It is apparent from the previous two sections that there has been quite a bit of recent research activity in the Coast Range, with much of it focused on the main issues currently facing the AMA. Many studies were started recently and will require several decades to fully assess effects (e.g. the silvicultural studies); developing and maintaining long-term research projects will be important for learning in the Northern Coast Range AMA. Developing more applied types of studies that integrate social, economic, and ecological approaches and information remain a challenge, however.
 

Several issues and questions facing the AMA were presented in the second section. A complete list of specific questions raised by stakeholders in the AMA is presented in this section. Priorities still need to be established, after which funding and responsibilities would need to be worked out. Rather than fully develop research plans for each question, the rest of this section is dedicated to several examples of research or management projects we could pursue to advance learning in the Northern Coast Range.
 
 

Stakeholder Questions

 Forest structure                 Roads                 Landscapes                      Learning
 Individual species             Streams              People/management
 Return to top of page

• Factual: Are some Douglas-fir trees infected by Swiss needle-cast to a greater extent than other trees? Answering this question requires an assessment of the extent and location of the disease.

• Interpretive: Why are some Douglas-fir trees more infected by Swiss needle-cast than others? An initial answer requires correlating diseased and non-diseased trees with climate, stand composition, stand age, tree genetics, etc. to point to a potential cause. A definitive answer would require a controlled experiment using different types of potential factors (e.g. planting different genotypes, creating different stand composition mixtures).

• Judgmental: What is the best way to control Swiss needle-cast? Answering this question requires assessing trade-offs of the cost and effectiveness of particular treatments and their implications for other resource values.
 

A.Late-successional forest characterization

• What are the characteristics of late-successional forests in the different ecological zones within the Northern Coast Range AMA?

• What are the characteristics of functional old-growth, in terms of tree size and patch size?

• How does succession (forest development over time) differ among plant communities or groups of associations (sub-series)?

B.Late-successional forest dynamics and disturbance

• Under what conditions did old-growth stands develop in the Coast Range, particularly in terms of tree density and intermediate disturbance?

• What is the effect of Swiss needle-cast on obtaining late-successional conditions?

• Are there ecosystem benefits from windthrow; should risk of windthrow always be minimized when planning management activities?

• What is the role of natural disturbance in maintaining late-successional habitat?

C.Late-successional forest and silviculture

• Can desired late-successional stand characteristics be promoted through thinning and/or planting, and what are the effects of different prescriptions for different types (i.e. age and composition) of stands?

• What are the effects of different thinning densities on windthrow?

• Can prescribed burning be used in riparian reserves or upland forests to enhance late-successional characteristics or for hardwood conversion?

• Would different nursery practices (e.g. growing seedlings under low light) improve survival and growth of trees planted in thinnings or in riparian zones?

D.Harvest and coarse woody debris concerns

• What is the effect of wood removal from stands thinned to produce late-successional habitat on species and processes associated with coarse woody debris?

• What is the risk of Douglas-fir bark beetle or spruce bark beetle attack on healthy trees after cutting and leaving trees for coarse woody debris?

• In what amounts does large woody debris become a significant fire hazard in the Coast Range?

E.Harvest and slope stability concerns

• What leave-tree density is required to provide erosion stability on different slopes?

F.Other stand management issues

• What is the effect of herbicide use on restoring LSOG and on fish and wildlife, in comparison to burning?

• What are the effects of timber harvest on special forest products?

G.Judgement questions

• What are the desired future conditions for late-successional stands and landscapes?

H.Monitoring questions

• What is the current stand age/type distribution?

• What is the current level of down woody debris?

• What is the current snag density and distribution?

• How can we characterize the degree of patchiness within forest stands?

A.General characterization

• What are the specific threats to population viability of the species native to the analysis area?

• What historic natural disturbances impacted populations and habitat?

• What are the benefits of the unique habitat types (i.e., bogs, meadows, talus), are there any current threats, and how can they best be protected?

B.Fundamentals

• What is the relation between habitat and populations? (If we build it, will they come?)

• How do we address site specific needs for all organisms when the exact habitat requirements for most are unknown? Are there reliable indicator species that can be used?

• Does addressing needs of high-visibility species (northern spotted owl, salmon) take care of everything else?

