, but the 

magnitude of funding for this effort is dwarfed by the magnitude of true development costs. Funding and 

long-term (3 to 5 years) contracting authorities exist in the Forest Service, but “development” may not be 

funded this way legally. With this in mind, how can we improve the operational systems needed to tackle the 

new, more difficult tasks of stressed site restoration and ecosystem management?

All this must be done within operational costs that are lower than the value of marketable materials produced, unless subsidies or revenues for forest resources other than timber can be found. Currently, forest 

amenities and social values such as scenic quality, habitat quality, and watershed characteristics do not 

generate direct cash flow for management on these bases. In the immediate future, the value of products sold 

therefore must equal or exceed the cost of operations.

Development of technologies to accomplish the restoration tasks listed above will require the combined 

energy of all affected parties; it is beyond the reach of single interests. One suggestion is to merge missions, 

expertise, and funding in the Forest Service, research, industry, and public realms to achieve urgently needed progress. If scientists, land managers, operators, and wood product manufacturers join forces, progress 

can be made through sharing and synergism. A partnership of interested people could embark on a cooperative development and learning exercise that would result in refinement of an integrated harvesting and stand 

improvement system. The integrated system would have flexible operational capability for restructuring 

forest vegetation according to prescriptions evolving from current science and past experience. It could also 
95

recover marketable resources such as saw logs, chips, and energy wood, important for continuing operations.

A cooperative approach among this group would create opportunities for advances in many areas, including 

enhanced equipment capabilities; knowledge of how best to apply new technologies; studies of ecosystem 

responses to particular controlled treatments; recovery of additional smaller stems for market; the economics 

and social aspects of marketing forest products following processing and sorting in the woods; and studies of 

effects on employment, forest worker safety, air quality, and so forth.

Together, the group could work toward development of a system with new operational capabilities. An effective, integrated harvesting system for restoration operations could selectively access designated trees 

and materials. It could accomplish stand structural changes needed for restoration and also provide a flow 

of commodities. The in-woods processing capabilities of the system would enable it to leave desired trees 

and parts of other trees on site for nutrient, habitat, or stand-enhancement reasons. Materials to be removed 

would be efficiently processed into the highest value form for subsequent sale and transportation to market. 

Marketable forms of wood include saw logs, chip logs (with or without bark), clean chips, and whole tree 

chips. Appropriate handling and transporting equipment would protect soils and leave trees. The system 

would operate over long distances without the need for new or reconstructed roads. An important attribute of 

this system is that it should get the total job done in one continuous process and be self-supporting from the 

value of products it removes, even in stands in poor health.

A full-scale, outdoor experiment should be undertaken to establish the best operational system for achieving the mechanical treatments needed to accomplish restoration and subsequent productivity of the eastside 

forests. Outdoor laboratory test sites from among various stressed conditions are needed. The sites should 

have actual and hypothetical prescriptions that embody the best scientific management philosophy . Equipment that can accomplish the above silvicultural, salvage, restoration, improvement, and ecosystem management tasks should be put into service on the test sites and steadily improved. A monitoring process should 

be established for progressive evaluation by all parties concerned over a long time to establish design and 

application criteria for industry and ecosystem managers.

A true research, development, and application study of this trial system could be undertaken with the collective attention and feedback of operators, sale planners, sale administrators, biologists, landscape architects, 

ecologists, hydrologists, equipment designers, public, product end users, and other interested groups. The 

magnitude of the required effort is beyond the scope of any individual group, but collectively, a cooperative 

effort could achieve solutions that would benefit all and lead to restoration and future protection.

A successful cooperative effort could realize the following objectives:

• Accomplish effective treatments on many acres.

• Foster educational opportunities so that sale planners and administrators learn the capabilities and 

limitations of equipment.

• Identify more effective procedures, more efficient methods, ways to reduce costs, ways to reduce soil 

disturbance and tree wounding, and other improved operational approaches.

• Explore alternative marketing strategies.

• Transfer knowledge and experience through publications, workshops, demonstrations, and other 

extension methods to all concerned. This will have a snowball effect on the operational capability to 

achieve restoration and sustained productivity on currently stressed sites.

Technologies developed to operate successfully on stressed sites will be even more successful when applied 
96

to the management of healthy sites. As forest health and productivity are restored, the economics of use of 

the new technology will improve. Successful development of economical operational capabilities will contribute to a viable timber industry in the area. A stable industry, working in partnership with land managers 

and the public, is needed to use advanced technology to achieve balance between the ecological possibilities 

of the land and human needs and wants.
97

FOREST ROADS AND FOREST HEALTH

by Walter F. Megahan, Larry L. Irwin, and Larry L. LaCabe

One of the issues in the East Cascades is that of forest roads, including the construction and management of 

National Forest System roads as well as the disposition of old, usually abandoned, access routes that are not 

part of the Forest road system. By providing access to National Forest lands, roads provide various benefits. 

However, roads also can cause adverse environmental effects that are manifested on site, downstream, or 

both.

Onsite Effects

Potential onsite effects of roads include effects on terrestrial wildlife, the introduction of noxious weeds 

(Harrod 1993) and reductions in site productivity. One consequence of extensive road building has been 

changes in abundance and distributions of wildlife in association with human use along roads. Large mammals, such as deer and elk, shy away from areas of human activity; grizzly bears particularly are sensitive to 

human use along roads (Manley and others 1992).

The relative effects of roads on wildlife depend on the interactions among the topography, frequency of human use, and vegetation conditions (Edge and Marcum 1991, Irwin and Peek 1979). Thus, road placement 

and configuration are important factors in management planning. For example, straight roads are considered 

to have higher effects on wildlife than winding roads (Lyon 1975). And, roads near wet meadows where 

large mammals forage have greater effects than roads in areas that are used less frequently.

Two or three decades ago, wildlife managers frequently requested National Forest managers to develop more 

roads as a means of managing the size of big game herds through hunting. Now big game managers call for 

restrictions in road building and for increased road closures because road densities can be too high (Lyon 

1983) and because increased hunter densities (Vales and others 1991) have changed big game population 

structure (Leckenby and others 1991). Thus vulnerability of big game to hunters is a primary concern, and 

road management, forest stand size, and stand structure have become major topics in forest management 

planning (Lyon and Canfield 1991).

Construction of timber harvest roads initially removes anywhere from 1 to about 30 percent of the area from 

tree production, depending on the type of logging system used. Losses in site productivity depend on road 

longevity, size, location and design, the part of the road in question (cutslope, ditch, tread, or fillslope), and 

the characteristics of the biogeoclimatic region of concern. In general, net long-term productivity losses tend 

to be considerably less than the percentage of the area initially involved in road construction except where 

off-road groundwater or erosion problems exist (Megahan 1988).

Offsite Effects

Potential downstream effects from forest roads include changes in the quality and quantity of streamflow, 

impaired aquatic habitat, and sedimentation damage to water-related infrastructures such as dams, irrigation 

works, and bridges. Causal factors include changes in the hydrologic function of the watershed as well as 

direct channel encroachment (Megahan 1987).

Accelerated sedimentation is by far the most common cause of deteriorated water quality from road construction. Megahan (1981) summarized results from 24 different studies documenting increased erosion and, 

in many cases, sedimentation from forest roads in the interior West. Additional damages to water quality are 

possible from introduced chemicals from road surfacing materials and chemical spills (Furniss and others 

1991). Increased streamflow quantities following road construction depend on the area of roads and how well 

the runoff from roads synchronizes with the runoff from the remainder of the watershed (Megahan 1987).
98

Damage to aquatic habitat is primarily the result of accelerated sedimentation and direct channel encroachment. Furniss and others (1991) reported that changes in sediment loading, channel morphology, riparian 

conditions, and other road-related effects can adversely affect all freshwater stages of salmonids including 

migration, spawning, incubation, emergence, and rearing. Platts and others (1989) document changes in 

salmon spawning and rearing habitat from increased delivery of fine sediment following logging and associated road construction in the South Fork of the Salmon River in Idaho.

Nearly all public recreation on National Forest lands depends on road access. Roads also provide access for 

management, protection, and use of National Forest resources. Currently there are about 57,000 miles of 

National Forest System roads in the eastside forests of the Pacific Northwest Region. About 15 percent are 

maintained and suitable for passenger cars, 62 percent are suitable for high-clearance vehicles, and 23 percent are closed to public use for at least a portion of the use season (U.S. Department of Agriculture, n.d.). 

