Seedling Release and Young-Stand Thinning as a Way to Increase Forest Health and Production

Final report for OW19-350

OW19-350 (project overview)
Project Type: Professional + Producer
Funds awarded in 2019: $49,884.00
Projected End Date: 12/31/2022
Host Institution Award ID: G247-19-W7502
Grant Recipient: Northwest Natural Resource Group
Region: Western
State: Washington
Principal Investigator:
Kirk Hanson
Email
Northwest Natural Resource Group
Co-Investigators:
Lindsay Malone
Email
Northwest Natural Resource Group
Expand All

Project Information

Summary:

After timber harvest, Washington’s forestland owners face a task that has become increasingly tricky: re-establishing a new generation of trees on recently logged sites. New trees have always faced competition from native understory plants, but in recent years, they’ve also had to contend with invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and with dry summers punctuated by heat waves, aggravating the impact of moisture competition from shrubs and grasses. Pressure from invasive species and stress from excessive heat are expected to increase (Lipton et al. 2018 and Vose et al. 2018). Heat stress also makes it especially important to thin overcrowded young stands, so that more soil moisture is available for crop trees.

To help forestland owners address these challenges, Northwest Natural Resource Group proposes to partner with six forest producers to examine varied approaches to improving young stands’ prospects in their early years. Through our project, “Seedling Release and Young-Stand Thinning as a Way to Increase Forest Health and Production,” we will collaborate with producers to devise field trials of new prescriptions for brush control and young-stand thinning, and develop controlled experiments that we will implement, monitor, and analyze for the first 2.25 years of the project. We will then hold two workshops for 50 forest producers to share our findings and view them in situ; disseminate the results through fact sheets and on-line videos, and provide 15 site visits for interested producers to help them apply our findings to their situation.

Our project will result in a clearer understanding of how to release forest seedlings from competition with other species and each other, and will translate to more effective forest management, increased forest health, and improved producer profitability by avoiding the need to replant outcompeted seedlings and enabling trees to reach commercial maturity sooner.

Project Objectives:
  1. Evaluate the cost of at least three treatments to release conifer seedlings from competition by shrubs and grasses. We will write specifications describing the treatments, so they can be compared consistently across treatment areas, and monitor the cost of implementation on the sites where they are used. (August 2019 to September 2021)
  2. Evaluate the cost of at least three treatments to pre-commercially thin young hardwood and conifer stands. We will write specifications describing the treatments, so they can be compared consistently across treatment areas, and monitor the cost of implementation on the sites where they are used. (August 2019 to September 2021)
  3. Evaluate the effectiveness of those treatments by monitoring seedling survival and growth on a total of at least 10 treatment areas after one and two growing seasons have elapsed since treatment. (April 2020 to October 2021)
  4. Analyze whether the more intensive treatments are cost effective, based on the data from (1), (2), and (3). (October 2021 to January 2022)
  5. Evaluate the effectiveness of young-stand thinning at reducing mortality rates among the remaining stand. (October 2019 to October 2021)
  6. Disseminate the findings from (4) and (5) to at least 65 forest producers in person. (January to March 2022)
  7. Reach an additional 1,200 forest producers with the conclusions of our work through additional media, such as our newsletter and online presentations. (February to May 2022)
  8. Conduct follow-up surveys among at least 120 forest producers in western Washington to determine whether the results of our study have influenced their management decisions.

2022 update: The project timeline has been extended an additional 6 months in order to provide additional growth time for each of the stand release projects before collecting final forest inventory data.

Timeline:

GanttChart-SARE2019-Final

Cooperators

Click linked name(s) to expand/collapse or show everyone's info
  • Rodney Hanson - Producer
  • Joe Kane - Producer
  • Laurence Reeves - Producer
  • Tammie Perreault - Producer
  • Richard J. Pine - Producer

Research

Materials and methods:

For this project, all of the sites are located on private non-industrial forestland in western Washington.

Objective 1: We will conduct site visits to each of the collaborating producers to observe the condition of potential treatment areas for seedling release , and work with the forest producers to develop a menu of treatments that will be tested against each other. With each producer, we will jointly decide on a list of 2 to 4 seedling release treatments, and designate an area of at least 1.0 - 2.0 acres for each one. We will flag and map the boundaries of the treatment units. NNRG will be responsible for overseeing the field crew’s compliance with the treatment prescription. We will monitor the time and expense needed to implement the prescription. At the end of the implementation phase, we will compile a summary of the cost of implementing each prescription.

