File:Zobrist et al 2004 riparian forest management templates.pdf: Difference between revisions

Document

A document is a written record related to an effort or topic

Last Ten Documents

• Adopt-A-Stream Foundation 2024 wetland stream ecology training.pdf
• Imai 2012 continuous improvement strategy
• Waterman-Hoey 2022 washington greenhouse gas emissions inventory.pdf
• Beamer et al 2006 whidbey pocket estuary fish
• Scott 2023 valley bottom reset monitoring Deer Creek Oregon
• Cluer and Thorne 2014 stream evolution model
• Thesis-Dissertation
• WDNR 2001 shorezone data dictionary.pdf
• Wearne et al. 2023 contemporary bioregionalism
• Synthesis

• Google scholar search

Wiki Rules

• Wiki text does not reflect the policy or opinion of any agency or organization
• Please adhere to our Social Contract and Style Guide
• Complain here, and be nice.

Zobrist, K.W., K.R. Gehringer, B.R. Lippke. 2004. Journal of forestry. October/November 2004. pp. 19-25.

Notes

• Zobrist et al. identifies conversation to real estate development as a risk of forests that are not economically viable, and suggests that riparian regulation are most likely to result in non-viable forests in small private forestlands in environmentally sensitive areas. Does this have the perverse incentive of encouraging subdivision and sale of forest lands next to environmentally sensitive aquatic habitats?
• It observes that "overstocked" Douglas-fir forests may not achieve "Desired Future Condition" in the riparian zone without thinning, and htat management without thinning reduces growth rate and introduces "instability" (sensu Wilson & Oliver 2000).
• Zobrist et al. cites three papers that suggest thinning accelerates development of old-growth characteristics.
• To achieve both DFC benefits and economic benefits "an alternative plan needs to be designed carefully."
• The cost of developing a plan, and the uncertainty of the Interidisciplinary Review Team process disincentives alternate plan development among small land owners.
• They propose "templates" for management that meet ID Review Team criteria for Desired Future Condition (DFC).
• "studies have shown that thinning in young forests can accelerate the development of desirable old-growth characteristics (Tappeiner et al. 1997, Poage and Tappeiner 2002, Garman et al. 2003)"
• Zobrist et al. uses Stand Density, Quadratic Mean Diameter, and Average height to define DFC targets to evaluate management alternatives.
• Land Expectation Value (LEV) is the economic value of reinvesting land in forest after harvest. This may be the most relevant measure to predict conversion to another use. LEV is calculated based on a minimum acceptable rate of return (MAR; this study uses 5%). LEV is determined by the proportion of the forest in the riparian zone.
• "The extent to which riparian management impacts the overall economic viability of a forest depends on the proportion of the forest that lies in the riparian zone. A way to ensure that forest management will be economically viable regardless of riparian impact is to assess LEV only across the riparian zone. The resulting performance criterion is LEV per riparian acre, with an LEV of zero being the threshold at which a 5% MAR is achieved and higher LEV values reflecting greater economic performance." (p.23)
  • Does this approach require a higher level of harvest in riparian areas than is actually necessary to achieve desirable LEV?
• "Carey et al. (1999) demonstrate “biodiversity pathways” that use long rotations with repeated thinnings from below to accelerate the development of old-forest structural conditions while generating a favorable economic return. This strategy provides a good model for generating template alternatives." (pp. 23-24)
• "Using a potentially available large woody debris model (Cross 2002), the volume of potentially available functional large woody debris (PAFLWD) over time can be estimated."
• Templates should allow for a harvest window of 10 years (+/- 5 years) to take advantage of market conditions.