Manastash Taneum Resilient Landscapes Project: Landscape … · 2016-09-27 · The...

1TheNatureConservancy,Seattle,WA,2WashingtonConservationScienceInstitute,Wenatchee,WA,3UniversityofWashington,Seattle,WA,4USForestServiceOkanogan‐WenatcheeNationalForest,WenatcheeWA,5USForestServicePacificNorthwestResearchStation,Wenatchee,WA

Manastash‐TaneumResilientLandscapesProject:LandscapeEvaluationsandPrescriptions

RyanHaugo1,WilliamGaines2,JamesBegley2,JamesRobertson1,DerekChurchill3,JamesDickinson4,ReeseLolley1,PaulHessburg5,

May2016

TableofContents1.Introduction1.1.TapashSustainableForestsCollaborative............................................................................................11.2.Manastash‐TaneumResilientLandscapeRestorationProjectBackground...........................31.3.Manastash‐TaneumResilientLandscapesRestorationProjectObjectives............................32.LandscapeEvaluationandApproach2.1WhyIntegratedTerrestrialandAquaticLandscapeEvaluations?..............................................52.2ForestandStreamInteractions..................................................................................................................52.3AquaticLandscapeEvaluationMethods.................................................................................................62.4TerrestrialEvaluationMethods.................................................................................................................83.LandscapeEvaluationsSummariesandLandscapePrescriptions3.1AquaticEvaluationSummaries...............................................................................................................133.2TerrestrialEvaluationSummaries.........................................................................................................183.3RestorationOpportunitiesSummary....................................................................................................234NorthForkTaneumSubwatershed4.1NorthForkTaneumAquaticEvaluationandPrescription..........................................................284.2NorthForkTaneumTerrestrialLandscapeEvaluation................................................................294.3NorthForkTaneumTerrestrialLandscapePrescription.............................................................315.TaneumSubwatershed5.1TaneumAquaticEvaluationandPrescription...................................................................................325.2TaneumTerrestrialLandscapeEvaluation........................................................................................335.3TaneumTerrestrialLandscapePrescription.....................................................................................346.NorthForkManastashSubwatershed6.1NorthForkManastashAquaticEvaluationandPrescription.....................................................366.2NorthForkManastashTerrestrialLandscapeEvaluation..........................................................366.3NorthForkManastashTerrestrialLandscapePrescription........................................................387.RobinsonCanyonSubwatershed7.1RobinsonCreekTerrestrialLandscapeEvaluation.........................................................................247.2RobinsonCreekTerrestrialLandscapePrescription.....................................................................408.MonitoringandAdaptiveManagement...................................................................................................409.References............................................................................................................................................................42

FiguresFigure1.Manatash‐Taneumprojectarealandownershipmap.............................................................2Figure2.Exampleterrestriallandscapeevaluationmetricsoutput................................................12Figure3.Roaddistributionandpotentialsteelheadhabitatmap...................................................15Figure4.Roaddensityandpotentialsteelheadhabitatmap..............................................................16

Figure5.Road–streamcrossingdensitymap...........................................................................................17Figure6.Vegetationcovertypesmap...........................................................................................................19Figure7.Vegetationstructuralstagesmap................................................................................................20Figure8.Currentnorthernspottedowlhabitatmap.............................................................................21Figure9.MoistureDeficitmap.........................................................................................................................22Figure10.Aquaticrestorationopportunityareasmap.........................................................................26Figure11.Terrestrialrestorationopportunityareasmap..................................................................27

TablesTable1.Manastash‐Taneumlandownershippersubwatershed.......................................................3Table2.Steelheadlimitingfactors...................................................................................................................6Table.3.Terrestirallandscapeevaluationphotointerpretationderivedmetrics.....................10Table4.Terrestriallandscapeevaluationspatialmetrics...................................................................11Table5.Road‐streaminteractionindicatorvariablespersubwatershed....................................14Table6.Currentandpotentialsteelheadhabitatandcurrentandprojectedstreamtemperaturespersubwatershed...................................................................................................................14Table7.Aquaticrestorationopportunityareas........................................................................................23Table8.Terrestrialrestorationopportunityareas.................................................................................25

AppendicesAppendixA:VegetationandforeststructureattributesAppendixB:CompleteterrestrialevaluationoutputpersubwatershedAppendixC:Completeterrestrialevaluationmaps

TapashManastash‐TaneumLandscapeEvaluationandPrescription 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 TapashSustainableForestsCollaborativeTheeasternCascadesofWashingtonStateisanincrediblydiverseandcomplexecoregionthatsupportsabundantfishandwildlife,awiderangeofforestcommunities,andprovidesanarrayofcriticalecosystemservicesincludingwater,woodproducts,forageforgrazing,andawidevarietyofrecreationalopportunities.RangingfromthecrestoftheCascadesdowntotheshrubsteppeoftheColumbiaBasin,thevariabilityintheforestsandrangelandsoftheeastCascadesaredrivenbytheinterplayoftopography,precipitation,soils,anddisturbancessuchasfire,insects,flooding,andwind(Hessburgetal.1999,Stineetal.2014).SimilartoforestsacrosswesternNorthAmericaahistoryofwildfiresuppression,intensivetimberharvesting,andgrazingthroughoutthe20thcenturyhascausedwidespreaddegradationofforest,rangeland,andstreamhabitatsandincreasedtherisksofuncharacteristicallyseverewildfire(Hessburgetal.2000,Buntingetal.2002,Lehmkuhletal.2013,Hessburgetal.2015).Theresultingshiftsintreespeciescompositionandincreasesinforestdensityhaveresultedindecreasedresilienceofforeststodroughtandfireformanyoftheregionsforests,andthisoccursatatimewhenclimatechangeisprojectedtoincreasedroughtstressandwildfirerisks(Hessburgetal.2000,Haugoetal.2014,Littelletal.2010).Twentiethcenturyforestmanagementalsoledtothebuildingofextensiveforestroadnetworkswhichhavedramaticallyalteredwatershedhydrology,increasedsedimentdeliveryintostreams,reducedfloodplainfunctioning,andfragmentedaquatichabitats(Bissonetal.2003,Riemanetal.2010).Thesestressorsofaquatichabitatshaveandwillcontinuetobefurtherexacerbatedbytheincreasesinstreamtemperaturesanddecreasesinsnowpackasaresultofclimatechange(Mote2003;Mantuaetal.2009;Isaaketal.2010,2012).AcrosswesternNorthAmericaandwithintheeasternCascades,thechallengescurrentlyfacingourforestedecosystemsfrompastmanagementandfutureclimatechangehavepromptedawidescaleshiftinlandmanagementtofocuson“ecologicalrestoration”(Riemanetal.2010,Gainesetal.2012,USFS2013,Hessburgetal.2015).Ecologicalrestorationisdefinedas“theprocessofassistingtherecoveryofanecosystemthathasbeendegraded,damaged,ordestroyed”(SER2004).However,effortstoconserveandrestoretheecosystemsoftheeasternCascadesarefurthercomplicatedbyadiversepatchworkofprivate,state,tribal,andfederallandownerships,eachwithdifferentforestmanagementemphasesandobjectives.InresponsetothesechallengestheTapashSustainableForestCollaborative(http://www.tapash.org)wasofficiallyformedin2007throughaMemorandumofUnderstandingbetweenmajorlandownersintheeasternCascadesofsouth‐centralWashingtonState,includingtheUSForestService(USFS),YakamaNation(YN),WashingtonDepartmentofNaturalResources(WDNR),WashingtonDepartmentofFishandWildlife(WDFW),andTheNatureConservancy(TNC).TheTapashcollaborativeprovidesaframeworkforcooperationandcoordinationbetweenTapashpartnerstorestoreecosystems’resistanceandresiliencetoclimatechangeacross3millionacresintheeasternCascadesofsouth‐centralWashingtonState.

“Toimprovetheecosystemhealthandnaturalfunctionsofthelandscapethroughactiverestorationprojectsbackedbybestscience,communityinputandadaptivemanagement”–TapashMissionStatement.Figure1.TapashSustainableForestCollaborative‐Manatash‐TaneumResilientLandscapeRestorationProjectHUC12subwatershedsandlandownershippatterns

1.2Manastash‐TaneumResilientLandscapeRestorationProjectBackgroundInthefallof2014,theTapashCollaborativelaunchedtheManastash‐TaneumResilientLandscapeRestorationProjectasaflagshipefforttodemonstratecross‐ownership,integratedterrestrialandaquaticlandscapescaleecosystemrestoration.TheUSFS,WDFW,WDNR,andTNCallhavesignificantownershipswithintheManastash‐Taneumprojectareawhichincludesfour6thfieldsubwatersheds(12CodeHUC)comprisingnearly80,000acres(Figure1,Table1).ThesesubwatershedswereselectedbytheTapashCollaborativebecausetheycontainavarietyofsignificantaquaticandterrestrialresourcesandconservationvaluesinadditiontothediverselandownership.Theseconservationvaluesinclude,butarenotlimitedto,habitatforfederallylistedsteelhead(Oncorhynchusmykiss;NMFS2008,YBFWRB2009),bulltrout(Salvelinusconfluentus;USFWS2015),andnorthernspottedowl(Strixoccidentaliscaurina;USFWS2011).Additionally,inrecentyearsthesesubwatershedshavereceivedsubstantialconservationinvestmentstoprotectformerindustrialtimberlands,restorestreamflowsforfishpassage,andreplenishin‐streamlargewoodtoenhanceaquatichabitatqualityandfloodplainfunctioning.Table1.Manatash‐TaneumOwnershipperHUC12subwatershed Ownership

Total USFS WDFW WDNR TNC Other*Subwatershed ac. ac. ac. ac. ac. ac.NorthForkTaneumCrk. 29,533 21,030 730 7,611 162TaneumCrk. 25,848 3,693 13,465 4,743 16NorthForkManastashCrk. 13,451 1,287 8,467 3,264 433RobinsonCrk. 35,179 11,036 2,713Total 78,650 26,010 33,698 10,720 7,627 595*Note:Asignificantamountofprivate,primarilynon‐forestedlandsintheTaneumCreekandRobinsonCreeksubwatershedswereexcludedfromtheprojectarea.1.3Manastash‐TaneumResilientLandscapesRestorationProjectObjectivesThroughaseriesofTapashlandmanagermeetingsin2015,theTapashCollaborativedevelopedthefollowingManastash‐Taneumprojectobjectives:

TheManastash‐TaneumResilientLandscapeRestorationProjectaimstorestoretheresiliencyofforestandaquaticecosystemsinordertocontinueprovidingcriticalfishandwildlifehabitatandecosystemservices(water,woodproducts,forageforgrazing,andawide‐arrayofrecreationalopportunities),whilereducingtheriskofcatastrophicfiretolocalcommunitiesinthefaceofawarmingclimate.WithintheManastash‐TaneumprojectareatheTapashCollaborativewilldeveloprestorationprojectsusingthebestavailablesciencethateffectivelyworkacrossownershipandmanagementboundariesandrespectthedifferingobjectivesofeachlandowner.Restorationprojectswillseektobalanceecologicalobjectiveswitheconomicviability,producecommercialtimberproductswherepossible,andmaintainadiversityofsustainablerecreationalopportunities.

Aquaticrestorationprojectswillfocusonimprovingwatershedconditions,functions,andprocessesandrestoringthecomplexaquatichabitatsthatcontributetotherecoveryoffederallylistedfish.Specifically,thisincludesrestoringhabitatconnectivitybetweenheadwatertributaries,streamchannels,floodplains,wetlands,andriparianvegetationandreducingroadandstreaminteractionstoimproveaquatichabitatfunction,in‐streamflowandsedimentregimes,waterquality,andbiologicalfunctions(spawning,rearing,foraging,andmigration).Aquaticrestorationalsoincludesimprovingnaturalstreamchannelfloodplainaccesstorestorethetiming,variability,anddurationoffloodplaininundation.Terrestrialrestorationprojectswillfocusonrestoringpatternsofvegetationandwildlifehabitatsuccessionalpatchesandinherentfireanddisturbanceregimesfromthescaleofindividualpatches(1‐100’sofac.)tolocallandscapes(e.g.,subwatersheds,1,000’sto10,000’sofac.).Restorationofvegetationandwildlifehabitatpatternincludesreestablishingthenaturaldistributionofpatchsizes,treeclumpandgappatternswithinpatches,andafocusonretainingandpromotinglarge/oldtreesandpost‐disturbancelargesnagsanddownlogsacrossthelandscape.Terrestrialrestorationprojectswillbeinformedbybothhistoricandfuturerangeofvariabilityreferenceconditionsaswellfire,insect,anddiseaserisktoecologicalandsocialvalues.Inaddition,terrestrialobjectivesincludetherestorationofhabitateffectivenessbyreducingtheimpactsofroadsonaquaticandterrestrialhabitats.Totheextentpossibleaquaticandterrestrialrestorationprojectswillbeintegrated,orataminimum,coordinated,inordertoincreaseoperationalefficienciesandpromote“wholewatershed”restorationoutcomes.

Manatash‐TaneumobjectivesadaptedfromtheTapashSustainableForestsCollaborativemissionstatement(www.tapash.org),theOkanogan‐WenatcheeForestRestorationStrategy(2012),Hessburgetal.(2015)Restoringfire‐proneInlandPacificlandscapes:sevencoreprinciples,andYeager(2015)SummaryofAquaticResourceObjectivesandRecommendedDesignandImplementationElementsfortheMidandUpperColumbiaAnadromousandBullTroutProducingWatershedsofEasternWashington.