Objective 2: We will establish a grid of 0.05-acre, non-overlapping monitoring plots within each treatment area. Before implementation, we will count the live tree seedlings in each plot, measure their height, and document their condition (e.g. browse damage, competition-related damage, etc.). Within each plot we will also document competing vegetation (e.g. species and percent cover). At the end of each growing season thereafter, we will repeat the measurements. We will compare the average growth in height across the 2 to 4 treatments at each site, and determine whether there is a significant difference in tree growth and survival between treatments.

Objective 3: We will synthesize the findings from (1) and (2) by comparing the difference in survival and growth between the treatments. If the costlier treatments yield better results, we will undertake a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the higher cost is warranted by the improved results. We will consider the cost of interplanting new seedlings to replace the ones that died, and project the cost of the slower growth attained under lower-cost treatments as a result of the delay in the trees’ harvestability Of course, if the less expensive treatment yielded better results, then the preferred treatment would be obvious.

Objective 4: On forest stands aged 10 to 25 years old, which would be candidates for young-stand thinning (also known as “pre-commercial thinning,” or PCT), we will undertake a similar process to the one laid out in Objective #1. Using flagging and GPS mapping, we will lay out one or two treatment areas of approximately 1.0 to 2.0 acres apiece. Within each treatment area we will lay out and monument a grid of 0.05-acre plots. Before treatment, we will measure all live and dead trees within each plot and note their species, height, live-crown ratio, and diameter at breast height. We will oversee the field crew’s compliance with the treatment prescriptions. We will monitor the plots two growing seasons after treatment is carried out, counting and measuring live and dead trees, and noting the number of trees actually removed in the course of thinning. We will compare tree mortality rates across the different thinning regimes and the control. Since it usually takes 6 to 10 years to see a response in terms of growth rates, we will monument the treatment areas with enough permanence that a future study could look at the effect of thinning on growth rates.

Objective 5: We will hold two workshops that will bring forest producers to see the results of these seedling release and young-stand thinning trials. Workshops will be advertised through our newsletter, Washington Department of Natural Resources Small Forestland Owner newsletter, mailing lists of forest landowners, and social media. Each workshop is expected to attract roughly 25 participants.  We will also offer site visits to forest landowners who are interested in getting professional advice about applying the results to their land.

Objective 6: In order to disseminate the results to producers who do not attend the workshops, we will create videos, slideshows, and pamphlets to explain what we learned and how it can be applied.  Those materials will be publicized through our newsletter (which reaches 2500 subscribers), partner organizations, and social media.

Objective 7: We will conduct pre- and post-workshop surveys to find out what participants have learned from the workshops and what changes in management practices they are planning.

Research results and discussion:

To date we have installed treatment sites and inventory/monitoring plots on all five of the project participants' forestlands. The following summarizes the work to date with project participants:

O'Neill Pine Company

  1. Installed three 2.0-acre pre-commercial thinning treatment sites containing eight 0.05-acre inventory/monitoring plots per treatment site. The pre-commercial thinning sites are located in a 15 year old Douglas-fir plantation.
    1. Thinning prescriptions were developed for each treatment site as follows:
      • Thin to 300 trees per acre.
      • Thin to 200 trees per acre.
      • No thinning. Leave stand at original density.
  2. Installed two 2.0-acre stand release treatment sites containing eight 0.05-acre inventory/monitoring plots per treatment site. The stand release sites are located in a 3 year old Douglas-fir plantation that has become overrun with Scotch broom, a non-native and highly invasive shrub.
    1. Stand release prescriptions were developed for each treatment site as follows:
      • Hand-cut Scotch broom with chainsaws and lop-and-scatter material across the site. Spray resprouting scotch broom in late spring.
      • Hand-cut Scotch broom and pile cut material into multiple discrete piles across the site. Spray resprouting scotch broom in late spring.
  3. Contractors were hired in January & February 2020 to implement the prescriptions described above, and the time and cost of their work was documented. Inventory/monitoring plots within the pre-commercial thinning treatment sites were remeasured immediately following implementation of the treatment.
  4. In January 2023 we remeasured the inventory plots and analyzed the pre-treatment and post-treatment data.
  5. A case study of this project has been posted to NNRG's website: https://www.nnrg.org/standrelease/. 

