Presentation 2.3: Vegetation Management of

Interface Forests

Outline

• Introduction

• Visual stewardship

• Forestry operations

• Forest cooperatives

• Summary

Introduction

• Products and services to meet objectives

• Socially acceptable forest management

• Different mechanical methods to management

• Coordination among landowners

Practicing visible stewardship

• Visual screening

• Cues-to-care

• Forest management

• Environmental impacts

• Terminology

Cues-to-care

•Waste and damage•Neatness•Schedule and duration•Planning and safety•Communication•Re-vegetation•Appearances •Community commitment

Screen/hide management

• Add visual buffers

• Keep aesthetics in mind

• Limit downed wood

• May create negative perceptions

• Communicate with the public

Exercise 2.10:Cues-to-Care

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.

Exercise 2.11:Debate: Cues-to-Care vs.

Screening Buffers

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.

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

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

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

Agricultural tractor system

Many possible attachments including a grapple or using a self loading trailer.

Excavators and cable-yarding

• Cable-yarding Rough terrain Minimize soil

disturbance

•Excavators/skid-steersSimilar to agriculture tractorAdd modifications

All terrain vehicles

Cut-to-length

• Two person, two machine system

• Low-impact harvesting Distributed weight

Reduced soil compaction

Costs and benefits comparisons

• Wet weather sensitivity

• Slope tolerance • Extraction

distance• Tree size • Log length• Moving cost • Road • Log weight

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

Safety

•Small crews and equipment•Few safety options exist in the South•Follow OSHA requirements

Wear personal protective equipmentKeep first-aid kit on siteCreate a safety plan

•Workers compensation insurance

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

Convincing landowners’ to join

•Temptation

•Time

•Trust

•Role of the professional

Types of cooperatives

• Landowner associations

• “Virtual” or regional

• Formal business arrangement

Benefits of forest cooperatives

• Trusted knowledge• Increased property access• Coordinated forest health• Shared work activities• Profit• Value added• Political clout• Community development

Costs and reservations

• Governance• Property rights• Start-up cost• Marketing• Lack of time, trust,

or temptation• Funding

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

Case Study 3:Cooperation is the Key:

Blue Ridge Forest Landowner Cooperative

Exercise 2.12:Balancing the Ecological,

Social, and Economic Concerns

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?

Exercise 2.13:Juggling Multiple Objectives

Case Study 5:The Domain: Managing

Interface Forests in Tennessee

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.

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

Credits

ReferencesSlide 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.