2.LANDSCAPEEVALUATION&PRESCRIPTIONAPPROACH2.1WhyIntegratedTerrestrialandAquaticLandscapeEvaluations?Buildingupondecadesofresearch,ecologistsandlandmanagersnowunderstandtheimportanceofworkingatlandscapescalesforthemanagementofresilientecosystems(CrowandGustafson1997,WhiteandHarrod1997,Reimanetal.2010,Luceetal.2012,Hessburgetal2015).Whileterrestriallandscapeevaluationtoolsarebecomingwell‐developed(e.g.,Hessburgetal.2013,USDAForestService2012),anintegratedlandscapeevaluationapproachthatconsidersabroadsuiteofbothterrestrialandaquaticecosystemservicesandresourcevaluesisneeded(Dayetal.2009).Riemanetal.(2010)suggestthreestepstomoresuccessfullyintegratethemanagementofforests,fires,watersheds,andnativefishes:1)communicationamongdisciplinaryscientists,managers,andstakeholders,withacleardefinitionofmanagementgoals;2)translationofgoalstoobjectiveswithinthecontextsandconstraintsofthesystemsinquestion;and3)spatiallyexplicitintegrationofterrestrialandaquaticobjectivestoidentifyopportunitiesforconvergentsolutions.Followingthesesteps,theTapashCollaborativeisusingtheManastash‐Taneumprojecttotestanddevelopamorecloselyintegratedaquaticandterrestriallandscapeevaluation.ThisevaluationwillprovidetheTapashCollaborativewiththecontextofwhatisneededfor“wholewatershed”restorationwithineachsubwatershed.Theevaluationwillalsodescribethecontributionthateachlandownercanmaketorestoretheresiliencyoflandscapesandwatershedsthroughcoordinatedtreatmentsacrossownerships.2.2ForestandStreamInteractionsForestsandstreamsaretightlylinkedthrougharangeofcriticalecologicalprocessesandfunctions(NaimanandTurner2000).Theseincludethetransferofmaterialsandenergythatinfluencehabitatstructure(largewoodandsediment),foodwebsandtrophicdynamics(nutrientsandorganiccarbonsupply)andwaterqualityandtemperature(riparianshade)(Riemanetal.2010).Forestscanalsostronglyinfluencestreamhydrologythroughimpactsonsnowpackdynamics,runoff,evapotranspiration,soilmoisture,floodplainfunctioningandgroundwaterinfiltrationamongotherprocesses(Luceetal.2012,Lundquistetal.2013).Aquatichabitatsarestructuredbyinteractionsamongterrestrialandaquaticprocessesandclimate(Bissonetal.2003).Forexample,wildfiresinfluencehillslopeerosion,streamsedimentation,andlargewoodydebrisrecruitmenttostreams(Bendaetal.2003,Milleretal.2003).Certaintypesofdisturbances,suchasfireandlandslides,areessentialinthecreationandmaintenanceofchannelandriparianlandforms(Bendaetal.2003,Milleretal.2003).Whenhumanactivitiessuchasstreamcleaning,logdrives,diking,riparianlogging,anddamminghavesimplifiedchannels,disturbancessuchasfiresandlandslides,maybeabenefitinthelongtermbecausetheymayincreasephysicalandbiologicaldiversity(Bendaetal.2003,Flitcroftetal.2015).Landusessuchastimberharvest,firesuppression,androadnetworks,canalterthefrequencyandmagnitudeofnaturaldisturbances(Bendaetal.2003,Riemanetal.2010).Roadsinparticularhavewide‐rangingeffectsonhydrologicprocesses,watershedfunction,andfishhabitats.Thecompactedsurfaceofroadscanlowerinfiltrationcapacity,alterandconcentrateoverlandflow,andincreaseerosionanddeliveryofsedimenttothestreamsystem,whichcandegradefishhabitatquality(DunhamandRieman1999,Furnissetal.

1991,LuceandBlack1999,Jonesetal.2000,Luceetal.2001,TrombulkaandFrissell2000,Meredithetal.2014).Roadscanalsointerceptsubsurfaceflowandconvertittorapidsurfacerunoff,extendingchannelnetworksandincreasingwatershedefficiency(LuceandBlack1999,TrombulkaandFrissell2000,Wondzell2001).Roadsreducevegetativecoverinstreamsideareasandacceleratedeliveryofwaterandincreaseerosionandsedimentationintostreams(TrombulkaandFrissell2000,Wondzell2001).Acceleratederosion,runoff,andsedimentdeliveryfromroadsincreasesstreambedfinesediment,whichaffectsaquatichabitatsandmacroinvertebratepopulations,andmakesstreambedsandbanksmoresusceptibletoerosionduringhighflowevents(LuceandBlack1999,Wondzell2001).Atroad‐streamcrossings,excessiveflowvelocitiesandundersizedculvertscanalterstreamchannelfunctionandfragmentfishhabitat(Furnissetal.1998).Otherroad‐relatedimpactsincludereducedpotentiallargewoodavailableforin‐channelwoodandshadefromriparianareas(TrombulkaandFrissell2000,Wondzell2001,Meredithetal.2014).Reducingnon‐climaticstressors,suchastheimpactsofroadsontheaquaticandterrestrialenvironment,hasbeenidentifiedasanimportantadaptivestrategytoreducetheeffectsofclimatechange(Strauchetal.2014,MantuaandRaymond2014).Thethermalenvironmentsthatorganismsexperiencestronglyaffecttheirvitalrates,distribution,andabundance(Kingsolver2009),especiallystreamfishes(Riemanetal.2007,Ruffetal.2011,GrenouilletandComte2014).Toaidmanagersintheassessmentandconservationofhabitatforcold‐waterfishes,currentavailabledataonsummerstreamtemperaturesandprojectedsummerstreamtemperaturesforthe2040sand2080sareavailableforallstreamsinthenorthwesternUS(VerHoefetal.2006,Isaaketal.2010,http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/AWAE/projects/NorWeST.html).Generally,maximumsummerstreamtemperatures<170Careconsideredtobe“favorable”forsalmonrearing,17‐210C“stressful”forsalmonrearing,and>210C“fatal”(MantuaandRaymond2014).Thefutureavailabilityofcold‐waterrefugiaforfederallylistedsalmonidsisofparticularconcernduetoawarmingclimate(MantuaandRaymond2014,Isaaketal.2015).Giventhelargenumberofinteractionsbetweenforestsandstreams,thisinitialphaseoftheManastash‐Taneumprojectfocusesonsomeofthemostimmediatelinksbetweenforestmanagementandaquatichabitatsincludingroad‐streaminteractions,aquatichabitatconnectivity,theavailabilityofcold‐water,andtheinteractionsbetweenupslopeprocesses(e.g.,wildfires,landslides)andstreamfunctions..Table2.ListoflimitingfactorsforsteelheadrelevanttotheNorthForkTaneum,Taneum,andNorthForkManastashwatersheds(YBFWRB2009).

LimitingFactorsforSteelheadDegradedfloodplains AlteredsedimentroutingDegradedchannel ImpairedfishpassageDegradedriparianareaandlargewoodydebris

2.3AquaticLandscapeEvaluationMethodsThroughtheManatash‐TaneumprojectwearedevelopinganaquaticevaluationtocomplimenttheOkanogan‐WenatcheeForestRestorationStrategyterrestriallandscapeevaluationprocess(Hessburgetal.2013).Thisinitialphaseoftheaquaticevaluationfocusesonthefactorsthathavebeenidentifiedaslimitingforsteelheadrecovery(YBFWRB2009;Table2).Theoutcomeofthisprocesswastoidentifyareaswithineach

subwatershedthatprovideopportunitiestorestorestreamfunction,reducethenegativeimpactsofroadsonthestreamenvironment,improvethequalityofrearinghabitatforsteelhead,andrestoredisturbanceregimes.Wehypothesizedthatbyrestoringenvironmentalconditionsconducivetospawningsteelhead(theycurrentlyspawnintheassessmentarea),itwillalsoresultinmorefavorableconditionsforotherfishspecies(e.g.,bulltrout,historicallybutnotcurrentlypresentintheassessmentarea).Ouraquaticlandscapeevaluationprocessincludedthefollowingsteps:Step1:Rectifytheroadandstreamspatialdata.Thespatialdataavailableforourevaluationdidnotprovideanaccuraterepresentationofroadandstreamlocationsacrosslandownerships.Thus,weusedhigh‐resolutionimagerytorectifytheroadandstreamlayers.Thistaskwasverylaborintensivebutresultedinahighlyaccurateportrayaloftheroadsandstreamsmakingourevaluationmorerealisticandcredible.Thisstepwasimportantbecausemanyoftheaquaticindicators,suchasroad‐streamcrossingsandproximityofroadstocurrentandpotentialfishhabitat,requireaccurateinformationaboutthelocationofstreamsandroads.Asanexample,therewereapproximately20%moreroadsonthelandscapethanweremappedinanyoftheavailableroadsdatalayers.Step2.Identifyandmapfloodplains.WeusedthefloodplainmappingtoolinTerrainWorks(Bendaetal.2007)todevelopafloodplainsspatiallayer.Step3.Identifyandmapcurrentandintrinsichabitatpotentialforsteelhead.WeobtainedfishdistributiondatafromtheWashingtonDepartmentofFishandWildlifetomapcurrentsteelheadrearinghabitat.WeusedtheintrinsicpotentialhabitatmappingtoolinTerrainWorks(Bendaetal.2007),usingthedefaultvaluesforsteelhead,toidentifypotentialhabitatwithineachofthesubwatersheds.Step4.Assessroad‐streaminteractions.Weevaluatedthepotentialforroad‐streaminteractionsinavarietyofways.First,weassessedthepotentialfornegativeroad‐streaminteractionsinareasthatmayinfluencecurrentorpotentialsteelheadhabitat.Wedidthisbyoverlayingroads,trails,streams,andfishhabitatlayersinordertoidentifyportionsofroads(e.g.,segments)thateitheroccurredinfloodplainsorwerewithin300feetofcurrentorpotentialsteelheadhabitat.Thisresultedinamapshowingportionsofroadsandtrailsthatoccurredincloseproximitytocurrentorpotentialsteelheadhabitatthatwecouldreviewinthefield.Second,weintersectedtheroadandstreamlayerstoidentifyroad‐streamcrossings.Weoverlayedstream‐roadcrossingswithcurrentandpotentialsteelheadhabitatandidentifiedroad‐streamcrossingsthatwereviewedinthefieldfortheirpotentialtoprovidefishpassage.Third,weassessedthedensityofroad‐streamcrossingsintheremainderofthesubwatershed(up‐slopefromthemainchannel)inordertoevaluatetheup‐slopeeffectsthatroadsmaybehavingontheaquaticenvironment.Inaddition,thisinformationcanbeusedtoidentifypriorityareasforfocusedfieldevaluationofroad‐aquaticinteractionsusingtoolssuchasGRAIP(GeomorphicRoadAssessmentandInventoryProcess;Blacketal.2012,Cisseletal.2012).TodatehoweverGRAIPinventorieshavenotbeenconducted.

Finally,asageneralmeasureofwatershedfunction,wecalculatedtheoveralldensityofroadsineachsubwatershed,andthedensityofroadswithinriparianzones(300footbuffer)ineachsubwatershed.WethenusedthemetricsfromtheWatershedConditionFrameworktocategorizeeachwatershedbasedonitslevelof“function”(PotyondyandGeier2010).Step5.Cold‐WaterRefugia.Weassessedmeansummer(August)streamtemperaturesalongmainstemstreamsineachsubwatershedusinginformationfromNorWeST(www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/AWAE/projects/NorWeST.html).Theinformationavailableforeachstreamincludedasummaryofcurrentsummerstreamtemperatures,andprojectedsummerstreamtemperaturesforthe2040sand2080s.DetaileddescriptionsofhowthestreamtemperatureprojectionsweredevelopedareavailableinVerHoefetal.(2006)andIsaaketal.(2010).Wethencategorizedportionsofstreamsinto“favorable”forsalmonidrearingifthemeanAuguststreamtemperatureswerecurrentlyorprojectedtobe<170C,“stressful”forsalmonidrearingifmeanAuguststreamtemperatureswerecurrentlyorprojectedtobe17‐210C,and“fatal”ifmeanAuguststreamtemperatureswerecurrentlyorprojectedtobe>210C(MantuaandRaymond2014).Step6.NaturalDisturbanceRegimes.Becauseoftheimportantinteractionsbetweennaturaldisturbancessuchasfireandlandslidestothestreamecosystems(Bendaetal.2003,Milleretal.2003),weusedinformationfromtheterrestriallandscapeevaluationtoassesshowcurrentdisturbanceregimeshavedepartedfromhistoricalregimes.Weassumedthatbyrestoringnaturaldisturbanceregimes,theroleoffireandassociatedlandslideswouldalsoberestored(Riemanetal.2010).WeusedboththeStandLevelFireandVegetationCover‐Structurecomponentsoftheterrestriallandscapeevaluation(seebelow)toassessdepartureandhelptoidentifyrestorationopportunities.Step7.Fieldreview.Weconductedafieldreviewinorderto:1)evaluatetheroadandstreamlayer,2)reviewareaswhereroadsortrailswereincloseproximitytostreamsorinfloodplainsthatprovidedcurrentorpotentialsteelheadhabitat,3)reviewroad‐streamcrossingsforfishpassagethatoccurredincloseproximitytocurrentorpotentialsteelheadhabitat,and4)identifyopportunityareasforrestoration.Step8.Identifyrestorationopportunities.Weusedinformationgatheredfromthespatialdataandfieldreviewtoidentifyareaswithineachsubwatershedthatprovidedopportunitiestoimplementrestorativeactions,andtoidentifyareaswhereadditionalfieldsurveyinformationisneeded.Weusedthisinformationtodevelopa“landscapeprescription”,whichisadetailedlistofactionsandlocationsthatcouldbeimplementedtorestoreaquaticandterrestrialecosystemresiliency,andaddresslimitingfactorsforsteelheadrecovery.2.4TerrestrialEvaluationMethodsTheManastash‐TaneumterrestriallandscapeevaluationsandprescriptionsfollowtheOkanogan‐WenatcheeForestRestorationStrategy(OkaWenFRS;USDAForestService2012,Hessburgetal.2013)evaluationprocess.Thisprocessisbasedupontheconceptthatastandbystandapproachtoforestrestorationwithoutestablishingalandscapecontextforthelocation,amount,andtypeofrestorationtreatmentswillnotleadtoresilientforestedlandscapes.TheOkaWenFRSprocessprovidesaframeworktodirectlyapplythesevenprinciplesoflandscaperestorationoutlinedbyHessburgetal.(2015):