Hanson Family Forest

  1. Installed three 1.0 - 2.0-acre pre-commercial thinning treatment sites containing four 0.05-acre inventory/monitoring plots/acre in each treatment site. The pre-commercial thinning sites are located in an 18-20 year old mixed hardwood stand that is dominated by red alder and big leaf maple.
    1. Thinning prescriptions were developed for each site as follows:
      • Pre-commercially thin to 250 trees per acre
      • Pre-commercially thin to 180 trees per acre
  2. Installed three 1.5-acre stand release treatment sites containing six 0.02-acre inventory/monitoring plots per treatment site. The stand release sites are located in a 1-3 year old western red cedar/Douglas-fir plantation that has become overgrown with Himalayan blackberry and other assorted native shrubs and hardwood trees.
    1. Stand release prescriptions were developed for each site as follows:
      • Hand-cut all competing vegetation within a 3' circle surrounding seedling.
      • Hand-cut only competing vegetation that overtops seedling and prevents free growth of tree's leader.
      • Brush-cut all competing vegetation throughout entire unit.
  3. The stand release prescriptions were completed in June/July 2020. The pre-commercial thinning of the dense alder stands is ongoing but expected to be completed by June 2021. All time and costs are being documented by the landowner who is implemented the project themselves.
  4. In January 2023 we remeasured the inventory plots and analyzed the pre-treatment and post-treatment data.
  5. A case study of this project has been posted to NNRG's website: https://www.nnrg.org/standrelease/

Capitol Land Trust

  1. Installed two 1.25-acre treatment sites containing four 0.05 inventory/monitoring plots per treatment site. The treatment sites are located in a 20 year old mixed hardwood/conifer stand.
    1. Pre-commercial thinning prescriptions were developed for each site as follows:
      • Site #1: pre-commercially thin to 200 - 250 TPA (13’x15’)
      • Site #2: no treatment (control site)
  2. Thinning of the treatment site was completed in September 2020 and all time and costs documented. The inventory/monitoring plots within treatment site #1 (thinning site) were remeasured immediately following implementation.
  3. In January 2023 we remeasured the inventory plots and analyzed the pre-treatment and post-treatment data.
  4. A case study of this project has been posted to NNRG's website: https://www.nnrg.org/standrelease/

Two Cats Timber

  1. Installed two 1.0-acre treatment sites containing four 0.05 inventory/monitoring plots per treatment site. The treatment sites are located in a 22 year old mixed hardwood/conifer stand.
    1. Pre-commercial thinning prescriptions were developed for each site as follows:
      • Pre-commercially thin to 180 - 220 TPA (13’ - 15’) - 1 acre
      • Pre-commercially thin to 240 - 260 TPA (14’ - 16’) - 1 acre
  2. Thinning of the treatment sites was completed in March 2021 and all time and costs documented. The inventory/monitoring plots were remeasured immediately following implementation.
  3. In January 2023 we remeasured the inventory plots and analyzed the pre-treatment and post-treatment data.
  4. A case study of this project has been posted to NNRG's website: https://www.nnrg.org/standrelease/

 

Participation Summary
4 Producers participating in research

Research Outcomes

Recommendations for sustainable agricultural production and future research:

Lessons from the first 24 months

Over the first 24 months of this grant we have learned the following lessons:

  1. The time/cost to install inventory/monitoring plots is very high. In order to stay within the budget of the grant, the study design had to be simplified by reducing the size of the proposed treatment sites, and the number of plots in each treatment site.
    1. Plot design is usually driven by a desire to achieve a certain statistical accuracy in the sampling of a given population. Given that the objective of this project is to document costs and effectiveness of various forestry practices, and not measure timber growth or other biological metrics, it was determined that accurately documenting general site conditions was the main priority of the plots, and a statistically accurate sample of the individual trees within each site was not paramount.
    2. As per Point #3 below, the timing of plot installation and inventory varied between all projects due both to changes in Cooperators and implementation of the stand release practices. Ideally all plots should be installed within a couple months and data collected at approximately the same time of season in order to optimize the value of comparative analysis between the projects.
  2. We originally hoped that each study participant would have an opportunity to apply for funding through the federal Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) in order to offset costs of implementing the various pre-commercial thinning and stand release projects. However, in most cases the timing of planned activities did not coincide with the funding cycle of the EQIP, thereby limiting study participants opportunities to apply and receive funding with the project timeline.
    1. A key lesson is to encourage forest owners to apply for EQIP funding as soon as they conceptualize forest restoration projects. Given the extended timeline on which the EQIP funding cycle operates, forest owners will often have ample time to refine the parameters of a forest restoration project before the project is actually evaluated for funding by the EQIP.
  3. Similar to point #2 above, coordinating the timing of each stand release project proved to be more challenging than expected also. Ideally all projects would have been implemented within a couple months of one another to optimize the potential for comparative analysis across all projects. However, coordinating the start time of project when multiple contractors and forest owners are implementing the respective projects, lead to erratic implementation and a long timespan between the implementation of the first project and the last.
  4. Working with thinning contractors proved challenging relative to ensuring the contractor hit the thinning target as prescribed uniformly across a stand. It was observed that contractors have a tendency to thin trees to a density, and use tree selection criteria, that they are most familiar with, which tends to favor uniform industrial plantations. Achieving a high rate of compliance with more nuanced prescriptions proved challenging.
    1. A key lesson in this regard is to provide the contractor as simple of a prescription as possible (spacing and species), and conduct regular compliance of their thinning in order to ensure prescriptions are followed as closely as possible.
  5. An additional task that we recommend during future similar projects is to use the forest inventory data to run a future growth and yield model, specifically the USFS's Forest Vegetation Simulator. The model can be used to compare the growth differences resulting from the various stand release recommendations. These growth predictions provide useful assumptions against which future actual forest growth can be compared. We may endeavor to do this within the budget we have remaining.

Project Conclusion

Our research into various stand release methods yielded useful information regarding both the costs and logistics of these activities, as well as their effectiveness. Given that a 2-3 year study on a long-term crop such as timber will only yield limited results as to the effects on growth rates or quality of the timber produced, this study instead focused on the implementation of the activities using both conventional and unconventional methods. Below is a discussion of the methods, including an assessment of their efficacy.

Pre-commercial thinning

Pre-commercial thinning trials were conducted on a range of common stand types, including Douglas-fir plantations, naturally regenerated red alder, and mixed hardwood/conifer stands. Stands were thinned to a range of target densities to observe the long-term effects on growth rates as well as labor/cost differences. Further, stands were thinned using different labor practices including hired contract crews and sole landowner operators. 

Costs

Hired contract crews ranged from 2-4 workers and of the three projects for which they were used cost $150/acre, $475/acre, and $588/acre. Each of these costs were fixed costs bid by the contractor, and were not reflective of the time it took to conduct the thinning. The lowest cost ($150/acre) was bid by a professional contract crew of 4 workers. Based on other unrelated pre-commercial thinning projects, it was determined that this cost was well below the industry standard and likely a result of a new contractor endeavoring to get established in the industry. An average of these costs, or $404/acre, is more in line with costs observed for other projects not related to this study.

Other than the low-bid cost of $150/acre, bearing the full cost of pre-commercial thinning is not likely to provide a return on investment sufficient to justify the cost. However, with the addition of USDA EQIP funding of approximately $300 - $350/acre, implementing pre-commercial thinning with an out-of-pocket cost of $175 - $288/acre makes the strategy more cost effective and within reach of the average small woodland owner.

One pre-commercial thinning activity was conducted by the landowner himself and thereby did not incur an out-of-pocket cost. This project was also subsidized by EQIP funding which was sufficient to pay the landowner $45/hr for their time. For landowners with the skills and time to conduct their own pre-commercial thinning, EQIP funding provides a strong incentive to conduct the activity.

Labor

The amount of time to conduct each pre-commercial thinning varied across all projects. The most time intensive project was the mixed hardwood/conifer stand. The significant increase in time spent on this particular project was likely more a factor of a contractor who was new to pre-commercial thinning and just learning how to develop an efficient process as this same contractor also thinned Hardwood Stand #2 at a much more efficient rate following their work on the mixed hardwood/conifer stand. Extrapolating the time for each project to a per acre rate resulted in the following labor costs:

  1. Mixed hardwood/conifer stand: 11.6 hours/acre
  2. Hardwood stand #1: 8 hours/acre
  3. Hardwood stand #2: 4-6 hours/acre
  4. Douglas-fir stand: 7 hours/acre

Although areas within each stand were thinned to varying densities in order to observe the long-term effects of stand density on growth, the time and cost of thinning to different densities did not have a signficant effect on the amount of time it took to conduct the activity, varying only by 1-2 hours per treatment.

