There has been increasing interest
in the creation of templates to facilitate the development of
alternate riparian management plans for family forest owners
in Washington State. While several management options for these
landowners are currently established in the Forests and Fish
Rules (FFR), landowners may also submit site-specific alternate
plans. The purpose of alternate plans is to "meet riparian
functions while requiring less costly regulatory prescriptions"
(RCW 76.113.110). RTI case studies indicate many family forest
owners will have significant economic losses given the management
options available under the FFR (see RTI Fact
Sheets 2 and 20). A funded
Forestry Riparian Easement Program has the ability to help some
of these landowners, but it leaves many others who will need
less costly alternatives in order to remain economically viable. |
|
It is important that family forests in Washington remain economically
viable. Family forests are located in the lowland areas critical
to salmon and other riparian habitat. They also interface with the
urban and suburban areas providing a buffer between areas of urban
sprawl and the industrial forests and public lands further upslope.
Coupled with the strong stewardship ethic found in family forestry,
these factors put family forests in a unique position to provide
for quality riparian habitat and a multitude of other public values.
However, these factors also make family forests particularly sensitive
to conversion pressures. Close to 100 acres per day of family forestland
in Washington have been converted to non-forest use in recent years
as urban areas rapidly expand. This conversion rate will be exacerbated
if forest management options are no longer economically viable for
these landowners.
A streamlined process for the development and approval of alternate
plans is necessary to facilitate the large number of landowners
who could benefit from an alternate plan. The Forest Practice Rules
provide for the creation of template prescriptions to simplify the
development of alternate plans for common situations (WAC 222-12-0403).
Overstocked stands in Western Washington are common, providing a
good candidate for templates for preferred alternatives. Douglas-fir
plantations are planted at high densities to maximize early growth
with the expectation that the density will be reduced through subsequent
thinning operations. In riparian areas, these subsequent thinnings
are not always possible under the options specified in the FFR.
In addition, there is often inadequate economic incentive to thin
in these areas when restrictions on future harvest preclude the
recovery of the operational investment. This is not only an economic
setback for landowners; it also leaves these areas in an unnatural
and overly dense condition that inhibits stand development. Thus,
an alternate plan template for overstocked stands is an opportunity
for both economic relief and riparian habitat improvement.
The first step in developing an alternate plan template is to generate
a range of creative management alternatives to address both riparian
habitat and economic needs. For overstocked stands, these alternatives
should include different thinning strategies throughout the riparian
zone. We created 10 example alternatives and simulated them over
time using the Landscape Management System (LMS). The simulations
were done on a theoretical "riparian acre," which represents
a 170' wide riparian area along a 256' stream reach. This riparian
acre contained a sample inventory that is representative of a 20-year-old
Douglas-fir plantation on site class II stocked at 450-500 trees
per acre (TPA). Each of the sample alternatives included a 25' core
zone, which is most critical for shade and large woody debris (LWD)
recruitment. Depending on the prescription, this zone was either
thinned successively to 60 TPA, thinned successively to 25 TPA,
or left untouched. Adjacent to the core zone was an additional riparian
management area that extended out to 50, 80, or 113 feet. This area
was either thinned successively to 25 TPA and then left alone, or
it was managed on a 100-year, rotation with multiple thinnings.
Once a series of potential management alternatives has been simulated,
the adequacy of each alternative must be assessed. The rules require
alternate plans to "provide protection for public resources
at least equal in overall effectiveness to the protection provided
in [the FFR]" (WAC 222-12-0401). One of the biggest challenges
in creating viable alternatives is establishing specific criteria
that can be used to objectively assess whether or not a prospective
template prescription provides the necessary level of resource protection.
For Westside streams, the FFR has established a riparian protection
and restoration paradigm known as the Desired Future Conditions
(DFC). The DFC represent old forest structure, and they are based
on a sample of 80 to 300-year-old unmanaged stands known as the
DFC dataset. The goal of the management options specified in the
FFR is to develop a basal area greater than the mean of this dataset
by the time a riparian stand reaches age 140.
Working within this paradigm, RTI has expanded on the DFC approach
and created a statistically rigorous targeting and assessment procedure
(see RTI Fact Sheet #6) that can
be used to evaluate potential alternate plans. This procedure addresses
multiple parameters (such as stand density, mean diameter, and average
height) simultaneously to better discriminate between desirable
and undesirable forest structures. It also establishes a target
range to account for natural variability in forests. This range
can be set for any level of acceptance to provide the appropriate
level of discrimination. Using this procedure, potential alternatives
can be evaluated over time to see what percent of the time the resulting
forest structure falls within the DFC acceptance range.
The next step is to combine this assessment with economic analysis
to assess whether or not a potential alternative is economically
viable. The long-term economic potential of sustainable forest management
may be the most important measure of economic viability, as it is
most closely related to the motivation to maintain the land as forestland
rather than converting to other uses. This can be evaluated by calculating
the land expectation value (LEV) for each alternative at an appropriate
target rate of return.
Figure 1 compares the ten example alternatives with three
reference scenarios in terms of both the percentage of time in the
DFC target at a 90% acceptance level and LEV at a 5% real rate of
return. The three reference scenarios include no action, and "Option
2" in the FFR, and management under the previous rules. The
DFC target is based on stand density, mean diameter, and average
height of the trees greater than 6" in diameter from the DFC
data set. Figure 1 can be used to identify which alternatives can
meet the DFC structure targets at least as well as the options specified
in the FFR while still maintaining economic viability. In this display,
sample alternatives 3-10 meet or exceed FFR Option 2 in providing
DFC. Of these alternatives, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 are economically viable
for sustained management. A template prescription based on these
five alternatives would meet DFC goals while maintaining economic
viability.
|
Figure 1: |
Comparison of time in DFC target
and economic performance between ten example alternatives, FFR
option 2, no action, and management under the previous rules.
Alternatives that meet the acceptability threshold for time
in target while maintaining a viable LEV should be identified
as potential template prescriptions. |
To help select from a list of acceptable alternatives or to give
additional credibility to a preferred alternative, additional criteria
based on specific riparian functions can also be used. For example,
using a variant of RTI's large woody debris model (see RTI
Fact Sheet #9), acceptable alternatives can be assessed based
on their potential to recruit functional pieces of large woody debris
("functional" pieces require a minimum size based on the
stream type). Figure 2 shows the volume of functional recruitable
large woody debris (FRLWD) for a type 3 stream that is available
over time for the five potential alternatives. FFR Option 2 and
no action are included for reference. In this case, alternative
5 stands out as a strong candidate, as it provides greater FRLWD
over time compared to FFR option 2 and the other potential alternatives.
|
Figure 2: |
Comparison of the potential
volume of functional recruitable large woody debris (FRLWD)
available over time between the five acceptable alternatives,
FFR option 2, and no action. Alternatives with greater FRLWD
over time are preferable. |
Alternate plan templates will be an important tool in enabling
family forest owners to protect aquatic resources while keeping
sustainable forestry economically viable in the long term. It is
challenging to create template prescriptions that meet the legislative
objective of meeting riparian functions while minimizing the cost
to landowners. The assessment procedure provides an objective, science-based
method to both develop and evaluate potential prescriptions. Our
analysis for overstocked stands suggests that by using the assessment
procedure it is indeed possible to develop prescriptions that meet
challenging and often conflicting criteria. This procedure can be
employed not only for overstocked stands, but for any common situation
that could benefit from a template.
|