C.Understanding specific species

• What are the individual ecological and habitat needs of the 427 "Survey and Manage" species associated with late-successional forest?

• What is the life history of marbled murrelets on the north coast of Oregon and what are its habitat needs?

• Is marbled murrelet reproduction and survival affected by indirect human disturbance (e.g. noise, presence)?

• Are marbled murrelet populations increasing in response to the ageing of mature forest stands?

• Are northern spotted owl populations increasing in response to the ageing of mature forest stands?

• Are unmanaged Riparian Reserves functioning as corridors for dispersal of northern spotted owls and other late-successional species?

• Are populations of salmonid species (coho, steelhead, spring and fall Chinook, chum, summer and winter steelhead, and sea-run and resident cutthroat trout) increasing in response to improvements in stream habitat (as identified in the Aquatic Conservation Strategy) on federal lands?

D.Management effects questions

• Can wildlife habitat in stands be enhanced by creating cavities in live trees, inoculating trees with top rot fungi, inoculating trees with mistletoe, or adding nest boxes (e.g. Olympic AMA project)?

• How effective are logs and snags and what are the appropriate sizes for providing habitat for late-successional species during early-successional stages?

• How does thinning affect riparian species, especially lichens and bryophytes, that make up marbled murrelet nesting platforms?

• What levels and methods of periodic moss harvest are sustainable in the long term?

• Do current harvest methods and rates for special forest products affect late-successional habitats?

• Can the effects of exotic plants (e.g. scotch broom, gorse, holly) and animals (barred owls, starlings) on native species be reduced or eliminated?

• What impacts are roads having on wildlife and wildlife habitat?

• Is under-burning or some other moderate disturbance effective in restoring populations of withered bluegrass (Poa marcida) and loose-flowered bluegrass (Poa laxiflora)?

• Are meadow-maintenance techniques effective in restoring populations of Oregon silverspot butterfly?

E.Monitoring questions

• What are the species native to the analysis area and what are their population trends?

• What is the range of natural variability for wildlife populations and habitat? Are current populations within the range of natural variability?

• What are the critical habitats involved?

• Where are the known sites?

• What is the current level of habitat fragmentation?

• What is the current level of interior forest habitat?

• Where and what are the unique habitat types (i.e., bogs, meadows, talus)?

• Where are Survey + Manage species located and distributed?

• What are effective survey and management techniques and protocols for rare and lesser-known species (mollusks, lichens, invertebrates, vascular plants)?

• What is a reliable method for determining occupancy for marbled murrelet?

III.Road management

A.Management effects questions

• Are our new road-building techniques effective at preventing landslides?

• What types of road-building, road location, road maintenance, and decommissioning techniques would minimize impacts on watershed objectives?

• What are the benefits of alternative road designs in terms of sediment erosion, probability of failure, resistance to flood damage, and ease of decommissioning?

• What impacts are roads having on suspended sediment, streamflow, channel and bank configuration?

 

IV.Streams/Riparian Zones

A.Riparian characterization

• What is the range of natural variability for streamflow, sediment levels, and water temperature?

• What historic disturbance regimes are affecting stream channels?

• What is the quality of the water?

• What was the natural abundance of conifers along streams in the AMA?

• What is the "natural" rate of input of large wood and catastrophic sediment Into streams? How does the current rate differ?

• Are channel-altering flows within the range of natural variability and what are the effects on sensitive channel segments?

• How will changes in vegetation pattern (e.g. due to thinning, planting, or natural development) affect water flows (peak flows and low flows) stream morphology, and aquatic species?

• What is the role of coastal estuaries and large rivers in maintaining salmon populations? Which species utilize which habitats, and for how long?

• Is there evidence that fish habitat conditions have changed from historic conditions?

B.General management questions

• What is the most effective method for improving fish habitat in streams?

• How wide should Riparian Reserves be to protect basic wildlife habitat and species?

• What and where are the impacts producing high levels of fecal coliform in the lower rivers (Nestucca watershed)?

• Can old-growth forest conditions be stimulated in riparian areas to benefit fish and to serve as corridors for terrestrial species?

• What are the effects of management operations in riparian and upland forests on stream flows, sedimentation, and microclimate; and on fish habitat and aquatic food webs?

