Presentation 2.3: Vegetation Management of Interface Forests

1. Presentation 2.3: Vegetation Management of Interface Forests

2. Outline • Introduction • Visual stewardship • Forestry operations • Forest cooperatives • Summary

3. Introduction • Products and services to meet objectives • Socially acceptable forest management • Different mechanical methods to management • Coordination among landowners

4. Practicing visiblestewardship • Visual screening • Cues-to-care • Forest management • Environmental impacts • Terminology

5. Cues-to-care • Waste and damage • Neatness • Schedule and duration • Planning and safety • Communication • Re-vegetation • Appearances • Community commitment

6. Screen/hide management • Add visual buffers • Keep aesthetics in mind • Limit downed wood • May create negative perceptions • Communicate with the public

7. Exercise 2.10:Cues-to-Care

8. Exercise 2.10 Discussion Questions • What other cues-to-care have not been discussed? • Which cues-to-care are too costly to be feasible? • Which cues-to-care are just good management and should be done everywhere? • What are simple low-cost actions that might work well in interface forests to promote socially acceptable forestry? • Describe a personal example when cues-to-care, if properly implemented, might have avoided public controversy over a silvicultural operation.

9. Exercise 2.11:Debate: Cues-to-Care vs. Screening Buffers

10. Exercise 2.11:Directions • Prepare a brief opening statement making two or three points defending your position. • Prepare two questions for the other team that will make obvious the weakness of their position. • Prepare responses to the questions they are likely to challenge you with. • Provide a simple example where your technique would have made a difference in public relations or where the other technique would not make a difference.

11. Mechanical vegetative management • Generate income, amenity, forest health, and recreation opportunities • Not just “harvesting timber” • Issues and Tradeoffs • Social acceptability • Environmental impact • Economic viability • Operator safety

12. Traditional tree harvesting • High capital costs • Large ‘conventional’ machines • Purchase cost up to $200k • Moving cost up to $2,500 • Harvest larger volumes • Depends on desired outcomes

13. Small scale harvesting systems • Lower capital investment costs • Horse logging • Small agriculture tractor • Small excavators/skid-steers • Small cable-yarding system • All terrain vehicles (ATVs) • Cut–to-length

14. Agricultural tractor system Many possible attachments including a grapple or using a self loading trailer.

15. Excavators and cable-yarding • Cable-yarding • Rough terrain • Minimize soil disturbance • Excavators/skid-steers • Similar to agriculture tractor • Add modifications

16. All terrain vehicles

17. Cut-to-length • Two person, two machine system • Low-impact harvesting • Distributed weight • Reduced soil compaction

18. Costs and benefits comparisons • Wet weather sensitivity • Slope tolerance • Extraction distance • Tree size • Log length • Moving cost • Road • Log weight

19. Costing an operation • A challenge to find a harvester • Harvest contracts • Transfer ownership to contractor • Encourage high production • Pay a rate per ton • Encourage high grading • Hourly rate

20. Safety • Small crews and equipment • Few safety options exist in the South • Follow OSHA requirements • Wear personal protective equipment • Keep first-aid kit on site • Create a safety plan • Workers compensation insurance

21. Forest cooperatives • Participation is voluntary • Protect ecological systems • Share information, equipment, and labor coordination of management across boundaries • Protect privacy buffers • Create wildlife corridors for migration and cover • Share access roads • Develop formal business arrangement

22. Convincing landowners’ to join • Temptation • Time • Trust • Role of the professional

23. Types of cooperatives • Landowner associations • “Virtual” or regional • Formal business arrangement

24. Benefits of forest cooperatives • Trusted knowledge • Increased property access • Coordinated forest health • Shared work activities • Profit • Value added • Political clout • Community development

25. Costs and reservations • Governance • Property rights • Start-up cost • Marketing • Lack of time, trust, or temptation • Funding

26. Cooperative examples • The Blue Ridge Forest Landowner Cooperative • Pursuing Forest Stewardship Council certification • The Forest Bank • Waive development rights • National Demonstration Program in Community Based Forestry • Market to minority forest landowners

27. Case Study 3:Cooperation is the Key: Blue Ridge Forest Landowner Cooperative

28. Exercise 2.12:Balancing the Ecological, Social, and Economic Concerns

29. Exercise 2.12 Discussion Questions • What points in the table do you most disagree with? Why? • What key benefits and costs are missing from the table? • What are the key ethical, environmental, and economic trade offs in selecting a harvesting method? • Are there strategies or regulations that could be applied to either system to mitigate the risks? What might be feasible in your region?

30. Exercise 2.13:Juggling Multiple Objectives

31. Case Study 5:The Domain: Managing Interface Forests in Tennessee

32. Summary Public perception is important when considering forest management methods. Providing ways to enhance the existing property while following along with the landowner’s management objectives will create a successful interface community.

33. Credits Photos • Slide 4: Larry Korhnak • Slide 15: A. John D. Hodges, Mississippi State University, www.forestryimages.org, B. http://www.cppa.org/album/cableyarding.jpg • Slide 17: http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/4101/focus/mgt_approaches/ecological/svor/ • Slides 22, 23, 24, 26: Courtesy of the Blue Ridge Forest Landowner Cooperative • All other photos courtesy of Virginia Tech

34. Credits References Slide 12: Shaffer, R. M. 1992. Farm Tractor Logging for Woodlot Owners (Publication 420-090). Blackburg VA: Virginia Cooperative Extension. Slide 12: Jensen, K. and R. Visser. 2004. “Low Impact Forest Harvesting at the Urban Interface.” In Proceedings of the 27th Meeting of the Council on Forest Engineering.