Effectiveness of Thinning Methods

As mentioned earlier, the effectiveness of each thinning method on stand composition and growth was less of a factor in this study as results will take many years to reveal themselves. 

Seedling Release

Five different seedling release practices were implemented as part of this study. Three of the practices solely involved manual labor and two practices involved a combination of manual labor and follow-up herbicide application. As with the pre-commercial thinning studies, a combination of labor practices were used including hired contract crews and sole landowner operators.

Costs

Hired contract crews were used for two projects (Douglas-fir seedling release from scotch broom) and their costs ranged from $575 - $735/acre for the combined activities of cutting back competing vegetation and spraying herbicide.

Three seedling release projects were conducted by the landowners themselves and thereby did not incur an out-of-pocket cost. These project was also subsidized by EQIP funding which was sufficient to pay the landowner approximately $40/hr for their time. For landowners with the skills and time to conduct their own seedling release, EQIP funding provides a strong incentive to conduct the activity.

Labor

Labor costs for the seedling release projects varied across the two sites that were treated, but were fairly consistent between the different treatments conducted at each site. Labor costs were as follows:

  1. Douglas-fir release from scotch broom + herbicide (piling cut material): 17 hours
  2.  Douglas-fir release from scotch broom + herbicide (lop-and-scatter cut material): 13 hours
  3. Douglas-fir/cedar release from blackberry (brushcutter): 8 hours
  4. Douglas-fir/cedar release from blackberry (leader release): 7 hours
  5. Douglas-fir/cedar release from blackberry (full release): 8 hours

Effectivenes of Treatments

All five treatments appeared to be equally effective at releasing the tree seedlings. There were slight differences in regrowth of competing vegetation within each treatment (e.g. brushcutter release delayed regrowth of competing vegetation), however, seedling growth across all treatment sites appeared comparable.

3 Grants received that built upon this project
1 New working collaborations

Education and Outreach

100 Consultations
7 Curricula, factsheets or educational tools
2 Tours
1 Webinars / talks / presentations
2 Other educational activities: One educational video on pre-commercial thinning and seedling release.
Educational handouts describing the stand release prescriptions.

Participation Summary:

51 Farmers participated
Education and outreach methods and analyses:

The majority of the education and outreach activities planned for this project are not scheduled to occur until later in the project timeline. However, some of the educational and outreach activities that have occurred to date include:

  1. On-site consultations with the five forest owners who are also study participants in this project.
  2. Announce project through NNRG's monthly newsletter.
  3. Outline educational and resource web page for this project
  4. Develop and post detailed case studies for each project on NNRG's website (https://www.nnrg.org/standrelease/)

As of February 2022, NNRG is beginning to script an educational videos on stand release practices, and has scheduled two field days and one webinar to be held later this year. NNRG is algo beginning to outline a series of educational handouts for the field tours and to be added to the project page on our website. 

February 2023 Update:

NNRG hosted two field tours in the summer of 2022 that attracted 25 participants. The field tours showcased both seedling release and stand release practices that were conducted as part of this research project. NNRG also hosted an evening webinar in January 2022 on the topic of stand release, and another evening webinar in April 2022 on the topic of climate adaptation that addressed both planting and thinning. NNRG has also completed an educational video on stand release that will be available our our YouTube channel shortly, and published six case study papers on the thinning projects we implemented that are available on our website.

Education and outreach results:

NNRG utilized two field tours, one webinair to disseminate the findings of our project to small woodland owners. We also developed a webpage for the project that we periodially updated as the project progressed over the past 2-3 years. 

As we anticipated, the most effective method for educating small woodland owners about forest management practices is live, in-person workshops and field tours where forests that are being treated with the recommended prescriptions are showcased. This allows participants to see the results of the prescriptions for themselves and ask questions directly related to the subject forest. Handouts were provided to the participants that included information on the forest management prescriptions, as well as costs and logistics for implementation. The handouts documented the information that was presented orally during the workshop and provided visual reference materials for some of the technical data that was discussed.

For the field tours, NNRG chose to host two three-hour long "twilight tours" in the evening from 5:00 - 8:00. We chose this strategy as an alternative to full-day weekend workshops, which have been our standard, as we wanted to see if the shorter tours held on weekday evenings would provide a more accessible option for attendees. The Twilight Tours ended up attracting fewer participants (12 at the first tour and 20 at the 2nd) than our full day workshops, but we are unclear if this had to do with the timing of the event (weekday evenings) or the highly specific subject matter. We will continue to experiment with the Twilight Tour format in the future.