Principle1:Importantecologicalprocesses1operateacrossspatialscales–fromtreeneighborhoodstoregionallandscapes.Implication:Planningandmanagementmustincorporateandlinkthetreeneighborhood,patch,drainage/hillslope,locallandscapes,andregionallandscapes.Principle2:Topographyprovidesanaturaltemplateforvegetationanddisturbancepatternsacrossthelandscapehierarchyscales.Implication:UsetopographytoguiderestorationtreatmentsPrinciple3:Disturbanceandsuccessiondriveecosystemdynamics.Implication:Focusonrestoringtheecosystems’inherentfire/disturbanceregimesandvegetationsuccessionalpatterns;otherecologicalprocesseswillfollow.Principle4:Predictabledistributionsofforest‐patchsizesnaturallyemergefrominteractionsclimate‐disturbance‐topography‐vegetation.Implication:focusonrestoringthenaturaldistributionofforestpatchsizesacrosslandscapes.Principle5:Patchesare“landscapeswithinlandscapes:Implication:focusonrestoringcharacteristictreeclumpandgappatternswithinstands/patches.Principle6:Widelydistributedlarge,oldtrees,provideacriticalecologicalbackboneforforestedlandscapes.Implication:focusonretainingandpromotinglarge/oldtreesandpost‐disturbancelargesnagsanddownlogs.Principle7:Traditionalpatternsoflandownershipandmanagementdisruptinherentlandscapeandecosystempatterns.Implication:developrestorationprojectsthateffectivelyworkacrossforestownershipandmanagementallocations.

CurrentconditionswithineachoftheManastash‐Taneumsubwatershedsweremappedacrossownershipsthroughinterpretationofrecenthigh‐resolutionaerialphotography.Successionalpatches(sensuHessburgetal.2015)weredelineatedfromtheaerialphotographyandforeachsuccessionalpatch,23derivedattributesrepresentingarangeofvegetation,wildlifehabitat,andfire,insect,anddiseasesusceptibilityratingswerecalculatedfromthephoto‐interpretedattributes(Hessburgetal.2013;Table3).Photo‐interpretationswereinitiallyconductedbyPeteOlsen(Okanogan‐WenatcheeNationalForest).JamesBegley(WashingtonConservationScienceInstitute)subsequentlyconductedfieldreviewandrefinementofthephoto‐interpreteddatalayers.Thenextstepintheevaluationprocessassessedthedepartureofpresentdayconditionswithineachwatershedfromboth“HistoricRangeofVariability”(HRV)and“FutureRangeofVariability”(FRV)referenceconditionsforeachderivedattribute(Table3).HRVdescribestherangeofconditionsmayhaveexistedwithinaparticularsubwatershedbaseduponitsbiophysicalsettingspriorto20thcenturymanagement(Landresetal1999,Keaneetal.2009).FRVisa“climatechangeanalogue”referenceconditionthatestimatestherangeofconditionsthatmaydevelopwithinasubwatershedifhistoricecosystemswereallowedtoadaptnaturallytoapredictedwarmer‐drierclimateinabsenceof20thcenturymanagement(Gartneretal2008;Keeneetal2009).Bycomparingcurrentconditionsto

1Fishandwildlifedispersal,hydrology,andthefrequency,severity,andextentofdisturbancessuchasfire,insects,disease,wind,andfloods.

boththehistoricandfuturereferenceconditions,managersarebetterabletoassessoptionsthatmimicpatternsandprocessesunderwhichspecieshaveevolved,butalsoconsiderwhatresilientlandscapesmaylooklikeinthefuture(Hessburgetal.2013,2015).Table3.Okanogan‐WenatcheeForestRestorationStrategyterrestriallandscapeevaluationphoto‐interpretationderivedattributes.Vegetation* WildlifeHabitatcont.Struct.ClassxCoverTypexPVG N.SpottedOwlPotentialStruct.ClassxCoverType WhiteHeadedWPStructureClassxPVG WildfireHazardCoverTypexPVG CrownFirePotentialPhysiognomictype RateofSpreadCoverType FlamelengthStructureClass FireLineIntensityMed‐LargeTreePresence FuelLoadingLateSuccessional‐OldForest FuelConsumptionRemnantLargeTree SmokePM10

SmokePM5WildlifeHabitat InsectHazardMarten Douglas‐firBeetleHazard

N.SpottedOwlCurrent W.SpruceBudworm*Note:SeeAppendixAforsummaryanddescriptionofvegetationandforeststructuralattributes.TheHRVandFRVreferenceconditionswerefromearlytomid‐20thcenturyaerialphotographythatwasconductedaspartoftheInteriorColumbiaBasinEcosystemManagementProject(ICBEMP;Hessburgetal.1999).TheICBEMPprojectphoto‐interpreted337subwatershedsacrosstheinteriorColumbiaBasin.Thesesubwatershedswerenestedwithinaclassificationof“EcologicalSubRegions”(ESR’s;Hessburgetal.2000).TheESR’srepresentedabroadclassificationofbio‐geo‐physicalsettings.EachESRineasternWashingtonhasasetof8‐20referencesubwatershedswithhistoricairphotointerpretationfollowingthesameinterpretationprotocolsanddevelopingthesamederivedattributes(Table3)asthepresentdayManastash‐Taneumcurrentconditionmapping.HRVreferenceconditionswerethendevelopedforeachManastash‐TaneumsubwatershedthroughcomparisonwiththehistoricdatafromsubwatershedsinthesameESR.HistoricdatafromsubwatershedsinthenextwarmeranddrierESRwereusedtodeveloptheFRVreferenceconditions(Gartneretal.2008).Centraltothelandscapeevaluationprocessiscomparingnotjusthowtheabundanceofthevegetation,wildlifehabitat,wildfireandinsectmeasuresmayhavedepartedfromHRV/FRV,buthowthespatialpatternsmayhavedeparted.“Spatialpattern”referstothesize,shape,andconfigurationofpatchesasdefinedbyvegetation,wildlifehabitat,wildfireandinsectmeasures.Thesespatialpatternsareacriticaldriverofecosystemprocessesandfunctioning(Hessburgetal.2015).Forexample,simplyevaluatingtheamountofnorthernspottedowlhabitatwithinasubwatersheddoesnotcapturewhetherthathabitatisfragmentedacrossmanysmallpatchesoraggregatedtogetherinfewlargepatches.Similarly,thedistributionofvegetationpatchsizeshasasignificantinfluenceonthespread

offireacrossalandscape(Hessburgetal.2015).WithineachoftheManastash‐Taneumsubwatersheds,weused6differentspatialmetricsinadditiontooverallabundancetocompareeachvegetation,wildlifehabitat,wildfire,andinsectmeasuretoHRVandFRVreferenceconditions(Table4,Figure2).ThedeparturesofcurrentconditionsfromHRVandFRVreferenceconditionsforeachsubwatershedaredescribedinthefollowingLandscapeEvaluationSummariesandLandscapePrescriptionssection.Weidentifiedpotential“LandscapeTreatmentAreas”(LTA’s)withineachsubwatershedbasedupontheLandscapePrescriptionsandusedanevaluationofsoilmoisturedeficit(sensuStephenson1998)tohelpaligntheLTA’swithnaturaltopographicandsoilpatterns(Principle2,Hessburgetal.2015).Basedupontopographicpositionandsoilwaterholdingcapacity,soilmoisturedeficitestimatesvegetationstressduetoseasonallackofwaterandhasbeenfoundtocorrelatewellwitharangeofecologicalimportantattributesincludingforeststructureandcomposition,fuelmoisture,andfirebehavior,(Lutzetal.2010,Kaneetal.2015).DeficitwascalculatedfollowingChurchillelal(2013)usinga10mdigitalelevationmodel,SSURGOsoilsdata(http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/)andClimateWNAclimatedata(http://www.climatewna.com/)).Table4.SpatialmetricsusedinOkanogan‐WenatcheeForestRestorationStrategyterrestriallandscapeevaluations.ClassMetrics BasicInterpretationPercentLand Percentageofthelandscapeoccupiedbyagivenclasstype.

Ecologicallyimportantindescribinglandscapecomposition

MeanPatchSize Averagepatchsizeforaclasstypeacrossasubwatershed.Representsthetypicalpatchsize.Animportantcomponentofhabitatquality.

PatchDensity Numberofpatchesonthesubwatershedbypatchtype(class).Indicateshowfragmentedisagivenclasstype.

MeanNearestNeighbor

Averagedistancebetweenanygivenpatchandtheclosestpatchofthesameclass.Representstheisolationofindividualpatches.

EdgeDensity Thetotallengthofedgeofagivenclasstyperelativetothesubwatershedsize.Aproxyforedgeeffectandfragmentation.

LandscapeMetricsContagion Howeasyitistomovewithinapatchtype,aggregatedacrossall

patchtypespresentonthelandscape.Ameasureoftheconnectivitywithineachclasstype.

Interspersion‐Juxtaposition

Howintermixedpatchesareacrossthesubwatershed.Reflectstheabilitytomovefromonepatchtypetoallotherpatchtypes.

Figure2.ExampleoftheterrestriallandscapeevaluationmetricsoutputforforestcovertypeswithintheNorthForkTaneumsubwatershed.VerticallinesrepresentcurrentconditionsandhorizontalbarsrepresentHRV(green)andFRV(yellow)referenceconditions.SeeAppendixBforcompleteterrestrialevaluationoutputforallsubwatersheds.

3. LANDSCAPEEVALUATIONSUMMARIESANDLANDSCAPEPRESCRIPTIONS

3.1AquaticEvaluationSummariesAcrossManastash‐Taneum,themeasuredindicatorssuggestthatroads(andothertravelroutes)arehavingaconsiderableinfluenceontheaquaticenvironmentinallsubwatersheds,butespeciallythosethathaveexistingorpotentialrearinghabitatforsteelhead(Figures3‐5,Table5).Therearemanyopportunitiestoreducetheroad‐streaminteractions,restorehydrologicfunctionsandprocesses,addresslimitingfactorsforsteelhead,andrestorenativedisturbanceregimes.Sections4–7belowprovidedetailedsummariesoftheAquaticEvaluationsforeachsubwatershed.Generally,habitatconnectivitywithinthecurrentandpotentialsteelheadhabitatwasgoodintheTaneumdrainage.However,welimitedourfieldreviewofroad‐streamcrossingstotheTaneumandNorthForkTaneum,becausesteelheadcurrentlyoccupyportionsofthesesubwatersheds.ThereisoneundersizedculvertintheNorthForkTaneum(seefurtherdetailsbelow)thatcouldpresentapassagebarrierduringcertaintimesoftheyear,suchaslowflow.Inaddition,thisculvertisnotsizedtohandleanticipatedhighflows.EffortsarecurrentlyunderwaytoaddressstreamflowsinthelowerreachesoftheNorthForkManastash,whichwouldprovidesteelheadaccesstoabout8milesofadditionalhabitat.Thisrestoredaccessmaywarrantfurtherevaluationofroad‐streamcrossingsaswasconductedintheTaneumdrainage.HeadwaterstreamsintheNorthForkTaneumandNorthForkManastashsubwatershedsarelikelytobecomeincreasinglyimportantcold‐waterrefugiaasstreamtemperaturesinlowerreachesareprojectedtoincrease(Isaaketal.2012).ThesechangesareprojectedtobemostdramaticintheTaneumsubwatershed,wherenearlytheentireportionofthestreamthatiscurrentlyusedasrearinghabitatbysteelheadislikelytoreachsummertemperaturesconsideredtobe“stressful”forrearingsalmonids(Table6).Itwillbecomeincreasinglyimportanttoreducenon‐climaterelatedstressorsonsteelheadhabitat.ForestandroadrestorationprojectsintheupperportionsoftheNorthForkTaneumandNorthForkManastashtorestorelargetreestructure,streamshade,andreducenegativeroad‐streaminteractions(e.g.,potentialforfine‐sedimentdelivery)wouldhelptoconservecold‐waterhabitats..

