The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutChimacum Forest 2018 CFF final applicationCrockerLake AndersonLake GibbsLake Kah TaiLagoon CityLake TarbooLake PetersonLake BeausiteLake LudlowLake DelantyLake Mats MatsBay C h i m a c u m C r e e k R i p l e y C r eek A nd rews C r e e k Snow C r e e k C o n tractors C r e e k T a r b o o C r e e k S n o w C r e e k MorganHill JorgensonHill Uncas Tukey Maynard Woodmans Nordland Irondale Gardiner Fairmont Chimacum Mats Mats Eaglemount PortLudlow Swansonville PortHadlock FourCorners PortTownsend BeaverValley PortDiscovery PortTownsendGlenCove MysteryBay ScowBay Kilisut H a r b o r DiscoveryBay OakBay PortLudlow A d m i r a l t y I n l e t PortDiscovery Craven Rock Tala Pt. Kala Pt. Walan Pt. Olele Pt. Crane Pt. Violet Pt. Nodule Pt. Liplip Pt. Kinney Pt. Cape George Basalt Pt. Pt. Hudson Beckett Pt. Marrowstone Pt. Contractors Pt. Mill Pt. M arr o w s t o n e I s l a n d 0 5,000 10,0002,500 Feet ´ Map created in December, 2015 For informational purposes only. Alldata represented are from varyingsources and approximate. 2013 Aerial Image (NAIP)Chimacum Forest Chimacum Ridge Forest Mats Mats Forest Short Family Farm - CE in progress Bishop Dairy - CE in progress WA Dept. Natural Resources Land Trust Preserves Land Trust Conservation Easements Private Working Forests PROPOSED COMMUNITY FORESTSCHIMACUM FOREST, CHIMACUM RIDGE, AND MATS MATS - VICINITY CHIMACUM FOREST PROJECT CONSERVATION FUTURES FUNDS ILLUSTRATIONS – 2018 Mature Forest Ravine with Chimacum Ridge drainage Potential trail route to Chimacum Ridge Residential/caretaker infrastructure 721 NW NINTH AVENUE, SUITE 200, PORTLAND, OR 97209 TEL 503.467.0829 FAX 503.222.1517 March 23, 2018 Jefferson County Conservation Futures Program Subject: Jefferson Land Trust Application for the Chimacum Forest Ecotrust Forest Management (EFM) is pleased to write a letter in support of Jefferson Land Trust’s Application to the Jefferson County Conservation Futures Fund for conservation of 65 acres of mature native forest located near the town of Chimacum in Jefferson County, Washington. We strongly support Jefferson Land Trust’s and partner organization’s efforts to conserve these 65 acres as a community forest. This property is representative of the rural landscape of east Jefferson County, which is dominated by working forests that help produce the natural resources and recreational opportunities enjoyed by the surrounding community. EFM is a forestland investment management company with over 27,000 acres under management in the region. We are deeply committed to community participation and ownership of forest assets and believe local involvement is key to addressing the conflict that exists over how the region’s forests should be managed. The Chimacum Forest has tremendous potential to present a new model of forest management that respects the need for timber supply and jobs while protecting and enhancing carbon storage, habitat protection, and the recreational and scenic values inherent to intact, healthy forests. In 2015 we purchased the 852 acre Chimacum property adjoining the subject property in collaboration with the Jefferson Land Trust and the Trust for Public Land. We are currently holding and managing the property in anticipation of acquisition of the property as part of the community forest network. Our shared vision is to create a community forest that includes Chimacum and a number of neighboring properties managed for timber production, recreation, scenic vistas, and habitat. The acquisition of the 65 acre property will significantly complement and support the Chimacum Forest. The property provides the perfect public access opportunity for recreation trails and educational programs on the property and on the adjacent forestland property of nearly 1200 acres (which includes EFM’s 852 acre holding) proposed for community forest management. Jefferson County community members and collaborating organizations are developing strategies to create value-added enterprises and employment in local wood processing and distribution, non-timber forest product harvesting, recreation, bioenergy, restoration, and other goods and services that benefit local communities and the public interest. In the effort to maintain the working forest landscape of East Jefferson County, we enthusiastically support the long term active management of this parcel for the broad spectrum of 721 NW NINTH AVENUE, SUITE 200, PORTLAND, OR 97209 TEL 503.467.0829 FAX 503.222.1517 economic, ecological and community values. We hope to partner with Jefferson Land Trust, as well as other partner organizations, local businesses, community members, the USFW, and Jefferson County to accomplish these goals. Sincerely, Bettina von Hagen Chief Executive Officer Chimacum Forest Management Plan September 2017 Logan Sander & Earl Kong Landowner: Valley View N&L Family Trust Address: Susan McIntire Successor Trustee 204 Fox Trail Rd. Port Townsend, WA 98368 Prepared for: Jefferson Land Trust Address: 1033 Lawrence Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Property Name: “Chimacum Forest” Summary Description of Property: 2 adjacent forested parcels (total 65.75 acres) in the Chimacum Creek watershed, managed as a single unit (the “Property”). Legal Description: •Tax parcel 901233001 (20.75 acres), Section 23, Township 29, Range 1 West, SW ¼; and •Tax parcel 901262001 (45 acres), Section 23, Township 29, Range 1 West, NW ¼, Jefferson County, Washington. Property Acreage: 65.75 acres, forested Address: 1921 Center Road, Chimacum, WA 98325 Directions and Access: Travel 1.9 miles south along Center Road from main intersection in Chimacum, Washington (Center Rd., Chimacum Rd. and Highway 19). On left (east-side of road) is small sign indicating “1921” and steep gravel driveway heading uphill through the forest to the residence. The driveway is approximately 0.4 miles south of the Short Family Farm entrance. Plan Prepared By: Logan Sander Consulting Forester 16732 32nd Ave NE Lake Forest Park, WA 98155 Earl Kong Forestech, LLC., Principal Consulting Forester Port Townsend, WA Plan Completed: September 2017 Chimacum Forest Management Plan I. Landowner Objectives ...............................................................................................................1 II.Overview ....................................................................................................................................2 General Property Description ................................................................................................................3 Legal Ownerships, Easements and Zoning ...........................................................................................3 Summary of Property Features .............................................................................................................3 Property Boundaries ...............................................................................................................................4 Vegetation Summary ...............................................................................................................................4 III.Resource Descriptions and Recommended Management Practices ...................................5 1.Forest Health, Wildfire & Invasive Species ......................................................................................5 2.Geology & Soils ....................................................................................................................................9 3.Streams and Hydrology ....................................................................................................................12 4.Forest Stands / Timber Resources ...................................................................................................16 5.Equipment, Property Access, Roads, Skid Trails & Landings .....................................................28 6.Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................................32 7.Protection of Special Resources & Biodiversity .............................................................................34 8.Aesthetics & Recreation ....................................................................................................................35 9.Carbon Sequestration & Climate Resilience ..................................................................................36 IV.Management Activities .........................................................................................................38 Management Activities Schedule .........................................................................................................38 Estimated Improvement Costs .............................................................................................................39 V. Landowner Signature .............................................................................................................40 IV.Appendices .............................................................................................................................41 A. Forests ................................................................................................................................................41 B. Soils ....................................................................................................................................................43 C. Site Class ...........................................................................................................................................44 D. Physiography ....................................................................................................................................45 Tables 1.Forested Stand Summaries ........................................................................................................4 2.Invasive Species ..........................................................................................................................7 3.Stand Details .............................................................................................................................17 4.Wildlife ......................................................................................................................................33 5.Management Actions Schedule ...............................................................................................38 6.Estimated Improvement Costs ................................................................................................39 7.Soil Properties ...........................................................................................................................43 Maps Local Area .......................................................................................................................................2 Forest Health ...................................................................................................................................6 Local Geology ..................................................................................................................................9 Soils ................................................................................................................................................11 Streams ..........................................................................................................................................13 Stands .............................................................................................................................................18 Roads, Trails & Infrastructure ...................................................................................................31 Site Class ........................................................................................................................................44 Topography ...................................................................................................................................45 Hillshade ........................................................................................................................................46 Slopes .............................................................................................................................................47 Table of Contents: I. Landowner Objectives Chimacum Forest Management Plan Goals and Objectives: To retain the forest in a healthy condition for the benefit of current and future generations, so that it can continue to provide: •Clean water and air •High quality wildlife habitat •Recreational opportunities and scenic values •Economic benefits through sustainable forest management •Benefits from forest-based educational programs Jefferson Land Trust will maintain and enhance these values through: •Long-term retention and stewardship of the Property •Active forest management to create: o 1. A structurally diverse forest stand, with variable tree density and a wide range of age classes; and o 2. Well-distributed large-diameter trees common throughout the dominant crown class; and o 3. Well-distributed standing dead trees throughout the Property; and o 4. Down tree logs and other woody debris on the forest floor. •Development and maintenance of a road and trail system designed to minimize sedimentation and protect local hydrologic resources •Development of recreational infrastructure and educational content 1 II. Overview Chimacum Forest Management Plan 2 II. Overview Chimacum Forest Management Plan General Property Description: The Chimacum Forest is a 65-acre property with mature, naturally regenerated, mixed- species, second-growth forest rising on the east side of what is locally called Center Valley in east Jefferson County, located on the Olympic Peninsula, in Washington State. The Chimacum Forest is surrounded by a vibrant community composed of organic agricultural operations and rural private residences along the valley floor, with predominantly commercial timberland operations at higher elevations. The Property location is significant, in that it links a scenic, landmark 853-acre working forest on the top of Chimacum Ridge between the east and west forks of Chimacum Creek (currently managed by Ecotrust Forest Management), with the rich farmland soils of the conservation easement protected 253-acre Short Family Farm in the river valley. Currently, the Property is classified as Designated Forest Land with a single residence on the southern parcel with several outbuildings. The relatively narrow Property (approximately 750 by 4000 feet) parallels a rural arterial road running north/south in orientation and is accessed by a steep gravel driveway to the residence. Topographically the Property slopes down from east to west, with several seasonal and perennial creek ravines coming down from the ridge. In the Valley, Chimacum Creek, which is fed by runoff from the Chimacum Forest, provides spawning and rearing habitat for coho and steelhead, and there is documented presence of ESA-listed summer chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) as well as fall chum and pink salmon. Legal Ownership, Easements and Zoning: The Property is currently owned by the Valley View N&L Family Trust. Previously, the Property was owned by the Short family before being placed in the family trust in 2000. Jefferson County has a right of way along the existing Center Road on the western edge of the Property. The Property is zoned as RR-10 Rural Residential (parcel # 901233001) and RR-40 Rural Forest (#901262001). Streams: 3 Non-fish bearing perennial streams. Wetlands: No forested or non-stream wetlands are present. NRCS Hydric Soils: None. Rare Plants and Animals: •No known rare plants. •No state or federally listed animals are known to use the Property. Buildings: 1 residential home, at least 4 outbuildings and sheds. Roads: •0.26 miles of improved gravel roads. •0.54 miles of unimproved former logging roads. •An extensive network of abandoned, former skid trails run throughout the property. Other Improvements and Infrastructure: 3 large clearings (0.25 to >1 acres each). 3 II. Overview Chimacum Forest Management Plan Property Boundaries: •The east boundary is well marked with tree blazes and orange paint. Several border trees have metal “Crown Zellerbach” placards, partially covered in bark. •The west boundary is demarcated by the cleared vegetation at the edge of Center Road. •The north boundary is marked with stakes and orange flagging. Northeast corner is marked with CZ placard, tree blaze and orange paint. •The south boundary is not conspicuously marked. Southeast corner is marked with a metal stake, tree blaze and orange paint tree. Vegetation Summary: 2nd and 3rd growth mixed-species, mixed-age naturally-regenerated forest, dominated by bigleaf maple, western redcedar and Douglas-fir with significant red alder components. Several harvest entries over the past 100+ years have contributed to the complex mosaic of stands and cover-types: •“Old growth” harvested around 100-120 years ago, burning, natural regeneration. •2nd growth harvested from present to 70+ years ago. •Recurring small-scale harvest of trees for firewood, figure-maple, etc. More detailed stand description to follow under Section III.4. Plan Structure: Section III of this plan includes the current status of resources (“Resource Conditions”) and proposed management practices and recommendations (“Management Practices”). Section IV includes a proposed management activities schedule and estimated costs of improvements to the Property. Section V, the appendices, includes supplemental information to support this plan (maps, tables, glossary). Stand # Type Average Basal Area / Acre (ft2) Average Trees per Acre Acres 1 Maple-Redcedar 200 245 6.1 2 Douglas-fir 240 131 2.0 3 Maple-Alder 200 77.2 2.2 4 Mixed Conifer- Hardwood 316 181 21.6 5 Douglas-fir 440 315 1.7 6 Maple-Redcedar 168 89 3.8 7 Maple-Redcedar 313 155 5.1 8 Douglas-fir - Redcedar 207 147 7.3 9 Mixed-Species Reserve - - 2.9 10 Mixed-Species Reserve - - 6.1 Table 1: Forested Stand Summaries 4 III. Resource Descriptions 1. Forest Health, Wildfire & Invasive Species Chimacum Forest Management Plan Forest Health: Resource Conditions: •Disease – o Cubical butt rot (several species): A common infection of local species. Detected throughout the Property in low concentrations by examination of tipped-over Douglas-fir trees – this is not a significant concern to forest health on the Property. o Laminated root rot (Phellinus weirii): A fungus that kills infected conifers. Signs in a forest include clumps of dead Douglas-fir trees and tip- up mounds without smaller roots. Positive diagnosis is determined by locating delamination of growth rings in larger roots. In our region, Douglas-fir is most susceptible, while western redcedar is considered resistant and hardwoods are immune. Laminated root rot infections are very common in our area: the US Forest Service estimates that 8% of the total area with susceptible host species is affected. Host trees can transmit the fungus through root grafts. Extensive areas of infection are present on this property in Stands 4 and 8, with high mortality of Douglas-fir (See Forest Health Map). Treatment is imperative to stop the spread of the disease and maintain the health of uninfected individuals. •Insects o Evidence of insect infestations (beetles) is present, though at local baseline levels and likely not a significant concern to overall forest health. •Other health factors: o Summer drought conditions can stress trees and decrease their capacity to respond to insects and diseases. Moisture competition is common in regional forests during summer months. Management Practices: •More detailed management practices are described in individual stand recommendations (III.4). In general, forest management activities will be designed to improve overall forest health by decreasing competition between trees. Retained trees will have improved capacities to withstand stressors. Also, trees infected with laminated root rot will be removed, lowering the likelihood of infection of residual individuals. Upper: Laminated root rot; Lower: Beetle frass and pileated woodpecker feeding sign 5 III. Resource Descriptions 1. Forest Health, Wildfire & Invasive Species Chimacum Forest Management Plan 6 III. Resource Descriptions 