Most of these roads have been built under contract by the purchasers of National Forest timber and paid for 

with offsetting credits for timber. The number and location of these roads (road density) often is determined 

by the logging system intended to be used for the initial harvest (Kramer and Owen, n.d.).

Philosophy of Restoration Activities 

Since the 1950s and 1960s, efforts have increased to identify and mitigate the negative effects of forest 

roads. Research conducted by the Forest Service and others has led to technologies and methods that have 

been incorporated into Forest Service handbooks and technical publications. Technology transfer networks 

are available to disseminate this information. Recently, concern about, the habitat of the northern spotted 

owl, Native American tribal rights, and the declining salmon runs in the Columbia and Snake Rivers, along 

with other issues, have focused additional attention in this area. The Forest plans for the individual National 

Forests in eastern Oregon and Washington contain standards and guidelines for the location, construction, 

and operation of roads. Additional standards and guidelines are being developed by PACFISH, an interregional Forest Service team formed in 1993 and concerned about anadromous fish habitat, and SAT, scientific 

analysis team (Thomas and others 1993) established to advise the Federal court during litigation concerning 

the northern spotted owl.

Recommendations for Restoration

Problems from roads would be reduced by limiting new construction to provide the fewest number of lowest standard roads necessary to manage the ecosystems. These roads should be safe and durable structures 

built and maintained to standards appropriate to their intended uses, and should be designed and operated 

to minimize their negative effects on the environment. Reconstruction of the existing system should include 

identifying and correcting barriers to fish and wildlife. Roads in riparian, wetland, and other sensitive areas 

should be relocated if practical; or reconstructed to incorporate mitigation features, such as sediment traps 

and screens, pavements to harden surfaces, and revegetation or other protection of erosive sites.

Perhaps the most effective way to reduce the effect of roads is to obliterate roads no longer needed for ecosystem management. Since fiscal year 1991, Congress has made funds available to the Forest Service for that 

purpose, and about 1,000 miles of road have been obliterated in eastern Oregon and Washington at a cost of 

$800,000. In fiscal year 1993, an estimated 80 additional miles will be obliterated at a cost of $93,000. The 

Forests of the Pacific Northwest Region are currently involved in an Access and Travel Management process 

that will determine, among other things, a prioritized list of roads to be obliterated. That process will not be 

complete until near the end of fiscal year 1993, but the Regional Office has estimated that as many as 19,000 

miles of road in eastern Oregon and Washington may no longer be needed. Site-specific project planning 

should determine if road obliteration will involve establishing a traffic barrier, removing the drainage structures and restoring the natural drainage patterns--then allowing the natural processes to reclaim the land; or 

if it may require scarification, seeding, planting and re-establishing the natural land contours. Road obliteration is a labor-intensive activity requiring the use of road construction equipment.
99

RESTORATION OF STRESSED, FORESTED RANGELANDS

by Richard L. Everett and Linda H. Hardesty

Increased emphasis on ecosystem sustainability requires that criteria in addition to forage and timber yield 

be used to evaluate rangeland ecosystems and to direct their management (Quigley 1989, Quigley and Ashton 1990). Stressed rangelands are characterized by loss of site potential reflected in altered species composition, soil loss, negative cumulative effects on landscape characteristics such as water quality, and reduced 

ability to provide desired products and services. Degradation of rangelands can occur from improper grazing 

by liveestock and wildlife, soil compaction and disturbance by logging activities, increased tree competition, 

catastrophic fire, invasion of noxious weeds (Harrod 1993), and changes in climate (Branson 1985). Excessive livestock and wildlife use of forage resources causes shifts in plant community composition, loss of 

protective plant cover, and loss in site potential from soil erosion (Irwin 1993). Timber harvesting methods 

that compact and disturb forest soils also reduce herbaceous plant cover (Harvey 1993). Loss of herbaceous 

vegetation has been associated with encroachment of western juniper woodlands into adjacent shrub or 

grassland communities in eastern Oregon (Vaitkus and Eddleman 1991) and with canopy closure during the 

conversion of open pine stands to overstocked Douglas-fir stands Gohnson 1993).

Degradation alters ecosystem processes and structure on and off site. Grazing has reduced flashy fuels and 

fire frequency, contributing to the development of currently overstocked stands and associated severe fire 

regimes (Agee 1993). Grazing pressure by livestock or wildlife, timber harvest, and wildfires all increase opportunities for erosion, affecting downstream water quality and fisheries habitat through elevated temperatures, increased sediment loading, or both (Platts 1981).

Rangelands currently are not meeting the multiple demands of the livestock industry and environmental 

groups. Loss of riparian vegetation from improper grazing and its attendant effects on fisheries and water 

quality are serious public concerns (Anderson 1992). Conflict between wildlife and livestock interests over 

forage allocation is a significant socioeconomic issue in eastern Oregon and Washington. The livestock industry is suffering numerous difficulties but is contributing to the economic health of the region.

Nationally, 70 percent of Forest Service range allotments are not meeting management objectives, and 25 

percent are overstocked and on a downward trend (U.S. General Accounting Office 1990). These values are 

approximations because Forest Service managers were not sure of conditions on 23 percent of the rangelands 

they manage. About 10 to 20 percent of Forest Service-administered rangelands in Oregon and Washington 

are in poor condition (Society for Range Management 1989), and the trend is downward on a similar percentage of these lands.

That Forest Service rangelands are not all properly managed is not surprising given that rangelands constitute over 54 percent of Forest Service-administered lands but they receive less than 1 percent of the budget 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture 1992,). Each range staffer manages about 298 square miles (U.S. General 

Accounting Office 1988). Updated grazing allotment plans, which determine the resource base and carrying 

capacity for livestock and wildlife, have not been completed for 122 of the 637 allotments in eastern Oregon 

and Washington (unpublished data, U.S. Department of Agriculture 1992b). Only 254 allotments are estimated to be meeting desired forest management objectives.

Given the current funding for rangeland management, the biotic potential of these sites is unlikely to be realized or maintained. Restoration priorities must be established. Focusing on sites currently not meeting management objectives is justified (U.S. General Accounting Office 1988), but even more critical is maintaining the condition of rangelands that are meeting management objectives. Unique habitats and remnants of 

former communities that may provide information for future generations should be identified and protected 

before they are inadvertently altered or lost. Priority also should be given to preventing the impending loss 

of biodiversity and site potential that catastrophic fires, salvage logging, and riparian grazing may be causing 

in currently stressed ecosystems. The reality is that with current funding prospects, a triage approach must 
100

be formulated to attain the best range conditions possible over a wide area, without the hope of achieving the 

full potential of every site.

A Philosophy for Restoration Activities

The desired future condition of forested rangelands is that they maintain the structural and functional 

capacity to provide resources and values at the site and landscape scales for current and future generations. 

Potential outputs include desirable vegetation, wildlife habitat, forage for livestock and wildlife, recreation, 

sustained populations of plant and animal species, and proper hydrologic function (Quigley and Ashton 

1990). Rangeland are associated with other ecosystems; thus, restoring stressed rangelands must consider 

not only the desired restoration outcome for the specific site, but also the desired restoration outcome for 

the landscape where the site occurs. Expectations for restoration should be based on the most probable plant 

community, given the current site potential, rather than on a historical site potential that no longer exists 

(Society for Range Management 1991).

Reducing the occurrence and intensity of adverse effects is a prerequisite for restoration activities and the maintenance of current and future improvements. The stocking rates for livestock and wildlife must be related to the carrying capacity of the land, and future timber management activities should make site stability a priority. Restored 

areas should not be viewed as reserves but managed to maintain the ecosystem benefits of restoration.

Economic evaluation of restoration projects should not be constrained to cost-benefit analysis of single-use 

returns but broadly construed toward maintaining ecosystems. The question is not so much the “before and 

after” benefits as it is “with and without” (Fulcher 1973) and the alternative costs of ecosystem degradation. 

Factoring in the “external costs” of degradation will shift the outcome of analyses that historically focused 

only on economic costs and benefits to the proximate few.

Formulating Restoration Plans

Management tools for improving rangelands include revegetation, control of undesirable vegetation, prescribed burning, grazing management, and combinations of these practices. We need to define the desired 

trajectory for the stressed range site and design restoration and management practices to complement natural 

processes to achieve that end. The difficulty and costs associated with trying to maintain plant communities counter to natural successional processes should be considered if rangelands are for dedicated use rather 

than ecosystem sustainability.