• How has the history of road building and timber harvest affected stream flows, including summer lows and peak flows?

C.Sediment effects

• What and where are the impacts producing fine sediments and what are the effects of this on beneficial uses?

• What types of roads have high potential for negative impacts from landslides?

D.Conifer/coarse woody debris issues

• Can conifer establishment and growth be initiated or accelerated in riparian zones dominated by hardwoods? Would operations cause undesired effects on fish habitat?

• Where have management activities and natural processes reduced the large wood supply below natural levels?

E.Other issues

• How does forest fertilization affect aquatic systems?

F.Technique questions

• How can we encourage conifer growth along riparian areas without increasing stream-bank erosion into creeks associated with thinning and yarding trees?

• Is cabling fish structures into streams as effective as not cabling for providing fish habitat?

G.Monitoring questions

• What species of fish inhabit the watershed? What is the current status of the important anadromous and resident fish species?

• What are the current condition of the habitats of anadromous and resident fish species relative to the desired future conditions? Where are the important productive flats (low gradient, unconfined stream reaches)?

• Are stream temperatures within the range of natural variability and within state water quality standards, and what are the effects on beneficial uses?

• What is the most effective and/or the most efficient method of inventorying stream habitat for aquatic species (current inventories use a measure called "embeddedness")?

 

V.Landscapes

A.How does it work questions

• What is the effect of the scale and amount of landscape diversity of stand types on species habitat needs?

• How does habitat patchiness and connectivity affect viability of endangered species and biodiversity in general?

B.Management effects questions

• What percentage of the land base in a drainage should be at each seral stage to sustain late-successional habitat character?

• How much of the AMA do we need to treat to effectively move the landscape toward late-successional forest?

• How do activities on one ownership affect ecological, economic, and social characteristics on other ownerships?

C.Monitoring questions

• What is the existing environmental baseline within the AMA?

• How has the visual landscape changed since the 1930's (e.g. compare with 1930's panoramic photos taken from lookouts)?

 

VI.People/management

A.Social-economic questions

• What is the most effective way to provide stable economic value to local communities while restoring and maintaining late-successional forest ecosystems at the same time?

• Can stable economies be developed locally based primarily on thinning, forest restoration and monitoring, and special forest products?

• What thinning and harvest regimes that are consistent with developing late-successional habitat give the greatest economic returns?

• To what extent do sustainable supplies of products and uses of federal lands contribute to local economic stability?

• What harvest-sale restrictions are economically viable? Does the answer change for specialty markets?

• How can other social and cultural values, such as education, be increased in the AMA?

• What value-added manufacturing could be established close to the AMA that could use small-diameter thinning from state and federal lands?

B.Collaboration questions

• How can more public participation in AMA management decisions be encouraged?

• Which planning systems are most effective for developing collaborative decisions about desired conditions and priority setting among action plans?

• Does greater public involvement in management planning result in greater support for management actions?

• How can private interest groups, private industry, and private timberland owners be persuaded to form partnerships with federal and state agencies?

• At what scale would public-private partnerships be most effective?

• How can information best be exchanged between federal and nonfederal participants? Are new, better ways needed?

• How do tribal lands fit into public-private partnerships?

• What different partnership strategies are appropriate for different types of land owners, such as large-industrial small-woodlot owners?

C.Neighbor management questions

• How does management by different landowners (federal, private, state, and tribal) affect each other's management and the function of the ecosystem as a whole?

• How can fish restoration efforts be coordinated among forest landowners in upper watersheds and dairy farmers on historic floodplains?

• What carrots and sticks would be effective in getting private landowners to be good stewards?

D.Management effects questions

• What would be the effect on a given output if we apply funding level a, b, or c to its management?

• What mechanisms are available for streamlining the permit process for a given action amongst multiple regulatory agencies?

• Can timber sales and other management be structured to provide incentives (e.g. through lower costs) and high-quality materials to local, value-added, labor-intensive businesses?

• Can enough revenue be produced to offset management activities and still head toward late-successional habitat in this AMA, and for how long?

• How can marketing of federal timber and special forest products be improved (federal sort-yard, for example)?

• What raw-product production (particularly wood) should the federal agencies be aiming at 50 to 100 years down the road?