1. Forest Health, Wildfire & Invasive Species Chimacum Forest Management Plan Wildfire: Resource Conditions: •Overall, there is a low risk of wildfire to the Property. Center Road and the extensive agricultural areas in Center Valley to the west act as a buffer. Forest operations on the property to the east (Chimacum Ridge) allow for improved access in the event of a fire. •Factors contributing to fire risk include: nearby residences, Center Road, forest harvest operations. Management Practices: •Access to areas throughout the Property for fire suppression will be improved through forest operations and associated infrastructure improvements and upgrades. Invasive species: Resource Conditions: •Noxious weeds are determined for the purpose of this plan by the Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board “2017 Proposed Weed List.” •State Weed Law defines control as to prevent all seed production and to prevent the dispersal of all propagative parts capable of forming new plants. (See WAC 16-750- 003). Table 2: Invasive species observed during fieldwork Common Name (Scientific Name) Status (Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board) Location Observed tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) Class B - Mandatory control Along driveway, pullouts, along logging road reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) Class C – Mandatory control Meadow (Stand 1), along driveway Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) Weed of concern - Monitoring and control are encouraged Throughout disturbed sites evergreen blackberry (Rubus laciniatus) Weed of concern - Monitoring and control are encouraged Throughout disturbed sites herb Robert (Geranium robertianum) Weed of concern - Monitoring and control are encouraged Near home, along forest edge English ivy (Hedera spp.) Weed of concern - Monitoring and control are encouraged Several sites throughout forest, near home English holly (Ilex aquifolium) Not listed, considered weed of concern in other counties Several sites throughout forest creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) Not listed, considered weed of concern in other counties Throughout Property, common Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) Weed of concern – Monitoring and control are encouraged Meadow (Stand 1) 7 III. Resource Descriptions 1. Forest Health, Wildfire & Invasive Species Chimacum Forest Management Plan Management Practices: •General o Remove or treat invasive plants from harvest areas before forest operations take place to minimize spread to disturbed areas. o After harvest, clean up invasive plants from landings before they can establish larger populations. o Plant native tree species as soon as possible in order to control growing space in disturbed areas. o Request that loggers clean soil, debris and plant material from equipment before transport to the Property. •Tansy ragwort o Manually remove and bag plants after they have grown a long stem (“bolted”), being careful to remove all seeds, rosettes and roots. o Monitor location for several years. o This plant is toxic: gloves should be worn while handling plant material. o Refer to “Jefferson County Noxious Weed Control Board Best Management Practices for Tansy Ragwort” for more information on control. •Reed canarygrass o Shade will kill populations of this grass. o Mechanical control and removal can reduce populations (twice-yearly harvest, remove seed heads before maturation); clipping to the ground and covering with black tarps can reduce populations. 8 III. Resource Descriptions 2. Geology & Soils Chimacum Forest Management Plan Geology: Recent glacial advances heavily influenced the vegetation, soils and geology of this area. During the last ice age (Fraser Glaciation), massive glaciers advanced south into Puget Sound. Near the Chimacum Forest Property, runoff from the advancing ice collected in proglacial lakes, depositing fine sediments atop ancient sedimentary bedrock and previous glacial deposits. Later, the advancing ice deposited vast quantities of sand and gravel from its leading edge. These were carried and deposited by meltwaters above the earlier layer of fine lakebed (lacustrine) deposits. As the ice sheet continued to advance it overrode all of these deposits and added and crushed other coarse materials beneath the glacier, leaving a dense layer of unsorted glacial till atop the advance outwash sands and underlying lakebed muds. By 14,000 years ago, at the maximum extent of the last glacial advance, a massive lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet occupied all of Puget Sound between the Olympic and Cascade Mountains. Over time, the ice retreated northward. Again, meltwaters worked to redistribute the material from each successive layer. Over thousands of years the Property has eroded away to reveal several of layers of glacial origin. The western parts of the Property sit atop lakebed deposits, exposed and clearly visible in the deeply incised gullies of the Property’s minor streams that run west into Chimacum Creek. Higher, forming headwalls and steep escarpments along the eastern border of the Property, are the advance outwash deposits of sand and gravel. Higher still, atop Chimacum Ridge to the east, lie deposits of compacted glacial till. Geology Map, Center, WA Legend (map symbols relevant to Property are included): Qgaf – Vashon advance lacustrine mud Qgic – Vashon ice contact deposits Qgas – Vashon advance outwash sand Em – undifferentiated sedimentary rocks (late Eocene to early Oligocene) Map by Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, 2014 Chimacum Ridge Property Em Mudstone exposed by a stream on the Property 9 III. Resource Descriptions 2. Geology & Soils Chimacum Forest Management Plan Soils: Soils on the Property have formed since the most recent glacial advance (>10,000 years ago), and are a reflection of the underlying geology, local climate, and vegetation. 5 soil types are found on the Property (summarized in Appendix B, Table 7; indicated on Soil Map). •The dominant soils on the Property are Kitsap silt loams (KtD) and Kitsap gravelly loams (KsD). These soils are found on terraces and escarpments from ancient lakebed deposits from the last glacial advance. Due to their fine texture and associated clays, these soils have a relatively high site index (growth rate of trees over a given time period) for soils on the Eastern Olympic Peninsula. On this property Kitsap soils are found on some of the steepest slopes near Center Road. Recently, a small landslide has occurred on a steep slope between two abandoned skid trails, indicating that on this property these soils are susceptible to erosion and need to be treated with caution. Also, in Stand 3, a large slump has occurred sometime in the recent past. •Sinclair gravelly sandy loams (SnD) occur on the upper slopes of the Property near the top of Chimacum Ridge. These soils are comprised of glacially transported sands and gravels (till) compacted beneath the overlying glacial ice. These soils indicate a lower site index (tree growth potential) than adjacent Kitsap and Alderwood soils, likely due to their coarse texture and low nutrient and water holding capacity. •Cassolary sandy loams (CfE) occur on the northeast edge of the Property, on the mid- and upper slope complexes near the top of Chimacum Ridge. These soils formed in reworked glacial deposits. The site index of Cassolary soils is relatively low. •Alderwood gravelly sandy loams (AlD) are found on convex slopes on the northern end of the Property. This soil is comprised of unconsolidated glacial debris which may (or may not) overlay an extremely hard, dense layer of material (“densic”). If this densic layer is present, perched water will be at its highest during the winter months (January- March). Alderwood soils have a moderate site index (similar to Cassolary soils). Management Practices: •All soils on this site are deep and moderately well-drained. All soil types are moderately to severely susceptible to erosion, both on and off trails and roads. Most soil types on the Property are moderately suited to road construction, provided care is taken to avoid the steepest slopes. •Site index refers to the potential of a site to grown a specific tree over a defined time period, measured in feet height/years. Site index values for this property (site class 2-3) are consistent with average to above-average values for the Eastern Olympic Peninsula. Soil properties that restrict plant growth on this property include: summer moisture deficits, slope stability and low water holding capacity. •NRCS soil properties for specific activities (road construction, harvest equipment, etc.) are included in Appendix B. •Due to steep, potentially unstable slopes, a geotechnical report from a qualified geologist is required for a WA Forest Practices Application. 