Table5.Acomparisonofindicatorvariablesshowingtheroad‐streaminteractionsforeachsubwatershedintheManastash‐TaneumLargeLandscapeRestorationProject.Sub‐watershed RouteDensity

(mi./sq.mi.)RoadDensityConditionRating1

MilesSteelheadPotentialHabitat2

MilesSteelheadRearingHabitat3

RouteMilesin100mBufferofSteelheadHabitat

NumberofCrossingswithin100mofSteelheadHabitat

NorthForkTaneum

4.4 Poor 14.2 0 19.5 89

Taneum 6.5 Poor ‐‐‐‐ 14.1 14.9 25NorthForkManastash

5.1 Poor 7.7 0 11.3

RobinsonCanyon 1.5 Fair 0.3 0 NA NA

1/BasedonForestServiceWatershedConditionFramework(PotyondyandGeier2010).2/Potentialhabitatisnotcurrentlyusedforrearingbysteelheadbuthasthepotentialtobeinthefuture.3/RearinghabitatiscurrentlybeingusedbySteelheadbasedonmostcurrentsurveyinformationTable6.Milesofcurrentorpotentialsteelheadrearinghabitatbystreamtemperaturecategorywithineachsubwatershedbasedoncurrentandprojected(2040,2080)meanAuguststreamtemperatures1(datanotavailableforRobinsonCanyon).Subwatershed MilesofCurrentorPotentialSteelheadRearingHabitatwithinStreamTemperatureCategories2

Current 2040s 2080s Favorable Stressful Fatal Favorable Stressful Fatal Favorable Stressful FatalNorthForkTaneum

14.2 0 0 14.2 0 0 14.2 0 0

Taneum 13.1 1.0 0 8.1 6.0 0 0 13.6 0.5NorthForkManastash

7.7 0 0 7.2 0.5 0 5.7 2.0 0

1/Streamtemperaturefromwww.fs.fed.us/NorWeST2/CategoriesbasedonMantuaandRaymond(2014)

Figure3.DistributionofroadsandcurrentandpotentialhabitatforsteelheadwithintheManastash‐Tanuemprojectarea.

Figure4.RoaddensitiesinrelationtocurrentandpotentialsteelheadhabitatwithintheManastash‐Taneumprojectarea.

Figure5.Densityofroad‐streamcrossingsintheManastash‐Taneumlandscaperestorationprojectarea(noteroad‐streamcrossingdensitieswerenotcalculatedforNorthForkManastashorRobinsonCanyonduetopoorqualityroaddata)

3.2TerrestrialEvaluationSummariesAlthoughtheManastash‐Taneumprojectareacontainsverylargeenvironmentalgradients,theterrestriallandscapeevaluationsrevealedseveralcommontrends.Asisexpectedgiventhemanagementhistoryofthesesubwatersheds,thetrendsareconsistentwiththeimpactsofpastwildfiresuppressionandindustrialforestmanagementSections4–7belowprovidedetailedsummariesoftheTerrestrialEvaluationsforeachsubwatershed..AcrossallsubwatershedsexceptRobinsonCanyon,Douglas‐fircoverwasoverabundantcomparedtoHRVandFRV(Figure6).Similarly,closedcanopyconditionsgenerallyandtheYoungForestMulti‐Storystructuralstagespecifically(seeAppendixAforstructuralstagedefinitions)weretypicallyoverabundantcomparedtobothHRVandFRVreferenceconditions(Figure7).Slightlycomplicatingtheinterpretationoftheseresultsisthattheforeststructuralstageandcovertypedepartureswhereoftenspecifictoaparticularpotentialvegetationgroup(e.g.,coldforest,moistforest,dryforest;seeAppendixAfordefinitions)withinthesubwatershed.Assessingthespatialpatternsofforestedvegetationrevealedgeneraltrendstowardsfragmentation.WithintheNorthForkTaneum,Taneum,andNorthForkManastashsubwatershedspatchdensities(toohigh),meannearestneighbordistances(toolow),andedgedensity(toohigh)spatialmetricsdepartedfromHRVandFRVformanyvegetationmeasures.Trendsinwildlifehabitatabundancevariedconsiderablyamongstthesubwatershedreflectingtheunderlyingenvironmentalgradients.BothcurrentandpotentialfuturenorthernspottedowlhabitatsareconcentratedintheNorthForkTaneumsubwatershedwherethemajorityofmoistforests(potentialvegetationgroup)arefound(Figure21).WhiletheabundanceofcurrentnorthernspottedowlhabitatiswithintheHRV(butexceedingFRVinNorthForkTaneum),itisoverlyfragmentedwithtoomanysmall,disconnectedhabitatpatchescomparedtoHRVandFRVacrossallsubwatersheds.Similarly,mostcommondeparturesforwhite‐headedwoodpecker,goshawk,andAmericanmartenhabitatwasfragmentationwithtoomanysmall,disconnectedhabitatpatchescomparedtoHRVandFRV.TheHRVandFRVreferenceconditionsforthewildfireandinsectdisturbancemeasurestendedtobeextremelywidewiththeonlytruedeparturesfoundintheNorthForkTaneumsubwatershed(elevatedcrownfireandwesternsprucebudwormhazard).Nevertheless,mappingofcurrentconditionwildfireandinsecthazardscanandshouldbeintegratedintotheplanningofrestorationmanagementactions.

Figure6.Manatash‐Taneumvegetationcovertypes.SeeAppendixCforcompletesetofmapsforeachterrestrialmeasures.

Figure7.Manatash‐Taneumterrestrialvegetationstructuralstages.SeeAppendixCforcompletesetofmapsforeachterrestrialmeasure.

Figure8.Manatash‐Taneumcurrentnorthernspottedowlhabitat.SeeAppendixCforcompletesetofmapsforeachterrestrialmeasure.

Figure9.Manatash‐Taneummoisturedeficit.SeeAppendixCforcompletesetofmapsforeachterrestrialmeasure.

3.3RestorationOpportunitiesSummaryAcrosstheManastash‐Taneumprojectareawehaveidentifiedaseriesofaquaticandterrestrial“restorationopportunityareas”baseduponthelandscapeevaluationsandprescriptions(Tables6and7,Figures10and11).Theopportunityareaspresentpotentiallocationsforactivemanagementprojectstoaddressthekeylandscapeevaluationdeparturesandprescriptions.However,theyarenotexclusiveandactiverestorationactivitieswithinotherlocationsintheManastash‐Taneumprojectareamayalsoaddressthekeylandscapedeparturesandprescriptions.Eachrestorationopportunityareawillrequireadditionalin‐fieldscoping,evaluation,andenvironmentalreviewpriortoprojectimplementation.Alsoimportantly,additionalfieldreviewmayleadtosignificantmodifications/adjustments.WithintheNorthForkTaneumCreekandTaneumCreeksubwatershedswehaveidentified5distinct“opportunityareas”foraquaticrestorationprojects(Figure10,Table7).Eachoftheseaquaticrestorationopportunityareasfocusesonissuesrelatedtoroad‐streaminteractionsandpotentialnegativeimpactsonsteelheadhabitat.Table7.AquaticrestorationopportunitiesareaswithintheManastash‐Taneumlandscaperestorationprojectarea.

AquaticRestorationOpportunityAreaApplicableOwnerships

NFTaneumArea#1:Section21,ConfluenceofLookoutCreekandNorthForkTaneum

‐Water/sedimentdrainagefromroadintostream‐Potentialneedforculvertimprovements‐Highdensityofroad/streamcrossings

NFTaneumArea#2:Section23,ConfluenceofButteCreekandNorthForkTaneum

‐Undersizedmainculvert,potentialbarriertofishpassage‐Burnedareadeliveringsediment‐Smallculvertsreceivingfromburnedarea,crushedandoccluded‐Highdensityofroad/streamcrossings

NFTaneumArea#3:Sections33,34,27alongSouthForkTaneumCreek ‐Streamadjacentroad(3300‐135)confiningstreamchannel,

contributessediment,andreduceslargewoodydebrisinstreamsectionwithinpotentialsteelheadhabitat

NFTaneumArea#4:Sections26,27ConfluenceofFirstCreekandNorthForkTaneum

‐3300‐116roadwithsignificantchanneling,gullyingleadingtopotentialsteelheadhabitat.‐Dispersedcampsitesdeliveringsedimenttomainchannel

TaneumArea#1:Sections29,30ConfluenceofCedarCreekandTaneumCreek ‐Incisedchanneldeliveringsedimenttoexistingsteelheadhabitat

‐CulvertssmallandpartiallyoccludedWDFW&USFS

Table7:Continued.

AquaticRestorationOpportunityAreaApplicableOwnerships

TaneumArea#2:Sections29TaneumCreek ‐Dispersedcampingdeliveringsedimenttoexistingsteelheadhabitat WDFW&

USFSTaneumArea#3:Sections28,29TaneumCreek

‐Sedimentfromroadanddispersedcampingintoexistingsteelheadhabitat

WDFW&USFS

TaneumArea#4:ConfluenceofFirstCreekandNorthForkTaneum

‐Streamadjacentroad(mainline3300)confiningstreamchannel,contributessediment,andreduceslargewoodydebrisinstreamsectionwithinexistingsteelheadhabitat‐Dispersedcampingsitesdeliveringsedimentwithinexistingsteelheadhabitat

WDFW&USFS

TaneumArea#5:Sections36,1,TaneumCreek

‐Streamadjacentroad(mainline3300)confiningstreamchannel,contributessediment,andreduceslargewoodydebrisinstreamsectionwithinexistingsteelheadhabitat

WDFW&USFS

AcrosstheentireManastash‐Taneumprojectareawehaveidentifiedover17,000acresofterrestrialrestorationopportunityareaswhereactivemanagementmaybeusedtoaddresskeyecologicaldeparturesandfurthertheobjectivesofthelandscapeprescriptions(Table8,).WithinFigure11weidentifythreegeneralcategoriesofterrestrialrestorationopportunities.TerrestrialOpportunitiesCategoryA–Variabledensitythinning(mechanicalorprescribedfire)ofmostlyyoungforestmulti‐storyandstemexclusionclosedcanopystructuralstages,convertingtostemexclusionopencanopyforlong‐termdevelopmentintooldforestsinglestory.Generallypromotingponderosapineandwesternlarch(wherealreadypresent)andreducingDouglas‐fircover.Theseareasoccurpredominatelyonsoutherlyaspects.Restorationactivitiesneedtoincludeprotectionsforriparianareas,floodplains,andwetpatchesofcedar.LongtermtheselandsareNOTtargetedtoprovidenorthernspottedowlsourcehabitat.But,presentdayactivitiesneedtoavoidanyareaswithcurrentowlactivity.TerrestrialOpportunitiesCategoryB‐Generallypre‐commercialthinningofstandinitiationstructuralstagetoencouragedevelopmentofdesirabledominantsandco‐dominants.Long‐termtargetsmaybeeitheropencanopysinglestoryorclosecanopymulti‐story.TerrestrialOpportunitiesCategoryC‐Variabledensitythinning(mechanicalorprescribedfire)inpredominatelyyoungforestmulti‐storytoacceleratedevelopmentofcomplexmulti‐canopylayerstructure.Atthisstageoftheanalysis,wehavenotidentifiedwhichacresaresuitableforthinningviatractoryarding,cableyarding,prescribedfire,etc.Silviculturalprescriptionswillvarydramaticallyamongstterrestrialrestorationopportunityareasbaseduponthelandscapeprescriptionsandobjectivesforwithin‐standspatialpatterns.Techniquessuchasthe

“Individuals‐Clumps‐Openings”approachcanbeusedtoquantify,prescribe,andimplementappropriatewithinstandspatialpatterns(Churchilletal.2013).Table8.TerrestrialrestorationopportunitiesareaswithintheManastash‐Taneumlandscaperestorationprojectarea. TreatmentCategory Acres ApplicableOwnershipsNorthForkTaneumCreek

‐A&C;Variabledensitythinninginmoist‐forestYFMStoeitherpromoteopen‐canopyconditions(A)ormulti‐layer(C)

~4,000 USFS

‐B;Pre‐commercialthinninginmoist‐forestSItoacceleratestructuraldevelopment

2,000+ TNCprimarily,alsoUSFS

TaneumCreek

‐A;Variabledensitythinninginmoist&dryforestYFMS&SECCtopromoteopen‐canopyconditions

4,600+ WDFW,USFS,alsoWDNR

‐B;Pre‐commercialthinningindry‐forestSItoaccelerateopencanopystructuraldevelopment

1,500+ MostlyWDFW,alsoWDNRandUSFS

NorthForkManastashCreek ‐A;Variabledensitythinningindryforest

YFMS&SECCtopromoteopen‐canopyconditions

2,000+ WDFW,WDNR

‐B;Pre‐commercialthinningindry‐forestSItoaccelerateopencanopystructuraldevelopment

1,200+ MostlyWDFW,alsoWDNRandUSFS

RobinsonCrk. ‐A;Variabledensitythinningindryforest

YFMSandSItopromoteopen‐canopyconditions

2,300+ MostlyWDFW,alsoWDNR

Total 17,600+

Figure10.AquaticrestorationopportunitiesareaswithintheManastash‐Taneumlandscaperestorationprojectarea.

