Hardwood Conversion Studies

1. Hardwood Conversion Studies What do we know from studies, monitoring, and Forest Practices Applications? Miller and McConnell

2. 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

3. Source: Steve Pederson 2011

4. Riparian 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

5. 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.

6. 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 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.

7. 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

8. Findings

9. Findings The DNR Decision Record by Year for HWC FPAs (2003 through 2011)

10. Findings Average treatment  area (acres), RMZ length (ft) and treatment area width (ft) by harvest type (Standard Rule or Alternate Plan)

11. 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!

12. 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

13. 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

14. CMER Science Conference March 27, 2012 Riparian Scientific Advisory Group Riparian Hardwood Conversion StudyPreliminary Results Principal Investigators Frank Brown Pacific Rim Forest Mgt, LLC Jerry Middel Duck Creek Associates Project Manager Ash Roorbach CMER Riparian Ecologist

15. Net Stumpage Values Per Acre(minus taxes)

16. RMZ Examples 25’ Conversion Area Site 12

17. Seedling Survival Rates – Year 4**(site 8 – year 3)

18. Site 14 Salmonberry and Conifers

19. Reforestation Costs Per Acre (to date)CZ & IZ

20. Bottom LineAdditional revenue per acre from conversion areas* * To Date

21. 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: • Identify potential problems during site lay-out • Subsequent monitoring necessary

22. A Stream Temperature Study at the Same Eight Locations

23. 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!