10 III. Resource Descriptions 2. Geology & Soils Chimacum Forest Management Plan 11 III. Resource Descriptions 3.Streams and Hydrology Chimacum Forest Management Plan Hydrological Resources: Methods: All streams on the Property are mapped as non-fish bearing according to maps accessed during August 2017 from Washington DNR’s Forest Practices Application and Review System. No other wetlands were observed during fieldwork or are mapped on WA DNR hydrological maps. During fieldwork, mapping with a handheld GPS device and classification of each known stream on the Property was conducted. Fieldwork followed an unusually dry period (>50 days with no measureable precipitation). If flowing water and a clearly defined channel were present at the time of fieldwork (August 2017), the stream was typed as a non-fishbearing perennial stream (Np). Apparent stream channels with no detectable flow were typed as non-fishbearing seasonal streams (Ns). Streams are numbered on Stream Map for reference in this report only. Resource Conditions: Several perennial streams cut across the Property. As the Property steepens along its western edge, these streams incise deeply (>6’) into the soft, erodible soils, in some cases cutting into the sedimentary bedrock. All streams on the Property originate from groundwater discharge or springs along the eastern edge of the Property and the neighboring property. Wetland indicator plants were observed in the northernmost landing (near the shed/structure), such as hardhack (Spiraea douglasii) and rushes (Juncus spp.), though soils and hydrological characteristics of wetlands were not present. Likely, severe compaction of the site from historic use contributed to a soil restrictive layer and artificially moist surface conditions. Stream 1 (Stand S1) - Several extensive reaches with severe erosion and deep incision. Mostly, these are in areas that will not be accessed with harvest equipment and present no restrictions. At several locations, skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum), an obligate wetland indicator species (WSDOT Wetland Monitoring Plant List 2016), was observed growing next to the stream channel. Stream 1 crosses the logging road inside a broken 12” diameter concrete culvert. Stream 2 (Stand S2) – Originating in headwall seeps near the eastern boundary of the Property, this stream is minimally incised and there is not significant erosion along its channel throughout the Property. Where this stream crosses the logging road there is a significant deposit of fine materials. It is unclear whether this is a result of equipment or an inadequate culvert beneath the logging road. Logging road over stream appears to be constructed on top of large pieces of cedar. At this crossing there is a perched culvert (6” diameter) and a buried pipe (6” diameter). Stream 3 (Stand S3) – Impermeable and semi-impermeable surfaces (home, yard, garage, road, etc.) may be contributing to increased flow to the west of the house. Immediately below the house, the stream reaches a significantly steeper slope, facilitating increased sediment transfer and increased stream incision into the soft Kitsap soils. This stream may need a significant culvert installed where it flows beneath the driveway. A type Ns stream contributes to stream 3 near the eastern border of the Property. 12 III. Resource Descriptions 3.Streams and Hydrology Chimacum Forest Management Plan 13 III. Resource Descriptions 3.Streams and Hydrology Chimacum Forest Management Plan At their contact with Center Road, streams 1 and 2 are channeled and conveyed beneath the road (2’ and 1’ diameter culverts, respectively). Stream 3, however, was not observed to flow beneath the road into a culvert and may later follow a deep ditch to a conveyance beneath the road. Currently, wintertime sediment loading of creeks from erosion is likely. Debris from a landslide located in Stand 10 from winter 2016-2017 is clearly visible in the ditch adjacent to Center Road and on the road’s shoulder. Several actively eroding escarpments are visible where 50 year old (+\-) skid roads were constructed in soft Kitsap soils. Also, in times of peak discharge, eroding sediment is transported from stream channel walls and nearby unstable slopes and discharged into the Chimacum Valley. Management Practices: •Improvements to mitigate fish-passage constraints are not needed on the Property, as there is no evidence that fish passage is impeded at any point on or immediately before this property •Relevant regulations on forest operations in type-N streams are as follows (from WAC 222-30.2): o 30-foot mandatory equipment limitation zone o 50-foot riparian management zone, in which limited thinning activities are permitted o Type-Np stream reaches >500’ from their confluence with fish-bearing streams have mandatory 50’ no-harvest buffers for a percentage of their length through a harvest unit. Left: Stream 1 erosion; Middle: Stream 2 culverts; Right: Stream 1 culvert 14 III. Resource Descriptions 3.Streams and Hydrology Chimacum Forest Management Plan •All reaches of type-Np streams on the Property are more than 500 feet from their confluence with a fish-bearing stream (Chimacum Creek). As a result, they require mandatory buffering with a 50-foot two-sided no-harvest zone for 42%, 42% and 38% of their lengths across the harvest units (streams 1-3 respectively), following calculations from the “Western Washington Type-Np RMZ Worksheet.” Mandatory type-Np buffers have not been specifically mapped in this plan – buffering to meet regulatory requirements (in addition to mapped stream reserves and steep slope reserve stands) will be determined in the field during harvest layout in order to include the most critical areas with active erosion and high quality wildlife habitat. •All remaining type-Np stream reaches on the Property will be buffered by a 30-foot reserve zone (no harvest), to further protect water resources (see Stand Map). As the riparian management zone extends another 20-feet beyond this zone, limited harvest is permitted of these outermost trees in the to-be-determined non-mandatory reserve zones. •Culverts for forest roads and skid trails will need to be installed where they cross the three type-Np streams and any type Ns streams on the Property. •Culvert design for type-N streams (for cost estimates) is based on “Method B,” sizing for type-N streams by measured bankfull width (WA Forest Practices Board Manual, Sections 2 & 5). “Method B” requires that culvert diameter be at least equal to the bankfull width of the stream. In this management plan, all recommendations are preliminary and for the purposes of planning. Final culvert sizing and design will follow Hydraulic Project Approval with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. o Field-measured bankfull width on the Property at normalized reaches directly upstream of proposed culverts: Stream 1: 3-4’ Stream 2: 3’ Stream 3: 3’ •Logging Slash Practices for Type-N Streams: o Any logging debris and slash that may be expected to interfere with culverts must be cleared from the channel for at least 50 feet upstream of the culvert. Debris removed from the channel must be placed downstream of the culvert, outside of the 100-year flood level. Exceptions are debris or logs that are buried in the stream or buried under stable deposits. o Logging slash will be used to protect soil in harvest operations areas. After trees are dropped, slash will be placed, whenever possible, in skid paths where equipment will operate. Logging slash can prevent erosion, prevent rutting by equipment and help mitigate downstream of sedimentation of streams by trapping fine sediments. Additionally, logging slash can provide important habitat for amphibians, small mammals and birds. 15 III. Resource Descriptions 4. Forest Stands / Timber Resources Chimacum Forest Management Plan Forest Management Summary: The Property is almost entirely forested in 2nd and 3rd growth, mixed-age mixed-species stands, with all age-classes represented except for early-successional saplings and “old growth.” The future of this working forest lies in improving forest health and accelerating the growth of retained trees – especially western redcedar - throughout the Property. Western redcedar should respond well to the recommend treatments – this property is relatively productive and a good site for cedar. The greatest challenge to management is the high canopy of large-crowned bigleaf maple across much of the Property. Maple stump-sprouts after harvest – controlling this species to create a more productive working forest will be of paramount importance. Special care must be taken when removing maple to minimize damage to retained trees on the site. Maple management in thinning and selection system regimes is costly, but will be financially offset by active management in several stands of high-quality conifers and alder. Operationally, much of the Property is challenging and will require significant planning and technical expertise in laying out harvests, especially on steeper slopes. Forest inventory data (stocking density, basal area, species composition, timber quality) were collected previously by an independent contractor for the landowner (May 2017) and were obtained and utilized for this management plan. Data from 57 variable-radius plots were recorded and flagged in the field. GPS coordinates of plot locations were used to analyze inventory data by stand. Quantitative forest inventory summaries are reported with each stand. Stands were delineated using aerial imagery and field reconnaissance. Stands are generally defined by age-class of dominant trees, species composition, site index and/or stocking density. Due to natural regeneration, random dispersal patterns, management history and the ecological preferences of each species, the forest we see today is a complex mosaic of multi-aged cover-types. Because this level of complexity is unmanageable to break into discrete units (some <1-acre), some stands (especially Stands 2, 4, 6 & 8) represent mosaics of cover-types and previous management regimes with relatively uniform future management recommendations over the stand as a whole. Stands on the Property are complex and have undergoing almost continual small-scale management. Stand descriptions include a vegetative description of the stand, qualitative history of the stand, and estimates of stand age and stocking. A glossary of common forestry terms and ecological summaries of the relevant tree species are included in Appendix A. Forest operations equipment recommendations are detailed in Section III.5., “Equipment, Property Access, Roads, Skid Trails & Landings.” 