Hardwood Conversion StudiesHardwood Conversion Studies
What do we know from studies, monitoring, and Forest Practices
Applications?
Miller and McConnell
At Last Year’s Annual MeetingAt 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
Riparian Buffer AnalysisRiparian Buffer Analysis• A report estimated forested areas within 100 ft. of fish-
bearing 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 Recent Experience With Hardwood Conversion Applications 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 Recent Experience With Hardwood Conversion Applications, continuedConversion Applications, continued
Objective 2—Assemble data available in FPAs to quantify site characteristics and treatment configurations. Then compare these between Standard Rule-based and AP-based 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 Recent Experience With Hardwood Conversion Applications, continuedConversion 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
FindingsFindings
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 TotalApproved 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
The DNR Decision Record by Year for HWC FPAs (2003 through 2011)
FindingsFindings
Treatment Area
RMZ Length Treatment Area Width
Standard Rule 1.1 808 66
Alternate Plan 3.0 1695 87
Average treatment area (acres), RMZ length (ft) and treatment area width (ft) by harvest type (Standard Rule or Alternate Plan)
Conclusions from FindingsConclusions 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 Conifer Restoration Alternate Plans Field Survey Results 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 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 Riparian Hardwood Conversion StudyStudy
Preliminary ResultsPreliminary Results
Principal InvestigatorsFrank BrownPacific Rim Forest Mgt, LLC
Jerry MiddelDuck Creek Associates
Project ManagerAsh RoorbachCMER Riparian Ecologist
CMER Science ConferenceMarch 27, 2012
Riparian Scientific Advisory Group
Seedling Survival Rates – Year 4*Seedling Survival Rates – Year 4**(site 8 – year 3)*(site 8 – year 3)
Bottom LineBottom LineAdditional revenue per acre from conversion areas*Additional revenue per acre from conversion areas*
* To Date
Final PointsFinal 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-outo Subsequent monitoring necessary
A Stream Temperature Study at A Stream Temperature Study at the Same Eight Locationsthe Same Eight Locations
Parting Thoughts…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!