Figure11.TerrestrialrestorationopportunityareaswithintheManastash‐Taneumlandscaperestorationprojectarea.

4NorthForkTaneumSubwatershed4.1NorthForkTaneumAquaticEvaluationandPrescriptionTheNorthForkTaneumsubwatershedis29,537acresinsizeandincludesaconsiderableamountofpotentialhabitatforsteelhead,inboththeNorthandSouthForksofTaneumCreek(Fig.6),thatiscurrentlynotbeingusedforrearing.ThedownstreambarriersthatpreviouslypreventedaccessforfishtotheTaneumandNorthForkTaneumhavebeenaddressed.Theoverallroaddensityishigh,givingthewatershedapoorconditionrating.However,roaddensitiesarenotevenlydistributedacrossthewatershed(Fig.7).Roaddensitiesareespeciallyhigh(>5miles/squaremile)inthewesternportionofthesubwatershed,andonthenorthsidesofboththeNorthandSouthForksofTaneumCreek.Themainroad(Rd33)alongtheNorthForkTaneumCreekoccurswithinfloodplains,isconfiningthechannel,reducingthepotentialforlargewoodrecruitment,andcreatingasituationthatcancausechronicdeliveryofsedimenttothestream.

TheterrestriallandscapeevaluationshowedthatforestedhabitatsaregenerallyoverlyfragmentedcomparedtoboththeHRVandFRV,andthattheabundanceofyoungforest‐multi‐story(YFMS)andstandinitiation(SI)areoverabundantcomparedtoHRVandFRV.Thecrownfirepotential“high”categoryisconsiderablyabovetheFRV,indicatingaconsiderableriskoflarge‐scalefire,makingthissubwatershedsusceptibletolarge‐scaledisturbancesandincreasestheriskofeffectstohydrologicandwatershedfunctions.Theterrestriallandscapeprescriptionidentifiedopportunitiesacrosslandownershipstorestoreforestvegetationstructureandcompositiontomoreresilientconditions,whichinturnwouldreducetheriskofuncharacteristicallyseverefiresandcontributetotherecoveryoflistedfishspecies(Bissonetal.2003,Reissetal.2008).

Weidentifiedfourrestorationopportunityareasalongthemain‐stemoftheNorthandSouthForksofTaneumCreek(Fig.8).Inaddition,weidentifiedareaswithhighdensitiesofroadsandroad‐streamcrossingswhereadditionalfieldworkcouldidentifyopportunitiestoreduceroaddensitiesandrestorewatershedprocessesandfunctions(Fig.9).Finally,thereisanopportunitytoreviewthecurrentlocationofthemainroad(Rd33)anddetermineifitcouldberelocatedtoreducethenegativeimpactsthisroadishavingontheaquaticenvironment.

Collectivelytheseprojectswouldaddressthefollowinglimitedfactorsidentifiedforsteelheadrecovery:degradedfloodplains,degradedchannel,degradedriparianareaandlargewood,alteredsedimentrouting,andimpairedfishpassage.

OpportunityArea1–Section21,confluenceofLookoutCreekandNorthForkTaneum

‐Waterandsedimentdrainsontobridgethengetsroutedintothestream(NFTphotos1.1and1.2).Waterandsedimentalsodrainsintoditchalongsidetheroadandthendeliveredintothestream(NFTphotos1.3,1.4,and1.5).Therearealsootherareaswithculvertsthatneedconsiderationforimprovement(NFTphotos1.7,1.8,and1.9).Generalareahasahighamountofroad/streamcrossings(10‐15crossingspersquaremile).

OpportunityArea2–Section23,confluenceofButteCreekandNorthForkTaneum

‐Culvertmaybeundersizedandcouldpotentiallybeabarriertoanadromousfishpopulations(NFTphoto2.1)duringperiodsoflowflows.AreasdirectlynorthwereburnedintherecentTaneumRidgefireandcontributesedimentimmediatelydownstreamfromtheaforementionedculvert(NFTphoto2.2and2.3).Smallculvertsreceivingwaterand

sedimentfromthepreviouslyburnedareaarecrushedandoccluded(NFTphotos2.4,2.5,and2.6).).Generalareahasaveryhighamountofroad/streamcrossings(>15crossingspersquaremile).

OpportunityArea3–Sections33,34,27alongSouthForkTaneumCreek

‐The3300‐135roadisimmediatelyadjacenttothestreamwithinpotentialsteelheadhabitat.Thisroadparallelsdirectlyalongsidethestreamandconfinesthechannel,contributessediment,andhasreducedthesourceforlargewood.Fieldsurveyofthisroadwouldrevealthebestoptionsforrestorationactions.

OpportunityArea4–Sections26,27,confluenceofFirstCreekandNorthForkTaneum

The3300‐116roadhassignificantchannelingontheroadsurfaceandgullyingonthesideleadingtothemainchannelandpotentialsteelheadhabitat(NFTphotos4.1and4.2).Therearedispersedcampingsitesdirectlyadjacenttothestreamthathaveroadsdeliveringsedimenttothemainchannel(NFTphotos4.3and4.4).

ReduceRoadDensityandRoad‐StreamCrossings

Conductfieldsurveystoidentifyspecificroads/motorizedtrailsandroad‐streamcrossingsforrestoration,includingintegrationwithareasidentifiedforterrestrialrestorationtreatments.TheseareasincludetheareasadjacenttoandupslopefromOpportunityAreas1‐4(Fig.8)

4.2NorthForkTaneumTerrestrialLandscapeEvaluationTheNorthForkTaneumsubwatershed(UYK_0503)is29,537acrescomprisedprimarilyofmoistforests(20,923ac.)withsmalleramountsofcoldforests(5,540ac.),dryforests(2,530ac.),andothernon‐forestedvegetationtypes(540ac.).OwnershipisdominatedbytheUSForestService(21,030)withalesseramountmanagedbyTheNatureConservancyfollowingrecentacquisitionfromPlumCreekTimber(7,611ac.).HistoricalRangeofVariability(HRV)referenceconditionswerebaseduponEcologicalSubRegion(ESR)4,andFutureRangeofVariability(FRV)referenceconditionswerebaseduponESR11.

Vegetation Overall,vegetationpatchesareoverlyfragmentedwithpatchdensity,meannearest

neighbor,andedgedensityspatialmetricsdepartedfromHRVandFRVformanyvegetationmeasures.

CoverofDouglas‐firisfaroverabundantcomparedtobothHRVandFRVwhilethecoverofPonderosapine(365ac.current)isonthelowendofHRVandisextremelylowcomparedtoFRV.

Withinmoistforests,theabundanceoftheyoungforestmulti‐story(yfms)andstandinitiationstructuralstages(si)areoverabundantcomparedtoHRVandFRV.

VegetationVariable Current HRV FRVCover‐(acres)Douglas‐fir 21,933 1,500‐15,600 0‐15,700ponderosapine 352 0‐2,900 1,500‐22,900

StructuralStage‐(acres)MoistForest–YFMS 9,604 0‐6,000 0‐5,300MoistForests–SI 4,004 0‐1,500 0‐3,000

WildlifeHabitat Theamountofwhite‐headedwoodpeckerandgoshawkhabitatiswithinHRVandFRV

butisoverlyfragmented. TheamountofAmericanmartenhabitatisoverFRVandisoverlyfragmented. TheamountofcurrentnorthernspottedowlhabitatiswithinHRVbutisover‐abundant

comparedtoFRVandisoverlyfragmented. TheamountofpotentialfuturenorthernspottedhabitatiswithinHRVandFRV,butis

alsooverlyfragmented.

Wildlifemeasure Current HRV FRVHabitat‐PercentLand(acres)spottedowl‐current 7,598 970‐12,000 0‐5,400spottedowl–future 8,076 1,700‐18,100 760‐18,100

Habitat‐PatchDensity(patchesper10khectares)spottedowl‐current 35 9‐47 0‐35spottedowl–future 91 9‐47 2‐45

Habitat‐EdgeDensity(metersperhectare)spottedowl‐current 34 4‐27 0‐25spottedowl–future 36 8‐30 1‐35

Disturbance Crownfirepotential“high”categoryiswayaboveFRV. Westernsprucebudworm“moderatehazard”isaboveHRVandFRVwhilethe“low

hazard”categoryisatthelowerendoftheFRVrange.Disturbancemeasure Current HRV FRVCrownFirePotential(acres)Low 6,671 4,200‐16,100 12,000‐27,000Moderate 7,270 23,400‐8,300 1,500‐10,700High 15,592 5,700‐19,200 0‐7,100

WesternSpruceBudwormHazard(acres)Low 6,657 1,800‐10,600 27,100‐28,200Moderate 9,103 1,200‐8,200 3,300‐8,000High 13,773 13,700‐24,700 9,600‐23,300

4.3.NorthForkTaneumTerrestrialLandscapePrescription Reconnectvegetationandhabitatpatchesbasedonpatternsoftopography/soil

o Acrossthewatershed,focusonconnectingsimilarpatchesformostcover‐structureandwildlifehabitatstoreducetototalnumberofpatchesandedgedensitiesbaseduponinherentpatternsoftopographyandsoilwithinthewatershed.

Treatmoist‐foreststandinitiation:o Usepre‐commercialthinningtoacceleratesuccessionaldevelopmentofmoist

forestsi,whichisfoundpredominatelyonTheNatureConservancy(2,684ac.,67%ofallmf‐si)andUSForestService(1,002ac.,25%ofallmf‐si)ownerships.

Treatmoist‐forestyoungforestmulti‐story:o Withinmoistforests,convert~4,000acresofyfmstostemexclusionopen

canopy(seoc)inordertoacceleratedevelopmentofoldforeststructureswhilereducingcrownfirepotentialandwesternsprucebudwormhazard.

o Dependingupontreatmentandsuccessionrateswithinthecurrentsi,another~1,000acresofyfmsmaybeconvertedtostandinitiation

o Treatmentsofmoistforest‐youngforestmulti‐storywillnecessarilybefocusedonUSForestServicelandswhichcontain91%(8,773ac.)ofthemoistforest‐yfms.

Decreasedisturbancehazards.o Usetreatmentsinmoistforest–youngforestmultistorytoreducefireand

insecthazards,particularlyinlocationswheretreatmentcanbeusedtoprotectnorthernspottedowlcurrentandfuturehabitat.

Promoteponderosapineandwesternlarchcovero Wherepossible,usetreatmentswithinsiandyfmstoreduceDouglas‐fircover

andpromoteponderosapineandwesternlarch.Thisisparticularlyvaluablewithinrelativelydrierlocationsbasedupontopographyandsoils,andcanbeusedtocreatelargerpatchesofhabitatforwhite‐headedwoodpeckers.

Long‐termhabitatshiftsacrosssubwatershedo Planforalongtermshiftofnorthernspottedowlandotherlatesuccessional

habitatsfrommesicanddryforests“lower”inthesubwatershed(easternhalfofsubwatershed)tothemoistandcoldforests“higher”inthewatershed(westernhalfofthesubwatershed)wheretheywillbemostsustainable.

o Identifylandscapelocationsinthedryandmesicforests,suchasnorthslopesandvalleybottoms,whereclosed‐canopymulti‐layeredhabitatsaremostlikelytobesustainedandcanbemanagedforfuturereplacementhabitat.

Increasewildlifehabitateffectivenesso Developanintegratedapproachtoaccessmanagementthatreducesoverall

effectsoftravelroutesonaquaticandterrestrialhabitats,whileprovidingaccessneededforrecreationandforestmanagement.

5.TaneumSubwatershed5.1TaneumAquaticEvaluationandPrescriptionTheTaneumsubwatershedis25,726acresinsizeandincludesaconsiderableamountofcurrentrearinghabitatforsteelhead(Fig.6).Theoverallroaddensityishigh,givingthewatershedapoorconditionrating.Roaddensitiesarefairlyevenlydistributedacrossthewatershed(Fig.7).Themainroad(Rd33)alongTaneumCreek,occurswithinfloodplains,isconfiningthechannel,reducingthepotentialrecruitmentoflargewood,andhasthepotentialtochronicallydeliversedimenttothestream.

TheterrestriallandscapeevaluationshowedthatforestedhabitatsaregenerallyoverlyfragmentedcomparedtoboththeHRVandFRV,andthatwithinthedryforests,theabundanceofstemexclusionclosedcanopy(SECC),youngforest‐multi‐story(YFMS)andstandinitiation(SI)areoverabundantcomparedtoHRVandFRV.Theterrestriallandscapeprescriptionidentifiedopportunitiesacrosslandownershipstorestoreforestvegetationstructureandcompositiontomoreresilientconditions,whichinturnwouldreducetheriskofuncharacteristicallyseverefiresandcontributetotherecoveryoflistedfishspecies(Bissonetal.2003,Reissetal.2008).

Weidentifiedfiverestorationopportunityareasalongthemain‐stemTaneumCreek(Fig.8).Inaddition,weidentifiedareaswithhighdensitiesofroadsandroad‐streamcrossingswhereadditionalfieldworkcouldidentifyopportunitiestoreduceroaddensitiesandrestorewatershedprocessesandfunctions(Fig.9).Finally,thereisanopportunitytoreviewthecurrentlocationofthemainroad(Rd33)anddetermineifitcouldberelocatedtoreducethenegativeimpactsthisroadishavingontheaquaticenvironment.

