| There has been increasing interest 
                    in the creation of templates to facilitate the development of 
                    alternate riparian management plans for family forest owners 
                    in Washington State. While several management options for these 
                    landowners are currently established in the Forests and Fish 
                    Rules (FFR), landowners may also submit site-specific alternate 
                    plans. The purpose of alternate plans is to "meet riparian 
                    functions while requiring less costly regulatory prescriptions" 
                    (RCW 76.113.110). RTI case studies indicate many family forest 
                    owners will have significant economic losses given the management 
                    options available under the FFR (see RTI Fact 
                    Sheets 2 and 20). A funded 
                    Forestry Riparian Easement Program has the ability to help some 
                    of these landowners, but it leaves many others who will need 
                    less costly alternatives in order to remain economically viable. | 
                   
                    
                   | 
                 
             
              It is important that family forests in Washington remain economically 
                viable. Family forests are located in the lowland areas critical 
                to salmon and other riparian habitat. They also interface with the 
                urban and suburban areas providing a buffer between areas of urban 
                sprawl and the industrial forests and public lands further upslope. 
                Coupled with the strong stewardship ethic found in family forestry, 
                these factors put family forests in a unique position to provide 
                for quality riparian habitat and a multitude of other public values. 
                However, these factors also make family forests particularly sensitive 
                to conversion pressures. Close to 100 acres per day of family forestland 
                in Washington have been converted to non-forest use in recent years 
                as urban areas rapidly expand. This conversion rate will be exacerbated 
                if forest management options are no longer economically viable for 
                these landowners. 
              A streamlined process for the development and approval of alternate 
                plans is necessary to facilitate the large number of landowners 
                who could benefit from an alternate plan. The Forest Practice Rules 
                provide for the creation of template prescriptions to simplify the 
                development of alternate plans for common situations (WAC 222-12-0403). 
                Overstocked stands in Western Washington are common, providing a 
                good candidate for templates for preferred alternatives. Douglas-fir 
                plantations are planted at high densities to maximize early growth 
                with the expectation that the density will be reduced through subsequent 
                thinning operations. In riparian areas, these subsequent thinnings 
                are not always possible under the options specified in the FFR. 
                In addition, there is often inadequate economic incentive to thin 
                in these areas when restrictions on future harvest preclude the 
                recovery of the operational investment. This is not only an economic 
                setback for landowners; it also leaves these areas in an unnatural 
                and overly dense condition that inhibits stand development. Thus, 
                an alternate plan template for overstocked stands is an opportunity 
                for both economic relief and riparian habitat improvement. 
                