In January 2022 NNRG hosted a one-hour evening webinar on the topic of stand release. We had 31 sign-ups and 19 actual attendees of the webinair. Unfortunately we neglected to record the webinar, so it is not an enduring educational resource. This webinar was part of a montly series of "Fireside Chats" that NNRG routinely hosts on various topics relating to small woodlands management. We regularly host more than 20 attendees at each of our Fireside Chats, with some Chats enjoying more than 40 participants. We've found these to be a very low cost and simple strategy for reaching forest owners and have received high approval ratings for the content of our Chats.

NNRG's outreach methods for advertising our events included the following: direct mailings of postcards to forest owners identifed through County tax parcel records, annoucements in our monthly newsletters that reach more than 2,500 recipients, direct email announcements to our mailing list, and social media postings (Facebook). 

NNRG sent an online survey to the field tour participants following the tour, but received very few responses. The respondants rated NNRG's field tour 8.8 out of 10 for their overall experience. Given the dismal response to our survey, in the future NNRG will provide hardcopy surveys to participants at the conclusion of educational events and request that the surveys be completed prior to participants leaving.

Lastly, NNRG routinely provides on-site consultations with small woodland owners. During the 2021 and 2022 field seasons we conducted more than 100 consultations with forest owners that included discussions of seedling release and/or young stand thinning.

5 Farmers intend/plan to change their practice(s)
5 Farmers changed or adopted a practice

Education and Outreach Outcomes

Recommendations for education and outreach:

Over the first 24 months of this grant we have learned the following lessons:

  1. The time/cost to install inventory/monitoring plots is very high. In order to stay within the budget of the grant, the study design had to be simplified by reducing the size of the proposed treatment sites, and the number of plots in each treatment site.
    1. Plot design is usually driven by a desire to achieve a certain statistical accuracy in the sampling of a given population. Given that the objective of this project is to document costs and effectiveness of various forestry practices, and not measure timber growth or other biological metrics, it was determined that accurately documenting general site conditions was the main priority of the plots, and a statistically accurate sample of the individual trees within each site was not paramount.
    2. As per Point #3 below, the timing of plot installation and inventory varied between all projects due both to changes in Cooperators and implementation of the stand release practices. Ideally all plots should be installed within a couple months and data collected at approximately the same time of season in order to optimize the value of comparative analysis between the projects.
  2. We originally hoped that each study participant would have an opportunity to apply for funding through the federal Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) in order to offset costs of implementing the various pre-commercial thinning and stand release projects. However, in most cases the timing of planned activities did not coincide with the funding cycle of the EQIP, thereby limiting study participants opportunities to apply and receive funding with the project timeline.
    1. A key lesson is to encourage forest owners to apply for EQIP funding as soon as they conceptualize forest restoration projects. Given the extended timeline on which the EQIP funding cycle operates, forest owners will often have ample time to refine the parameters of a forest restoration project before the project is actually evaluated for funding by the EQIP.
  3. Similar to point #2 above, coordinating the timing of each stand release project proved to be more challenging than expected also. Ideally all projects would have been implemented within a couple months of one another to optimize the potential for comparative analysis across all projects. However, coordinating the start time of project when multiple contractors and forest owners are implementing the respective projects, lead to erratic implementation and a long timespan between the implementation of the first project and the last.
  4. Working with thinning contractors proved challenging relative to ensuring the contractor hit the thinning target as prescribed uniformly across a stand. It was observed that contractors have a tendency to thin trees to a density, and use tree selection criteria, that they are most familiar with, which tends to favor uniform industrial plantations. Achieving a high rate of compliance with more nuanced prescriptions proved challenging.
    1. A key lesson in this regard is to provide the contractor as simple of a prescription as possible (spacing and species), and conduct regular compliance of their thinning in order to ensure prescriptions are followed as closely as possible.
  5. An additional task that we recommend during future similar projects is to use the forest inventory data to run a future growth and yield model, specifically the USFS's Forest Vegetation Simulator. The model can be used to compare the growth differences resulting from the various stand release recommendations. These growth predictions provide useful assumptions against which future actual forest growth can be compared. We may endeavor to do this within the budget we have remaining.
53 Producers reported gaining knowledge, attitude, skills and/or awareness as a result of the project
Key changes:

  • The educational and outreach components of this project are scheduled later in the project timeline.

Information Products

Return to Project Overview
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or SARE.