Adaptive Management & Monitoring
Regions 1 & 4, Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS)
FY02 Plans
October 1, 2001
Updated Project Work Plan:
Summary: A common management concern is the role that fire historically played in forested streamside areas, and whether fire should be reintroduced into streamside areas to mimic historical disturbance by fire. Where seral ponderosa pine-Douglas fir cover types extend into streamside areas, fire may have occurred as frequently as in the uplands (Agee 2000, Barrett 2000, Olson 2000). Therefore, at least in some forest types, changes in the structure and composition of the upland forest as a result of fire suppression are most likely occurring in streamside areas as well.
Streamside forests represent an important source of large woody debris (LWD) to streams in headwater areas.
Therefore, an important question is how changes in streamside forest condition resulting from fire exclusion are affecting or will affect instream LWD.
Objectives:
- To determine whether streamside forest structure and composition and LWD structure and function differ between ponderosa pine-Douglas fir fire-excluded streamside sites (i.e., sites where fire suppression has taken place for 50-75 years) and non fire-excluded sites.
- To determine if relationships exist between the current ponderosa pine-Douglas fir streamside forest structure and instream LWD structure.
Study Design:
Site Selection
A stratified random design will be used to select streamside forests/streams that meet established criteria. These criteria and justifications are listed in the following table:
| Criteria |
Justification |
| 1. Snow-dominated precip zone; similar drought potential as S Fork Salmon |
Control for geomorphic setting, forest type potential (e.g., reproduction)
|
| 2. Sites within the Idaho Batholith (granitic geol.) and Fluvial Lands Landtype Association* |
Control for geomorphic setting, forest type potential (e.g., productivity)
|
| 3. Seral ponderosa pine-Douglas fir forest habitat types (from Steele et al. 1981) |
Control for forest structure and composition; dry type with frequent low-intensity fire regime which has missed most fire cycles due to fire suppression; high management importance in terms of wildland-urban interface, T&E species, timber management, water quality, etc. |
| 4. Sites < 2000m elevation |
Overlap w/ forest type; control for fire type, forest development, etc. |
| 5. Moderate to steep streamside forests (> 10 percent slope) |
Control for streamside/LWD dynamics and processes, streamside vegetation |
| 6. Limited existing management activities (e.g., streamside roads, timber harvest, grazing) |
Control for confounding effects |
| 7. Drainage areas from 1600-5000 ha |
Control for LWD dynamics, watershed setting |
| 8. 2nd to 3rd order perennial streams |
Control for LWD dynamics, watershed setting |
| 9. Streams with gradients > 2 percent |
Overlap w/ streamside slope; control for geomorphology, LWD dynamics |
| 10. Streams with forced pool-riffle channels |
Overlap w/ stream gradient; control for geomorphology, LWD dynamics |
*See South Fork Salmon Subbasin Review for Landtype Association definitions
A GIS will be used to make a first cut for sites using these criteria. Bolded numbers indicate those criteria that may be captured using a GIS or maps. The unbolded numbers indicate the necessity for field checks. Then, expert opinion and fire history information will be used to determine sites that fall within the two treatments (i.e., fire excluded and non fire-excluded). Sites will be randomly selected from this set. A fire excluded site is one in which fire has not occurred in the stream-riparian environment for at least 60 years (i.e., if MFI is 15 years, four fire cycles have been missed). Sites in which fire has been excluded in the uplands as well would be preferred. Non fire-excluded sites are those sites that have been allowed to maintain a natural fire regime for the seral ponderosa pine-Douglas fir forest type. These areas will most likely be found in the Frank Church, Gospel Hump, and Selway-Bitterroot wilderness areas.
Methods
I propose to use strip plot sampling procedures for streamside vegetation following Bate et al. (1999), with some modifications. Streamside tree and snag measurements will be taken at several random locations along the stream within seral ponderosa pine-Douglas fir forest habitat types (as defined by Steele et al. 1981). Each streamside site is stratified by aspect, and the streamside zone is defined as the area parallel to both sides of the stream with a perpendicular distance of 20 m. Each streamside sample point will consist of four consecutive 50 m transects, each of which constitute a sample (Bate et al. 1999). The total width of each plot is 20 m, or 10 m on each side of the transect. Distance of each tree or snag along and away from the transect will also be measured.
Instream plots will be established adjacent to the streamside plots to quantify and characterize LWD. All LWD > 10 cm large-end diameter and > 1.0 m in length, and containing any portion within or suspended above the bankfull channel, will be measured. For LWD data collection, a 200 m transect is placed in the center of the stream adjacent and parallel to each streamside transect. The plot width is represented by average bankfull width, so it is variable among sample points. In addition to LWD, stream channel measurements will be taken once or twice per plot depending on the variable. Photographs will be taken for every plot and stream flow is measured at the mouth of each stream. LWD, channel, and flow data are collected during base flow conditions (July through August).