• What are the best operational techniques for achieving AMA objectives, and what are the required skills for the personnel who must carry them out?

• What information could be gained by comparing the costs associated with stewardship contracts, federal management, private-land management, and state management?

• How can the special forest products industries best be managed to provide employment and protect ecosystems over the long run?

E.Forest use questions

• What types and levels of recreational activity are consistent with habitat and ecosystem protection requirements?

• How do recreationists respond to stand structure and facility development (interaction correlation)?

• What recreational opportunities are in demand for the adaptive management area and how can the agencies better provide for those that are compatible with the adaptive management area mission?

F.Monitoring questions

• What are the socioeconomic outputs from federal lands?
 

VII.Learning

A.How-to questions

• How can we monitor effectiveness over the short term for long-term goals?

• How can monitoring plans be developed that provide statistically reliable information?

• Can monitoring efforts be prioritized to certain key species or stand and landscape attributes?

• How can the results of monitoring activities be most effectively translated into improved decisions on future projects?

• What is the potential for using observational and retrospective studies instead of experimental treatments, especially for relatively destructive processes (e.g. landslides, wind-throw)?

• What can be learned from re-analysis of past research or retrospective studies on management "experiments" to guide new silvicultural techniques?

• What can we gain from imposing watershed-scale treatments, particularly when there is already concern about disturbance levels in many watersheds?

• How can information be collected and stored to maximize its utility for retrieval and comparison with data from other sources or from other sample times?

• How will we measure progress towards achieving the goals of the AMA?

B. Monitoring questions

• What research studies have been conducted in the AMA region in the past?

• What management activities have occurred in the AMA in the past?

• What data is already collected in the AMA by the various federal and state agencies (and private landowners) that can be used or adapted to AMA monitoring?

Success in the long term will likely depend on the willingness of land and water managers to clearly identify the changes they wish to make, engage in large-scale controlled experiments over extended periods, monitor the results, and learn from successes and failures. (Bisson et al. 1997)
 

There is a great amount of interest amongst managers, researchers, and citizens in this AMA towards evaluating the large-scale ecosystem effects of different approaches to forest management. A landscape-level learning design would incorporate elements of experimental design into management of large areas, including: addressing questions with well-defined treatments, initial similarity of experimental units, replication of consistently-applied treatments, and random assignment of treatments to units. Similarity of units is an elusive goal in many ecological studies; similarity of features such as climate, ownership, geology, seral stage distribution, and road density may be adequate for landscape comparisons, particularly if the design is well-replicated.
 

Forest managers are faced with many issues that are affected by forest conditions over thousands of acres. Evaluating the effects of different management practices will therefore require implementing them over large areas. Major issues include:

• Providing appropriate habitat for species that travel or live over large areas (like northern spotted owls, salmon, and large mammals),

• Maintaining potential for plants, animals, and materials to move among suitable habitat patches (like providing for movement of logs and sediment through stream systems),

• Maintaining an appropriate mix of seral stages and community types on the landscape (like providing grass balds and alder stands in addition to old-growth conifer forests),

• Managing cutting cycles and road networks over large watersheds.
 

Some of the unique aspects of this AMA suited to landscape-level design include:

• large size of federal holdings (250,000 ac)

• variable spatial arrangement of federal lands (large blocks, checkerboard, and isolated parcels)

• mixture of ownerships and land-use patterns in the same watersheds (federal ownership ranges from 2-70%)

• currently low level of habitat for old-growth species (i.e. ~low cost of mistakes)

• abundance of mature forest provides opportunity to see changes in 10-50 yrs
 

Most of the discussions in this AMA about the management issues that could be addressed by setting up landscape-scale comparisons have focused on ideas of reserve-based vs. active management. Ideas about the role of management in maintaining biodiversity fall along a continuum from minimizing human use and impact in large reserves, to actively managing forests on most of the landscape (i.e. with thinning, snag creation, and long rotations) to create the types and amounts of habitat required. Additional discussion of these ideas can be found on pages 12-13.
 

