Transcript Document

Hardwood Conversion Studies
What do we know from studies,
monitoring, and Forest Practices
Applications?
Miller and McConnell
At Last Year’s Annual Meeting
Value of a Hardwood Conversion Template to
the Short term Supply Issues
Steve Pedersen
Forest Resources, Inc.
June 15, 2011
Washington Hardwood Commission
Source: Steve Pederson 2011
Riparian Buffer Analysis
• A report estimated forested areas within 100 ft. of fishbearing streams in western Washington.
• On private and tribal ownerships, about 42% of this
area was in hardwood-dominated stands.
• Excluding a 50-ft-wide, no-cut core zone, the remaining
inner zone area available for hardwood conversion was
about 36,000 acres.
Source: Marshall and Associates, 2000. Riparian Buffer Analysis
for the Washington Hardwood Commission
Recent Experience With Hardwood
Conversion Applications
Objective 1—Quantify the number of FPAs that
proposed a HWC treatment beginning in 2003
and ending in 2011. Enumerate those that:
– used Standard Rules or an Alternate Plan,
– were submitted by landowner type (IFLOs or
SFLOs),
– were ultimately either approved (including those
that were closed or renewed) or disapproved by
the DNR, and,
– were proposed, by DNR Region.
Recent Experience With Hardwood
Conversion Applications, continued
Objective 2—Assemble data available in FPAs to quantify
site characteristics and treatment configurations. Then
compare these between Standard Rule-based and APbased FPAs and with data from two other studies.
Comparisons included:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
inner zone (harvest area) in acres,
length of stream segment harvested,
inner zone (harvest area) width,
pre-harvest stand composition,
stream size,
site class,
number of stream segments proposed for HWC per FPA.
Recent Experience With Hardwood
Conversion Applications, continued
Objective 3—Evaluate quality and consistency of
information provided in FPAs. Assess utility for:
• Enabling landowners to understand what is
required of them to successfully propose a
HWC.
• Keeping stakeholders informed on the
quantity and quality of proposed HWCs.
Source: McConnell and Miller 2012
Findings
Findings
The DNR Decision Record by Year for HWC FPAs (2003 through 2011)
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Total
Approved
5
5
0
0
0
0
4
3
4
21
Closed
4
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
8
Renewed
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
Approved
Subtotal
9
6
0
0
0
3
5
3
5
31
Disapproved
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
4
Total
10
6
1
1
0
3
5
3
6
35
Findings
Average treatment area (acres), RMZ length (ft) and treatment area width
(ft) by harvest type (Standard Rule or Alternate Plan)
Treatment
Area
RMZ Length
Treatment Area
Width
Standard Rule
1.1
808
66
Alternate Plan
3.0
1695
87
Conclusions from Findings
•
•
•
•
FPARS lacks accuracy
Quantitative data seldom provided in approved FPAs
Data issues
FPA disapproval process is inconsistent and poorly
documented
• Anomalous uses of the HWC Rule need clarification
• Stand composition data requirements are seldom met
• Revision of current forms is advisable
Please don’t shoot us messengers!
Conifer Restoration Alternate Plans
Field Survey Results
• Of the 19 alternate plans, the survey team evaluated
21 harvested segments along fish-bearing streams.
• The assessment was primarily qualitative. The team
recorded the impacts of harvest on riparian functions
and if conifers were successfully established in
harvested area.
• Observations were based on conditions 4 or 5 years
after harvest.
• The survey was not designed to evaluate compliance
with the approved forest practices application.
Source: SFLO Office 2008
Key Findings
• At the sites reviewed, there was great variability in
topography, channel morphology, residual species
composition and density, and in the way that plans were
implemented, such as buffer widths, selective harvest vs.
even-aged harvest, species selection, and maintenance.
• Conifer restoration was generally poor, primarily due to lack
of brush control and browse protection. Reforestation was
a failure on 9 of the 21 sites; six were beyond repair.
• Double-sided alternate plan harvests had more impacts on
riparian functions than single-sided harvests.
• As of the survey date, the five regulatory riparian functions
were adequately protected on all but one site.
Source: SFLO Office 2008
Riparian Hardwood Conversion Study
Preliminary Results
CMER Science Conference
March 27, 2012
Riparian Scientific Advisory Group
Principal Investigators
Frank Brown
Pacific Rim Forest Mgt, LLC
Jerry Middel
Duck Creek Associates
Project Manager
Ash Roorbach
CMER Riparian Ecologist
Net Stumpage Values Per Acre
(minus taxes)
Upland
CZ&IZ
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
5
8
11
12
13
14
15
23
RMZ Examples
25’
Conversion Area
Site 12
Seedling Survival Rates – Year 4*
*(site 8 – year 3)
total planted
1,400
conifer term. bud below
brush/hrdwd
conifer term. bud above
brush/hrdwd
conifer leader above
brush/hardwd
Seedlings per acre
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
5 8 111213141523
Site 14 Salmonberry and Conifers
Reforestation Costs Per Acre (to date)
CZ & IZ
Total live conifers per acre
1,000
12
11
800
600
5
8
400
23
200
15
14
13
0
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800 $1,000 $1,200
Bottom Line
Additional revenue per acre from conversion areas*
$9,000
$7,500
$6,000
$4,500
$3,000
$1,500
$0
5
8
11
12
* To Date
13
14
15
23
Final Points
• To date, animal browse, primarily by mountain
beaver, is primary cause of planted seedling
mortality.
• Competition from alder and shrubs becoming
more important.
• Four years is a good check point, but not reliable
for predicting long-term survival.
• Will re-visit sites in 2016 for final estimate of
conifer stocking levels.
• Sites are dynamic and require pro-active strategy:
o Identify potential problems during site lay-out
o Subsequent monitoring necessary
A Stream Temperature Study at
the Same Eight Locations
Parting Thoughts…
• An estimated 36,000 acres of hardwood- dominated
riparian area are potentially available for conversion to
conifers.
• Conversion, aka Conifer restoration , is an objective of
WA Forest Practice rules.
• Since that estimate was provided to the Hardwood
Commission, about 100 acres may have been
converted.
• Many more acres remain to be harvested and
converted to DFC!