                
              The first step in developing an alternate plan template is to generate 
                a range of creative management alternatives to address both riparian 
                habitat and economic needs. For overstocked stands, these alternatives 
                should include different thinning strategies throughout the riparian 
                zone. We created 10 example alternatives and simulated them over 
                time using the Landscape Management System (LMS). The simulations 
                were done on a theoretical "riparian acre," which represents 
                a 170' wide riparian area along a 256' stream reach. This riparian 
                acre contained a sample inventory that is representative of a 20-year-old 
                Douglas-fir plantation on site class II stocked at 450-500 trees 
                per acre (TPA). Each of the sample alternatives included a 25' core 
                zone, which is most critical for shade and large woody debris (LWD) 
                recruitment. Depending on the prescription, this zone was either 
                thinned successively to 60 TPA, thinned successively to 25 TPA, 
                or left untouched. Adjacent to the core zone was an additional riparian 
                management area that extended out to 50, 80, or 113 feet. This area 
                was either thinned successively to 25 TPA and then left alone, or 
                it was managed on a 100-year, rotation with multiple thinnings. 
              Once a series of potential management alternatives has been simulated, 
                the adequacy of each alternative must be assessed. The rules require 
                alternate plans to "provide protection for public resources 
                at least equal in overall effectiveness to the protection provided 
                in [the FFR]" (WAC 222-12-0401). One of the biggest challenges 
                in creating viable alternatives is establishing specific criteria 
                that can be used to objectively assess whether or not a prospective 
                template prescription provides the necessary level of resource protection. 
                For Westside streams, the FFR has established a riparian protection 
                and restoration paradigm known as the Desired Future Conditions 
                (DFC). The DFC represent old forest structure, and they are based 
                on a sample of 80 to 300-year-old unmanaged stands known as the 
                DFC dataset. The goal of the management options specified in the 
                FFR is to develop a basal area greater than the mean of this dataset 
                by the time a riparian stand reaches age 140. 
              Working within this paradigm, RTI has expanded on the DFC approach 
                and created a statistically rigorous targeting and assessment procedure 
                (see RTI Fact Sheet #6) that can 
                be used to evaluate potential alternate plans. This procedure addresses 
                multiple parameters (such as stand density, mean diameter, and average 
                height) simultaneously to better discriminate between desirable 
                and undesirable forest structures. It also establishes a target 
                range to account for natural variability in forests. This range 
                can be set for any level of acceptance to provide the appropriate 
                level of discrimination. Using this procedure, potential alternatives 
                can be evaluated over time to see what percent of the time the resulting 
                forest structure falls within the DFC acceptance range. 
              The next step is to combine this assessment with economic analysis 
                to assess whether or not a potential alternative is economically 
                viable. The long-term economic potential of sustainable forest management 
                may be the most important measure of economic viability, as it is 
                most closely related to the motivation to maintain the land as forestland 
                rather than converting to other uses. This can be evaluated by calculating 
                the land expectation value (LEV) for each alternative at an appropriate 
                target rate of return. 
              Figure 1 compares the ten example alternatives with three 
                reference scenarios in terms of both the percentage of time in the 
                DFC target at a 90% acceptance level and LEV at a 5% real rate of 
                return. The three reference scenarios include no action, and "Option 
                2" in the FFR, and management under the previous rules. The 
                DFC target is based on stand density, mean diameter, and average 
                height of the trees greater than 6" in diameter from the DFC 
                data set. Figure 1 can be used to identify which alternatives can 
                meet the DFC structure targets at least as well as the options specified 
                in the FFR while still maintaining economic viability. In this display, 
                sample alternatives 3-10 meet or exceed FFR Option 2 in providing 
                DFC. Of these alternatives, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10 are economically viable 
                for sustained management. A template prescription based on these 
                five alternatives would meet DFC goals while maintaining economic 
                viability. 
                
                
              
                 
                    | 
                 
               
              
                 
                  | Figure 1:  | 
                  Comparison of time in DFC target 
                    and economic performance between ten example alternatives, FFR 
                    option 2, no action, and management under the previous rules. 
                    Alternatives that meet the acceptability threshold for time 
                    in target while maintaining a viable LEV should be identified 
                    as potential template prescriptions. | 
                 
               
              To help select from a list of acceptable alternatives or to give 
                additional credibility to a preferred alternative, additional criteria 
                based on specific riparian functions can also be used. For example, 
                using a variant of RTI's large woody debris model (see RTI 
                Fact Sheet #9), acceptable alternatives can be assessed based 
                on their potential to recruit functional pieces of large woody debris 
                ("functional" pieces require a minimum size based on the 
                stream type). Figure 2 shows the volume of functional recruitable 
                large woody debris (FRLWD) for a type 3 stream that is available 
                over time for the five potential alternatives. FFR Option 2 and 
                no action are included for reference. In this case, alternative 
                5 stands out as a strong candidate, as it provides greater FRLWD 
                over time compared to FFR option 2 and the other potential alternatives. 
               
              
                 
                    | 
                 
               
              
                 
                  | Figure 2: | 
                  Comparison of the potential 
                    volume of functional recruitable large woody debris (FRLWD) 
                    available over time between the five acceptable alternatives, 
                    FFR option 2, and no action. Alternatives with greater FRLWD 
                    over time are preferable. | 
                 
               
              Alternate plan templates will be an important tool in enabling 
                family forest owners to protect aquatic resources while keeping 
                sustainable forestry economically viable in the long term. It is 
                challenging to create template prescriptions that meet the legislative 
                objective of meeting riparian functions while minimizing the cost 
                to landowners. The assessment procedure provides an objective, science-based 
                method to both develop and evaluate potential prescriptions. Our 
                analysis for overstocked stands suggests that by using the assessment 
                procedure it is indeed possible to develop prescriptions that meet 
                challenging and often conflicting criteria. This procedure can be 
                employed not only for overstocked stands, but for any common situation 
                that could benefit from a template.  
                
           |