Preventing Loss of Site Potential

Soil erosion is a natural ecosystem process, but accelerated erosion from wildfire, grazing, or timber management activities can significantly reduce site potential (Megahan 1991) and reduce future management 

options. Maintaining site potential should be a priority to preclude the more difficult and expensive job of 

restoration. The erosion-productivity problem is difficult to detect initially but can proceed exponentially, 

rapidly becoming economically impossible to repair (Gifford and Whitehead 1982). In this cycle, loss of 

plant cover means reduced infiltration which equates to increased erosion, thereby causing lower site productivity and further reduced plant cover (Simanton 1991). A major concern on eastside forests is the potential 

for large-scale surface and mass-wasting erosion when postwildfire soil surfaces are unprotected and subject 

to high-intensity thunderstorms (Helvey and others 1985).

New Technologies

Technologies currently under development may assist in preventing or improving degraded transitional range 

sites. New methods are being developed to harvest small-diameter logs to reduce stress from tree competition (Lambert 1993). Once fuel loadings have been reduced, prescribed fire can be used to reestablish lowseverity fire regimes and more open forest communities (Ottmar, in press). Even with appropriate stocking 
101

rates, overuse of riparian areas by livestock is a major concern, and fencing is often not a viable alternative. 

Electric-aversion ear tags are being tested to restrict cattle use of sensitive areas (Tiedemann and Quigley, 

personal communication). Fertilizer treatment to restore meadows degraded by elk and cattle is being evaluated (Everett, study plan on file, Wenatchee FSL).

Restoring Biodiversity—Species and Processes

Improper grazing, timber harvest, and anomalous tree competition levels can affect plant species competition. Loss of plants often is apparent from mechanical or grazing damage, but loss of soil seed reserves, 

though less apparent, is just as significant (Koniak and Everett 1983). If desirable native species are not 

adequately abundant, propagules from off-site or replacement species may need to be introduced (Brooke 

and Holl 1988).

Concerns exist over use of introduced rather than native species in restoring rangelands. Introduced species may compete with indigenous species and alter plant succession. Introduction must be justified by what 

the introduced species contributes to important landscape values. For example, potential exists for severe 

erosion after large-scale wildfires in the mountainous terrains of eastern Oregon and Washington (Helvey 

1980). Revegetation must be rapid to conserve the soil resource, but this may affect biodiversity if exotic species are introduced. The decision process must evaluate whether the long-term loss of soil is more significant 

than successional consequences of species introduction. Some seeded species may persist for decades (Geist 

1976) or rapidly lose dominance to native species (Lyon 1976).

Opportunities to restore and enhance degraded transitional rangelands could be unprecedented, given current forest health and the potential for catastrophic fire and salvage logging associated with insect outbreaks 

in eastern Oregon and Washington. The size and intensity of wildfires is increasing dramatically (Agee 

1993), and the potential for salvage logging exists on thousands of acres in the Blue Mountains (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1993). These areas present opportunities to re-establish desirable rangeland plant 

communities, but are prime for further degradation if adequate restoration is not undertaken. Invasion of 

disturbed sites by weeds is also a major threat (Harrod 1993). Invasive exotic weeds such as cheatgrass and 

several species of Centaurea (knapweed, star thistle) dominate extensive areas in Oregon and Washington 

(Allen and Jackson 1992). Choosing between desirable, introduced species or invasion by weeds, requires 

comparing the longterm potential threats from each source. Plant and animal communities are sufficiently 

interdependent that many insect, wildlife, and microbial populations depend on specific plant communities. 

These links must be recognized in decisions about the future diversity of plant communities.

We need to consider the potential of seeding desirable species before timber harvest to ensure desirable species response if remnant plants and soil seed reserves are insufficient to prevent invasion of noxious weeds. 

We also need to develop means to protect recently logged sites from grazing until herbaceous and shrub 

species become established, as well as to investigate use of livestock to manipulate understory growth and 

precondition wildlife browse.

Recommendations for Restoration of Forested Ranges

Restoration of rangeland ecosystems should focus on ecosystem structure and function rather than specific 

resources or values such as forage production or wildlife habitat. Undisturbed relict areas have been used as 

reference sites for investigating ecosystem structure and function, and for defining the potential natural plant 

community associated with a given range setting. The potential natural plant community may not be desirable when other plant communities more closely meet society’s needs. However, in the acceptance and management of these other plant communities, the requirement of no loss in future options should be explicit.

Restoration activities should be embedded in a comprehensive .approach to managing rangeland ecosystems 

and larger landscape units. The decision process should be shared among all (national, regional, and local) 

social communities interested in this issue (Weigand 1993).
102

Recommended restoration actions, in order of priority, are:

• Immediately assess. the need for restoring and protecting recently burned areas or insect epidemic 

areas recently salvage-logged and implement appropriate measures to protect site stability and potential.

• Immediately assess restoration needs associated with the conservation of rangeland riparian areas, 

water quality, and fisheries and implement appropriate restoration practices.

• Identify sites currently in satisfactory condition, but with a downward trend, and implement management designed to maintain satisfactory.condition.

• Prevent the spread to and increased density of noxious weeds on degraded rangelands (on- and offsite management required).

• Complete or update allotment management plans to define the current resource base, carrying capacity for wildlife and livestock, and the need for restoration actions.

• Develop a strategy to ensure that adequate seed and other planting materials are available for use on 

catastrophic burn and salvage-logged sites to prevent soil loss and undesirable changes in plant species composition.

• Develop a set of measures to evaluate rangeland resources and their management relative to ecosystem sustainability; reallocate the Forest Service budget to manage for ecosystem goals.
103

Section References

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire and weather disturbances in terrestrial ecosystems of the eastern Cascades. In: 

Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume III: Assessment. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Allen, E.B.; Jackson, L.L. 1992. The arid West: here the challenge is to reverse the downward spiral of 

desertification over vast areas. Restoration and Management Notes. 10(1): 56-59.

Anderson, J.W. 1992. Upper Grande Ronde River—anadromous fish habitat protection, restoration and 

monitoring plan. [Location of publisher unknown]: [publisher unknown]. 22 p. In cooperation with: 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 

Reservation, Nez Perce Tribe, and Oregon State University.

Armour, C.L.; Duff, D.A.; Elmore, D.W. 1991. The effects of livestock grazing on riparian and stream 

ecosystems. American Fisheries Society Position Statement. Fisheries. 16(1): 7-11.

Benke, R.J.; Raleigh, R.F. 1978. Grazing and the riparian zone: impact and management perspectives. In: 

Proceedings, symposium on strategies for protection and management of floodplains, wetlands, and 

other riparian ecosystems; [dates of meeting unknown]; [location of meeting unknown]. Atlanta, GA: 

[publisher unknown]: 263-267.

Branson, F.A. 1985. Vegetation changes on western rangelands. Society of Range Management; Range 

Monograph 2. 76 p.

Brooke, B.M.; Holl, F.B. 1988. Establishment of winter versus spring aerial seedings of domestic grasses and 

legumes on logged sites. Journal of Range Management. 41(1): 53-57.

Chaney, E.; Elmore, W.; Platts, W.S. 1990. Livestock grazing on western riparian areas. Denver, CO: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency; Eagle, ID: Northwest Resources Information Center, Inc. 45 p.

Cowardin, L.M.; Carter, V.; Golet, F.C.; LaRoe, E.T. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats 

of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of 

Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service. 103 p.

Daubenmire, R.D. 1976. The use of vegetation in assessing the productivity of forest lands. Botanical 

Review. 42(2): 115-143.

Edge, L.D.; Marcum, C.L. 1991. Topography ameliorates the effects of roads and human disturbance on elk. In: 

Christensen, A.G.; Lyon, L.J.; Lonner, T.N., comps. Proceedings of symposium on elk vulnerability; [dates of 

meeting unknown]; [location of meeting unknown]. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University: 132-137.

Elmore, W. 1988. Stream processes and grazing strategies. Presentation at riparian management workshop: 

challenges and opportunities; 1988, May 3; Elko, NV. Unpublished material. On file with: Prineville, OR: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Prineville, OR.

Elmore, W. 1992. Riparian responses to grazing practices. In: Naiman, R.J., ed. Watershed management. 

New York: Springer-Verlag: 442-457.

Elmore, W.; Beschta; R.L. 1987. Riparian areas: perceptions in management. Rangelands. 9(6): 260-265.
104

Fulcher, G.D. 1973. Grazing systems: a least cost alternative to proper management of the public lands. 

Journal of Range Management. 26(5): 385-387.

Furniss M.J.; Roelofs, T.D.; Yee, C.S. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. In: Meehan, W.R., ed. 

Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Special Pub. 19. 

[location of publisher unknown]. American Fisheries Society: 297-323. Chapter 8.

Gast, W.R., Jr.; Scott, D.W.; Schmitt, C. [and others]. 1991. Blue Mountains forest health report: “New 

perspectives in forest health.” Clapp, R.A., Jr., ed. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Region; Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests.

Geist, J.M. 1976. Forested range fertilization in eastern Oregon and Washington. Rangelands journal. 3: 116-118.

Gifford, G.F.; Whitehead, J.M. 1982. Soil erosion effects on productivity in rangeland environments; where 

is the research? Journal of Range Management. 35(6): 801-802.

Harrod, R.J. 1993. Practices to reduce and control noxious weed invasion. In: Everett, R.L., comp. Eastside 

forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration of stressed sites, and processes. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Harvey, A.E.; Geist, J.M.; McDonald, G.I. [and others]. 1993. Biotic and abiotic processes in eastside 

ecosystems: The effects of management on soil properties, processes, and productivity. In: Hessburg, 

P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume III: Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Station.

Helvey, J.D. 1980. Effects of a north central Washington wildfire on runoff and sediment production. Water 

Resources Bulletin. 16(4): 627-634.

Helvey, J.D.; Tiedemann, A.R.; Anderson, T.D. 1985. Plant nutrient losses by soil erosion and mass 

movement after wildfire. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 40(l): 168-173. 

Hirsch, A.; Segelquist, A. 1978. Protection and management of riparian ecosystems: activities and views 

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In: Proceedings of the symposium, Strategies for protection and 

management of floodplain wetlands and other riparian ecosystems; 1978 December 11-13, Callaway 

Gardens, GA. GTR-WO-12. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Irwin, L.L.; Cook, J.C.; Riggs, R.A.; Skovlin, R. 1993. Effects of long-term grazing by big game and 

livestock in the Blue Mountains forest ecosystems. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem 

health assessment—Volume III: Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Irwin, L.L; Peek, J.M. 1979. Relationship between road closures and elk behavior in northern Idaho. In: 

Boyce, M.S.; Hayden-Wing, L.D., eds. North American elk: ecology, behavior and management. Laramie, 

WY: University of Wyoming: 199-204.

Johnson, C.G.; Clausnitzer, R.R.; Mehnnger, P.J.; Oliver, C.D. 1993. Biotic and abiotic processes of eastside 

ecosystems: the effects of management on plant and community ecology, and on stand and landscape 

vegetation dynamics. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume III: 

Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station.
105

Kauffman, J.B.; Krueger, W.C.; Vavra, M. 1983. Effects of late season cattle grazing on riparian plant 

communities. Journal of Range Management. 36(6): 685-691.

Komak, S.D.; Everett, R.L. 1983. Soil seed reserves in successional stages of pinyon woodland. American 

Midland Naturalist. 108: 295-303.

Kovalchik, B.L. 1987. Riparian zone associations: Deschutes, Ochoco, Fremont, and Winema National 

Forests. R6-ECOL-TP-279-87. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region. 171 p.

Kovalchik, B.L.; Elmore, W. 1991. Effects of cattle grazing systems on willow-dominated plant associations 

in central Oregon. In: Symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities, 1991 

May 29-31; Sun Valley, ID. GTR-INT-289. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station: 111-119.

Kramer, B.; Owen, L. [n.d.]. Timber sale economic analysis guide. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

Lambert, M.B. 1990. New harvesting perspectives for the “new forestry.” In: Proceedings, forests-wild and 

managed: differences and consequences; 1990 January 19-20; Vancouver, BC. [Location of publisher 

unknown]: [Publisher unknown]: 147-161.

Lambert, M.B. 1993. Establish stable stand structure and increase tree growth: new technologies in 

silviculture. In: Everett, R.L., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: 

Restoration of stressed sites, and processes. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Leckenby, D.; Wheaton, C.; Bright, L. 1991. Elk vulnerability—the Oregon situation. In: Christensen, A.G.; 

Lyon, Lj.; Lonner, T.N., comps. Proceedings of a symposium on elk vulnerability; [dates of meeting 

unknownj; [location of meeting unknown]. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University: 89-93.

Lyon, L.J. 1975. Coordinating forestry and elk management in Montana: initial recommendations. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife Natural Resources Conference. 49: 193-201.

Lyon, L.J. 1976. Vegetal development on the Sleeping Child Burn in western Montana, 1961 to 1973. Res. 

Pap. INT-184. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 23 p.

Lyon, L.J. 1983. Road density models describing habitat effectiveness for elk. Journal of Forestry. 81(9): 592-594.

Lyon, L.J.; Canfield, J.E. 1991. Habitat selections by Rocky Mountain elk under hunting season stress. In: 

Christensen, A.G.; Lyon, Lj.; Lonner, T.N., comps. Proceedings of symposium on elk vulnerability; [dates 

of meeting unknown]; [location of meeting unknown]. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University: 99-105.

Manley, T.L.; Ake, K.; Mace, R.D. 1992. Mapping grizzly bear habitat using Landsat TM satellite imag 

ery. Remote sensing and natural resource management. In: Proceedings of remote sensing applications 

conference; [dates of meeting unknown]; [location of meeting unknown]. [Location of publisher 

unknown]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 231-240.

McIver, J.D. 1993. Blue Mountains Natural Research Institute, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850. 

Personal communication.
106

Megahan, W.F. 1981. Effects of silvicultural practices on erosion and sedimentation in the interior West—a 

case for sediment budgeting. In: Baumgartner, D.M., ed. Interior West watershed management: 

Proceedings of the symposium; 1980 April 8-10; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State 

University, Cooperative Extension Service: 169-181.

Megahan, W.F. 1987. Effects of forest roads on watershed function in forest areas. In: Balasubramaniam 

[initial unknown]. [and others], eds. Proceedings of a symposium on environmental geotechnics and 

problematic soils and rocks; 1985 December 2-12; Bangkok, Thailand. The Netherlands: Balkema 

Publishers: 335-348.

Megahan, W.F. 1988. Roads and forest site productivity. In: Lousier, J.D.; Still, G.W., eds. Degradation of 

forested land: forest soils at risk: proceedings of the 10th B.C. soil science workshop; 1986 February 

[days of meeting unknown]; [location of meeting unknown]. Land Manage. Rep. 56. Victoria, BC: British 

Columbia Ministry of Forests: 54-65.

Megahan, W.F. 1991. Erosion and site productivity in western-montane forest ecosystems. In: Proceedingsmanagement and productivity of western-montane forest soils; 1990 April 10-12; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. INT-280. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station: 146-150.

Ottmar, R.D. [In press]. Prescribed fire versus wildfire: what are the tradeoffs? Two case examples. In: 

Proceedings, 1992 Northwest fire council annual meeting; 1992 November 19-20; Olympia, WA. 

[Location of publisher unknown]; [Publisher unknown].

Platts, W.S. 1981. Influence of forest and rangeland management on anadromous fish habitat in western 

North America: effects of livestock grazing. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-124. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 25 p.

Platts, W.S. 1984. Compatibility of livestock grazing strategies with riparian-stream systems. In: Range 

watershed riparian zones and economics: interrelationships in management and use short course. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University: 67-74.

Platts, W.S. 1986. Riparian stream management. Transactions Western Section of the Wildlife Society. 22: 90-93.

Platts, W.S.; Torquemada, R.J.; McHenry, M.L.; Graham, C.K. 1989. Changes in salmon spawning 

and rearing habitat from increased delivery of fine sediment to the South Fork Salmon River, Idaho. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 118: 274-283.

Quigley, T.M. 1989. Value shifts in multiple use products from rangelands. Rangelands. 11(6): 275-279.

Quigley, T.M.; Ashton, P.G. 1990. Reporting range resource management activities. Rangelands. 12(5): 264-266.

Simanton, J.R. 1991. Revegetation of semiarid rangelands: problems, procedures, and probabilities. 

Rangelands. 13(3): 129-132.

Smith, B.H. 1981. The ecosystem approach to stream habitat management. In: Rocky Mountain regional soilwater-air workshop; 1981 February 2-6; Jackson Hole, WY. Rock Springs, WY: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 5 p. Unpublished paper.

Society for Range Management. 1989. Assessment of rangeland condition and trend of the United States 

1989. Denver, CO: Public Affairs Committee.
107

Society for Range Management. 1991. New directions in range condition assessment. Denver, CO: Task 

Force on Unity in Concepts and Terminology.