Collectivelytheseprojectswouldaddressthefollowinglimitingfactorsidentifiedforsteelheadrecovery:degradedfloodplains,degradedchannel,degradedriparianareaandLWD,andalteredsedimentrouting.

OpportunityArea1–Section29,30,confluenceofCedarCreekandTaneumCreek

Incisedchannelsdeliversedimenttomainchannelwithinexistingsteelheadhabitatandculvertsaresmallandpartiallyoccluded(Tphotos1.1,1.2,and1.3).

OpportunityArea2–Section29,TaneumCreek

Therearedispersedcampingsitesinthefloodplaindirectlyadjacenttothestreamdeliveringsedimenttothemainchannelintoexistingsteelheadhabitat(Tphotos2.1.2.2,and2.3).

OpportunityArea3–Sections28,29,TaneumCreek

Thereisanunnamed/numberedroadwithabridge.Sedimentisdeliveredfromtheroadsurfaceanddispersedcampsitesintoexistingsteelheadhabitat(Tphotos3.1,3.2,3.3,and3.4).

‐Themainline3300roadisimmediatelyadjacenttothestreamwithinexistingsteelheadhabitat.Thisroadparallelsdirectlyalongsidethestream,confinesthechannel,reducesfloodplainpotential,contributessediment,andhasreducedthesourceforLWD(Tphotos4.1and4.2).Therearedispersedcampingsitesinthefloodplaindirectlyadjacenttothestreamdeliveringsedimenttothemainchannel(Tphotos4.3and4.4).

Themainline3300roadisimmediatelyadjacenttothestreamwithinexistingsteelheadhabitat.Thisroadparallelsdirectlyalongsidethestream,confinesthechannel,reducesfloodplainpotential,contributessediment,andhasreducedthesourceforLWD(Tphotos5.1and5.2).

Conductfieldsurveystoidentifyspecificroadsandroad‐streamcrossingsforrestoration,includingintegrationwithareasidentifiedforterrestrialrestorationtreatments.Theseinclude:theareasadjacenttoandupslopefromOpportunityArea1;theareatothesouthofTaneumCreekandOpportunityArea3alongShadowCreek;theareatothesouthofTaneumCreekandOpportunityArea4betweenShadowCreekandYahneCanyon(Fig.8).

5.2TaneumTerrestrialLandscapeEvaluationTheTaneumCreeksubwatershed(UYK_0504)is25,726acrescomprisedprimarilyofdryforests(12,109ac.)withsmalleramountsofmoistforests(6,194ac.)andothervegetationtypes(7,545ac.).WashingtonDepartmentofFishandWildlifeislargestlandowner(WDFW;13,465ac.)followedbyWashingtonDepartmentofNaturalResources(WDNR;4,743ac.),USForestService(USFS;3,693ac.)andothers(3,931ac.).HistoricalRangeofVariability(HRV)referenceconditionswerebaseduponEcologicalSub‐Region(ESR)11,andFutureRangeofVariability(FRV)referenceconditionswerebaseduponESR90.Vegetation Overall,vegetationpatchesareoverlyfragmentedwithpatchdensity,meannearest

neighbor,andedgedensityspatialmetricsdepartedfromHRVandFRVformanyvegetationmeasures.

CoverofDouglas‐firisatthehighendbothHRVandFRV,especiallywithindryforests,whilethecoverofponderosapineisonthelowerendofHRVandFRV.

Withindryforests,thestemexclusionclosedcanopy(secc),standinitiation(si),andyoungforestmulti‐story(yfms)structuralstagesareoverabundantcomparedtoHRVandFRV

VegetationVariable Current HRV FRVCover‐(acres)Douglas‐fir 11,399 0‐13,700 0‐11,400ponderosapine 6,515 1,400‐20,000 0‐16,300Dryforest‐Douglas‐fir 5,750 0‐3,000 0‐2,300

StructuralStage‐(acres)Dryforest–SI 3,062 0‐2,600 0‐2,200Dryforest–SECC 1,419 0–200 0‐130Dryforest–YFMS 4,221 0‐2,300 0‐2,300

WildlifeHabitat Theamountofwhite‐headedwoodpecker,goshawk,andnorthernspottedowlcurrent

habitatisatthelowerendofHRVandFRV. TheamountofpotentialfuturenorthernspottedowlhabitatiswithinHRVandFRV,but

isoverlyfragmented.

Wildlifemeasure Current HRV FRV

Habitat‐PercentLand(acres)spottedowl‐current 492 0‐4,700 0‐4,100spottedowl‐future 8,896 700‐15,800 0‐14,600

Habitat‐PatchDensity(patchesper10khectares)spottedowl‐future 88 3‐45 0‐27

Habitat‐EdgeDensity(metersperhectare)spottedowl‐future 53 1‐35 0‐33

Disturbance FireandinsecthazardvariablesareallwithinverywideHRVandNRVranges.5.3TaneumTerrestrialLandscapePrescription Reconnectvegetationandhabitatpatchesbasedonpatternsoftopography/soil

o Inparticular,focusonconnectingpatchesofnorthernspottedowlpotentialfuturehabitatandwhite‐headedwoodpeckerhabitat.

Thinningdryforestclosedcanopypatchestocreateopencanopyconditionso Withindryforest,convert900+acresofstemexclusionclosedcanopyand

3,700+acresofyfmstoopencanopyconditions(likelytostemexclusionopencanopy,seoc)inordertoacceleratethedevelopmentofoldforestsinglestory(ofss)andtoreducedfirepotentials.Prioritizethinningwherelarge(25”+dbh)ponderosapineand/orwesternlargearealreadypresent. ThinningofdryforestyfmscanincludeWDFW(2,471ac.total),USFS

(1,042ac.)andWDNR(684ac.total)ownerships. EssentiallyalldryforestsecccouldbethinnedonWDFW(388ac.total),

USFS(193ac.total)andWDNR(277ac.total)ownerships.o Withindryforests,thinstandinitiationwhereverpossibletoaccelerate

successionaldevelopmentandpromoteopencanopystandconditionswithponderosapine/westernlarchcover. IncludesdryforestsionWDFW(1,888ac.),USFS(177ac.)andWDNR

(957ac.)ownerships. Promoteponderosapineandwesternlarchcover

o Wherepossible,usethinningtreatmentstoreduceDouglas‐fircoverandpromoteponderosapineandwesternlarch.Thisisparticularlyvaluablewithinrelativelydrierlocationsbasedupontopographyandsoils,andcanbeusedtorestorehabitatabundanceandpatchsizesforwhite‐headedwoodpeckers.

Balancethinningandwildlifehabitato Thinningofclosedcanopypatchesneedstobebalancedwiththemaintenanceof

northernspottedowlandgoshawkhabitat.Usethinningtoprotectclosedcanopywildlifehabitatsfromtransmissionoffireandinsectdisturbances.

o Duetothetransientnatureofclosed‐canopy,multi‐layeredhabitatswithinthedryandmesicforests,consideredidentifyinglandscapelocations,suchasnorthslopesandvalleybottoms,wherethesehabitatsaremostlikelytobesustainedandcanbeusedforfuturereplacementhabitat.

Increasewildlifehabitateffectiveness

o Developanintegratedapproachtoaccessmanagementthatreducesoveralleffectsoftravelroutesonaquaticandterrestrialhabitats,whileprovidingaccessneededforrecreationandforestmanagement.

6. NorthForkManastash

6.1NorthForkManastashAquaticEvaluationandPrescriptionTheNorthForkManastashsubwatershedis13,447acresinsizeandincludesabout8milesofpotentialhabitatforsteelhead(Fig.6).Theoverallroaddensityishigh,givingthewatershedapoorconditionrating.Theroaddensitiesarenotevenlydistributedacrossthewatershed,withthehighestdensitiesoccurringinthewesternportion(Fig.7).

TheterrestriallandscapeevaluationshowedthatforestedhabitatsaregenerallyoverlyfragmentedcomparedtoboththeHRVandFRV,andthatwithinthedryforests,theabundanceofstemexclusionclosedcanopy(SECC),youngforest‐multi‐story(YFMS)andstandinitiation(SI)areoverabundantcomparedtoHRVandFRV.Theterrestriallandscapeprescriptionidentifiedopportunitiesacrosslandownershipstorestoreforestvegetationstructureandcompositiontomoreresilientconditions,whichinturnwouldreducetheriskofuncharacteristicallyseverefiresandcontributetotherecoveryoflistedfishspecies(Reissetal.2008).

Conductfieldsurveystoidentifyspecificroadsandroad‐streamcrossingsforrestoration,includingintegrationwithareasidentifiedforterrestrialrestorationtreatments.

6.2NorthForkManastashTerrestrialLandscapeEvaluationTheNorthForkManastashsubwatershed(UYK_0509)is13,447acrescomprisedprimarilyofdryforest(8,127ac.)withsmalleramountsofmoistforest(1,291ac.)andothervegetationtypes(4,033ac.).OwnershipisdominatedbyWashingtonDepartmentofFishandWildlife(WDFW,8,467ac.)alongwithWashingtonDepartmentofNaturalResources(WDNR,3,264ac.),USForestService(USFS,1,287ac.)andotherownerships(433ac.).HistoricalRangeofVariability(HRV)referenceconditionswerebaseduponEcologicalSubRegion(ESR)11,andFutureRangeofVariability(FRV)referenceconditionswerebaseduponESR90.Vegetation Overall,vegetationpatchesarefragmentedwithpatchdensity(toohigh),meannearest

neighbordistances(toolow),andedgedensity(toohigh)spatialmetricsdepartedfromHRVandFRVformanyvegetationmeasures.

CoverofDouglas‐firisinexcessofbothHRVandFRV,particularlywithindryforests.PonderosapineandwesternlarcharebothatthelowendofHRVandFRV.

Particularlywithindryforests,theabundanceofstandinitiation(si),stemexclusionclosedcanopy(secc),andyoungforestmultistory(yfms)structuralstagesareattheupperendorexceedingHRVandFRV.Thestemexclusionopencanopy(seoc),oldforestsinglestory(ofss)andoldforestmultistory(ofms)structuralstagesareallatthelowendofHRVandFRV.

Vegetationmeasure Current HRV FRVCover(acres)Douglas‐fir 6,608 0‐7,100 0‐6,000ponderosapine 2,526 700‐10,420 0‐8,500Dryforest‐Douglas‐fir 5,458 0‐1,600 0‐1,200

StructuralStage(acres)Dryforest‐SI 2,043 0‐1,300 0‐1,100Dryforest‐SECC 511 0‐0 0‐0Dryforest‐YFMS 2,213 0‐1,200 0‐1,200

WildlifeHabitat TheamountofwhiteheadedwoodpeckerhabitatisatthelowendofHRVandFRVis

overlyfragmented.AbundanceofgoshawkhabitatisalsoatthelowendofHRVandFRV.

TheamountofcurrentandpotentialfuturenorthernspottedowlhabitatarebothwithinHRVandFRV,butarealsobothoverlyfragmented.

Wildlifemeasure Current HRV FRVHabitat(acres)whiteheaded

woodpecker 532 0‐2,300 0‐1,700spottedowl‐current 1,116 0‐2,500 0‐2,200spottedowl‐future 3,337 350‐8,300 0‐7,700

Disturbance Crownfirepotential“high”categoryisaboveHRVandFRVwhilethe“low”categoryisat

lowendofHRVandFRV. Westernsprucebudworm“moderatehazard”isaboveHRVandFRVwhilethe“low

hazard”categoryisatthelowerendoftheFRVrange.

Disturbancemeasure Current HRV FRVCrownFirePotential(acres)low 7,615 5,400‐12,261 5,900‐13,400moderate 2,420 700‐4,900 0‐4,300high 3,416 0‐3,200 0‐2,800

WesternSpruceBudwormHazard(acres)low 5,743 1,200‐12,900 1,400‐13,400moderate 5,032 150‐1,600 0‐3,500high 2,676 400‐10,600 0‐9,200

6.3NorthForkManastashTerrestrialLandscapePrescription Reconnectvegetationandhabitatpatchesbasedonpatternsoftopography/soil

o Inparticular,focusonconnectingpatchesofwhiteheadedwoodpecker,northernspottedowlcurrent,andnorthernspottedowlpotentialfuturehabitat.

Thinningdryforestclosedcanopypatchestocreateopencanopyconditionso Withindryforest,convert500+acresofstemexclusionclosedcanopyand

1,500+acresofyfmstoopencanopyconditions(likelytostemexclusionopencanopy,seoc)inordertoacceleratethedevelopmentofoldforestsinglestory(ofss)andtoreducedfirepotentials.Prioritizethinningwherelarge(25”+dbh)ponderosapineand/orwesternlargearealreadypresent. ThinningofdryforestyfmscanincludeWDFW(1,072ac.total),WDNR

(925ac.total),andtoalesserextent,USFS(73ac.)ownerships. EssentiallyalldryforestsecccouldbethinnedonWDFW(307ac.total),

USFS(148ac.total)andWDNR(55ac.total)ownerships.o Withindryforests,thinstandinitiationwhereverpossibletoaccelerate

successionaldevelopmentandpromoteopencanopystandconditionswithponderosapine/westernlarchcover. IncludesdryforestsionWDFW(1,672ac.),USFS(124ac.)andWDNR

(218ac.)ownerships. Promoteponderosapineandwesternlarchcover

o Wherepossible,usethinningtreatmentstoreduceDouglas‐fircoverandpromoteponderosapineandwesternlarch.Thisisparticularlyvaluablewithinrelativelydrierlocationsbasedupontopographyandsoils,andcanbeusedtorestoretheabundanceandspatialpatternofwhite‐headedwoodpeckerhabitat.

