3/26/2013
Family Forests:
Are they productive? sustainable?
resilient?
René Germain, SUNY ESF
New York Forest Owners Meeting
March 23, 2013
Context – New York Family Forest Owners
Outline
• Context and Forces Influencing Family Forests
– Demographics
– Parcelization
• Forest Management on Family Forests
– Stocking
– Silviculture
– BMP implementation
• Are they productive? Sustainable? Resilient?
Demographics
Highlights:
• 687,000 own 13.4 million
acres
• 15% with income > $100K
• Education
– 456,000 with 1 – 9 acres
– 231,000 with 10-plus acres
represent 9.9 million acres
– 105,000 with 30-plus acres
represent 8.1 million acres
– 30% Bachelors Degree or
higher
• Tenure 13 - 17 years
• 27% will sell w/i 20 years
• National - 5% will sell w/I
20 years
• Target Audience
• 11% of area (4% of
owners) with management
plans
Demographics
• Timber not priority
• Larger parcels (>50ac)
– More likely to harvest
– Higher awareness forest
management
Reasons for Owning Property
1. To enjoy beauty and
scenery
2. For recreations other
than hunting
3. To protect nature and
biologic diversity
4. To pass on to their heirs
5. For firewood
6. For timber production
1
3/26/2013
Parcelization at Work
Sprawling Forested
Landscape
• Ability to manage
forestland in a sustained
yield manner is being
threatened by the
urbanizing landscape
• Rural forested areas are
slowly transitioning to rural
residential areas.
Parcel Size can Drop with Population
Parcelization in the Catskill Region
Year
Oneida County Population
1980:
1990:
2000:
Average Parcel Size (ac)
1975:
38
Catskill Counties*
mean parcel size (ac)
1984
2000
18
14
27
23
19
16
253,466
1980:
35
1990:
30
2000:
24
Delaware County**
mean parcel size (ac)
250,836
Watershed Counties
mean parcel size (ac)
235,469
*LaPierre & Germain 2005; **Caron et al 2012
Applies to portions of counties in Watershed
Parcelization Trends in the Catskill Region
“Big Houses with Big Backyards”
Catskill counties*
Parcel Size
class (ac)
Change
in # of
parcels
Change
in area
(ac)
Delaware County**
Change
in area
(%)
Change
in # of
parcels
Change
in area
(ac)
Change
in area
(%)
<5.0
+19%
+25%
+1%
+12
+21%
0%
5.0 to 10
+56%
+52%
+3%
+28
+44%
+2%
10.1 to 50
+13%
+9%
+2%
+18
+15%
+3%
-2%
-4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
-10%
-10%
-6%
-7%
-8%
-6%
50.1 to 100
>100
Example: Greene County
1984
2000
*LaPierre and Germain (2005)
**Caron and Germain (2008)
2
3/26/2013
How do these figures compare to the
Northeast U.S.?
Regions
Oneida/
Catskill
(2000)
Northeast
U.S.
(2002)
100-plus
> 50
>10
42%
65%
90%
40%
60%
90%
With Parcelization Comes Development
•When a parcel is subdivided,
development will follow along with
more impervious surface area
•Nearly 5000 ft2 ISA with each new
parcel
Butler & Leatherberry 2004
Road Density Thresholds for SYM
Road and Population Density Thresholds for
Sustained Yield Management
(SYM)
100
Probablility of SYM (%)
90
80
70
60
0% - 4 mi/mi2
50% - 2.5 mi/mi2
100% - 1.5 mi/mi2
50
40
30
20
10
0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Road Density (mi/sq.mi. of land area)
16
Road Density Example
Population Density Thresholds
Fabius
2.00 mi/mi2 Road Density
75% SYM
25%
90
Probability of SYM (%)
Lysander
4 mi/mi2 Road Density
0% SYM
0% - 300 ppsm
- 120 ppsm
50% - 80 ppsm
75% - 40 ppsm
90% - 15 ppsm
100
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Population Density (ppsm)
18
3
3/26/2013
Using the Thresholds for NYS
Population Density Example
Fabius
42 ppsm
75% SYM
Lysander
323 ppsm
0% SYM
50% SYM
20
Using the Thresholds for NYS
Acreage Thresholds
100
Probability of SYM (%)
90
50% SYM
80
70
60
50% - 15 acres
≈ 100% - 30 acres
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Average Parcel Size / Township (Acres)
21
22
Forest Cover Complacency Syndrome
“Green Lie”
0
Parcelization, Road Density &
Development Increasing
500 feet
Declining Economies
of Scale
– Silviculture
– Forest operations
What about Forest Cover?
Land use changes (Forest cover remains):
Resource Management
Rural Residential
4
3/26/2013
What kind of stocking are we
seeing on these family woodlots?
Oneida Woodshed (Stocking)
Onondaga Woodshed (Stocking)
N = 49
Basal Area
100 square feet per acre
Relative Density
80%
Volume
2,045 board feet per acre
Catskill Woodshed (Stocking)
N = 137
N = 50
Basal Area
113 square feet per acre
Basal Area
105 square feet per acre
Relative Density
77%
Relative Density
77%
Volume
1984 board feet per acre
Volume
3,080 board feet per acre
% Basal Area AGS
57%
% Basal Area AGS
54%
Northern Hardwoods Stocking Chart
What kind of management are we
seeing on these family woodlots?