Thomas, J.W.; Raphael, M.G.; Anthony, R.G. [and others]. 1993. Viability assessments and management 

considerations for species associated with late-successional and old-growth forests of the Pacific 

Northwest. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 530 p.

Tiedemann, A.R.; Quigley, T.M. Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, 

OR 97850. Personal communication.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. [n.d.]. Road maintenance report for FY 1993. Portland, OR: Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Region.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1992a. Change on the range: new perspectives for rangeland research in the 

90’s. Washington, DC: Forest Service, Forest Environmental Research. 13 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1992b. Forest Service. Unpublished data. On file with: Bonnie Java Sharpe, 

Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 1133 N. Western Avenue, Wenatchee, 

WA 98801.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1993. Blue Mountains ecosystem restoration: a report to the Regional 

Forester. Portland, OR: Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1988. Rangeland management: more emphasis needed on declining and 

overstocked grazing allotments. RCED-88-80. Washington, DC. 71 p.

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1990. Forest Service: the all-resource system, cost features and areas for 

future improvements. 5-1-90. Washington, DC.

Vaitkus, M.R.; Eddleman, L.E. 1991. Tree size and understory phytomass production in a western juniper 

woodland. Great Basin Naturalist. 51(3): 236-243.

Vales, D.J.; Coggins, V.L.; Mathews, P.; Riggs, R.A. 1991. Analyzing options for improving bull:cow ratios 

of Rocky Mountain elk populations in northeast Oregon. In: Christensen, A.G.; Lyon, L.J.; Lonner, T.N., 

comps. Proceedings of a symposium on elk vulnerability; [dates of meeting unknown]; [location of 

meeting unknown]. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University: 174-181.

Weigand, J.F. 1993. Economic issues in ecosystem restoration. In: Everett R.L., comp. Eastside forest 

ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration of stressed sites, and processes. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Wissmar, R.C.; Smith, J.E.; McIntosh, B.A. [and others]. 1993. Ecological health of river basins in forested 

regions of eastern Washington and Oregon. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health 

assessment—Volume III: Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Youngblood, A.P.; Padgett, W.G.; Winward, A.H. 1985a. Riparian community type classification of eastern 

Idaho-western Wyoming. Region 4 Ecology 85-01. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Intermountain Region. 78 p.

Youngblood, A.P.; Padgett, W.G.; Winward, A.H. 1985b. Riparian community type classification of northern 

Utah and adjacent Idaho. Preliminary draft. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 104 p.
108
109

SUMMARY

The preceding invited papers were directed at specific concerns voiced by the public at forest health forums 

and working groups held in eastern Oregon and Washington (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1991, 1993). 

Collectively the papers address the critical issues that were raised by the public, but these issues did not 

cover all aspects of ecosystem restoration. The reader interested in a broader treatment of principles and applications for restoring disturbed ecosystems is referred to previous published works (Bradshaw and Chadwick 1980, Cairns 1988).

Major forest health concerns in eastern Oregon and Washington were the potential for catastrophic fire, loss 

in water quality, decline in fisheries, loss of terrestrial and aquatic species, reduced resistance of forests to 

insects and disease, and loss of commodity production from public lands (U.S. Department of Agriculture 

1991). Long-term solution of these concerns requires the adoption of sustainable ecosystem management: (1) 

conservation of biological diversity, (2) conservation of long-term site productivity, and (3) the sustainable 

flow of renewable resources (Overbay 1992).

Public investment in restoration projects to hasten the rate of ecosystem recovery is justified by a more rapid 

and complete achievement of ecosystem production (King 1991). Additional benefits are employment opportunities in economically-depressed rural communities and the ethical reward of conserving forest options for 

future generations (Weigand 1993).

Philosophical Base for Restoration

The public call for ecosystem restoration focuses beyond simply restoring damaged areas to restoring a balance in how we value and treat forest ecosystems to prevent future damage. This philosophical shift characterizes a maturing society that is abandoning the “frontier ethic” of waging war against nature to extract 

commodities to one of working with nature to preserve its biological integrity (Cairns 1991). Ecosystems 

that have a full complement of structure, function, and composition have increased resiliency to disturbance, 

and from these robust ecosystems, sustainable levels of resources can be provided for the long-term maintenance of the ecosystem’s human component.

Restoration can rely on several philosophical approaches such as hierarchical landscape ecology (Jensen and 

Bourgeron 1993), watershed analysis, (Thomas and Raphael, FEMAT, 1993), and individual species viability 

(Thomas and others, ISC 1990, SAT 1993) to provide direction and goals. Different conservation biology 

approaches, such as the coarse- and fine-filters, can be used to ensure that landscapes, habitats, and species are conserved and restored (Hunter 1991, Marcot and others 1993). Historical variability in vegetation 

types, amounts, and spatial patterns can be used as reference points, but other alternative states that better 

meet society’s expectations may be more desirable as restoration goals. Restoration of ecosystems to rigid 

standards and guides may not be appropriate as this ignores inherent differences in resource values over different kinds of sites. Also, resource values on a site can be expected to change over time because of inherent 

disturbance events required to maintain these historically dynamic ecosystems.

Restoration at a minimum must restore biological capacity (reclamation) if future resource options are to be 

maintained. The maintenance of future potential is paramount as public expectations of their forest lands 

have changed often and dramatically over the last century. Public emphasis has shifted from watershed protection, to livestock grazing, to timber supply, and most recently to ecosystem integrity over the last century 

(Kennedy and Quigley 1993).

Public Consensus on Goals of Restoration

The resource base is currently inadequate to meet all the diverse needs of the public (Cairns 1991). There 

are social conflicts and disputes in land allocation among competing values for limited resources (Daniels 

and others 1993). In restoration efforts, should we emphasize biological reserves or timber harvest, wildlife 
110

or livestock, edge-dependent wildlife species such as elk or interior forest-dependent species such as the 

pileated woodpecker? Before restoration efforts can be successful, consensus is needed on goals and expectations of the desired future condition(s) for public lands. Definitive restoration goals will depend on a 

collaborative approach to forest policy formation in the implementation of ecosystem management (Daniels 

and others 1993).

Restoration can alleviate potential resource conflicts by redirecting focus from dividing scarce resources to 

the restoring biological potential and increasing abundance of resources (Kruger 1992). Kruger used the example of increasing the abundance of resources on two-thirds of the Nation’s rangelands currently providing 

less than half of their perceived potential (Society for Range Management 1989) to reduce resource conflicts 

among wildlife, watershed, and livestock interests. Similarly, improving forest health in Oregon and Washington should provide increased opportunities for conflict and dispute resolution among logging, wildlife, 

and fisheries interest groups.

Ecosystem Restoration as an Adaptive Management Experiment

Restoration of ecosystems must be conducted on an experimental basis because we have incomplete information on the character and functioning of forest ecosystems, public expectations of those ecosystems, and 

ecosystem response to management practices (Everett and others 1993). The formalized process of adaptive 

management allows restoration activities to be initiated based on current information, but efforts need to 

be constantly updated and redirected as new information becomes available (Baskerville 1985). Monitoring 

of restoration efforts is required if we are to improve our understanding of systems, to evaluate if restoration practices are achieving desired goals, and to redirect restoration actions when required by biological or 

social factors.

Catastrophic Loss

The prevention of catastrophic loss in wildlife habitat, human life, and property from fire and the loss of 

terrestrial and aquatic species and site potential from management actions are the highest priorities for the 

restoration of ecosystems in eastern Oregon and Washington (Caraher and others 1992, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture 1991). In reviewing current scientific literature and personal communications with experts, we 

have found no defined strategy to protect landscapes, unique habitats, or sensitive species from catastrophic 

fire. There are innovative approaches using insect pheromone to protect unique habitats from insect damage 

(Daterman 1993), but strategies should be developed for protecting unique habitats from catastrophic fire.

Mutch and others (1993) and Arno and Ottmar (1993b) provide insight to the problems of restoring historical 

fire effects in altered ecosystems having high fuel loadings and continuous fuels across the landscape. They 

recommend a landscape approach using both mechanical and fire reduction of fuel loads. New silviculture 

practices that extract small-diameter logs are suggested as a means of reducing tree density and fuel loadings so that fire hazard is reduced and a flow of timber resources is obtained (Lambert 1993).

Mutch and others (1993) suggest that a severalfold increase in the annual acreage burned by prescribed fire is 

needed to reintroduce fire into eastside ecosystems. This must be balanced, however, against adverse effects 

on air quality and potential fire escape. The amount of smoke produced by prescribed fire is estimated at half 

that produced by wildfire from the same area (Arno and Ottmar 1993a, Lehmkuhl and others 1993).