Decreasedisturbancehazards.o Usethinningtreatmentsindryforeststoreducefireandinsecthazards,.

northernspottedowlandgoshawkhabitat.Usethinningtoprotectclosedcanopywildlifehabitatsfromtransmissionoffireandinsectdisturbances.

o Duetothetransientnatureofclosed‐canopy,multi‐layeredhabitatswithinthedryandmoistforests,consideredidentifyinglandscapelocations,suchasnorthslopesandvalleybottoms,wherethesehabitatsaremostlikelytobesustainedandcanbeusedforfuturereplacementhabitat.

7. RobinsonCreek

7.1RobinsonCreekTerrestrialLandscapeEvaluationTheRobinsonCreeksubwatershed(UYK_0507)is35,131acresandhassomedryforest(6,628ac.),nomoistorcoldforest,andispredominatelycoveredwithothervegetationtypes(28,551ac.).OwnershipissplitbetweenWashingtonDepartmentofFishandWildlife(WDFW,11,036ac.),WashingtonDepartmentofNaturalResources(WDNR,2,713ac.),andotherownerships(21,430ac.).HistoricalRangeofVariability(HRV)referenceconditionswerebaseduponEcologicalSubRegion(ESR)11,andFutureRangeofVariability(FRV)referenceconditionswerebaseduponESR90.Vegetation Withindryforests,theabundanceoftheyoungforestmultistory(yfms)structuralstage

isabovebothHRVandNRV. Treespeciescoverisdominatedbyponderosapine,in‐linewithHRVandNRV. Relativelylowlevelofforestvegetationcoveracrossthesubwatershedcomplicates

comparisonsofpresentdayandHRV/NRVvegetationreferenceconditions.Vegetationmeasure Current HRV FRVCover(acres)ponderosapine 6,244 1,900‐27,200 0‐22,400

StructuralStage(acres)Dryforest‐YFMS 3,596 0‐3,200 0‐3,100

WildlifeHabitat TheamountofwhiteheadedwoodpeckeriswithinHRVandFRVbutisoverly

fragmented. Theamountsofcurrentnorthernspottedowlandpotentialfuturenorthernspottedowl

habitatareatthelowendofHRVandNRVrangesandareoverlyfragmented.Wildlifemeasure Current HRV FRVHabitat(acres)whiteheadedwoodpecker 2,681 0‐5,800 0‐4,600spottedowl‐current 486 0‐6,400 0‐5,700spottedowl‐future 3,487 900‐21,600 0‐20,000

Disturbance Disturbancemeasuresincludingcrownfirepotentialandwesternsprucebudhazard

categoriesarewithinHRVandFRVranges.However,themajorityofcurrentlyforestedlandshave“high”westernsprucebudwormhabitat.

Disturbancemeasure Current HRV FRVCrownFirePotential(acres)low 33,942 14,400‐32,000 15,400‐35,100moderate 891 1,800‐12,800 0‐11,100high 346 0‐8,500 0‐7,400

WesternSpruceBudwormHazard(acres)low 31,070 3,200‐33,600 3,700‐35,100moderate 70 390‐9,500 0‐9,100high 4,039 1,100‐27,800 0‐24,000

7.2RobinsonCreekTerrestrialLandscapePrescription Reconnectvegetationandhabitatpatchesbasedonpatternsoftopography/soil

o Acrossthewatershed,focusonconnectingsimilarpatchesformostcover‐structureandhabitattypestoreducetototalnumberofpatchesandedgedensitiesbaseduponinherentpatternsoftopographyandsoilwithinthewatershed.

o Inparticular,focusonconnectingpatchesofwhiteheadedwoodpecker,northernspottedowlcurrent,andnorthernspottedowlpotentialfuturehabitat.

Thinningdryforestclosedcanopypatchestocreateopencanopyconditionso Withindryforest,convert2,000+acresofyfmstoopencanopyconditions

(likelytostemexclusionopencanopy,seoc)inordertoacceleratethedevelopmentofoldforestsinglestory(ofss)andtoreducedfirepotentials.Thinningmayalsoincludeclosedcanopystandinitiation(si).Prioritizethinningwherelarge(25”+dbh)ponderosapineand/orwesternlargearealreadypresent. ThinningofdryforestyfmscanincludeWDFW(2,660ac.total),WDNR

(699ac.total)ownerships. Decreasedisturbancehazards.

o Usethinningtreatmentsindryforeststoreducefireandinsecthazards,particularlyfocusingonsprucebudwormhazard.

northernspottedowlhabitat.Usethinningtoprotectclosedcanopywildlifehabitatsfromtransmissionoffireandinsectdisturbances.

o Duetothetransientnatureofclosed‐canopy,multi‐layeredhabitatswithinthedryandmesicforests,consideredidentifyinglandscapelocations,suchasnorthslopesandvalleybottoms,wherethesehabitatsaremostlikelytobesustainedandcanbeusedforfuturereplacementhabitat.

8. MonitoringandAdaptiveManagementMonitoring and adaptive management are important components of collaborative landscape restoration (Salafsky et al. 2005, Stankey et al. 2005, Gaines and Lehmkuhl 2015, Hessburg et al. 2015). Monitoring and adaptive management provide a framework for the evaluation of how restorative aquatic and terrestrial actions add up to more resilient landscapes and watersheds (Salafsky et al. 2005). By using the terrestrial and aquatic indicators that were developed to evaluate landscape and watershed conditions, managers can periodically assess progress towards restoration across landownerships. For the Tapash Manastash-Taneum Landscape Evaluation Project, it is suggested that once land managers have developed relatively concrete ideas of

projects to implement the landscape prescriptions (e.g., Proposed Actions) that the landscape terrestrial and aquatic indicator metrics be re-run to assess the cumulative impacts of these projects on moving the landscapes and watersheds towards more resilient conditions. In this manner, project proposals may be modified or future projects identified so the collaborative can continue to meet or make progress towards their Mission and Objectives.

LiteratureCitedAplet,G.H.,andW.S.Keeton.1999.Applicationofhistoricrangeofvariabilityconceptsto

biodiversityconservation.Pages71‐86in:R.Baydack,H.Campa,andJ.Haufler.(eds.).Practicalapproachestotheconservationofbiodiversity.IslandPress,Washington,DC.

Benda,L.,D.Miller,P.Bigelow,andK.Andras.2003.Effectsofpost‐wildfireerosiononchannelenvironments,BoiseRiver,Idaho.ForestEcologyandManagement178:105‐119.

Benda,L.E.,D.J.Miller,K.Miller[andothers].2007.NetMap:anewtoolinsupportofwatershedscienceandresourcemanagement.ForestScience53:206‐219.

Bisson,P.A.,B.E.Rieman,C.Luce,P.F.Hessburg,D.C.Lee,J.L.Kershner,G.H.Reeves,andR.E.Gresswell.2003.FireandaquaticecosystemsofthewesternUSA:currentknowledgeandkeyquestions.ForestEcologyandManagement178:213‐229.

Black,T.A.,R.M.Cissel,andC.H.Luce.2012.TheGeomorphicRoadAnalysisandInventoryPackage(GRAIP)Volume1:DataCollectionMethod.GeneralTechnicalReportRMRS‐GTR‐280WWW.USDepartmentofAgricultureForestServiceRockyMountainResearchStation,FortCollins,CO.

Bunting,S.C.;Kingery,J.L.;Hemstrom,M.A.;Schroeder,M.A.;Gravenmier,R.A.;Hann,W.J.2002.AlteredrangelandecosystemsontheinteriorColumbiaBasin.USDAForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation,Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW‐GTR‐553.

Churchill,D.J.,A.J.Larson,M.C.Dahlgreen,J.F.Franklin,P.F.Hessburg,andJ.A.Lutz.2013.Restoringforestresilience:Fromreferencespatialpatternstosilviculturalprescriptionsandmonitoring.ForestEcologyandManagement291:442‐457.

Cissel,R.M.,T.A.Black,K.A.T.Schreuders,A.Prasad,C.H.Luce,D.G.Tarboton,andN.A.Nelson.2012.TheGeomorphicRoadsAanlysisandInventoryPackage(GRAIP)Volume2:OfficeProcedure.GeneralTechnicalReportRMRS‐GTR‐281WWW.USDepartmentofAgricultureForestServiceRockyMountainResearchStation,FortCollins,CO.

Crow,T.R.,andE.J.Gustafson.1997.Conceptsandmethodsofecosystemmanagement:lessonsfromlandscapeecology.In:Boyce,M.S.;Haney,A.eds.EcosystemManagement:Applicationsforsustainableforestandwildliferesources.YaleUniversityPress,NewHaven,CN:54‐67.

Day,J.W.,jr.,C.A.Hall,A.Yanez‐Arancibia,D.Pimentel,C.IbanezMarti,W.J.Mitsch.2009.Ecologyintimesofscarcity.BioScience59:321‐331.

Dunham,J.B.,andB.E.Rieman.1999.Metapopulationstructureofbulltrout:influencesofphysical,biotic,andgeometricallandscapecharacteristics.EcologicalApplications9:642‐655.

Flitcroft,R.L.,J.A.Falke,G.H.Reeves,P.F.Hessburg,K.M.McNyset,andL.E.Benda.2016.WildfiremayincreasehabitatqualityforspringChinooksalmonintheWenatcheeRiversubbasin,WA,USA.ForestEcologyandManagement359:126‐140.

Furniss,M.J.,T.D.Roelofs,andC.S.Yee.1991.Roadconstructionandmaintenance.In:Meehan,W.R.ed.InfluenceofForestandRangelandManagementonSalmonidFishesandtheirHabitats.AmericanFisheriesSociety,Bethesda,Ml.SpecialPublication19:297‐323.

Furniss,M.J.,T.S.Ledwith,M.A.Love,B.C.McFadin,andS.A.Flanagan.1998.Responseofroad‐streamcrossingstolargefloodeventsinWashington,Oregon,andnorthernCalifornia.USDAForestService,SanDimasTechnologyandDevelopmentCenter,SanDimas,CA.14pp.

Gaines,W.L.,D.W.Peterson,C.A.Thomas,andR.J.Harrod.2012.Adaptationstoclimatechange:ColvilleandOkanogan‐WenatcheeNationalForests.USDAForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation,PNW‐GTR‐862.

Gaines,W.L.andJ.F.Lehmkuhl.2015.Monitoring,AdaptiveManagement,andInformationGaps.Pages103‐125inLehmkuhl,J.,W.Gaines,D.W.Peterson,J.Bailey,andA.Youngblood.Eds.SilvicultureandMonitoringGuidelinesforIntegratingRestorationofDryMixed‐ConiferForestandSpottedOwlHabitatManagementintheeasternCascadeRange.USDAForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation,PNW‐GTR‐915.

Gartner,S.,K.M.Reynolds,P.F.Hessburg,S.Hummel,andS.Twery.2008.Decisionsupportforevaluatinglandscapedepartureandprioritizingforestmanagementactivitiesinachangingenvironment.ForestEcologyandManagement256:1666‐1676.

Girvetz,E.,andF.Shilling.2003.DecisionsupportforroadsystemanalysisandmodificationontheTahoeNationalForest.EnvironmentalManagement32(2):218‐233.

Grenouillet,G.A.,L.Comte.2014.Illuminatinggeographicalpatternsinspecies’rangeshifts.GlobalChangeBiology20:3080‐3091.

Haugo,R.,C.Zanger,T.DeMeo,C.Ringo,A.Shlisky,K.Blankenship,M.Simpson,K.Mellen‐McLean,J.Kertis,andS.Stern.2014.AnewapproachtoevaluateforeststructurerestorationneedsacrossOregonandWashington.ForestEcologyandManagement335:37‐50.

Hessburg,P.F.,B.G.Smith,S.D.Kreiter,C.A.Miller,R.B.Salter,C.H.McNicoll,andW.J.Hann.1999.HistoricalandcurrentforestandrangelandscapesintheinteriorColumbiaRiverBasinandportionsoftheKlamathandGreatBasins.Part1:Linkingvegetationpatternsandlandscapevulnerabilitytopotentialinsectandpathogendisturbances.USDAForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation,PNW‐GTR‐458.

Hessburg,P.F.,B.G.Smith,R.B.Salter,R.D.Ottmar,andE.Alvarado.2000.Recentchanges(1930s‐1990s)inspatialpatternsofinteriornorthwestforests,USA.ForestEcologyandManagement136:53‐83.

Hessburg,P.F.,andJ.K.Agee.2003.AnenvironmentalnarrativeofInlandNorthwestUnitedStatesforests,1800‐2000.ForestEcologyandManagement178:23‐59.

Hessburg,P.F.,J.K.Agee,andJ.F.Franklin.2005.DryforestsandwildlandfiresoftheinlandNorthwestUSA:contrastingthelandscapeecologyofthepre‐settlementandmoderneras.ForestEcologyandManagement211:117‐139.