The kinds of questions we can address depend to some extent on the size of the landscape units that we use. For example, a definitive study comparing landscape management effects on spotted owls, which typically range over 6,000 acres per pair in the Coast Range (NWFP 1994, C-24), would require using landscape units with space for several pairs of owls--maybe 100,000 acres or more. Each organism or process that we might be interested in (e.g. coho salmon, rough-skinned newt, landslide occurrence, or woody debris movement through streams) has a particular scale (i.e. landscape unit size and time period) that needs to be considered in order to be properly understood. Although choosing a question and a scale to implement a landscape design precludes adequately addressing questions concerning larger scales, those concerning smaller scales could still be nested as part of the overall design.
 

Landscape-level questions can examine the specific mechanisms affecting a factor of interest ("research" questions) or can examine the response of that factor to overall conditions in a watershed ("monitoring" questions). Alternative management policies usually have many kinds of differences, and many management effects are linked, so it will often be difficult to isolate specific causes in an ideal research context. For example, varying the amount and type of silviculture will usually also mean varying the amount and condition of roads. Regardless, the questions we address should specifically state the response and the factor that we are interested in (for example, how does Y respond to different amounts of X?), and this will depend on the management issues and strategies that we wish to compare.
 

Landscape-level monitoring would probably focus on measurement of habitat features (like forest composition and structure) rather than direct measurement of different species, which is much more costly (although complementary species-habitat relationship studies could be pursued within treatments). Except for some response variables that can be measured relatively easily (for example, with satellite imagery), systematic or random sampling with field surveys will be required at some regular intervals (e.g. 10 years) or following important events (e.g. large floods or windstorms). The types of response variables we might be interested in at the landscape scale could include:

• amount and distribution of late-successional forest (rate of development)

• amount, size, and distribution of snags and/or logs in forests and streams

• composition and structure of riparian forests

• size and frequency of different disturbances: fire, blowdown, insect/disease outbreak, landslide

• number of people and the types of activities they are involved in

• amount and value of commodities extracted, remaining, and changes over time

• amount and nature of conflicts over management and resource use

• amount and viability of species X (coho, murrelet, tailed frog, etc.)
 

Landscape-level research questions specifically address the spatial pattern of features on the landscape. For example:

• How do mature stands within large blocks differ from mature stands in checkerboard blocks (i.e. mingled with lands managed for short-rotation intensive wood production)? Differences of interest could include: disturbance, abundance and identity of late-successional species, noxious weeds, use by people

• How are edge effects (like blowdown and microclimate) affected by different amounts and distributions of seral stages?

• How are source-sink watershed processes (like movement of landslides, debris flows, and wood input into streams) affected by position on the landscape and different road densities and harvest patterns?

• How is dispersal of different organisms (e.g. Swiss needle cast, hemlock, people, lichens) affected by different road densities and harvest patterns?

• Which processes or species are affected by managing a portion of the old-growth forest in a watershed (e.g. with salvage, selective harvest, and/or small clearcuts) compared to managing none?
 

Developing and implementing landscape-level learning designs will require extended interaction and cooperation among managers, researchers, and the public. Several difficulties to implementation need to be overcome, including fear among stakeholders of seeing their convictions or interests tested, and discomfort among researchers with lower-precision, integrative science outside their specialty (Walters 1997). Ideally, stakeholders will want to see an alternative in line with their values succeed and will aid in developing (and possibly implementing) it. Developing resources and strategies for long-term monitoring (at the very least, for characterization of initial conditions) will be important for successful learning.
 

It is important to have a working concept of how the landscape-scale ecosystem functions in order to anticipate future changes, develop hypotheses, and develop a systematic program of observation. The Northern Coast Range AMA has a distinct advantage in this regard, since a simulation model being developed by the Coastal Landscape Analysis and Modeling Study (CLAMS) will integrate social, economic, physical, and ecological effects of management policies. Alternative approaches to forest management could be modelled across the AMA to evaluate potential ecosystem responses.
 

The following example is offered merely for illustration and discussion of what a landscape-level learning design for the Northern Coast Range AMA might look like (Figure 11). Any implemented design would have to consider existing resource conditions, land allocations, and regulations within chosen units. However, unlike a traditional, simple experiment, the policy alternatives do not imply a uniform treatment over an entire landscape unit--management could be stratified by stand type and landform, and not all acres within a type would necessarily be treated (to allow for stand-level comparisons, protection of endangered species, and resiliency for future adjustments in prescriptions in response to learning).
 
