Working Paper 5

Project Leader
Kevin W. Zobrist
Research Scientist
Rural Technology Initiative
University of Washington
College of Forest Resources
Box 352100, Seattle, WA 98195-2100
(206) 543-0827
kzobru.washington.edu

Project Manager
Thomas M. Hinckley
Professor
University of Washington
College of Forest Resources
Box 352100, Seattle, WA 98195-2100
(206) 543-1588
hinckleyu.washington.edu

Co-Investigators
Michael G. Andreu Assistant Professor University of Florida - IFAS School of Forest Resources and Conservation mandreuifas.ufl.edu Kevin R. Gehringer Post-doctoral researcher Rural Technology Initiative University of Washington College of Forest Resources kgringeru.washington.edu	Craig W. Hedman Manager, Forest Ecology and Water Resources International Paper Southlands Forest craig.hedmanipaper.com Bruce R. Lippke Professor and Director Rural Technology Initiative University of Washington College of Forest Resources blippkeu.washington.edu
The National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) sponsored the research described in this report. The National Council on Science and the Environment (NCSE) conducts the NCSSF program with support from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Surdna Foundation, and the National Forest Foundation.

PDF of Working Paper 5:

• Summary Report (171 KB; 21 pages)
• Entire Report (2.0 MB; 107 pages)

Contents

1. To identify management practices for supporting increased biodiversity in intensively managed Douglas-fir forests in the Pacific Northwest and loblolly pine forests in the South.
2. Demonstrate how these practices could be synthesized into working templates that minimize economic costs and provide specific but flexible implementation guidance for practitioners.

• Option A
  • 25-foot bank stability zone with the following prescription:
    • Thin to 180 TPA at age 20
    • Thin to 60 TPA at age 50
    • No further entries to retain shade and bank stability
  • 55-foot additional buffer (80-feet total) with the following prescription:
    • Thin to 180 TPA at age 20
    • Thin to 60 TPA at age 50
    • Thin to 35 TPA at age 70
    • Clear-cut and replant at age 100
• Option B
  • 25-foot bank stability zone with the following prescription:
    • Thin to 180 TPA at age 20
    • Thin to 60 TPA at age 50
    • No further entries
  • 25-foot additional buffer (50-feet total) with the following prescription:
    • Thin to 180 TPA at age 20
    • Thin to 60 TPA at age 50
    • Thin to 35 TPA at age 70
    • No further entries

A range of ± 10% around the target density was allowed for operational flexibility, and a range of ± 5 years was allowed for timing flexibility. A range of candidate stands that would likely benefit from the template was then established using the imminent competition mortality relationship. This was done in recognition that stands which have been growing at a high density for a long time such that there is already significant competition-related mortality may no longer have the growth capacity or stability to respond well to the template prescription and thus additional factors need to be considered before pursuing the template. Figure 1 is the resulting management diagram and illustrates the target density range for both options over time. The shaded area represents stand conditions that would be good candidates for the template.

The key outcomes of the template are summarized in Table 1, with the default regulatory option in western Washington included as a reference point. Over a 140-year simulation, the template options achieved the desired conditions more than twice as long as the default regulatory option. This reflects the effectiveness of the repeated, heavy thinnings for accelerating the development of old forest conditions. At the same time, the thinnings generated significant revenue, resulting in a positive return to land (soil expectation value or SEV) of over $200, up from a net loss of $215 under the regulatory option. To validate the results of this template under a range of conditions, additional simulations were done that managed along the boundaries of the target region instead of the midpoint. Additional test stands, representing a range of starting conditions, were also simulated. In all cases the template consistently performed well relative to both criteria.

The results of this template demonstrate how both biodiversity and economic goals can be achieved together. The template format also offers straightforward implementation for practitioners. The conditions of a young overstocked stands (limited to site class II for this example) can be located by age and density on the management diagram in Figure 1. If they fall within the candidate stand region, they can be thinned to within the target density region. Subsequent thinnings can then be done over time to maintain a trajectory within the target density region. Timing and operational flexibility are built into the template, as well as additional flexibility by offering two options. While this template has not yet received regulatory approval, which is necessary before actual implementation, it provides a valuable example for landowners and regulators to work with.

Figure 1: Management diagram for the riparian template. Stands that fall in the shaded candidate stand region can be thinned such that their trajectory follows the target density region. The dashed lines indicate density floors for the bank stability zone and the remaining buffer under Option B.

