# Presentation: 494919

## Presentation 2.3: Vegetation Management of Interface Forests

## Outline

- Introduction
- Visual stewardship
- Forestry operations
- Forest cooperatives
- Summary

**Notes:**
Background Information
-Visual appearance of the management in action: Cues-to-care. A repeat from presentation 2.2
-Focus on manipulating vegetation to produce the products and services that satisfy the objectives of interface landowners.

## Introduction

- Products and services to meet objectives
- Socially acceptable forest management
- Different mechanical methods to management
- Coordination among landowners

**Notes:**
Background Information
-The last section of this module focuses on manipulating vegetation to produce the products and services that satisfy the objectives of interface landowners.
-Look for cues that promote visible stewardship and increase social acceptability of interface management. A
brewing controversy exists about whether forest land management should hide from view the management techniques required to produce the resources people consume.

-small forestry operations to help participants select equipment that minimizes danger, cost, and damage to
forests. Taking advantage of the opportunities of interface forests requires manipulation of vegetation.

-issues related to coordination among different landowners. Many landowners and land managers cannot achieve their desired outcomes because they do not own enough land to make operations economically feasible or do not have enough land to create the desired opportunities.
-Coordination among multiple land holdings is one means to overcome these obstacles. 

## Public perception
Visual screening
Cues-to-care 
Forest management
Environmental impacts
Terminology

- Practicing visible** **stewardship

- Public perception
- Visual screening
- Cues-to-care
- Forest management
- Environmental impacts
- Terminology

**Notes:**
Background Information
-Silvicultural, harvesting, and other vegetation management practices are often assumed to be guilty of environmental degradation and must be proven innocent.  Therefore these operations in the interface must carefully communicate, through direct and indirect cues, that environmental quality is being sustained or improved.  

-Because many interface residents lack experience with forest ecology and forest management they may not know how to “read” the landscape for cues of environmental quality.  Therefore they must rely on indirect cues about how the forest is being managed. 
-These cues-to-care provide a “language” of landscape form that the public can “read,” and one that the public reads to mean good management 

## Cues-to-care

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

**Notes:**
Background Information
-A “language” of landscape that the public can “read” to mean good management.

Waste and damage- A logging site should communicate that all harvested resources were needed, carefully used, and extracted in a way that sustains site quality. Logs left at the site suggest that managers do not care enough to finish the job. It gives the impression that the operator is so interested in making a fast buck that they hurried to the next site, concerned only with getting the most valuable pieces and leaving the rest to rot. 

Neatness-Includes equipment in good repair, minimizing slash, re-seeding skid trails and loading decks, minimizing and removing mud from public roads, minimizing dust spreading to roads or adjacent properties, and installing visible erosion control devices. Litter, unstacked logs, and large piles of brush and tops give the appearance of waste or unprofessionalism. 

Schedule and duration -Activities should be scheduled to accommodate traffic patterns and work schedules common in suburban areas. When possible the sights and sounds of logging and operation of heavy machinery should be restricted to times when landowners and neighbors are away from the property. Both mud and dust are visible red flags to interface residents. 
Planning and safety- Foresters, landowners, logging contractors, and others responsible for planning the harvesting operation should make available to landowners, neighbors, and the community a description of their efforts to mitigate hazards associated with harvesting activities. This includes the dangers associated with felling, skidding, loading, and hauling in a populated area. 
Communication-Signs can describe the care that was taken to protect soil and the plans for the future forest through planting or natural regeneration. Clearly communicate with the landowner the types of equipment that will be used, where it will enter and exit the property, which trees will be likely removed or damaged during harvest, etc. A written agreement among logger, owner, and forester should clearly outline the shared expectations for site behavior and cleanup. 
Re-vegetation-Explain that a harvested forest is not dead and that healthy new vegetation will soon appear. Signs, letters, brochures, and demonstration projects can help stakeholders comprehend the rate and type of re-vegetation that will be occurring. Photographs and photo-simulations of similar sites are particularly effective. 
Appearance of staff and equipment- Interface landowners may rely heavily on first impressions. Professionalism is communicated by the appearance of equipment, the clothing or uniform of personnel, being able to provide documentation of credentials, and using relatively
up-to-date, sophisticated equipment.
Commitment to community-Representatives of these industries (e.g., natural resource professionals, industry representatives, logging contractors) should communicate that they have a long-term commitment. Demonstration projects, letters to the editor, service on community boards, and speaking at public meetings can educate owners and neighbors about how active forest management can be economically feasible, socially acceptable, and environmentally sustainable. 