Society will make a decision, even if by default from no action, to either experience twice the amount of 

smoke in episodic occurrences of unplanned fire, or to accept less smoke over a longer time frame from 

planned burns. The latter can achieve desired ecosystem goals; the former may lead to ecosystem degradation. The Native Americans of the Northwest opted for the planned burn in the creation and maintenance of 

landscapes that met their cultural needs (Robbins and Wolf 1993).
111

The loss of forest and human structures by fire is dramatic and readily apparent; the loss of individual species, site potential, or genetic material is much less visible but can have longer lasting effects. Consideration 

should be given to gene resource management in restoration activities. The goal should be to retain desirable 

genetic traits of species for their proliferation rather than the proliferation of traits of species left by default 

through management actions (Daniels 1993).

Species extinction is irreversible and soil genesis on eroded lands is measured in tens of centuries. Although 

information is not complete on sensitive species viability or rates of soil genesis, “some risks are potentially 

so serious, and the time for recovery so long, that risk reduction actions should be viewed as a kind of insurance premium and initiated in the face of incomplete and uncertain data” (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 1990). The ISC (Thomas and others 1990) report on spotted owl viability and regional guides to 

limit soil disturbance (Meurisse and Geist 1993) are examples of risk reduction procedures. Guidelines for 

restoration of key watersheds have been developed to protect sensitive salmon and freshwater fisheries of the 

Pacific Northwest (Reeves and Everest 1993, Thomas and Raphael 1993) .

Restoration Opportunities

After large-scale disturbances, we have an unprecedented opportunity to enhance diversity, site productivity, 

and ecosystem integrity of future forests. Conversely, adverse impacts to the soil, water, or plant resource 

base during “restoration activities” could cause long-term loss in site potential. Loss of the soil resource to 

erosion after sequential fire and storm events is a significant concern in eastside forests (Grier 1975, Meunsse 

and Geist 1993)

Loss of existing forest stands from insects and fire creates a biological vacuum that will be filled by desirable or undesirable species and processes. Remnant or immigrating species could provide the foundation for 

desirable future forests or they could be noxious weed species (Harrod 1993). In salvage logging operations, 

we have the opportunity to leave legacies for future forests and stream ecosystems. Stand legacies could be 

in the form of snags and leave trees that provide wildlife habitat, including homes for insect predators that 

maintain insects at endemic levels (Bull 1993, Torgerson 1993). Landscape legacies could be in the form of 

unharvested stands adjacent to riparian areas that provide for increased terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity.

Restoration of Landscapes

Although we have methods to restore species or structures on stressed sites, we are only now considering 

how to restore stressed landscapes. The historical focus on individual stand management allowed negative 

cumulative effects to occur at larger landscape scales. Caraher and others (1992) and Lehmkuhl and others 

(1993) found several landscape vegetation characteristics outside of the historical range of variability for 

drainage basins in eastern Oregon and Washington.

In landscape restoration, we wish to generate positive cumulative effects; thus, restoration of stands and 

stream reaches must be in agreement with the desired condition(s) for the larger landscape in which they 

reside. Shlisky’s (1993) case study on the restoration of altered forest ecosystems in the Blue Mountains provides an example of designing and implementing landscape restoration projects to restore forest sustainability. The goal is to provide landscape characteristics that meet public expectations, are biologically sustainable, and maintain future biological and social options.

Landscape sustainability can be enhanced by designing heterogeneity into landscapes to reduce continuity 

in insect host species, thus reducing opportunities for large-scale insect outbreaks (Mason and Wickman 

1993). Landscape heterogeneity has a similar role in providing opportunities to control fire spread (Arno and 

Ottmar 1993b).
112

Restoration of fisheries, watersheds, and riparian areas focuses on the entire watershed to acquire a dynamic, 

hydrologic equilibrium between upslope and aquatic systems (Robison and Bennett 1993). The goal is to 

provide adequate quality and flow of water, protect riparian vegetation, and sustain fisheries. Watershed-specific hydrologic health assessments are recommended for all watersheds to determine current condition and 

trend.

Larger landscape-scale restoration activities need to address regional biodiversity goals. The use of a “gap 

analysis” approach to define the location of sensitive species and habitats at risk from insect or fire loss is 

recommended (Martin 1993).

Recommendations to Restore Sustainable Ecosystems

The Forest Service and society should consider the benefits of ecosystem management in maintaining and 

restoring ecosystem processes and structures (Weigand 1993). This requires a major funding investment in 

ecosystem management by the U.S. public (Hessburg and others 1993). Restoration practices recommended 

here closely follow those of Caraher and others (1992), and both are responsive to previously stated public 

concerns (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1991). One rule or strategy for restoration cannot be applied in all 

cases. A broad policy of restoration can be legislated, but the characteristics of its application will differ case 

by case.

Reduce Catastrophic Loss

• Recommend developing and evaluating landscape level experiments on the appropriate mix of silviculture treatments and prescribed fire to significantly reduce the hazard of catastrophic fire.

• Recommend that salvage logging operations capitalize on opportunities to conserve biodiversity and 

long-term site quality, and that they leave stand and landscape legacies to hasten recovery of future 

forests.

Conserve Biodiversity and Long-Term Site Productivity

• Recommend that watershed-specific hydrologic health assessments be conducted to define watershed 

conditions and provide baseline information on managed and reserved stream systems.

• Recommend research be conducted on defining appropriate width of protected riparian corridors by 

stream reach and landform position.

• Recommend that salvage logging operations be based on improvement of future forests through the 

conservation of species, structures, and gene pools.

• Recommend that action be taken to prevent loss of site potential from soil erosion or compaction 

during salvage logging and that steps be taken to prevent invasion of noxious weeds on disturbed 

forest sites.

• Recommend adjusting livestock and wildlife grazing in riparian zones to sustainable ecosystem levels such that future management options are conserved.

Restore Disturbance Processes

• Re-establish historical fire effects to reduce fire and insect hazard to forested landscapes while minimizing adverse impacts on air quality.

• Restore endemic populations of insect pests through silviculture, prescribed fire, and other techniques that increase heterogeneity on the landscape and increase habitat for insect predators.
113

Maintain Sustained Flow of Renewable Resources

• Recommend evaluation of small-diameter timber harvest methods as a way to reduce excessive tree 

densities and hazard from fire and insects.

• Recommend developing techniques that provide for livestock and wildlife grazing and maintain 

long-term site productivity and biodiversity of riparian zones and associated aquatic systems and 

fisheries.
114

References

Arno, S.; Ottmar, R.D. 1993a. Reducing hazard for catastrophic fire. In: Everett, R.L., comp. Eastside forest 

ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration of stressed sites, and processes. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Arno, S.; Ottmar, R.D. 1993b. Reintroduction of fire into forests of eastern Oregon and Washington. In: 

Everett, R.L., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration of stressed 

sites, and processes. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station.

Baskerville, G. 1985. Adaptive ecosystem management-wood availability and habitat availability. The 

Forestry Chronicle. 61(2): 171-175.

Bradshaw, A.D.; Chadwick, M.J. 1980. The restoration of land: the ecology and reclamation of derelict and 

degraded land: studies in ecology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 317 p. Vol. 6.

Bull, E.L. 1993. Conserving wildlife habitat. In: Everett, R.L., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health 

assessment—Volume IV: Restoration of stressed sites, and processes. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Cairns, J., Jr. 1988. Rehabilitating damaged ecosystems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Inc. 222 p.

Cairns, J., Jr. 1991. The need for integrated environmental systems management. In: Cairns, J., Jr.; Crawford, 

T.V. eds. Integrated environmental management. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publ.: 5-20.

Caraher, D.L.; Henshaw, J.; Hall, F. [and others]. 1992. Restoring ecosystems in the Blue Mountains—a 

report to the Regional Forester and the Forest Supervisors of the Blue Mountain forests. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 15 p.

Daniels, J. 1993. Conserving biodiversity: forest genetics perspective. In: Everett, R.L., comp. Eastside forest 

ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration of stressed sites, and processes. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Daniels, S.E..; Walker, G.B.; Boeder, J.R.; Means, J.E. 1993. Managing ecosystems and social conflicts. In: 

Jensen, M.E., Bourgeron, P.S., eds. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume II: Ecosystem 

management: principles and applications. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Daterman, G. 1993. Protection of unique habitats and riparian areas from insect attack. In: Everett, R.L., comp. 

Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration of stressed sites, and processes. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Everett, R.L.; Oliver, C.D.; Saveland, J. [and others]. 1993. Adaptive ecosystem management. In: Jensen, 

M.E.; Bourgeron, P.S., eds. In: Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume II: Ecosystem 

management: principles and applications. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Grier, C.C. 1975. Wildfire effects on nutrient distribution and leaching in a coniferous ecosystem. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research. 5: 599-607.
115

Harrod, R.J. 1993. Practices to reduce and control noxious weed invasion and its control. In: Everett, R.L., comp. 

Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration of stressed sites, and processes. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Hessburg, P.F.; Haynes, R.W.; Everett, R.L. 1993. What are alternative ecosystem management scenarios? 

What process should be used to evaluate alternative rates of investment in ecosystem management; 

question 5. In: Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume I: Executive summary. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Hunter, M.L., Jr. 1991. Coping with ignorance: the coarse-filter strategy for maintaining biodiversity. In: 

Kohn, K.A., ed. Balancing on the brink of extinction—the Endangered Species Act and lessons for the 

future. Washington, DC: Island Press: 266-281.

Jensen, M.E.; Bourgeron, P.S. 1993. Ecosystem management: principles and applications. Eastside forest 

ecosystem health assessment—volume II. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 397 p.

Kennedy, J J.; Quigley, T.M. 1993. Evolution of Forest Service organizational culture and adaptation issues 

in embracing ecosystem management. In: Jensen, M.E.; Bourgeron, P.S., eds. Eastside forest ecosystem 

health assessment—Volume II: Ecosystem management: principles and applications. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

King, D.M. 1991. Costing out restoration. Restoration and Management Notes. 9(1): 15-21.

Krueger, W.C. 1992. Building concensus for rangeland uses. Rangelands. 14(1): 38-41.

Lambert, M.B. 1993. Establish stable stand structure and increase tree growth: new technologies in 

silviculture. In: Everett, R.L., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: 

Restoration of stressed sites, and processes. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Hessburg, P.F.; Ottmar, R.D. [and others]. 1993. Historical and current vegetation pattern 

and associated changes in insect and disease hazard and fire and smoke conditions in eastern Oregon and 

Washington. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume III: Assessment. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Marcot, B.B.; Wisdom, Mj.; Li, H.W.; Gonzalo, C.C. 1993. Managing for featured, threatened, endangered 

and sensitive species and unique habitats for ecosystem sustainability. In: Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside 

forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume III: Assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Martin, S. 1993. Priority wildlife habitats and restoration management. In: Everett, R.L., comp. Eastside 

forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration of stressed sites, and processes. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Mason, R.R.; Wickman, B.E. 1993. Procedures to reduce landscape hazard from insect outbreaks. In: 

Everett, R.L., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration of stressed 

sites, and processes. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research- Station.
116

Meurisse, R.T.; Geist, J.M. 1993. Conserving soil resources. In: Everett, R.L., comp. Eastside forest 

ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration of stressed sites, and processes. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Mutch, R.W.; Arno, S.F.; Brown, J.K. [and others] 1993. Forest health in the Blue Mountains: a management 

strategy for fire-adapted ecosystems. Gen.Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-310. Portland, OR, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 14 p.

Overbay, J.C. 1992. Ecosystem management. National Research Station workshop on taking an ecological 

approach to management; 1992 April 27; Salt Lake City, UT. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. [Text of talk].

Reeves, G.L.; Everest, F.H. 1993. Reducing hazard for endangered salmon stocks. In: Everett, R.L., comp. 

Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration of stressed sites, and processes. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Robbins, W.G.; Wolf, D.W. 1993. Landscape and the intermontane northwest: an environmental history. In: 

Hessburg, P.F., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume III: Assessment. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Robison, T.; Bennett, M. 1993. Restoration of hydrologic processes. In: Everett, R.L., comp. Eastside forest 

ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration of stressed sites, and processes. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Shlisky, A.J. 1993. Multi-scale ecosystem analysis and design in the Pacific Northwest Region: the Umatilla 

National Forest restoration project. In: Jensen, M.E.; Bourgeron, P.S., eds. Eastside forest ecosystem 

health assessment—Volume II: Ecosystem management: principles and applications. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Society for Range Management. 1989. Assessment of rangeland condition and trend of the United States. 

Denver, CO: Public Affairs Committee. 12 p.

Thomas, J.W.; Forsman, E.D.; Lint, J.B.; [and others]. 1990. A conservation strategy for the northern spotted 

owl: a report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted 

owl. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service. 427 p.

Thomas, J.W.; Raphael, M.G. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and 

social assessment: a report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of Commerce; U.S. Department of Interior; and 

Environmental Protection Agency. [Irregular pagination].

Thomas, J.W.; Raphael, M.G; Anthony, R.G. [and others]. 1993. Viability assessments and management 

considerations for species associated with late-successional and old-growth forests of the Pacific 

Northwest. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 530 p.

Torgersen, T.R. 1993. Maintenance and restoration of ecological processes regulating forest-defoliating 

insects. In: Everett, R.L., comp. Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration 

of stressed sites, and processes. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station.
117

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1991. Forest health workshop; 1991 November 20; Pendleton, OR. La 

Grande, OR: Forest Service, Blue Mountains Natural Resources Institute. 24 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1993. Forest plan implementation strategy: forest health. Colville, WA: 

Forest Service, Colville National Forest. 3 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Reducing risk: setting priorities and strategies for 

environmental protection-the report of the Science Advisory Board: Relative Risk Reduction Strategies 

Committee. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agecny. 27 p.

Weigand, J.F. 1993. Economic issues in ecosystem restoration. In: Everett, R.L., comp. Eastside forest 

ecosystem health assessment—Volume IV: Restoration of stressed sites, and processes. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
118

GLOSSARY

Base flow—Typical flow for a given stream at a particular time of year

Biota—The animal and plant life of a particular region

Biophysics—The physics of biological processes

Broadcast burning—Burning forest fuels as they are; no piling, windrowing.

Compensatory mitigation—To create biophysical capacity of a particular type of ecosystem where the 

ecosystem did not previously exist as a substitute for biophysical capacity of the ecosystem lost at another 

site

Defoliator—An insect that feeds on tree foliage

Degradation—Erosional removal of materials from one place to another, which lowers the elevation of 

streambeds and floodplains

Dividends—Income or rents of ecosystem outputs that result from investments of capital in ecosystem 

management

Fillslope—That portion of a road that is filled material

Fuel load—The dry weight of combustible materials per unit area; usually expressed as t/ac

Geomorphology—The geological study of land form evolution and configuration

GIS—Geographic Information System; an information processing technology to input, store, manipulate, 

analyze, and display spatial resource data to support decision making

Hierarchy—Geographic grouping of land units based on how they fit together and interact on the landscape; 

commonly used for spatial arrangement

High grading—Uneven-aged harvest systems where the most valuable trees and species are removed, and 

trees of lesser value and quality are left to grow

Management indicator—An attribute of forest landscapes that can be quantified to simplify land 

management planning; management indicators have been used to determine the success of management 

planning and implementation according to the apparent prosperity of the management indicator species

Management indicator species—Any of a number of species of fish or wildlife for which a set of 

management guidelines have been written; species are chosen to simplify land management planning 

and to aid in determining the effects of management; one type of management indicator species is the 

ecological indicator species

Monitoring—Actions undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and effects of any management activity on 

species, processes, habitats, flows, landscape and ecosystem characteristics, and outputs; monitoring 

provides a feedback loop to ecosystem management experiments that addresses accountability and 

validity of actions

Montane—Of, growing in, or inhabiting mountain areas

Morphology—The form and structure of organisms
119

Neotropical migratory species—Species that breed in temperate zones in North America and then migrate 

to the tropics for winter (between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn)

Parsimony—A tendency to be overcareful in spending; unreasonable economy

Reclamation—To recreate biophysical capacity of an ecosystem in such a way that the resulting ecosystem 

is different from the ecosystem existing before a disturbance

Restoration—To maintain or recover original elements, structures, processes, and interactions of an 

ecosystem after a disturbance

Rhizomatous—Producing rhizomes, rootlike stems which grow horizontally underground, and give rise to 

above-ground stems and root systems

Scarification—Physical disturbance of surface soil horizons, usually to improve germination and early 

survival of natural regeneration

Seral—1. Successional; 2. describing species or a community that will be replaced by another in succession