 

Table 1: Template results for the key criteria: percent time in the desired structure target over a 140-year simulation (biodiversity performance metric) and return to land or SEV per riparian acre (economic performance metric). Both template options resulted in significant improvement for both criteria relative to the default Washington regulatory option.

Template Option	% of time over 140 years that desired conditions are achieved	Return to land (SEV) per riparian acre
Option A	70.20%	$208
Option B	64.90%	$207
WA regulations	32.10%	($215)

3. Key findings of the southern literature review

As with Douglas-fir forests in the Pacific Northwest, the overall key to providing for biodiversity in southern loblolly pine plantations is to provide structural diversity (Allen et al. 1996, Marion et al. 1986, Sharitz et al. 1992). An open stand structure with a diverse, productive grass-herb understory is more similar to the natural, fire-maintained pine communities that were historically present and can support a broad suite of plants and wildlife (Bragg 2002, Hedman et al. 2000, Noss 1988).

Maintaining an open canopy with a diverse understory can be achieved with heavy thinnings early and often in the rotation. This may allow a dense hardwood midstory to develop, though, which would shade out the understory and negate the benefits of thinning. Consequently, hardwood control will be necessary either by prescribed burning or with mid-rotation herbicide applications. Hardwoods should not be eliminated entirely. A mast producing component should be maintained to provide wildlife food and structural diversity.

Light to moderate site preparation is best for biodiversity, and mechanical methods may perform better in this respect than herbicides. Fertilization can benefit wildlife by increasing understory growth, but it should be done in conjunction with thinning to maximize benefits. Key structural features such as snags, coarse woody debris, and mature trees should be maintained, along with riparian buffers to protect aquatic areas and provide for habitat connectivity. Long rotations are necessary to provide a broader range of age classes, though the economic impacts may be a consideration.

Biodiversity is ultimately achieved at the landscape level, but stand-level changes can go a long way towards making improvements and can be implemented regardless of ownership pattern. Land use history is an important consideration, as old field sites are unlikely to support a diverse stand structure regardless of management practices. Economics should also be considered, as management practices to increase biodiversity need to be economically viable if they are to be successful on private lands. Opportunities for hunting lease revenue may offset some of the costs of managing for biodiversity.

A complete review and reference list is available as a technical report (see Deliverables).

4. Southern template results

In the South, open, park-like stands with rich, herbaceous understories characteristic of the longleaf pine/wiregrass communities that historically dominated the region are recognized to provide for high levels of biodiversity (Bragg 2002, Hedman et al. 2000, Noss 1988). Using the same overall approach as the Pacific Northwest riparian template, we developed an example southern template was designed to achieve these conditions while maintaining acceptable economic returns through the production of high-quality sawtimber and increased potential for supplemental income through hunting leases. A dataset of “benchmark” stands representative of the desired conditions (collected by Hedman et al. 2000) was used as a target against which to assess potential template options. The percentage of time over a 100-year rotation that the desired conditions target was achieved served as the biodiversity performance metric. The net return to land or soil expectation value (SEV) was used as the economic performance metric.

Nine potential options were examined, with rotation lengths ranging from 25 to 55 years and different frequencies and intensities of thinning (Table 2). The results of each alternative are summarized in Table 3. Three of the 55-year rotations (alternatives 6-8) resulted in the highest percentage of time in the desired stand structure target over a 100-year simulation (48%). These alternatives did not achieve the highest SEV, which implies an opportunity cost relative to the alternative that performed the best economically (alternative 5). However, the economic performance of these three alternatives was still competitive, especially if it is assumed that hunting lease premiums are associated with higher time in target scores. Of these three alternatives that had high time in target scores, alternative 7 had the lowest SEV cost per percent time in target, producing the desired structure very efficiently. For supporting significantly increased biodiversity while maintaining a competitive economic performance, this emerged as the overall most desirable template option.

Table 2: Timelines for the nine potential southern template alternatives that were examined. Each alternative included a commercial thin at age 15 that removed 30% by volume. Subsequent commercial thins were either to 60 or 80 ft2 of basal area (BA). Rotation lengths ranged from 25 to 55 years.