Hessburg,P.F.,K.M.Reynolds,R.B.Salter,J.D.Dickinson,W.L.Gaines,andR.J.Harrod.2013.LandscapeevaluationforrestorationplanningontheOkanogan‐WenatcheeNationalForest,USA.Sustainability5:805‐840.

Hessburg,P.F.,D.J.Churchill,A.J.Larson,R.D.Haugo,C.Miller,T.A.Spies,M.North,N.A.Povak,R.T.Belote,P.H.Singleton,W.L.Gaines,R.E.Keane,G.H.Aplet,S.L.Stephens,P.Morgan,P.A.Bisson,B.E.Reiman,R.B.Salter,andG.H.Reeves.InPress.Restoringfire‐proneInlandPacificlandscapes:sevencoreprinciples.LandscapeEcology.

Isaak,D.J.,C.Luce,B.E.Rieman.2010.Effectsofclimatechangeandrecentwildfiresonstreamtemperatureandthermalhabitatfortwosalmonidsinamountainrivernetwork.EcologicalApplications20:1350‐1371.

Isaak,D.J.,S.Wollrab,D.Horan,andG.Chandler.2012.ClimatechangeeffectsonstreamandrivertemperaturesacrossthenorthwesternUSfrom1980‐2009andimplicationsforsalmonidfishes.ClimaticChange113:499‐524.

Isaak,D.J.,M.K.Young,D.E.Nagel,D.L.Horan,andM.C.Groce.2015.Thecold‐waterclimateshield:delineatingrefugiaforpreservingsalmonidfishesthroughthe21stcentury.GlobalChangeBiologydoi:10.1111/gcb.12879.

Jones,J.A.,F.J.Swanson,B.C.Wemple,andK.U.Snyder.2000.Effectsofroadsonhydrology,geomorphology,anddisturbancepatchesinstreamnetworks.ConservationBiology14:76‐85.

Kane,V.R.,J.A.Lutz,C.A.Cansler,N.A.Povak,D.Churchill,D.F.Smith,J.T.Kane,andM.P.North.2015.Waterbalanceandtopographypredictfireandforeststructurepatterns.ForestEcologyandManagement338:1‐13.

Kingsolver,J.G.2009.Thewell‐temperaturedbiologist.TheAmericanNaturalist174:755‐768.

Lehmkuhl,J.F.;Lyons,A.L.;Bracken,E.;Leingang,J.;Gaines,W.L.;Dodson,E.K.;Singleton,P.H.2013.Foragecomposition,productivity,andutilizationintheeasternWashingtonCascadeRange.NorthwestScience87(3):207‐231.

Littell,J.S.,E.E.Oneil,D.McKenzie,J.A.Hicke,J.A.Lutz,R.A.Norheim,andM.M.Elsner.2010.Forestecosystems,distributions,andclimaticchangeinWashingtonState,USA.ClimateChange102:129‐158.

Luce,C.H.,andT.A.Black.1999.SedimentproductionfromforestroadsinwesternOregon.WaterResourcesResearch35:2561‐2570.

Luce,C.H.,B.E.Rieman,J.B.Dunham,J.L.Clayton,J.G.King,andT.A.Black.2001.Incorporatingaquaticecologyintodecisionsonprioritizationofroaddecommissioning.WaterResourcesImpact(May):8‐14.

Lundquist,J.D.,S.E.Dickerson‐Lange,J.A.Lutz,andN.C.Cristea.2013.Lowerforestdensityenhancessnowretentioninregionswithwarmerwinters:aglobalframeworkdevelopedfromplot‐scaleobservationsandmodeling.WaterResourcesResearch49:6356‐6370.

Lutz,J.A.,J.W.VanWagtendonk,andJ.F.Franklin.2010.Climatewaterdeficit,treespeciesranges,andclimatechangeinYosemiteNationalPark.JournalofBiogeography37:936‐950.

Mantua,N.,I.Tohver,andA.Hamlet.2009.ImpactsofclimatechangeonkeyaspectsoffreshwatersalmonhabitatinWashingtonState.In:Elsner,M.M.;Littel,J.;Binder,L.W.,eds.TheWashingtonClimateChangeImpactsAssessment.Seattle,WA:CenterforScienceintheEarthSystem,JointInstitutefortheStudyofAtmosphereandOceans,UniversityofWashington:217‐254.

Mantua,N.J.,andC.L.Raymond.2014.Climatechange,fish,andfishhabitatintheNorthCascadeRange.Pages235‐270inRaymond,C.L.,D.L.Peterson,andR.M.Rochefort,Eds.USDAForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation,PNW‐GTR‐892.

Medhurst,R.B.,M.S.Wipfli,C.Binckley,K.Polivka,P.F.Hessburg,andR.B.Salter.2010.Headwaterstreamsandforestmanagement:doesecoregionalcontextinfluenceloggingeffectsonbenthiccommunities?Hydrobiologia641:71‐83.

Meredith,C.,B.Roper,andE.Archer.2014.ReductionsininstreamwoodinstreamsnearroadsintheinteriorColumbiaRiverBasin.NorthAmericanJournalofFisheriesManagement34(3):493‐506.

Miller,D.,C.Luce,andL.Benda.2003.Time,space,andepisodicityofphysicaldisturbanceinstreams.ForestEcologyandManagement178:121‐140.

Mote,P.2003.TrendsinsnowwaterequivalentinthePacificNorthwestandtheirclimaticcauses.GeophysicalResearchLetters30:1601‐1604.

Naiman,R.J.,andM.G.Turner.2000.AfutureperspectiveonNorthAmerica’sfreshwaterecosystems.EcologicalApplications10:958‐970.

NationalMarineFisheriesService(NMFS).2008.MiddleColumbiaRiversteelheadrecoveryplan.Portland,OR.

Polivka,K.M.,E.A.Steel,andJ.L.Novak.2015.Juvenilesalmonandsteelheadoccupancyofstreampoolstreatedandnottreatedwithrestorationstructures,EntiatRiver,Washington.CanadianJournalofFisheriesandAquaticSciences72:166‐174.

Ptyondy,J.P.,andT.W.Geier.2010.ForestServicewatershedconditionframeworktechnicalguide.USDAForestService,Washington,DC.

Reiss,K.Y.,K.Gallo,P.Dawson,D.Konnoff,andL.Croft.2008.Processforevaluatingthecontributionofnationalforestsystemlandstoaquaticecologicalsustainability.ARegionalPilotProjectconductedontheOkanogan‐WenatcheeandColvilleNationalForests.USDAForestService,PacificNorthwestRegion,Region6.Portland,OR.

Rieman,B.E.,D.J.Isaaks,S.Adams.2007.AnticipatedclimatewarmingeffectsonbulltrouthabitatsandpopulationsacrosstheinteriorColumbiaRiverbasin.TransactionsoftheAmericanFisheriesSociety136:1552‐1565.

Rieman,B.E.,P.F.Hessburg,C.Luce,andM.R.Dare.2010.Wildfireandmanagementofforestandnativefishes:conflictoropportunityforconvergentsolutions?BioScience60:460‐468.

Ruff,C.P.,D.E.Schindler,J.B.Armstrong.2011.Temperature‐associatedpopulationdiversityinsalmonconfersbenefitstomobileconsumers.Ecology92:2073‐2084.

Salafsky,N.,R.Margoluis,andK.Redford.2005.Adaptivemanagement:atoolforconservationpractitioners.Washington,DC:WorldWildlifeFund.http://www.fosoline.org/wordpress/wp‐content/uploads/2010/06/AdaptiveManagementTool.pdf.

Stankey,G.H.,R.N.Clark,andB.T.Bormann.2005.Adaptivemanagementofnaturalresources:theory,concepts,andmanagementinstitutions.USDAForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation,PNW‐GTR‐654.

Stephenson,N.L.1998.Actualevopotranspirationanddeficit:biologicallymeaningfulcorrelatesofvegetationdistributionacrossspatialscales.JournalofBiogeography25:855‐870.

SER.2004.TheSERinternationalprimeronecologicalrestoration,version2.SocietyforEcologicalRestorationScienceandPolicyWorkingGroup.

Stine,P.,P.Hessburg,T.Spies,M.Kramer,C.J.Fettig,A.Hansen,J.Lehmkuhl,K.O’Hara,K.Polivka,P.Singleton,S.Charnley,A.Merschel,andR.White.2014.Theecologyandmanagementofmoistmixed‐coniferforestsineasternOregonandWashington:asynthesisoftherelevantbiophysicalscienceandimplicationsforfuturelandmanagement.USDAForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation,PNW‐GTR‐897.

Strauch,R.L.,C.L.Raymond,andA.F.Hamlet.2015.Climatechange,hydrologyandaccessintheNorthCascadeRange.Pages48‐112inRaymond,C.L.,D.L.Peterson,andR.M.Rochefort,Eds.USDAForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation,PNW‐GTR‐892.

Trombulka,S.C.,andC.A.Frissell.2000.Reviewofecologicaleffectsofroadsonterrestrialandaquaticcommunities.ConservationBiology14:18‐30.

USDAForestService(USFS).2012.TheOkanogan‐WenatcheeNationalForestRestorationStrategy:adaptiveecosystemmanagementtorestorelandscaperesiliency.USDAForestService,PacificNorthwestRegion.Portland,OR.

U.S.FishandWildlifeService(USFWS).2011.RevisedRecoveryPlanforthenorthernspottedowl(Strixoccidentaliscaurina).U.SFishandWildlifeService,Portland,OR.

U.S.FishandWildlifeService(USFWS).2015.Draftmid‐Columbiarecoveryunitimplementationplanforbulltroutrecoveryplan.U.SFishandWildlifeService,Portland,OR.

VerHoef,J.M.,E.E.Peterson,andD.M.Theobald.2006.Spatialstatisticalmodelsthatuseflowandstreamdistance.EnvironmentalandEcologicalStatistics13:449‐464.

White,P.S.,andJ.Harrod.1997.Disturbanceanddiversityinalandscapecontext.In:Bissonette,J.A.ed.WildlifeandLandscapeEcology.Springer‐Verlag,NewYork,NY:128‐159.

Wondzell,S.M.2001.TheinfluenceofforesthealthandprotectiontreatmentsonerosionandstreamsedimentationinforestedwatershedsofeasternOregonandWashington.NorthwestScience75(SpecialIssue):128‐140.

YakimaBasinFishandWildlifeRecoveryBoard(YBFWRB).2009.Yakimasteelheadrecoveryplan.YakimaBasinFishandWildlifeRecoveryBoard.http://www.ybfwrb.org.

Manastash Taneum Resilient Landscapes Project: Landscape … · 2016-09-27 · The...

Documents

Transcript of Manastash Taneum Resilient Landscapes Project: Landscape … · 2016-09-27 · The...

Disability inclusive & Disaster-resilient Queensland€¦ · Disability inclusive & Disaster-resilient Queensland A project by: Disability inclusive & Disaster-resilient Queensland

Resilient Food Systems, Resilient Cities

Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing size.pdf · RESILIENT PEOPLE, RESILIENT PLANET: A FUTURE WORTH CHOOSING 5 ... of wealth. Markets and entrepreneurship will

RESILIENT BUSINESSES FOR RESILIENT NATIONS AND … · Resilient Businesses for Resilient Nations and Communities 1. Resilient businesses for a resilient Asia-Pacific 4 Foreword Disaster

RESILIENT INDIVIDUALS AND RESILIENT WORKPLACES · RESILIENT INDIVIDUALS AND RESILIENT WORKPLACES: TRANSLATING AND APPLYING THE RESEARCH Nancy Spangler, PhD, OTR/L Institute of Occupational

Resilient Parent, Resilient Child

Building Resilient Families and Communities Accreditation ... · Building Resilient Families and Communities Accreditation Scheme ... Building Resilient Families and Communities ...

RESILIENT PEOPLE RESILIENT PLANET size.pdfTHE REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL’S HIGH-LEVEL PANEL ON GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY RESILIENT PEOPLE RESILIENT PLANET A Future

Resilient Thinking

Resilient flooring still gaining market share · 2012-09-18 · Feature: Resilient Flooring Resilient flooring still gaining market share The resilient flooring market has significantly

Resilient Infrastructure Public-Private Contracts and ...globalinfrafacility.org/sites/gif/files/Resilient Infrastrcuture... · Resilient Infrastructure Public-Private Partnerships

Climare resilient

Resilient Family, Resilient Kid

Resilient Connecticut & Resilient Bridgeport...BRIDGEPORT CONNECTICUT artment of Hous ÈANSPORTATION EGRESS ZONE Upland Community 1-95 Metro North Resilient Nodes Resilient Corridors

Manastash - Central Washington University · Ebonesiah Morrow Black Roses. Michael Nichols Tōhoku-chihō Taiheiyō Oki . Jishin Hedonism . DJ Haskin More Vibrations. Joanna Thomas

Taneum Creek Coho/NTT Interactions Gabriel Temple.

Resilient Valley, Resilient Communities...Resilient Valley, Resilient Communities — the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley Flood Risk Management Strategy (the Flood Strategy) is a comprehensive

Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A future worth choosing

Resilient People, Resilient Planet

A contribution to the global campaign 2010-2015 Making Cities Resilient …resilient-cities.iclei.org/fileadmin/sites/resilient... · 2012-04-25 · How To Make Cities More Resilient