Seral species—Plant species of early, middle, and late successional plant communities of any plant 

association; often used in a more limiting sense to speak of the dominant conifer vegetation that follows 

major disturbance episodes

Seral stage—Any of a predictable sequence of transitional plant communities that leads to the terminal or 

climax community

Sere—The entire set of all developmental phases of a forest stand; each developmental phase is a seral stage 

(see seral stage)

Series—An aggregation of taxonomically related associations that takes the name of the climax species that 

dominates the principal layer; a taxonomic unit in a classification

Social discount rate—The preference or value expressed by society for the timing of production of goods, 

services, and ecosystem states from an ecosystem; a positive discount rate reduces the value of a product 

produced in the future by a certain percent annually up to that future time as compared to the unreduced 

value of the same product produced in the present; a zero social discount rate presumes that society is 

indifferent to the time when the product is produced, now or in the future

Soil bulk density—The mass of dry soil per unit bulk volume; the bulk volume is determined before drying 

to constant weight at 105° C; a unit of measure expressed as g per cubic cm or lb per cubic ft

Thinning—The planned removal of trees during the development of a forest, used to regulate characteristics 

of tree growth through adjustments in tree spacing and density without creating a new age class

Watershed (also catchment area; basin; drainage area)—Total land area draining to any point in a 

stream, as measured on a map, aerial photo, or other horizontal, two-dimensional projection
120

AUTHOR VITAE

Stephen F. Arno

 Research Forester, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Missoula, MT

 Ph.D., Forestry and Plant Science, University of Montana, 1970

Mel Bennett

 Hydrologist, USDA Forest Service, Okanogan National Forest, Okanogan, WA

 M.S., Forestry Watershed Management, Washington State University, 1975

Evelyn L. Bull

 Research Wildlife Biologist, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry 

 and Range Sciences Laboratory, La Grande, OR

 Ph.D., Wildlife Ecology, University of Idaho, 1981

Jess D. Daniels

 Daniels and Associates, Inc., Forest Genetics Consultants, Centralia, WA

 Ph.D., Forest Genetics, University of Idaho, 1969

Gary E. Daterman

 Program Manager, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences 

 Laboratory,Corvallis, OR

 Ph.D., Forest Entomology, Oregon State University, 1969

D. Wayne Elmore

 State Riparian Specialist, Oregon and Washington, Bureau of Land Management, Prineville, OR

 B.S., Forestry and Wildlife, Oklahoma State University, 1968

Fred H. Everest 

 Research Program Manager, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry 

 Sciences Laboratory, Juneau, AK 

 Ph.D., Fisheries, University of Idaho, 1969

Richard L. Everett

 Science Team Leader, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences 

 Laboratory, Wenatchee, WA

 Ph.D., Rangeland Resources, Oregon State University, 1984

J. Michael Geist

 Supervisory Research Soil Scientist, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

 Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, La Grande, OR

 Ph.D., Soil Science, Colorado State University, 1968

Linda H. Hardesty

 Assistant Professor, Department of Natural Resource Sciences, 

 Washington State University, Pullman, WA 

 Ph.D., Range Management, Utah State University, 1986

Richy J. Harrod

 District Botanist, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Wenatchee National Forest, 

 Leavenworth Ranger District, Leavenworth, WA

 M.S., Biology, Western Washington University, 1991

Larry L. Irwin

 Forest-Wildlife Program Manager, National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream 

 Improvement, Inc., Corvallis, OR

 Ph.D., Wildlife Science, University of Idaho, 1978
121

Louis D. Jurs

 Natural Resources Specialist, Program Leader for Fish, Wildlife, Threatened and Endangered 

 Species; Riparian Coordinator, Bureau of Land Management, Spokane, WA

 M.S., Range Ecology, University of Nevada, Reno, 1966

Bernard L. Kovalchik

 Eastern Washington Riparian Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Colville, 

 WA M.S., Forest Ecology, University of Montana, 1971

Larry L. LaCabe

 Forest Program Engineer, USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, Wenatchee, WA

Michael B. Lambert

 Mechanical Engineer/Team Leader, Advanced Harvesting Applications, USDA Forest Service, 

 Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Portland, OR 

 B.S., Mechanical Engineering, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, CA 1968

Sandra K. Martin

 Research Wildlife Biologist, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry 

 Sciences Laboratory, Wenatchee, WA 

 Ph.D., Wildlife Ecology, University of California, Berkeley, 1987

Richard R. Mason

 Principal Insect Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry and 

 Range Sciences Laboratory, La Grande, OR

 Ph.D., Forest Entomology, University of Michigan, 1966

Walter F. Megahan

 Cumulative Effects Program Manager, National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream 

 Improvement Port Townsend, WA

 Ph.D., Watershed Resources, Colorado State University, 1967

Robert T. Meurisse

 Regional Soil Scientist, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR

 Ph.D., Forest Soil Science, Oregon State University, 1971

Roger D. Ottmar

 Research Forester/Team Leader, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry 

 Sciences Laboratory, Seattle, WA

 M.S., Resource Management/Fire Science, University of Washington, 1980

Gordon H. Reeves

 Research Fisheries Biologist, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry 

 Sciences Laboratory, Corvallis, OR 

 Ph.D., Fisheries Science, Oregon State University, 1985

Tom A. Robison

 Hydrologist, USDA Forest Service, Wenatchee National Forest, Wenatchee, WA

 M.F., Forestry (Forest Hydrology), University of Idaho, 1972

Torolf R. Torgersen

 Research Entomologist, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry and 

 Range Sciences Laboratory, La Grande, OR

 Ph.D., Entomology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1964 
122

James F. Weigand

 Research Forestry, Social and Economic Values Research Program, USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

 Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR

 M.F., Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 1989

Boyd E. Wickman

 Supervisory Research Entomologist, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

 Forest and Range Sciences Laboratory, La Grande, OR

 M.S., University of California, Berkeley, 1966
123

APPENDIX A

List of Common and Scientific Names

Common Name Scientific Name

Bitterbrush Cardamine spp.

Blister rust Cronartium sp.

Carpenter ants Camponotus spp.

Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum

Dalmatian toadflax Linaria dalmatica (L.) Mill.

Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa Lam.

Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco

Douglas-fir tussock moth Orgyia pseudotsugata McDonnough

Douglas-fir beetles Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopkins

Engelmann spruce Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm.

Fungal pathogen Alternaria alternata

Grand fir Abies grandis (Dougl. ex D. Don) Lindl.

Grizzly bears Ursus horribilis

Knapweeds Centaurea spp.

Larch casebearer Coleophora laricella Hubner

Lodgepole pine Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud.

Long-eared owl Asio otus

Mountain chickadee Parus gambeli Ridgway

Mountain pine beetle Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina

Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus

Ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex Laws

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria L.

Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis L.

Rocky Mountain maple Acer glabrum Torr.

Serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia Nutt.

Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa Lam.

Spruce Picea spp.

Spruce beetle Dendroctonus rufipennis Kirby

Subalpine fir Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt.

Tansy ragwort Senecio jacobaea L.

Three-toed woodpecker Picoides tridactylus

Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi

Western larch Larix occidentalis Nutt.,

Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla (Raf). Sarg.

Western spruce budworm Choristoneura occidentalis Freeman

Western white pine Pinus monticola Dougl. ex D. Don.

White-headed woodpeckers Picoides albolarvatus

Willow Salix L.

Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis L.



Everett, Richard L., comp. 1994. Restoration of stressed sites, and processes. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-330. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 123 p. (Everett, Richard L., assessment team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment; volume IV.)

Required first steps in restoring forest and aquatic ecosystems are the immediate reduction in hazard for catastrophic loss of biodiversity, site quality, resource commodities, 

and improved conditions for public health. To prevent loss of future options we need to 

simultaneously reestablish ecosystem processes and disturbance effects that create and 

maintain desired sustainable ecosystems, while conserving genetic, species, community, 

and landscape diversity and long-term site productivity.

Keywords: Restoration, forest health, ecosystem processes, disturbance effects, ecosystem management, insects, disease, and fire hazard.

The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture is dedicated to the principal of multiple 

use management of the Nation’s forest resources 

for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, 

and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and 

management of the National Forests and National 

Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—

to provide increasingly greater service to a growing 

Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Applicants for all Department 

programs will be given equal consideration without 

regard to age, race, color, sex, religion, or national 

origin.

Pacific Northwest Research Station 

333 S.W. First Avenue 

P.O. Box 3890 

Portland, Oregon 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

do NOT detach label