Alt	Year
	15	20	25	30	35	40	45	50	55
1	Thin 30%		Clear-cut
2	Thin 30%		Thin 60 BA		Clear-cut
3	Thin 30%		Thin 80 BA		Clear-cut
4	Thin 30%		Thin 60 BA			Clear-cut
5	Thin 30%		Thin 80 BA			Clear-cut
6	Thin 30%		Thin 60 BA		Thin 60 BA		Thin 60 BA		Clear-cut
7	Thin 30%		Thin 80 BA		Thin 80 BA		Thin 80 BA		Clear-cut
8	Thin 30%		Thin 60 BA			Thin 60 BA			Clear-cut
9	Thin 30%		Thin 80 BA			Thin 80 BA			Clear-cut

The full prescription for alternative 7 is as follows:

• First commercial thin at age 15, removing 30% of the volume
• Prescribed burning starting at age 20 and repeated every 5 years
• Next commercial thin at age 25 to 80 ft2 of basal area (BA), repeated every 10 years
• Maintenance of a mast-producing hardwood component throughout the rotation
• Clear-cut harvest at age 55

Table 3: Results of the nine template alternatives, including the percent time in the desired structure target over a 100-year simulation (biodiversity performance metric) and SEV/acre (economic performance metric) with and without hunting lease premiums. Alternative 7 emerged as the preferred alternative, achieving the highest time in target score at a relatively low cost.

Alternative	% Time in Target	Without hunting lease premium			With hunting lease premium
		SEV/Acre	SEV Cost	Cost/% in target	SEV/Acre	SEV Cost	Cost/% in target
1	0%	($20)	$639	N/A	($2)	$639	N/A
2	14%	$423	$196	$14	$442	$195	$13.93
3	14%	$480	$139	$9.93	$499	$138	$9.86
4	24%	$466	$153	$6.38	$503	$134	$5.58
5	14%	$619	$0	$0	$637	$0	$0
6	48%	$305	$314	$6.54	$360	$277	$5.77
7	48%	$413	$206	$4.29	$469	$168	$3.50
8	48%	$382	$237	$4.94	$438	$199	$4.15
9	38%	$415	$204	$5.37	$452	$185	$4.87

The results of this template demonstrate how the same approach used in the Pacific Northwest can be used to achieve biodiversity and economic goals in southern loblolly pine plantations. One difference in the southern template process was that the coarse filter analysis using time in target and SEV provided good discrimination between alternatives such that a fine filter metric (e.g. LWD in the Pacific Northwest) was not necessary to identify a preferred alternative. One of the challenges in developing the southern template was that data were not as readily available. The Hedman dataset was adequate to develop an example template, but it was fairly small and should be augmented with additional data points for a more robust template development process. Given the “proof of concept” established by this example template, once additional data is available it should be straightforward to create additional southern templates for a range of conditions and with a range of outcomes.

IV. Approach

The overall approach for developing templates is illustrated in Figure 2. The foundation of the approach was a review of scientific literature to identify desired structure conditions that were likely to support high levels of biodiversity. The desired conditions for riparian Douglas-fir stands in the Pacific Northwest were identified as those of mature, natural stands that are characterized by large conifers and high structural diversity. For southern loblolly pine stands, the desired conditions were identified as open, park-like conditions with rich, herbaceous understory vegetation characteristic of the fire-maintained longleaf pine forests that historically dominated the region.

The next step was to quantify the desired conditions using a reference dataset of actual stands that are representative of the desired conditions. The simultaneous distributions of key structure variables from the reference dataset can be used to establish a management target. A statistical assessment procedure can then be used to determine whether or not the structure attributes of an observed stand fall within that target. Observed stand conditions that fall within the target are statistically similar to the reference dataset (Gehringer in press).

Figure 2: An illustration of the overall approach for this project. A literature review is the foundation for identifying desired stand conditions and generating potential management alternatives. These alternatives are then put through several levels of analysis to identify preferred template alternatives.

For the Pacific Northwest template, a reference dataset was established using subplots from the Pacific Resource Inventory, Monitoring, and Evaluation (PRIME) database, which is part of the USDA Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program. Subplots were selected that were representative of mature, unmanaged, riparian stands based on their age, distance from a stream, and management history. Three attributes were used to describe the structure of this dataset: stand density in trees per acre (TPA), quadratic mean diameter (QMD), and average height computed using only trees greater than 12 inches in DBH. The distribution of values for these attributes, when considered simultaneously, established a three-dimensional target region. This target region was then refined by identifying a 90% acceptance region around the mode (the most likely value of the data distribution) to reduce the influence of the most extreme or outlying data points (Figure 3).