16 III. Resource Descriptions 4. Forest Stands / Timber Resources Chimacum Forest Management Plan Table 3: Stand Details Stand # Description Management Recommendation Management Priority Average Basal Area / Acre (ft2) Average Trees per Acre Acres Inventory: # of plots 1 Maple-Redcedar High thinning to remove maple Medium 200 245 6.1 4 2 Douglas-fir Reserve Low 240 131 2.0 2 3 Maple-Alder Group selection w/ reserves Low 200 77.2 2.2 3 4 Mixed Conifer- Hardwood Convert root rot patches to alder; high thinning to remove maple and favor highest quality conifers High 316 181 21.6 19 5 Douglas-fir Group selection Medium 440 315 1.7 3 6 Maple-Redcedar High thinning & group selection; convert stand to conifers Low 168 89 3.8 5 7 Maple-Redcedar High thinning to remove maple Medium 313 155 5.1 6 8 Douglas-fir - Redcedar Treat and convert root rot patches; high thinning of alder-rich areas High 207 147 7.3 6 9 Steep Slopes Reserve Reserve - - - 2.9 - 10 Steep Slopes Reserve Reserve - - - 6.1 - S1 Stream buffer Reserve - - - 2.5 - S2 Stream buffer Reserve - - - 1.5 - S3 Stream buffer Reserve - - - 1.6 - - House, yard, parking area - - - - 1.1 - 17 III. Resource Descriptions 4. Forest Stands / Timber Resources Chimacum Forest Management Plan 18 III. Resource Descriptions 4. Forest Stands / Timber Resources Chimacum Forest Management Plan Forest Stand Descriptions and Management Recommendations: Stand 1: Maple-Redcedar Size: 6.1 acres. Description: Codominant trees are multi-stemmed bigleaf maple and western redcedar with patches of red alder. Relatively open stand, with smaller, young trees. Understory vegetation includes swordfern, red huckleberry, osoberry, salal, and scattered English ivy. Management History: •Forest first logged 100-120 years ago; site was burned (evidence of burned out old growth cedar stumps), naturally regenerated into bigleaf maple with scattered alder clumps. •Over the decades, western redcedar and small amounts of grand fir and western hemlock regenerated and grew slowly underneath the predominately bigleaf maple overstory. •Maple harvested 20-25 years ago. Older cohort of red alder shows damage from this event. •Maple stumps sprouted and again are in the overstory with codominant and intermediate redcedar. Management Recommendations: •High thinning - maple, damaged/defective and mature alder. Retain conifer components (about 100 trees per acre). Retained conifers will show accelerated growth. •Underplant shade-tolerant species: redcedar (70%), with Sitka spruce (25%) and western hemlock (5%) for diversity and future wood products for local craft market. Sitka spruce is growing well on the Property (at least 3 specimens located during fieldwork). Light regime is insufficient to underplant Douglas-fir. Challenges and Risks: •Because retained conifer components (mostly redcedar) are insufficient to shade and suppress bigleaf maple from stump sprouting, repeated mechanical cutting of stump sprouts will be necessary, until the overstory is closed. •Care must be taken to minimize damage to retained trees from the high lateral branches of maple as they are felled. 19 III. Resource Descriptions 4. Forest Stands / Timber Resources Chimacum Forest Management Plan Stand 2: Douglas-fir Size: 2.0 acres. Description: Older 2nd growth stand, dominated by large-diameter, tall, apparently healthy Douglas-fir, with components of grand fir, redcedar, hemlock, bigleaf maple. These are the largest trees on the Property. Understory of Oregon grape, evergreen huckleberry and swordfern. •Average age of Douglas-fir is more than 80 years old. One particularly large Douglas-fir tree (44” DBH, 170’+ height) is of the size and structure to be potential marbled murrelet nesting habitat in the future (>6” branch diameter, <50 miles from coast). •Evidence of tip-up mounds throughout stand, potentially from a windstorm >100 years ago. Management History: •Harvested approximately 1900-1930, burned. Potentially a salvage harvest after windstorm. •Natural regeneration over several decades. •Repeated harvest history, small entries. Management Recommendations: •This stand would make an ideal reserve of heritage trees. A short walking trail could be developed from a nearby parking area (proposed landing). Trees in this stand are particularly impressive and unique for this property. •Smaller Douglas-fir could be pruned (limbed) to 32 feet. This would increase their value as they continue to grow, creating options for future management. Branch piles will create wildlife habitat. •If management priorities change over the decades, this stand may come into production. Challenges & Risks: •Douglas-fir may someday become infected with root rot or other diseases; at that point, stand can be harvested and replanted. 20 III. Resource Descriptions 4. Forest Stands / Timber Resources Chimacum Forest Management Plan Stand 3: Maple-Alder Size: 2.2 acres. Description: This hardwood-dominated stand is comprised of economically mature bigleaf maple (single-stemmed & multi-stemmed) and red alder, with scattered grand fir. Understory plants include osoberry, red huckleberry, cascara, sword fern & English ivy. •The concave slope positions of this stand made it ideal for hardwood establishment. •An architecturally complex, potentially “old-growth” redcedar is growing atop a small “hogsback” that separates two swales in the stand. •Forestry operations on this stand would be relatively simple due to good access and existing skid trails. Management History: •Single-stemmed maple trees are at least 70-80 years old, multi-stemmed maple were cut more recently from same cohort and stump sprouted (around 40 years ago). •Red alder established in openings on disturbed soil from harvest history. Some alder is very mature, indicating it may be contemporaneous with the original cohort of maple. Management Recommendations: •Harvest maple and alder with group selection system over several cycles (1/2-1 acre, 5-10 years) – “patch cuts.” •Maple stumps will require frequent mechanical treatments to mitigate stump sprouting. •Replant into Douglas-fir (or possibly red alder). •Maintain wildlife trees, such as mature redcedar, as small reserves. Challenges & Risks: •A slump on the southern side of the stand has created a large gap in the forest cover. Forestry operations are likely possible on each side of this slump though not upslope of it. A geotechnical report will be needed for this and other areas of the Property. •The English ivy infestation needs to be managed to prevent its spread during forestry operations. 21 III. Resource Descriptions 4. Forest Stands / Timber Resources Chimacum Forest Management Plan Stand 4: Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Size: 21.6 acres. Description: This extensive stand is dominated by 2nd and 3rd growth forests. Extremely patchy and complex, this stand is a mosaic of naturally-regenerated Douglas-fir, western redcedar, red alder and bigleaf maple. Understory vegetation is patchy and includes sword fern, red huckleberry and elderberry, with very little regeneration. •Many trees in areas of this stand are of merchantable size - average diameter at 4.5’ (approximate): o Douglas-fir 20-28” o Western redcedar 24” o Red alder 18-20” o Bigleaf maple 24” •The northern part of stand has an extensive (>2-acre) laminated root rot infestation, affecting Douglas-fir and western redcedar. Management History: •First logged 100-120 years ago; site was burned. •Naturally regenerated into bigleaf maple, Douglas-fir, western redcedar and red alder. •Repeated harvests from 50+ years ago. •Landowner has likely been recently harvesting individual root rot infected trees. Management Recommendations: •Harvest all trees infected with laminated root rot. o Harvest all trees within 50’ buffer of laminated root rot infestation. o Replant red alder in root rot pocket. •High thinning to remove most bigleaf maple. o Leave sufficient shade to suppress regrowth on bigleaf maple. •In dense conifer patches, conduct high thinning to 150 trees per acre as a goal in order to free up growing space. •After 10 (+/-) years, group selection harvest of mature red alder, Douglas-fir, and western redcedar. o Can conduct additional low thinning at this time to remove weak & defective trees of all species. o Replant Douglas-fir, western redcedar, western hemlock (<10%) as appropriate (dependent on gap size and light regime). Challenges & Risks: •Highest priority is to contain root rot infestation. •Care must be taken to minimize damage to retained trees from the high lateral branches of maple as they are felled. •Trees should be felled uphill in order to protect roadside vegetation. 22 III. Resource Descriptions 4. Forest Stands / Timber Resources Chimacum Forest Management Plan Stand 5: Douglas-fir Size: 1.7 acres. Description: Almost pure, even-aged stand of 2nd growth Douglas-fir. Stand is in the late stem- exclusion stage of stand development, with high competition and associated mortality. Management History: •Stand was harvested 80-100 years ago. •Naturally regenerated into Douglas-fir. Management Recommendations: •Harvest with group selection system – ½ - 1 acre “patch cuts” – over several cutting cycles. o Replant Douglas-fir. •Because they are in good health and are self-thinning, these trees will continue to add economic value – can harvest now or later. Challenges & Risks: •All trees must be cut in each harvest patch due to the convex slope shape and the likelihood of damage to retained trees. •Monitor for forest health changes, including laminated root rot infestation. 23 III. Resource Descriptions 4. Forest Stands / Timber Resources Chimacum Forest Management Plan Stand 6: Maple-Redcedar Size: 3.8 acres. Description: Dominated by bigleaf maple, with several emergent Douglas-fir trees and intermittent patches of western redcedar. Differs from Stand 7 in that stocking is lower, there are fewer western redcedar throughout the stand, and most are confined to patches near the southern edge along the riparian buffer. This will be a challenging stand to manage and may require significant resources to restore to production. However, pairing treatments on this stand with other nearby stands (4, 7) will make active management feasible. Management History: •After initial harvest (>60 years ago) maple regenerated, with some Douglas-fir and western redcedar. Management Recommendations: •High thinning where western redcedar is dense enough to partially suppress maple resprouting (mostly along northern edge). Remove most maple, and Douglas-fir and alder with poor growth form/health. •Conversion to conifers using group selection system in areas of hardwood dominance. o Harvest bigleaf maple; largest patch size acceptable to landowner. o Replanting of Douglas-fir, western redcedar. o Continued monitoring and mechanical cutting of bigleaf maple stump sprouts. Challenges & Risks: •Without a consistent, widespread cohort of medium-sized established conifers (as in Stand 7) it will be difficult to suppress regrowth from maple stumps throughout most of the stand, especially the northern half. Several re-entries may be necessary to control bigleaf maple sprouts. •Residual Douglas-fir may be more susceptible to windthrow. Evaluate on a case-by-case basis for retention or harvest. •This may be a challenging and expensive stand to rehabilitate. 