## Screen/hide management

- Add visual buffers
- Keep aesthetics in mind
- Limit downed wood
- May create negative perceptions
- Communicate with the public

**Notes:**
Background Information
-Vegetative buffers and related techniques can be used to hide or disguise forest practices. 

Prepare logging details with aesthetics in mind
Locate landing, roads, clearings, and comings and goings of equipment away from main roads to minimize their visibility, especially areas with heavily compacted soil where re-vegetation will be slow. Restore landings and clearings into meadows or scenic openings. Locate
skid trails and landings so they can be converted into trails, parking lots, or campsites. 

Slash, tops, downed wood
Tops and limbs obstruct views into the forest and thus have negative visual impacts. They also provide a clear indication that management has occurred. Burn, crush, chip, and distribute tops and limbs. Set height limits in contracts. 
Clear-cuts
Clear-cuts tend to be lightning rods for controversy. The visibility of these clearings can be minimized by blending the clearing shape to match topographic contours and mimic natural shapes. Most importantly, avoid breaking the horizon because changes on the ridge line are difficult to hide and easily attract attention. Consider replanting with grass or trees because aesthetics increase quickly with green-up.

## 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.

**Notes:**

These discussion questions go with Exercise 2.10: Cues-to-Care.

## 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.

**Notes:**
Note to Trainer:
These are directions for each team to follow when preparing for the debate in Exercise 2.11.

## 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

**Notes:**
Background Information
-Using the phrase “vegetative management” rather than “harvesting” may help people think more broadly about how interface forests are managed. The removal and selling of trees is not always the primary goal of management and trees are not the only vegetation manipulated.

## 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

**Notes:**
Background Information
-Feller-buncher, skidders, and trailer-mounted loaders make up the majority of commonly available harvesting systems. In many cases these large machines and systems may not be suitable for working in interface forests for reasons of high capital costs (new purchase price is up to $200,000 per machine), high moving costs (up to $2,500 for relocating the system), and the consequent need to harvest larger volumes of timber to remain cost effective (up to 2,000 tons per tract) (Shaffer 1992; Jensen and Visser 2004). 

-These larger systems, designed primarily for timber harvesting, may be less appropriate in interface forests where other outcomes such as amenities, property value, and forest health are desired. 

-Landowners may be willing to accept lower prices for their timber or even pay for services that produce ecological health, amenity value, or other landownership objectives, thus creating a special niche market for forestry operations of this type. However, vegetative management practices that reduce residual slash, minimize
exposed dirt, reconvert roads, and reduce noise levels not only add operational costs and time, they also require operator skills that may be difficult to find or finance (Updegraff and Blinn 2000).

## 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

**Notes:**
Background Information 
-Perhaps most important to interface landowners, small scale harvesting systems tend to leave less residual stand damage because they are more maneuverable and can be more selective. 

-Horse logging. Manually felled logs are hauled to a relatively small deck by horses harnessed to modern horse buggies. Currently, there are more than 50 horse loggers in the central Southeast.

## Agricultural tractor system

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

## Excavators and cable-yarding 

- Excavators/skid-steers
- Similar to agriculture tractor
- Add modifications

- Cable-yarding
- Rough terrain
- Minimize soil disturbance

**Notes:**
Background Information
-Small excavators and tracked skid-steers, can be modified to perform felling, bunching, skidding, forwarding,
and loading. With grapple loader attachments, these systems work much like the agriculture tractor. They are light, maneuverable, and relatively inexpensive. 

-Small cable-yarders are two-or three-drum systems either trailer or truck mounted. The more modern yarders can be radio-controlled. Small cable-yarders are excellent for minimizing soil disturbance but specialized training is required to make sure the crew is efficient and safe. 

## All terrain vehicles

**Notes:**
Background Information
-Although not commonly practiced in the United States, all terrain vehicles (ATVs) can be modified for skidding and hauling over relatively short distances. 

