DFC: Desired Future Condition

Forest Practices Board

March 31, 2009

Chuck Turley/Lenny Young

Basic descriptions of each proposal using text taken from DRAFT Concise Explanatory Statement (CES)

Proposal #1

Increases the target basal area per acre stand requirement for all site classes to 325 sq. ft. at the age of 140.

Proposal #2

• Increases the target basal area per acre stand requirement for all site classes to 325 sq. ft. at age 140.

• Changes the inner zone management Option 2 “leaving trees closest to the water”  to allow:– The basal area per acre of the required 20 inner zone conifer

leave trees (≥ 12 inches diameter at breast height) to be credited towards meeting the stand requirement; and

– Additional inner zone management for site classes III and IV on streams greater than 10 feet in width when the combined basal area per acre of the core and inner zones exceed the target basal area per acre of 325 sq. ft. at age 140. This additional inner zone management would not be allowed any closer than 80 feet from the stream (i.e., a 30-foot no-cut portion of the inner zone adjacent to the 50-foot no-cut core zone).

Proposal #3

• Increases the target basal area per acre stand requirement for all site classes to 325 sq. ft. at age 140.

• Changes the inner zone management Option 2 “leaving trees closest to the water” to allow the basal area per acre of the required 20 inner zone conifer leave trees (≥ 12 inches diameter at breast height) to be credited towards meeting the stand requirement.

Environmental Analysis

None of the three proposals likely result in significant negative environmental impact when compared to current rule; however, Proposal #2 allows harvest in some areas where it is not currently allowed (large type 3 and 4 streams)

Economic Analysis

Additional economic impact of each proposal compared to current rule using timber prices contained in Economic Analysis:– Proposal #1 = $1,012,299– Proposal #2 = $699,983– Proposal #3 = $904,306

Current Economic Impact

Additional economic impact of each proposal compared to current rule using more current timber price (reduction of 31% from Economic Analysis):– Proposal #1 = $708,609– Proposal #2 = $489,988– Proposal #3 = $633,014

On-the-ground Implementation

• Site Class 1 - Small Streams– Current Rule: No sample– Proposal #1: No sample– Proposal #2: No sample– Proposal #3: No sample

• Site Class 1 - Large Streams– Current Rule: Core + floor = 104’– Proposal #1: Core + floor = 119’– Proposal #2 Core + floor = 116’– Proposal #3: Core + floor = 116’

On-the-ground Implementation

• Site Class 2 - Small Streams– Current Rule: Core + floor = 87’– Proposal #1: Core + floor = 88’– Proposal #2: Core + floor = 87’– Proposal #3: Core + floor = 87’

• Site Class 2 - Large Streams– Current Rule: Core + floor = 101’– Proposal #1: Core + floor = 106’– Proposal #2: Core + floor = 106’– Proposal #3: Core + floor = 106’

On-the-ground Implementation

• Site Class 3 - Small Streams– Current Rule: Core + floor = 80’– Proposal #1: Core + floor = 83’– Proposal #2: Core + floor = 83’– Proposal #3: Core + floor = 83’

• Site Class 3 - Large Streams– Current Rule: Not allowed– Proposal #1: Not allowed– Proposal #2: Core + floor = 96’– Proposal #3: Not allowed

On-the-ground Implementation

• Site Class 4 - Small Streams– Current Rule: No sample– Proposal #1: No sample– Proposal #2: No sample– Proposal #3: No sample

• Site Class 4 - Large Streams– Current Rule: Not allowed– Proposal #1: Not allowed– Proposal #2: Not allowed– Proposal #3: Not allowed

On-the-ground Implementation

• Site Class 5 - Small Streams– Current Rule: No sample– Proposal #1: No sample– Proposal #2: No sample– Proposal #3: No sample

• Site Class 5 - Large Streams– Current Rule: Not allowed– Proposal #1: Not allowed– Proposal #2: Not allowed – Proposal #3: Not allowed