Thomas Creek UNF Field Trip Notes, B. Bormann, June 27, 2013
My overall conclusions from the field trip:





The field trip was nearly perfectly designed and carried out.
The pieces are clearly in place for a successful learning-based project, including:
o The collaborative members are well informed and appear to me to be sufficiently broad
in representation of the public.
o The Forest specialists (and the leadership) involved are outstanding.
The matrix question (stop 2) has the greatest potential learning value because:
o There is sufficient disagreement about what to do, hence potential for learning;
o It pertains to the largest portion of the watershed, it addresses landscape issues directly
(such as plantation and possible riparian interactions); and
o It has the greatest potential to produce net revenue to allow enough non-commercial
objectives to be met to have a significant effect on the watershed.
The other questions can also be asked and addressed (they’re not mutually exclusive) if there
are sufficient resources (which may depend on net revenue).
The riparian question may not involve much of the landscape, but might be the most positive
area to conduct learning, and thereby positively influence learning about the more controversial
questions.
Notes:
Three stand types were visited inside the Thomas Creek project area, south of Tollgate, OR.
Stop 1. Mixed-conifer plantations. These were created about 1961 as clearcut harvests, planted to
ponderosa pine, now thought to be both genetically and ecologically “off-site.” Pines looked poorly and
were being outgrown by natural regeneration larch, E. spruce, Douglas-fir, and grand fir. Discussions
supported a general question: How to manage these old units to meet stated collaborative
“restoration” goals (both ecological and social). Three obvious strategies were debated:
a) Create various sized openings with many large enough to establish and grow western larch, with
openings coming mainly from commercial harvest of ponderosa pine and some grand fir. This
would meet landscape goals of restoring a vegetation type far below presumed historical range
(early-seral larch dominated stands) and generate commercial volume at or near an economic
breakeven point. Stands would retain residual larch, Douglas-fir, and E. spruce.
b) Commercially thin stands more evenly with the goal of creating a single strata of old forest
canopy (eventually heavy to grand fir), with p pine the main species removed. Some ponderosa
pine probably left on site. This would also meet landscape goals of restoring a vegetation type
below presumed historical range (old single strata stands) and would presumably achieve
economic breakeven.
c) Commercially or non-commercially thin stands to encourage the healthiest individual trees
including p pine with the goal of increasing existing stand resiliency to potential climate changes
(strategies above do this as well, but differently).
1
The dynamics of the collaborative discussion included:


Full consensus on a preference for strategy (a) above. The stated question is apparently noncontentious within the collaborative and would therefore not appear to be a particularly useful
focus of learning. Two factors should be considered, however. The uncertainties with (a) and
other strategies are high, regardless of consensus. A consensus may not possible with the public
at large, so my recommendation is at a minimum, to include perhaps 10 designed no action 5 to
10 acre “controls” that could be used to establish the effects of the single strategy employed.
The comparison with adjacent un-entered road-less area plantations are good demonstrations
but insufficient to convince skeptics. Work in future meetings will be required to make this clear
to the collaborative group.
Stop 2. Mature forest matrix surrounding plantations. These stands have varied history; some were
old entries that did not remove the entire overstory. The stands we looked at had considerable
mistletoe and disease on most species, including larch. At the same time, stands with snags, downed
wood, and green understory were quite attractive, with scattered huckleberry and other species. The
debate supports a guiding question, Whether and how to manage these areas to meet stated
collaborative “restoration” goals (both ecological and social) at the landscape scale. Three or more
obvious strategies were debated:
a) Allow the matrix stands to develop on their own since they have and will have aesthetic and
wildlife values associated with snags, mistletoe, and patches of mortality followed by
succession. An option in this strategy might address how to respond (comm./non-comm.) to
larger patches of mortality from insects, disease, windthrow, and fire.
b) Commercially thin patches designed to encourage huckleberry and other “first foods” of interest
to tribal interests as a way to meet ceded land commitments and facilitate tribal participation1.
c) Commercially thin in well distributed patches of different sizes to meet collaborative objectives
by addressing a range of issues, including:
 Lessening insect and disease transferal to adjacent plantation units (especially mistletoe
to larch saplings);
 Harvest some larger logs that generate net revenues for Counties and for use in funding
other activities in the project boundary that do not have sufficient appropriations.
The dynamics of the collaborative discussion included:


1
A respectful lack of full consensus on whether the matrix should be included in the project (2
very concerned; 1 more or less on the fence; with the remainder apparently supportive.
Opposition appeared to be based on why a “natural” condition needed to be managed. This
might be somewhat mitigated if addition discovery revealed that current stands no not reflect
the historical condition.
The lack of agreement about what to do suggests greater uncertainty and room for increasing
the zone of agreement over time with both short and long-term increases possible.
Including this may be quite important.
2
Stop 3. Intermittent stream in mixed-conifer plantation. The two site-tree (PacFish) buffers prevent
commercial harvest on these plantation and matrix areas. The planted ponderosa pine here look even
worse than in drier areas of the plantations, and hardwood shrubs and trees appear missing. This
situation suggests the question: How to manage intermittent buffers to improve conditions for
threatened steelhead and bull trout lower in the watershed? Strategies and other issues were
debated, including:
a) Thin and manage vegetation to increase mineral-soil organic matter and thus water-holding
capacity reducing stream flashiness. Vegetation to be established by commercial harvest of
ponderosa pine, grand fir, and possibly other conifers to favor hardwood shrubs and trees
known to increase mineral-soil organic matter (especially alder);
b) Reduce evapotranspiration in trees by thinning stands near intermittent streams;
c) Manage for the long-term, by anticipating potential disturbances including fire, windthrow, and
changes in snow pack;
d) Increase energy flow of desirable deciduous litter that could enter stream foodchains as a way
to increase stream productivity;
e) Add woody debris in fish-bearing portions of the stream;
f) Find a better way to determine the importance of riparian management than historic range; and
g) Generate revenue in other parts of the project area to fund non-breakeven activities.
The dynamics of the collaborative discussion included:


Changing the perspective on the problem—from what can we do to avoid riparian and stream
problems, to what can we do to help the fish—altered the energy and direction of the debate, I
believe; and
The uncertainties were perhaps highest among the 3 stops here, as evidenced by lots of science
questions, surprises, and interest in technical underpinnings.
Potential next steps
The decision about whether to include a learning objective (set of questions) as a purpose and need—
needs further discussion with Ayn Shlishy. I fully support the idea, but this needs to be thought through.
After discussing with the Accelerated Landscape Learning group, I can develop a set of strawmen
learning designs to address the questions. For Question 2, this will likely include some GIS work to
layout subareas (experimental units) of 300 acres or more (multiple plantation units and intervening
areas), and a similarity analysis to create 3 to 4 uniform Blocks with 2 to 4 experimental units each. This
will then be displayed as a map. The purpose of the exercise is to display possible designs that might
come from a collaborator-involved process for the Forest, the collaborators, and Kent (as requested).
The process and map could form the basis for a discussion at the August or September collaborative
meeting. If adopted, a subgroup might be formed at that meeting that would redo the process and
develop into an alternative for the project EIS. At this point, some additional research expertise might
be invited in. A formal study plan would follow that could be included in the EIS.
3