Further evaluation will determine the number of samples needed in each treatment type. Currently, I am estimating the number of samples needed to detect a significant difference between treatment types (at a 95 percent confidence level) to be 30 samples per treatment.
Variables
Proposed variables are given in the following table:
| VARIBLE |
MEASUREMENT/CHARACTERISTIC |
DESCRIPTION |
| |
Live or Dead Species |
|
| |
Total Number > 10 cm (DBH) |
Within 20m x 50m rectangular plots (1000m²) (Bate et al. 1999) |
| Snags/Live Trees |
Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) |
Biltmore DBH Stick (cm) |
| |
Height |
Clinometer estimate (0.5m) |
| |
Stream Distance |
Distance class based on the perpendicular, downslope distance from the tree to the stream channel: 1 (£5m from channel); 2 (5-10m from channel); 3 (10-20m from channel) |
| |
Species |
|
| |
Large-end and Small-end Diameter |
Biltmore DBH Stick (cm) |
| |
Length |
Tape (0.1m) |
| |
Condition |
1 (least decayed) to 3 (most decayed) based on presence or absence of limbs and bark, and condition of the wood (Hauer et al. 1999) |
| |
Intactness |
RW (log w/ root wad); BL (broken log); CL (cut log) (Bull et al. 1997) |
| Large Woody Debris |
Position |
Position of LWD in relation to channel; BR (bridge); DD (debris dam); RP (ramp); DW (driftwood) (Lawrence 1991) |
| |
Origin |
Streamside (S) or unknown (U) |
| |
Debris Dam Length, Width, Depth |
Length (0.1m), width (0.1m), depth (0.1m) |
| |
Pool Formation |
Pool formation by LWD; NP (no pool); PL (pool) |
| |
Wetted Width |
Once for every 100m segment using tape (0.1m) |
| |
Bankfull Width |
Twice for every 100m segment using tape (0.1m) |
| Stream Channel |
Depth |
Average of three measurements across wetted channel every 100m segment using Biltmore stick (cm) |
| |
Stream Gradient |
Once every 100m segment using hand level (percentage) |
| |
Photographs |
Upstream, downstream, and riparian for every 100m segment |
| |
Stream Flow |
Stream mouth using flow meter (cm/s) |
| |
Side Slope |
Once for every 100m segment using clinometer (%) |
Literature Cited:
Agee, J.K. 2000. Burning issues in fire: will we let the coarse-filter operate? Pages 000-000 in L.A. Brennan, et al. (eds.) National Congress on Fire Ecology, Prevention, and Management Proceedings, No. 1. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL.
Barrett, S.W. 2000. Fire history and fire regimes, South Fork Salmon River drainage, Central Idaho. Purchase Order 43-0256-9-0651, December 2000.
Bate, L.J., E.O. Garton, and M.J. Wisdom. 1999. Estimating snag and large tree densities and distributions on a landscape for wildlife management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-425. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 76 p.
Bull, E.L., C.G. Parks, and T.R. Torgersen. 1997. Trees and logs important to wildlife in the Interior Columbia River Basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-391. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Hauer, F.R., G.C. Poole, J.T. Gangemi, and C.V. Baxter. 1999. Large woody debris in bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) spawning streams of logged and wilderness watersheds in northwest Montana. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56:915-924.
Lawrence, D.E. 1991. Postfire woody debris dynamics in headwater streams of Yellowstone National Park. Master of Science thesis. Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho.
Olson, D.L. 2000. Fire in riparian zones: a comparison of historical fire occurrence in riparian and upslope forests in the Blue Mountains and southern Cascades of Oregon. Master of Science thesis. College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Steele, R., R.D. Pfister, R.A. Ryker, and J.A. Kittams. 1981. Forest habitat types of Central Idaho. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-114. Ogden, UT: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Budget Summary:
| FY |
Number Samples |
Number GS-4's |
GS-4 Cost |
Crew Travel at 6pp |
Equipment |
Lease Vehicles |
Analysis |
Sherry Travel |
Sherry Salary |
Cost by FY |
| 2002 |
12 |
4 |
$23,040 |
$6,480 |
$3,500 |
$8,000 |
$1,000 |
$1,000 |
$12,000 |
$55,020 |
| 2003 |
18 |
6 |
$34,560 |
$9,720 |
$3,500 |
$10,000 |
$1,000 |
$1,000 |
$12,000 |
$71,780 |
| 2004 |
16 |
6 |
$34,560 |
$9,720 |
$1,000 |
$10,000 |
$1,000 |
$1,000 |
$12,000 |
$69,280 |
| Total |
46 |
16 |
$92,160 |
$25,920 |
$8,000 |
$28,000 |
$3,000 |
$3,000 |
$36,000 |
$196,080 |
|