24 III. Resource Descriptions 4. Forest Stands / Timber Resources Chimacum Forest Management Plan Stand 7: Maple-Redcedar Size: 5.1 acres. Description: Expansive, large-crowned bigleaf maple with extensive intermediate western redcedar and Douglas-fir. Understory of osoberry and sword fern, with scattered holly. •Undulating surface of stand is potentially evidence of catastrophic windstorm before stand establishment. Management History: •After harvest (>60 years ago), maple regenerated, with some Douglas-fir. This may have been salvage logging after a windstorm. •20-40+ years ago western redcedar established. Management Recommendations: •High thinning. o Cut most maple trees and allow stumps to be shaded by retained trees; residual stand will see accelerated growth. o Later (10+ years), after maple sprouts have been suppressed, harvest of Douglas- fir and some western redcedar is possible. •Create a landing near the proposed road (see Road, Trail & Infrastructure Map). Challenges & Risks: •Suppression of maple will be difficult. Before any other trees are removed, it is imperative to ensure that maple stumps cannot resprout. •Monitor stand for laminated root rot. 25 III. Resource Descriptions 4. Forest Stands / Timber Resources Chimacum Forest Management Plan Stand 8: Douglas-fir–Redcedar Size: 7.3 acres. Description: Closed-canopy 2nd growth Douglas-fir and western redcedar with minimal understory or regeneration. Some areas of this stand are undergoing a high degree of mortality from competition and at least two separate, expanding infestations of laminated root rot. Significant snags and coarse woody debris. Management History: •100+ years ago previous stand was cut and burned. •Naturally regenerated into Douglas-fir and western redcedar. •As Douglas-fir has died from competition it has been removed through small-scale harvests. Management Recommendations: •Harvest all trees infected with laminated root rot. o Harvest all trees within 50’ buffer of laminated root rot infestation. o Replant/underplant root rot resistant species based on microsite and light regime (western redcedar, red alder). •Harvest large-diameter and defective red alder; retain young alder and trees with good form. •Retain western redcedar, healthy patches of Douglas-fir, unless it is highly susceptible to windthrow. •Retain/create snags away from recreational infrastructure. Challenges & Risks: •Retained trees must be reasonably safe from windthrow – otherwise, harvest of individuals is preferable. 26 III. Resource Descriptions 4. Forest Stands / Timber Resources Chimacum Forest Management Plan Stand 9: Steep Slopes Reserve Size: 2.9 acres. Description: Steep slopes near eastern property boundary. Tall, mixed conifer-hardwood forest. Operationally inaccessible due to steep slopes and riparian corridors. Management History: Naturally regenerated 2nd growth, established after burning. Management Recommendations: •Maintain as forested slopes. •Limit all forest operations in this stand. •Recreational access paths may be created and maintained in order to avoid dispersed access and erosion. Stand 10: Steep Slopes Reserve Size: 6.1 acres. Description: Steep slopes near Center Road. Tall, mixed conifer-hardwood forest. Signs of significant erosion, including a small landslide between skid trail scarps. Management History: Naturally regenerated 2nd growth, likely established after burning. Management Recommendations: •Maintain as buffer along Center Road. •Limit all forest operations in this stand. If needed, stabilize slopes eroding near former skid trails. •Fell trees in adjacent stands away from this area to prevent injury to roadside trees and vegetation. 27 III. Resource Descriptions 5. Equipment, Property Access, Roads, Skid Trails & Landings Chimacum Forest Management Plan Equipment and Operations Summary: Harvest system and equipment recommendations are outlined below. Harvest system choice represents a trade-off between cost, suitability, availability, speed and environmental protection. •A ground-based harvest system is recommended for the Property due to the small scale of the property and the extremely high costs of aerial harvest. •Rubber tired skidders are recommended due to their maneuverability in tight spaces, relatively low cost and local availability. Skidders excel at the types of thinning regimes recommended across this property. •Another locally utilized ground-based harvest system, harvesters/processers, cannot perform as well on the steep undulating terrain of the Property. Shovel logging is also common in the area, but requires large spaces to operate and is more conducive to clearcut management. •All forest operations with skidders need to be conducted in dry weather to protect soil resources. •Steep slopes (>35%) can be harvested on a case-by-case basis, as long as skid trails do not need to traverse such slopes. •All tree felling will be by hand. Access: Resource Conditions: •Currently, the Property can be accessed from Center Road via the main driveway and two gated logging road access points on the north-end of the Property. Management Practices: •Access to this property is sufficient for all anticipated forest operations. •During active operations, signage needs to be placed 100’ on each end of active access points along Center Road, indicating, “truck crossings.” •Gates need to be monitored, locked and kept in good working order. •All public access to areas with active forestry operations should be limited to field tours and educational programs. Roads: Resource Conditions: •Currently, vehicle access to the Property is via the gravel driveway leading southeast to the homesite (1300 feet). The lower part of this road is graded between 18-20%, making it challenging, though possible, for logging trucks to access the Property. •Another unimproved road runs north-south throughout much of the Property north of the house (2300 feet). This road is in poor condition, mostly unsurfaced and severely rutted (4”+), evidence of wet-season use. Several perennial stream crossings are unsuitable for conveying heavy equipment or trucks. Any use of this road for logging operations, in its current condition, would pose a significant risk of sedimentation and harm to aquatic resources. 28 III. Resource Descriptions 5. Equipment, Property Access, Roads, Skid Trails & Landings Chimacum Forest Management Plan Management Practices: •The steep northern end of the driveway will likely be usable by logging trucks as they will be ascending the steepest area unloaded. •The unimproved logging road running north-south will need significant improvement in order to convey heavy equipment (resurfacing with crushed rock, properly-sized culverts). Proper surfacing with crushed rock of various sizes (3/4 minus) will decrease erosion during harvest operations. Wet areas will need a base of larger sized rock and a cap of ¾ minus crushed rock. In any case, to minimize potential erosion and stream sedimentation, it will be important to conduct forest operations in the summer months during dry weather. Additionally, the logging road will need to be extended south beyond the house for approximately 450 feet, in order to access a proposed landing south of the house. •Annual inspection of road conditions, culverts and drainage will be conducted for compliance with Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Road Maintenance and Abandonment standards. Skid Trails: Resource Conditions: •An extensive network of skid trails traverses the Property. Mostly, these are very old - in places 15” DBH red alder trees are growing from the trail. In many places, skid trails are on steep slopes (>35%), exceeding the maximum advisable grade. Extensive areas of steep slopes (>35%) have been included in no-harvest reserves. Management Practices: •No skid trails will be used on slopes greater than 35%. Harvest of trees on steeper slopes can take place as long as skidders do not need to drive to the trees to transport them. •Many skid trails on steeper ground (>35%) need to be abandoned. Other skid trails may be useful for future timber harvests, on a case-by-case basis. •On the steep southwestern part of the Property care must be taken that any use of the skid trails (including recreation) does not contribute to mass wasting or erosion of the slopes. For example, a recent landslide (20’ x 50’) has occurred between these former skid trails. The trail that forms the scarp of the landslide was observed during fieldwork to have water seeping out of it. All skid roads in this area on moderate to steep slopes (>20%) should be abandoned and monitored for problems. •Major skid trails are not limited to those mapped – many other major and minor trails traverse throughout the Property. 29 III. Resource Descriptions 5. Equipment, Property Access, Roads, Skid Trails & Landings Chimacum Forest Management Plan Landings: Resource Conditions: •Two former landings exist on the northern end of the Property. Management Practices: •With minimal effort the existing landings could be functional for seasonal (summer) forest operations in good weather. For operations during the off-season or if weather during the summer is wet, gravel and some groundwork are needed (see Table 6). •Three additional 60’ x 60’ landings are proposed on the mid-and southern parts of the Property (all indicated on the Road, Trail & Infrastructure Map). In order to minimize the removal of stumps, two of these proposed landings (one north of driveway on logging road and one south of house) should be constructed where large-crowned, widely spaced bigleaf maple trees currently grow. •Landings on this type of terrain have a serviceable range of approximately 600’. With 5 total landings throughout the Property, virtually all areas of potential forest operations will be covered (see shaded regions on Road, Trail & Infrastructure Map). •One proposed landing, located in a clearing on the northern part of the Property, could be transitioned between active timber harvests to a parking area for recreational activities on the Property. •If heavy rain falls during active operations, forestry activities can be temporarily postponed and straw can be spread around landings to minimize erosion. Cost estimates for roads and infrastructure improvements are included in Table 6, Section IV. Management Activities. 