A dataset collected by Hedman et al. (2000) of “benchmark” plots that were characteristic of historic, open longleaf pine stands was used to represent the desired conditions for the southern template. Four key structural attributes were identified from this dataset: the density and quadratic mean diameter (QMD) of larger trees, and the density and QMD of smaller trees. The distributions of values for these four attributes were used to create a four-dimensional target region. The four-dimensional target can be represented visually by splitting the large tree and small tree density and QMD components into sub-targets that can be plotted in two dimensions (Figure 4). Because of the small size of this dataset, a 95% acceptance level was used to refine this target.

Figure 3: The three-dimensional management target for the Pacific Northwest template. The grey dots represent the 90% acceptance region. A stand whose observed attributes fall within this cluster is statistically similar to the reference dataset of desired conditions.

The literature was then used to identify management strategies that were likely to achieve the desired conditions, with an emphasis on practices that were also compatible with timber production and economic goals. A series of potential template options was then developed for simulation using the Landscape Management System (LMS). LMS is a program that integrates growth, treatment, and visualization models under a single, user-friendly interface (McCarter et al. 1998). LMS includes a number of regional variants of publicly available single-tree growth models. The Stand Management Cooperative (SMC) variant of the ORGANON growth model (Hann et al. 1997) was used to simulate the Pacific Northwest template options. The southern simulations were done using the Southern Variant of the USDA Forest Service’s Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) (Donnelly et al. 2001, Stage 1973, Wykoff et al. 1982).

Alternatives were simulated using actual inventory data that were representative of the starting conditions to which the template was intended to be applied. A 20-year-old Douglas-fir plantation in southwest Washington that was representative of a dense plantation approaching its first commercial thinning was used as the test stand for the Pacific Northwest template. A 10-year-old loblolly pine plantation from southwest Georgia (part of the dataset collected by Hedman et al., 2000) was used as the test stand for the southern template.

Figure 4: The 4-dimensional management target for the southern template is split into larger tree and smaller tree stand density and QMD sub-targets that can each be plotted visually in two dimensions. A stand whose observed attributes simultaneously fall between both of these ellipses is statistically similar to the reference dataset of desired conditions.

A “coarse filter” analysis of each alternative was done by evaluating projected outcomes relative to specific performance criteria for both biodiversity and economics. The percent of time that the target conditions were achieved over the simulation period (140 years for the Pacific Northwest; 100 years for the South) was used as the biodiversity performance criterion. Soil expectation value (SEV) was used as the economic performance criterion. SEV represents the net return to bare land for a complete management rotation repeated in perpetuity (Klemperer 1995). SEV was used as the criterion in recognition that the long-term (multiple rotation) application of a template requires achieving an acceptable rate of return when starting from bare land. A 5% target real rate of return was used, which is typical for financial analysis calculations.

The coarse filter analysis was used to identify viable template options that met minimum criteria for sustainability. In the case of the southern template, the coarse filter analysis offered enough discrimination between alternatives such that a preferred alternative emerged. For the Pacific Northwest template, there were several viable options and so a “fine filter” analysis was done by evaluating template performance relative to an ecological function of particular interest. In this case, potentially available LWD volume was chosen as a fine filter criterion. LWD provides important in-stream functions, and long-term sources of LWD are typically lacking in areas of intensive management (Bilby and Bisson 1998). Conditions that provide for a long-term source of LWD recruitment are also likely to provide for other important functions such as shade, bank stability, and organic inputs, as well as streamside habitat. The potential LWD volume was simulated for the 12 viable template alternatives using a potentially available LWD model (Gehringer 2005). Based on the fine filter analysis, two preferred alternatives emerged.

Once preferred template alternatives are identified, they can be further refined and validated as needed. Management pathways can be adjusted and tested to see if performance can be further improved. Template options can be simulated using additional test stands to evaluate a range of starting conditions. Finished templates become the basis for a set of specific but flexible management steps and implementation guidelines for practitioners.

V. Deliverables

The deliverables for this project include four technical reports

1. A literature review of management practices to support increased biodiversity in intensively managed Douglas-fir plantations
   
2. A template for managing riparian areas in dense, Douglas-fir plantations for increased biodiversity and economics
   
3. A literature review of management practices to support increased biodiversity in intensively managed loblolly pine plantations
   
4. Management templates for increased biodiversity and economics in intensively managed loblolly pine plantations

• Allen, A.W., Bernal, Y.K., and R.J. Moulton. 1996. Pine plantations and wildlife in the Southeastern United States: an assessment of impacts and opportunities. U. S. Dept. of the Interior, National Biological Service, Information and Technology Report 3. 32 p. Available online at http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/others/1996_03.pdf; last accessed June 2005.
  