Figure 11

Example policy alternatives

Policy A: Relatively little active management, promote non-intrusive recreation on portion of the landscape, strive for large contiguous areas with little human activity.

• Forest management: light thinning in most dense, young plantations, no management in stands over 80 yrs old, salvage only in readily accessible areas (or 10% of area)

• Roads management: extensive closure and intensive removal of problem roads (slide-prone areas, culverts)

• Recreation: primarily non-motorized, allow for development of trail networks and low-impact facilities on no more than 30% of the area

• Special forest products: low harvest levels on 30% of the landscape
 

Policy B: Moderate levels of active management, generally conservative for late-successional forest development.

• Forest management: moderate thinning in most plantations up to age 80, additional thinning in some older stands up to age 110, moderate salvage on 20% of area.

• Roads management: close 50% of the roads, provide for re-opening closed trunks on a 20-30 yr cycle.

• Recreation: develop some trails, allow some motorized recreation on road system

• Special forest products: medium + low harvest levels on 50% of the landscape
 

Policy C: High levels of active management with a range of options for old forest development, including long-term uneven-age management. Once a target percentage of the landscape (75%?) reaches old-growth condition, harvest to create earlier successional stages might be allowed.

• Forest management: variable thinning intensities in most stands up to age 110, uneven-age management on 30% of older stands, moderate salvage on 30% of area.

• Roads management: maintain network with low-impact permanent trunk and periodically-opened feeders.

• Recreation: develop some trails, allow motorized recreation

• Special forest products: low high harvest level mix on 70% of landscape
 

Identifying the desired future conditions and activities under the different policies will help guide development of management prescriptions. The configuration and mix of mature forest types100 years in the future under different policies could look quite different; it would be difficult given current knowledge to predict the relative costs and benefits to ecosystem integrity of the conditions depicted in Figure 12.
 
 
 

Perhaps the greatest challenge is the need to develop monitoring approaches, coordinated among agencies, that allow compilation and synthesis from project to regional scales without becoming too costly and unwieldy (NWFP 1994, E-1). Thus monitoring would have to be based on a consistent sample design, with data collected to answer well-defined questions. There are generally three kinds of monitoring questions: implementation ("did we do what we said we would do?"), effectiveness ("did we get the results that we wanted?"), and validation ("does the system work the way we assumed it does?"). Equal attention will have to be paid to the formatting and storage of information to ensure our ability to analyze and evaluate information in the future.
 

The Research and Monitoring Committee, comprised of scientists and managers in the Regional Ecosystem Office, is developing plans to address monitoring questions at the province scale. Both the implementation and the effectiveness monitoring teams have chosen the Oregon Coast Range for pilot efforts to test and refine monitoring protocols. The Salem District (BLM) Resource Management Plan and the Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan also contain evaluation questions and some monitoring requirements for individual projects and the organizations as a whole. It will be important to coordinate the development of monitoring questions and protocols so that project-level, district-level, and forest-level questions can be evaluated using the same basic data. The BLM and USFS are collaboration on this process at the district level, but greater economy and effectiveness may be gained by consistency at the field level and possibly collaboration with information collected by other federal agencies and state and private landowners. Perhaps the shared mandate of restoring anadromous fisheries can serve as a basis for coordinated monitoring in the future.
 

Monitoring and research projects could begin involving interested citizen groups and schools in gathering information. Initial training and education may be necessary for some monitoring projects. Some groups may already have expertise with certain resources. For example, the Northwest Steelheaders has been collecting fish data for PNW researchers on Schooner Creek for several years.
 

Different types of monitoring efforts can readily build on a sound, basic sampling design. Three systematic networks of permanent plots which gather intensive forest structure information on 1 ha (2.5 ac) areas already exist which will help us monitor forest change across the AMA (Figure 13). The PRIME (Pacific Resource Inventory Monitoring and Evaluation--formerly "FIA") program run by the USFS Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW) monitors 143 plots on state and private lands within the AMA which are on a 5.4 km (3.4 mi) grid. The Siuslaw National Forest installed 78 permanent Current Vegetation Survey (CVS) plots within the AMA in 1996 on a more intensive 2.7 km (1.7 mi) grid. The Salem District BLM installed similar plots in 1998 on a 5.4 km grid on their lands (locations estimated in Figure 13). Data consists primarily of tree species, sizes, and growth rates, snag and coarse woody debris amounts, and general understory vegetation condition. This plot network represents a valuable resource for researchers or agencies to gather complementary data on additional ecosystem components (e.g. lichens, fungi, wildlife species, nutrient cycling).