## Cut-to-length

- Two person, two machine system
- Low-impact harvesting
- Distributed weight
- Reduced soil compaction

**Notes:**
Background Information
-Cut-to-length consists of a forwarder and harvester, and appears to be at the forefront of low-impact
or environmentally sensitive harvesting. 
-This two-man, two-machine system is considered low impact for several reasons: machine weight is distributed over six wheels rather than the traditional four wheels of a skidder; felling, limbing, and bucking are carried out at the stump, producing a slash mat that reduces soil compaction and recycles the nutrients; and logs are carried off the ground rather than dragged. 

## Costs and benefits comparisons

- Wet weather sensitivity
- Slope tolerance
- Extraction distance
- Tree size
- Log length
- Moving cost
- Road
- Log weight

**Notes:**
Note to Trainer: 
Table 1 in Fact Sheet 4.8 makes these comparisons and defines these terms
-Importantly, not all “small” systems are environmentally benign or inexpensive or profitable. 
-In some cases smaller systems require increased passes through the forest, which contributes to soil compaction. However, some small scale systems are lighter, more maneuverable, and reduce residual stand damage.

-The current reality is that there are very few harvesting contractors geared to meeting the needs of interface forestry and thus harvesting options may be limited to what is available in the local area. The local state forestry representative and or a local forestry consultant should have lists of available harvesting contractors. 

## Costing an operation

- A challenge to find a harvester
- Harvest contracts
- Transfer f 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 equipment
- Keep first-aid kit on site
- Create a safety plan
- Workers compensation insurance

**Notes:**
Background Information
-Timber harvesting is second only to deep sea fishing for causing work-related fatalities.
-Felling and transporting small wood volume in interface forests requires smaller crews with smaller equipment, and currently in the South very few safe options exist. 

-Currently, the federal law, administered through the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has only three requirements (U. S. Department of Labor 2005).
• All forestry workers must wear the following personal protective equipment (PPE):
hardhat, hearing protection, eye protection, cut-resistant trousers, steel capped boots.
• There must be a standard first-aid kit on site.
• The crew must have a safety plan with regular safety meetings.

## 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

**Notes:**
Background Information
Reasons why landowners might want to engage in some form of formal or informal cooperation

## Convincing landowners’ to join

- Temptation
- Time
- Trust
- Role of the professional

## Types of cooperatives

- Landowner associations
- “Virtual” or regional
- Formal business arrangement

**Notes:**
Background Information
Landowner associations
Many conservation developments have large common properties. In other areas, landowners are required to donate land and/or place deed restrictions on a certain percentage of their land. For example, someone may purchase 50 acres and be allowed to build on 20 acres and keep the other 30 acres undeveloped. 

“Virtual” or regional cooperatives
The traditional cooperative is composed of landowners living adjacent or nearly adjacent to one another. However, a “virtual” cooperative can have members living within a region that cooperate in marketing, perhaps certification, and perhaps also land management. Despite the distance between properties, this type of cooperative makes it possible to create a detailed inventory of timber and nontimber products on member properties around a large region.

Formal forest cooperatives
Formal forest cooperatives require considerable resources to establish and are likely to succeed only when special social and environmental conditions are met. Nonetheless, when these conditions exist, cooperative arrangements provide a powerful tool for managing interface forests. 

-At some point successful cooperatives will need to decide whether or not to obtain legal status. 
-Cooperatives must also map out a business plan. 

-

## Benefits of forest cooperatives

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

**Notes:**
Background Information
-Trusted knowledge. Members share knowledge and experience. Some members are often more knowledgeable than others. Cooperatives provide a credible option for landowners who want to manage their forested land but lack familiarity with, access to, or trust in the professional forestry community.

- Increased property access. Right-of-ways are constructed (or already exist) through neighboring property allowing for better coordinated timber harvests and other management activities.

-Coordinated forest health. Management activities promoting forest health (e.g. prescribed fire, stand thinning, herbicide use, insect control) are carried out among properties in the cooperative.

-Shared work activities. Members have access to more reasonably priced equipment, whether through purchase or rental. With a variety of individual interests, members also have the flexibility of focusing their time and energy on particular coop activities that interest them. 

-Profit Cooperatives make timber management feasible because aggregation of timber resources increases economies of scale for equipment and opens access to markets (Nadeau et al. 2002; Kittredge 2003; Barten et al. 2001). While services are provided to all members of the cooperative, the financial benefits gained are
primarily based on the amount of business each individual member chooses to do with the cooperative.

- Value added. Some cooperatives provide the coordination of processing and marketing for wood and nontimber forest products (NTFP), value-added processing, and access to a growing specialized market
for certified timber products (Groot 2002).