  
• Bilby, R.E. and P.A. Bisson. 1998. Function and distribution of large woody debris. Pages 324-346 in R.J. Naiman and R.E. Bilby, eds. River ecology and management: lessons from the Pacific coastal ecoregion. Springer-Verlag, New York.
  
  
• Bragg, D.C. 2002. Reference conditions for old-growth pine forests in upper west Gulf Coastal Plain. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 29(4):261-288.
  
  
• Bunnell, F.L. and D.J. Huggard. 1999. Biodiversity across spatial and temporal scales: Problems and opportunities. Forest Ecology and Management 115:113-126.
  
  
• Busing, R.T. and S.L. Garman. 2002. Promoting old-growth characteristics and long-term wood production in Douglas-fir forests. Forest Ecology and Management 160(1):161-175.
  
  
• Carey, A.B. and R.O. Curtis. 1996. Conservation of biodiversity: a useful paradigm for forest ecosystem management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:610-620.
  
  
• Carey, A.B., C. Elliott, B.R. Lippke, J. Sessions, C.J. Chambers, C.D. Oliver, J.F. Franklin, and M.G. Raphael. 1996. Washington Forest Landscape Management Project: A pragmatic, ecological approach to small-landscape management. Washington Forest Landscape Management Project Report No. 2. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA. 99 p.
  
  
• Carey, A.B., B.R. Lippke, and J. Sessions. 1999a. Intentional systems management: Managing forests for biodiversity. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 9(3/4):83-125.
  
  
• Carey, A.B., D.R. Thysell, and A.W. Brodie. 1999b. The forest ecosystem study: Background, rationale, implementation, baseline conditions, and silvicultural assessment. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-457. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 79 p.
  
  
• Chan, S., P. Anderson, J. Cissel, L. Larsen, and C. Thompson. 2004. Variable density management in riparian reserves: Lessons learned from an operational study in managed forests of western Oregon, USA. Forest Snow and Landscape Research 78(1/2):151-172.
  

  
  

• Curtis, R.O. and A.B. Carey. 1996. Timber supply in the Pacific Northwest: managing for economic and ecological values in Douglas-fir forests. Journal of Forestry 94(9): 4-7, 35-37.
  
  
• Curtis, R.O., D.S. DeBell, C.A. Harrington, D.P. Lavender, J.C. Tappeiner, and J.D. Walstad. 1998. Silviculture for multiple objectives in the Douglas-fir region. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-435. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 123 p.
  
  
• DeBell, D.S., R.O. Curtis, C.A. Harrington, and J.C. Tappeiner. 1997. Shaping stand development through silvicultural practices. Pages 141-149 in K.A. Kohm and J.F. Franklin, eds. Creating a forestry for the 21st century. Island Press, Washington, DC.
  
  
• Dickson, J.G. and T.B. Wigley. 2001. Managing forests for wildlife. Pages 83-94 in Dickson, J.G., ed. Wildlife of Southern Forests: Habitat and Management. Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, WA.
  
  
• Donnelly, D., B. Lilly, and E. Smith. 2001. The southern variant of the Forest Vegetation Simulator. USDA Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center, Fort Collins, CO. 61 p. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/pub/fmsc/ftp/fvs/docs/overviews/snvar.pdf; last accessed July 2005.
  
  
• Drew, T.J. and J.W. Flewelling. 1979. Stand density management: An alternative approach and its application to Douglas-fir plantations. Forest Science 25:518-532.
  
  
• Franklin, J.F., D.R. Berg, D. Thornburg, and J. Tappeiner. 1997. Alternative silvicultural approaches to timber harvest: Variable retention harvest systems. Pages 111-139 in K.A. Kohm and J.F. Franklin, eds. Creating a forestry for the 21st century. Island Press, Washington, DC.
  
  
• Franklin, J.F., T.A. Spies, R. Van Pelt, A.B. Carey, D.A. Thornburgh, D.R. Berg, D.B. Lindmayer, M.E. Harmon, W.S. Keeton, D.C. Shaw, K. Bible, J. Chen. 2002. Disturbances and structural development of natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an example. Forest Ecology and Management 155:399-423.
  