30 III. Resource Descriptions 5. Equipment, Property Access, Roads, Skid Trails & Landings Chimacum Forest Management Plan 31 III. Resource Descriptions 6. Wildlife Chimacum Forest Management Plan Wildlife: Resource Conditions: •Overall, stands in the Chimacum Forest Property are mid-successional, with no very old stands (e.g. “old growth”) and minimal areas of early-successional saplings or shrubs. Moderate diversity of wildlife habitat can be found within stands and across stands. •The Property has a high degree of contrast with neighboring properties (i.e. valley-bottom and upland plantation forest) and has significant edge habitat (along Center Road, the access driveway and the small clearings). •Downed wood (coarse woody debris) levels are high across most of the Property, typical of a forest with a high degree of competition and mortality. •Snags are common, especially in areas with active root rot infestations. Management Practices: •Uneven-aged management (group selection system) will, over time, allow for the development of older, mature stands with multi-layered vertical structure. This will improve habitat for species that require more downed woody debris (amphibians), large- diameter trees and snags (pileated woodpecker, barred owl), and shrub and sapling layers in open patches (nuthatches, brown creepers, towhees, thrushes). •The early phases of recently cut root rot infested patches will offer open, brushy habitat for deer and other species that favor open habitat (flycatchers, grouse, rodents). As the replanted saplings fill in and occupy the growing space, the stand will transition to offering good hiding cover. •Planned reserves and buffers far exceed WA Forest Practices Board requirements for wildlife reserve trees and green recruitment trees across harvested areas. •Retention of a diversity of hardwood and conifer-dominated stands will promote edge- related habitat characteristics. •Stream buffers and steep slope reserves will minimize sedimentation of downstream fish- bearing streams and wetlands. •Dense stands of bigleaf maple, Douglas-fir and western redcedar will be thinned, temporarily freeing up growing space for understory plants and associated wildlife. Important habitat structures will be retained and created (snags, high-quality wildlife trees). •Retention of coarse woody debris in forestry activity areas will maintain and improve amphibian habitat. •Artificial and constructed structures: Brush piles can be important habitat for ground- nesting birds; small, unmerchantable logs can be safely stacked to provide cover and habitat for rodents. •Snags and wildlife trees: all retained or created snags need to be located away from trails and roads at distance of more than their height, in order to protect recreational users. Where possible, large-diameter standing snags can be retained or created to provide nesting habitat for pileated woodpeckers. 32 III. Resource Descriptions 6. Wildlife Chimacum Forest Management Plan Table 4: The following are wildlife species of conservation concern to this and neighboring properties throughout the region. They were mostly not observed on the Property, but many are considered to be possible to occur or will occur with restoration and improvement of the Property and continued regional conservation efforts. C = Confirmed sighting or signs of use P = Possible use of Property U = Unlikely or known not to presently occur Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status Washington Priority Habitats and Species Current Use Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Concern Sensitive Yes P Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Concern Sensitive Yes U Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Concern Candidate Yes U Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina Threatened Endangered Yes U Mountain Quail Oreortyx pictus None None Yes P Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus None Candidate Yes C Western Bluebird Sialia Mexicana None Monitor No P Pacific Fisher Pekania pennanti Candidate Endangered Yes P Pacific Marten Martes caurina None Monitor Yes P Fringed Myotis Myotis thysanodes None Monitor Yes P Long-eared Myotis Myotis evotis None Monitor Yes P Long-legged Myotis Myotis volans None Monitor Yes P Townsend’s Big Eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii Concern Candidate Yes U Gray Wolf Canis lupus Endangered Endangered Yes U Western Toad Anaxyrus boreas None Candidate Yes P Northern Red- legged Frog Rana aurora Concern None No P Van Dyke’s Salamander Plethodon vandykei Concern Candidate Yes P 33 III. Resource Descriptions 7. Protection of Special Resources & Biodiversity Chimacum Forest Management Plan Threatened, Endangered, Candidate Species of Concern and/or Priority Habitat – Animals and/or Plants: There are no known threatened, endangered, candidate or priority species and/or habitat resource protection issues on this property, as determined by fieldwork and a preliminary call to the Washington Department of Natural Resources office in Forks, WA (8/17/17). A formal review to identify these resources, if any, and their potential protection requirements, will be conducted by the Washington Department of Natural Resources if and when the landowner proposes to conduct forestry activities that require a DNR-approved Forest Practices Application/Notification. Directly downslope of the Property in the valley are priority wetland areas such as Chimacum Creek and associated wetlands that act as fish and seasonal waterfowl habitat. Cultural Resources: There are no known archeological and/or historic resource protection issues on this property. A formal review, to identify these resources, if any, and their potential protection requirements, will be conducted by the Washington Department of Natural Resources if and when the landowner proposes to conduct forestry activities that require a DNR-approved Forest Practices Application/Notification. Forests of Recognized Importance (FORI): There are no known Forests of Recognized Importance on or adjacent to this property. Biodiversity (how vegetation relates to surroundings): Overall, vegetation on the Chimacum Forest Property is moderately variable. Most stands are 60+ year-old, mixed-species forest – only a few small patches of early-successional vegatation exist in the brushy clearings throughout the Property and along the driveway. However, due to the complex nature of these naturally-regenerated stands, many important structural elements can be found at the sub-stand level, such as highly variable tree spacing and density and several large, open-grown “wolf” trees and structurally complex bigleaf maple trees. In the context of neighboring properties, the Chimacum Forest is important because it represents a transition from the larger, adjacent Chimacum Ridge forest and the valley-bottom and Chimacum Creek. As an example of the importance of these transition zones, the Chimacum Forest can be nesting habitat for raptor species that require tall trees and mature forest conditions adjacent to open feeding habitat. Also, this property contains a much higher relative coverage in broadleaf tree species (alder, bigleaf maple) than the neighboring Chimacum Ridge property, while Chimacum Ridge offers extensive areas of younger, early-successional conifer forest. On this landscape level, vegetative diversity is high. 34 III. Resource Descriptions 8. Aesthetics & Recreation Chimacum Forest Management Plan Aesthetics & Recreation: Resource Conditions: •Much of the Property is presently in a state of high aesthetic value: tall, broad crowns of moss-covered bigleaf maple interspersed with dense groves of western redcedar; stately 170’+ high Douglas-fir trees on the northern slopes; open meadows; and deep, shady gullies containing perennial streams and seeps. Management Practices: •All forest management operations should take place in the conditions necessary to minimize harm to the residual trees, vegetation and soils (i.e. summer, good weather). •Parking areas can be located at either of the northernmost proposed landings (in the existing brushy clearings). •Maintain all stream buffers and steep slope reserves as intact, unaltered forest. •Maintain Stand 2 as a “heritage tree” reserve. This stand’s large, healthy trees and close proximity to the proposed parking area make it ideal situated for a short hiking or interpretive trail. •Forested stands will be maintained in several stages of management and development, in order to facilitate educational opportunities associated with forest ecology and management. •All wildlife retention trees should be left as far away as necessary from planned recreational infrastructure and trails to ensure public safety. Creation of a recreational plan is essential before laying out forestry operations on the Property. •Skid trails and logging roads used in forestry activities can be utilized as recreational infrastructure to minimize new construction and the sedimentation of local water resources. •To some, active forestry will represent a temporary aesthetic compromise. However, after the first few years of a thinning regime with underplanting, trees will flush with growth, the ground cover will visibly recover and the forest as a whole will take on a pleasing and “healthy” gestalt. 