-Political clout. Numbers give cooperatives political visibility because they translate to votes and donations. A representative of a cooperative may get more access to political leaders and agency staffers.

-Community development. 
-Cooperatives, by their very nature, encourage team work, fellowship, and trust among members and
the surrounding community. 

## Costs and reservations

- Governance
- Property rights
- Start-up cost
- Marketing
- Lack of time, trust, or temptation
- Funding

**Notes:**
Background Information

-Governance. A forest cooperative needs a committed, knowledgeable board, capable of being clear and succinct about the vision, mission, and direction of the organization in order to recruit and maintain members. Lack of leadership and organization will raise a red flag for prospective members, discourage
current members, or lead to the dissolution of an existing cooperative.

-Property rights. Cooperatives require that landowners allow others some amount of access and influence over their land. Cooperative members might be required to forego private business opportunities regarding their invested forestland for the good of the cooperative. Not all landowners are comfortable with these constraints.

-Start-up cost. This is perhaps one of the most important issues. Like any small business, it can be very expensive to start a forest cooperative. Equipment and expertise are also important. Furthermore, if the organization decides to engage in the value-added process as a way of increasing profit, it incurs more costs in order to purchase additional equipment.

-Marketing. Forest cooperatives must market their products and, perhaps even more important, the process used to create their products. Currently, certified sustainable wood is found in large hardware chains. Co-ops must find a way to sell the idea of “local,” certified sustainable wood even if it costs a little more. 

-Lack of time, trust, or temptation. Some cooperatives fail due to lack of landowner interest. Management or commercial activities become too time-consuming or distrust may arise among the group, making landowners less enthusiastic about being involved. There must be incentive for people to remain involved.

-Funding. Although the 2002 Farm Bill acknowledged the importance of cooperative and community forestry, special funding to support forest cooperatives failed to pass. There are small grants available through state and federal government and private foundations; however, larger investments usually come after an organization has operated successfully for a period of time.

## 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

**Notes:**
Note to Trainer:
Page 7 of Fact Sheet 2.10 includes a list of suggested readings and contacts. You may want to copy this page or point this page out if you provide copies of the fact sheet. 

Background Information
The Blue Ridge Forest Landowner Cooperative
Conceptualized by Harry Groot, owner of a low impact harvesting and millwork business, the Blue Ridge Forest Landowner Cooperative is in its very early stages of development. The cooperative is actively pursuing Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification, working on a business plan focused primarily on value addition,
and becoming legally incorporated. Thus far, funding has come from small grants (e.g. Southern States Cooperative, Inc, Appalachian Forest Resource Center, etc.) and private donations. 
-Upon incorporation, the cooperative hopes to have roughly 36 members collectively holding between 8,000 and 10,000 acres. 

The Forest Bank
A program initiated in 1995 by The Nature Conservancy, the Forest Bank promotes economic productivity while ensuring the protection of biodiversity and ecosystem health on private forestland. Landowners participating in
the program agree to waive development rights on some, if not all, of their forestland, and in return receive an annual dividend based on their participation. The collection of land is then managed by the bank. This program, still in its early stages, has a prototypical example in southwestern Virginia. 

National Demonstration Program in Community Based Forestry
Initiated by the Ford Foundation with support from the Community Strategies Group of the Aspen Institute and others, this program provides technical assistance, support, education, and market opportunities to minority private forest landowners. Demonstration communities exist in South Carolina, administered through The Penn Center, and Mississippi and Alabama, administered through the Mandingo Legacy Forestry Program.

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

**Notes:**
Note to Trainer:
You can use Presentation 5 and discussion questions from Exercise 2.4: Using Case Studies to present this case study to your group.

## Exercise 2.12:Balancing the Ecological, Social, and Economic Concerns

**Notes:**
To the Trainer:
You can do this exercise as a summary to the entire module.

## 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

**Notes:**
To the Trainer:
You can do this exercise as a summary to the entire module.

## Case Study 5:The Domain: Managing Interface Forests in Tennessee

**Notes:**
Note to Trainer:
You can use Presentation 5 and discussion questions from Exercise 2.4: Using Case Studies to present this case study to your group.

## 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](http://www.forestryimages.org/)__, B. __[http://www.cppa.org/album/cableyarding.jpg](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

- 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.*