  
• Garman, S.L., J.H. Cissel, and J.H. Mayo. 2003. Accelerating development of late-successional conditions in young managed Douglas-fir stands: A simulation study. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-557. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 57p.
  
  
• Gehringer, K.R. In press. A nonparametric method for defining and using biologically based targets in forest management. In: M. Bevers, and T.M. Barrett, eds. Systems Analysis in Forest Resources: Proceedings of the 2003 Symposium. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-xxx. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.
  
  
• Gehringer, K.R. 2005. An individual tree simulation model for estimating expected values of potentially available large woody debris. Draft white paper. Rural Technology Initiative, University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, Seattle, WA. 77 p. Available online at http://www.ruraltech.org/pubs/reports/lwd_gehringer/lwd_gehringer.pdf; last accessed July 2005.
  

  

  
  
• Hann, D. W., A. S. Hester, and C. L. Olsen. 1997. ORGANON user's manual: Edition 6.0. Department of Forest Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. 133p.
  
  
• Hansen, A.J., T.A. Spies, F.J. Swanson, and J.L. Ohmann. 1991. Conserving biodiversity in managed forests: lessons from natural forests. Bioscience 41(6):382-393.
  
  
• Hartley, M.J. 2002. Rationale and methods for conserving biodiversity in plantation forests. Forest Ecology and Management 155:81-95.
  
  
• Hayes, J.P., S.C. Chan, W.H. Emmingham, J.C. Tappeiner, L.D. Kellogg, and J.D. Bailey. 1997. Wildlife response to thinning young forests in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Forestry 95(8):28-33.
  
  
• Hayes, J.P., S.H. Schoenholtz, M.J. Hartley, G. Murphy, R.F. Powers, D. Berg, and S.R. Radosevich. 2005. Environmental consequences of intensively managed forest plantations in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Forestry 103(2):83-87.
  
  
• Hedman, C.W., S.L. Grace, and S.E. King. 2000. Vegetation composition and structure of southern coastal plain pine forests: an ecological comparison. Forest Ecology and Management 134:233-247.
  
  
• Helgerson, O.T. and J. Bottorff. 2003. Thinning young Douglas-fir west of the Cascades for timber and wildlife. Extension Bulletin EB1927. Washington State University Press, Pullman, WA. 18 p.
  
  
• Hunter, M.L., Jr. 1990. Wildlife, forests, and forestry: Principles of managing forests for biological diversity. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 370 p.
  
  
• Johnson, A.S., J.L. Landers, and T.D. Atkeson. 1975. Wildlife in young pine plantations. Pages 147-159 in Proceedings of the symposium on management of young pines. USDA Forest Service, Southeast Area, State and Private Forestry, Atlanta, GA.
  
  
• Klemperer, D.W. 1996. Forest resource economics and finance. McGraw Hill, New York. 551 p.
  
  
• Latta, G. and C.A. Montgomery. 2004. Minimizing the cost of stand level management for older forest structure in western Oregon. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 19(4):221-231.
  
  
• Lippke, B.R., J. Sessions, A.B. Carey. 1996. Economic analysis of forest landscape management alternatives. CINTRAFOR Special Paper 21. College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 157 p.
  
  
• MacLean, C.D. and C.L. Bolsinger. 1997. Urban Expansion in the Forests of the Puget Sound Region. Resource Bulletin PNW-RB-225. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 17 p.

  
  
  

• Marion, W.R., M. Werner, and G.W. Tanner. 1986. Management of pine forests for selected wildlife in Florida. Circular 706. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Available online at http://wfrec.ifas.ufl.edu/range/pdf_docs/tanner/cir-706.pdf; last accessed June 2005.
  
  
• McCarter, J. B., J. S. Wilson, P. J. Baker, J. L. Moffett, and C. D. Oliver. 1998. Landscape management through integration of existing tools and emerging technologies. Journal of Forestry 96(6): 17-23.
  
  
• McComb, W.C., T.A. Spies, and W.H. Emmingham. 1993. Douglas-fir forests: Managing for timber and mature-forest habitat. Journal of Forestry 91(12): 31-42.
  
  
• Melchiors, M.A. 1991. Wildlife management in southern pine regeneration systems. Pages 391-420 in M.L. Duryea and P.M. Dougherty, eds. Forest Regeneration Manual. Kulwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.
  