35 III. Resource Descriptions 9. Carbon Sequestration & Climate Resilience Chimacum Forest Management Plan Carbon Sequestration: Over the short-term, proposed forest management activities will reduce stored carbon across the Property. By harvesting root rot infested patches of Douglas-fir and opening up the hardwood-dominated canopy to free growing space for western redcedar and the underplanted regeneration, carbon will be removed from the Property in wood products (and possibly sequestered for several decades more). Increased light and warmth on the forest floor will temporarily accelerate microbial decomposition and respiration in the soil and leaf litter. However, the Property’s growing space will soon be occupied as the residual canopy fills in. The accelerated growth of the remaining trees will contribute to an increase in stored carbon. The harvested patches of Douglas-fir will be replanted with young, vigorous seedlings which, over the next few decades, will represent a major carbon sink on the Property. Additionally, the improved forest health and long-term retention of forest cover across the Property will ensure that these trees continue to hold onto carbon long into the future. Management recommendations for this property are not designed with carbon sequestration as an explicit goal. However, as detailed above, many of the proposed activities are compatible with societal goals of carbon sequestration. Future management priorities could be adjusted to include increasing stocks of stored carbon across this property as a stated goal. Presently, opportunities to sell carbon credits on properties of this scale are limited. While current stocking is likely to be above the regional baseline used to determine carbon credit payments, the high fixed cost of developing a carbon credit project and the associated inventory and monitoring would make a project unfeasible. Most successful projects number in the many thousands of acres. However, efforts are underway in the Pacific Northwest to aggregate small landholdings across several different ownerships into a single, marketable carbon credit project (see https://www.forestcarbonworks.org/for more information). Bundled with other forestland parcels in the landowner’s portfolio, it is possible that someday this property could be part of a carbon project that could see financial returns to the landowner. 36 III. Resource Descriptions 9. Carbon Sequestration & Climate Resilience Chimacum Forest Management Plan Resilience to Climate/Weather-Related Influences: Climate change projections for the region near the Chimacum Forest Property are uncertain but include: •Higher peak streamflow during winter months (rain-fed vs. snowfed). •Lower streamflow during summer months, due in part to decreased snowpack. •Increased and highly variable precipitation. •Increased temperature. •Increased occurrence of drought and other extreme weather events. Forest response to these changes is uncertain and will be species and context specific. Plant responses to the environment are multi-dimensional: for example, increased atmospheric CO2 may increase productivity unless other limitations are present (i.e. drought stress, temperature extremes, etc.). Presently, drought is more of a challenge to this property’s forest than other climate-related events. Forested stands on the Property are fully stocked, with virtually all growing-space occupied by mature trees. As a result, growing-season evapotranspiration of water from tree photosynthesis across the Property tends to be high. Trees may experience periods of drought stress during summer months, especially hardwoods with fewer physiological adaptations to drought (i.e. red alder, bigleaf maple). Proposed forestry activities may temporarily reduce drought stress across managed stands. Extreme weather may also include extreme winter rainfall events, leading to slope instability and landslides. On this property, care has been taken to set aside in reserves the steepest areas that are most erosion and landslide-prone. Also, there is significant historical evidence of windthrow in some stands. Tall, recently exposed trees are most prone to wind damage. In general, proposed management activities will minimize risk of excessive wind damage to the residual stand. Unable to precisely predict future conditions at the scale of this property, the best preparation for climatic uncertainty is to maintain diversity across the forest: a portfolio of stands that includes all species and ages with variable stocking density and genetics. This can act as a hedge against unforeseen conditions, while also supporting the objectives of maintaining wildlife habitat, aesthetics and working forests. Future seedling planting efforts should anticipate climate trends in the choice of provenance and species. 37 IV. Management Activities Chimacum Forest Management Plan Table 5: Management Actions Schedule 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Action Type Goal 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Culvert Design & Improvement - Hydraulic Projects Approval Assess Geotechnical Report Assess Root Rot Assessment and Mapping Assess Forest Inventory Assess Harvest Plan Plan Annual Road Maintenance Treatment Road and Landing Construction Noxious Weed Removal Treatment Root Rot Infestation Group Selection Harvest (Stand 4 & 8) Treatment Group Selection Harvest (Stand 5) Treatment Thinning (Stand 4) Treatment Other Harvests Treatment To be determined Annual Property and Road Inspection Monitoring Wildlife Surveys Monitoring To be determined Noxious Weed Surveys Monitoring Archeological/Cultural Survey Monitoring To be performed in advance of harvests Post-storm Property Inspection Monitoring To be performed after major storms Green highlighted boxes indicate planned activity date. 38 IV. Management Activities Chimacum Forest Management Plan Expenditure: Description: Materials Estimated Cost (Summer 2017) Road improvement Existing logging road (grading, ditching, materials) $3 / foot; 2300 feet $6,900 Road Construction Southernmost extension, near house $3.50 / foot; 450 feet $1,575 Landings Clearing + materials (2 existing + 3 proposed landings) $1200 each, average $6,000 Stream crossings 3 x 3' diameter culverts 3' metal culvert ($75 / linear foot) $5500 ($1500 each + $1000 for delivery) Stream crossings Construction + materials 3 1/2" rock base, 3/4" (-) on road surface $3,000 Slash Abatement - - To be determined Geotechnical Report For steep and unstable slopes; performed by a qualified geologist - $10,000 Seedlings To be determined – depends on species chosen and timing $1.50 / seedling + $1 / planting (100 trees per acre, 50 acres (+/-)) $12,500 Estimated Improvement Costs: $45,475 Table 6: Estimated Improvement Costs 39 V. Landowner Signature Chimacum Forest Management Plan Landowner Signature I approve of the contents of this forest management plan and intend to implement the described management activities to the best of my/our abilities and to manage the Property in a manner consistent with applicable regulatory requirements. This plan and its contents can be updated at any time at the request of the landowner. Landowner Signature and Date Signed 40 VI. Appendices A. Forests Chimacum Forest Management Plan Glossary of Important Terminology: Basal Area Cross-sectional area of trees, measured at 4.5’ height. Usually reported in feet2 per acre. This is typically used to indicate the amount of wood/biomass on an acre of forestland. Dominance Generally, refers to the tallest trees with the most open crowns in a stand. Dominant trees can be from one or more species. These are typically the fastest-growing trees in a stand. Group Selection A “patch cut” designed to mimic multi-tree mortality events, such as root rot or windthrow. Harvest is intended to allow for the regeneration of intermediate-tolerance and shade-tolerant species such as Douglas-fir and western redcedar. Growing Space The space a plant/tree needs to grow. Usually this is defined in terms of the limiting resource: light or water. In the case of westside forests of the Pacific Northwest, this is almost always light. High Thinning A thinning that removes trees of the dominant and codominant crown classes in order to favor the highest quality trees of those same classes. Shade-tolerance A tree species’ ability to survive and grow in low light conditions. Stand An area of forest that shares one or more of the following characteristics: age-class, species composition, site quality and/or stocking density Stocking Refers to the density of trees in a given area (i.e. trees per acre) 41 VI. Appendices A. Forests Chimacum Forest Management Plan Chimacum Forest Property Tree Species Site Preferences: Species Shade-Tolerance Preferred Site Conditions Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menzeisii) Intermediate Regenerate in open conditions; convex slopes; very wide ecological conditions are acceptable Western redcedar (Thuja plicata) Shade-tolerant Can regenerate under closed- canopy; tends to prefer moist sites Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) Very shade-tolerant Can regenerate under closed- canopy; often found growing on stumps and coarse woody debris; does not establish in dry sites Grand fir (Abies grandis) Shade-tolerant Intermediate moisture sites Red alder (Alnus rubra) Shade-intolerant Needs scarified, exposed soil in full light to establish; tends to prefer moist sites Bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) Shade-intolerant Needs full sun to establish 42 VI. Appendices B. Soils Chimacum Forest Management Plan Table 7: Soil properties Erosion Map Unit Symbol Soil Type Acres % Total On Road Off Road Suitability for Log Landings 50-Year Site Index (ft) Drainage AlD Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15-30 percent slopes 13.2 20.1% Severe Moderate Moderate 111 Moderately Well Drained CfE Cassolary sandy loam, 30-50 percent slopes 1.5 2.3% Severe Severe Poor 110 Well Drained KsD Kitsap gravelly loam, 15-30 percent slopes 40.3 61.4% Severe Moderate Moderate 128 Moderately Well Drained KtD Kitsap silt loam, 15-30 percent slopes 4.3 6.5% Severe Moderate Moderate 128 Moderately Well Drained SnD Sinclair gravelly sandy loam, 15-30 percent slopes 6.4 9.7% Severe Moderate Moderate 105 Moderately Well Drained 43 VI. Appendices C. Site Class Chimacum Forest Management Plan 44 VI. Appendices D. Physiography Chimacum Forest Management Plan 45 VI. Appendices D. Physiography Chimacum Forest Management Plan 46 VI. Appendices D. Physiography Chimacum Forest Management Plan 47