  Figure 13

There are several long-term research projects already underway that examine the effects of different silvicultural activities on the development of late-successional forests (see previous section). It is imperative that these study sites and datasets be maintained for at least several decades, since their effectiveness cannot be fully evaluated for many years. These existing studies include a range of innovative treatments, but do not always have a clear long-term objective or prescription stated. Several questions still remain about when in a stand's development to introduce patchiness, or to begin killing trees for snags and woody debris, or to plant trees in the understory. The trade-off in development of overstory or understory trees in our coastal forests is not yet understood. A study that might address some of these questions could include the following treatments, starting with a 30 yr old plantation:

1. Create healthy second cohort in a hurry: do first and only overstory thin at age 30 to low density, get second cohort going, pre-commercially thin 2nd cohort (age 45), and do patchy thinning on 2nd cohort at age 80.

2. Don't let overstory slow down: commercial thin at age 30 to moderate, uniform density to maximize tree growth, come back at age 90 with a patchy cut

3. Patchiness happens: commercial thin at age 30, another uniform light thin at age 90, allow natural mortality to create patchiness

4. Control: leave alone
 

Related silvicultural studies could examine the ability to develop uneven-aged management strategies which maintain most (or all) components of late-successional forest ecosystems. A study soon to be implemented in the Central Cascades AMA will maintain overstory trees at different levels of "relative density" (an index of the amount of on-site resources being consumed by a cohort) and examine response of overstory trees as well as development of different understory tree species. There is some interest in replicating this study in the Northern Coast Range AMA.
 

There are a great range of environments and plant community types across the AMA (e.g. spruce-hemlock to Valley margin). It would be useful to repeat a set of silvicultural prescriptions in similarly-aged stands in different community types, to determine which approaches work best under given conditions. It may also be useful to more systematically study some aspects contained in current prescriptions. For example, although several studies incorporate canopy gap openings and leave patches in their designs, it would be beneficial to create and evaluate a range of opening sizes and a range of leave patches within thinning units.
 

Concurrent studies could examine creation of specific habitat features for selected late-successional species. Spotted owls and murrelets appear to prefer specific kinds of forest structure at the stand scale (Hershey 1995); projects could be pursued to develop those attributes in particular. For example, creating cavities or tree defects at appropriate heights where foliage will provide hiding cover, or ensuring high levels of understory conifers. Similarly, promoting berry-producing shrubs in stands could increase the small mammal population, thereby increasing the prey base for spotted owls and other carnivores.

The lead scientist for the AMA is currently responsible for keeping track of existing learning projects in the AMA and helping coordinate the work of other scientists there. Using this Assessment as a starting point, information from research projects will be centrally stored for easy access and sharing among the partners in the AMA. The AMA web page (url: http://www.fsl.orst.edu/coops/ama/ncama/index.htm) could prove to be a useful medium for this effort. The lead scientist also helps design management and monitoring activities to address key questions and aids in procuring funding for research activities in the AMA. An ad-hoc group of agency and university scientists provides advice and assistance in these efforts. Current funding for research is not sufficient to tackle all of the questions identified in a short period of time, but it is expected that researchers with external sources of funding will find opportunities to use proposed or existing projects within the AMA to conduct their studies.
 

Approval of proposed studies on federal lands is ultimately the land manager's responsibility. Projects requiring coordination of resources and selection of specific sites in the forest should be submitted to the AMA management team for evaluation and approval well in advance of proposed activities. Research studies planned specifically for Cascade Head Experimental Forest and Scenic Research Area must be approved by the Pacific Northwest Research Station Director.
 

The Northern Coast Range Adaptive Management Area is in a unique position to build upon a good foundation of knowledge about our forest ecosystems that has developed over several decades of research and applied studies. Adaptive management is an ambitious undertaking that faces many hurdles to successful implementation. With proper diligence, openness, and foresight, however, it has the potential to shape forest management in the Oregon Coast Range for decades to come.