  
• Moore, S.E. and H.L. Allen. 1999. Plantation forestry. Pages 400-433 in M.L. Hunter Jr., ed. Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, New York.
  
  
• Muir P.S., R.L. Mattingly, J.C. Tappeiner II, J.D. Bailey, W.E. Elliot, J.C. Hagar, J.C. Miller, E.B. Peterson, and E.E. Starkey. 2002. Managing for biodiversity in young Douglas-fir forests of Western Oregon. Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR-2002-0006. U.S. Geological Survey, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Corvallis, OR. 76 p.
  
  
• Murphy, G.E., W.R.J. Sutton, D. Hill, C. Chambers, D. Creel, C. Binkley, and D. New. 2005. Economics of intensively managed forest plantations in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Forestry 103(2):78-82.
  
  
• Noss, R.F. 1988. The longleaf pine landscape of the Southeast: Almost gone and almost forgotten. Endangered Species Update 5(5):1-8.
  
  
• Oliver, C.D. 1992. A landscape approach: Achieving and maintaining biodiversity and economic productivity. Journal of Forestry 90(9):20-25.
  
  
• Robbins, L.E. and R.L. Myers. 1992. Seasonal effects of prescribed burning in Florida: A review. Miscellaneous Publication No. 8. Tall Timbers Research, Inc, Tallahassee, FL. 96 p.
  
  
• Schultz, R.P. 1997. Multiple-use management of loblolly pine forest resources. Pages 9-3 – 9-14 in Loblolly Pine: The Ecology and Culture of Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda L.). Agriculture Handbook 713. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.
  
  
• Sharitz, R.R., L.R. Boring, D.H. Van Lear, and J.E. Pinder, III. 1992. Integrating ecological concepts with natural resource management of southern forests. Ecological Applications 2(3):226-237.
  
  
  
• Spies, T.A. 1998. Forest Structure: A key to the ecosystem. Northwest Science 72(special issue):34-39.
  
  
• Stage, A.R. 1973. Prognosis model for stand development. Research Paper INT-137. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 32 p.
  
  
• Van Lear, D.H., R.A. Harper, P.R. Kapeluck, and W.D. Carroll. 2004. History of Piedmont forests: implications for current pine management. Pages 127-131 in K.F. Connor, ed. Proceedings of the 12th biennial southern silvicultural research conference. General Technical Report SRS-71. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC.
  
  
• Washington Department of Natural Resources (WADNR). 1998. Our changing nature: Natural resource trends in Washington State. Olympia, WA. 75 p.
  
  
• Wigley, T.B., W.M. Baughman, M.E. Dorcas, J.A. Gerwin, J.W. Gibbons, D.C. Guynn Jr., R.A. Lancia, Y.A. Leiden, M.S. Mitchell, and K.R. Russell. 2000. Contributions of intensively managed forests to the sustainability of wildlife communities in the South. In Sustaining southern forests: The science of forest assessment. Southern Forest Resource Assessment. Available online at http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/sustain/conf/ppr/wigley-ssf2000.pdf; last accessed June 2005.
  
  
• Wykoff, W.R., N.L. Crookston, and A.R. Stage. 1982. User’s Guide to the Stand Prognosis Model. General Technical Report INT-133. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 112 p.
  
  
• Zobrist, K. 2003. Economic impacts of the Forests and Fish Rules on small, NIPF landowners: Ten Western Washington case studies. RTI Working Paper 1, Revised Edition. Rural Technology Initiative, University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, Seattle, WA. 23 p.
  
  
• Zobrist, K. and B.R. Lippke. 2003. Case studies examining the economic impacts of new forest practices regulations on NIPF landowners. Pages 203-210 in L. Teeter, B. Cashore, and D. Zhang, eds. Forest policy for private forestry: Global and regional challenges. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
  
  
• Zobrist, K.W., K.R. Gehringer, and B.R. Lippke. 2004. Templates for Sustainable Riparian Management on Family Forest Ownerships. Journal of Forestry 102(7):19-25.
  
  
• Zobrist, K.W., K.R. Gehringer, and B.R. Lippke. 2005. A sustainable solution for riparian management. Pages 54-62 in R.L. Deal and S.M. White, eds. Understanding Key Issues of Sustainable Wood Production in the Pacific Northwest. General Technical Report PNW- GTR-626. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.