5
3/26/2013
A viable working
landscape requires
sustainable forest
management
(silviculture + BMP)
Methods: BMPs
• 6 categories:
– landings
– forest roads
– skid trails
123 harvest sites
visited over past
decade
• Example: “Waterbars, broad-based dips, water
deflectors or diversion ditches implemented correctly
and working effectively.”
Score: 0
– forest road stream
crossings
– skid trail stream
crossings
– water diversion devices
• Score: 1
Direction of
water flow
Ineffective Waterbar
• Score: 2
• Score: 3
6
3/26/2013
Methods – SYM
Stems
Criterion
Score of 0
Score of 0.5
Score of 1
Pre-harvest RD
< 80%
N/A
≥ 80%
Post-harvest RD &
total stocking
removed
Post harvest RD <
60%, and
harvested RD
> 35% of pre
Post harvest RD <
60%, or harvested
RD
> 35% of pre
Post harvest RD ≥
60%, and
harvested RD ≤
35% of pre
Change in QSD
QSD reduced
> 0.5 in.
QSD reduced
≥ 0.25 in. but ≤ 0.5
in.
QSD reduced
< 0.25 in.
Sawtimber
Removals
> 35% preharvest
basal area removed
N/A
≤ 35% preharvest
basal area removed
Pole Removals
< 20% preharvest
basal area removed
N/A
≥ 20% preharvest
basal area removed
Nyland (1994);
Munsell et al.
(2008)
Stocking in High
Value Species
Change in percent
of total basal area
in high value
species < 0
N/A
Change in percent
of total basal area
in high value
species ≥ 0
Nyland (2002);
Kenefic and
Nyland (2005)
AGS RD
< 35%
≥ 35% but < 45%
≥ 45%
Marquis et al.
(1992); Nyland
(2002)
Stumps
≥ 10 random 1/10 acre fixed-area circular plots
• Species, DBH, AG/UG, #logs/bolts
Stumps: species and diameter
Pre and Post-harvest data set, Implementation
categorized
Results: SYM
Source(s)
Marquis et al.
(1992); Munsell et
al. (2008)
Marquis et al.
(1992); Munsell et
al. (2008)
Roach (1977);
Nyland (1994);
Munsell et al.
(2008)
Nyland (1994);
Munsell et al.
(2008)
Forest Management Highlights:
0.7
Proportion of Sample Size
0.6
Management Plan
No Management Plan
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0-0.42
(Poor)
0.43-0.70
0.71-0.99
(Moderate)
(High)
Sustained Yield Management Score
1
(Perfect)
Silviculture Highlights
• Average basal area 100
ft2/ac
• Relative density of 78%
• >50% of growing stock
unacceptable
• Volume of 3mbf/ac
• Silviculture practiced, but
not enough
• Too much high-grading
• Not enough regeneration
cuts
• Best silviculture on
properties with Forest Tax
Law plans
Where are we on the
Silviculture Surface?
Nyland Gold Star
Nyland 2002
7
3/26/2013
BMP Highlights
BMP Results
BMP Category
2002
2009/2011
p-value
Landings
1.89
2.07
0.10
Skid Trails
1.56
1.92
0.0001
Skid Trail Stream
Crossings
1.83
1.59
0.50
Forest Roads
2.16
2.04
0.58
1.99
1.69
0.70
.28
.52
0.09
Forest Road Stream
Crossings
Water Diversion
Devices
Parallel Study in Vermont
• Slight or no improvements
between 2002 and 2009
• Poor implementation of
stream crossings and water
diversion devices (i.e.,
waterbars)
• No difference between BMP
implementation between
properties with plans and
no-plans
Parallel Study in Vermont
Category
Mean (VT)
Mean (NY)
Silviculture
.63
.50
Landings
2.65
2.07
Skid Trails
2.24
1.92
Skid Trail Stream
Crossings
1.70
1.59
Forest Roads
2.56
2.04
Forest Road Stream
Crossings
1.99
1.69
Water Diversion Devices
1.04
.52
Are Family Forests Productive?
• Annual allowable cut greatly diminished by
high-grading
• Ability to implement SYM compromised
• Many woodlots require rehabilitation
• Many woodlots will not provide revenues for
several decades
Category
Current Use
Plan
No Plan
Silviculture
.68*
.50
Landings
2.72*
2.48
Skid Trails
2.33*
1.97
Water Diversion Devices
1.18*
.65
Are Family Forests Sustainable?
• Many woodlots ready for regeneration cuts
• Our research found very little attention to
regeneration
• Consequently, desired species not being
regenerated
8
3/26/2013
Consequently, forests are not in
a good position to combat:
Asian Longhorned Beetle
Invasive Species
and
Effects of Climate Change
Emerald Ash Borer
50
Tartarian Honeysuckle
Hemlock Wooly Adelgid
Invasive Plants
• China/Japan → Oregon / BC
• Western Tsuga are resistant
• Eastern US, Virginia 1951, probably on nursery
stock
• Moving ~15 miles / year
Multiflora Rose
Japanese Barberry
51
Effects of Climate Change
Potential Changes
• Frequent drought will exacerbate pest and pathogen
problems
• Lack of silviculture will provide “opening” for invasive
plants (clogging understory)
• Lack of silviculture will put us in reactive mode when
addressing possible regional tree species extirpation:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
53
White ash
Sugar maple
Red maple
Eastern hemlock
Yellow birch
Paper birch
Quaking and Bigtooth aspen
54
9
3/26/2013
Temperate Forests are Inherently Resilient
Thank You!
It’s not about maintaining forests cover.
The big issue will be the quality of forests left to
future generations.
We have lots of restoring to do!
10