California: Jackson State Forest Protection is Not out of the woods yet
Jackson Advisory Group (JAG) has now reviewed four near-term harvest
plans proposed for Jackson State Forest. Two of these, Brandon Gulch
and Camp 3, were the subject of prolonged legal action that ended in a
negotiated agreement among involved parties. Both will be harvested in
a manner that moves them toward old-growth characteristics. The other
two plans, one on the west side and one on east side are for harvest
areas designated in the Jackson Forest management plan approved in
January 2008. The allowed harvest methods (silvicultural parameters)
were constrained near the end of the management planning process by
the incorporation in the plan of “initial period harvest guidelines.”
These included restrictions on the allowed silvicultural methods and
direction to avoid harvests in older unentered second growth stands,
stands near to parks or old-growth reserves, and more generally stands
with an abundance of larger trees. The initial period constraints were
part of a consensus agreement for resuming operation in Jackson Forest
after the near decade-long halt in logging. During the initial period
of up to 3 years, the JAG is to develop a long-term landscape plan for
the forest. The constraints were designed to minimize the impact of
any logging operations on the long-term options for the affected
stands. In simple words, logging in the interim should not seriously
impact the possibility that the stand might be designated for
old-growth development or for enhanced recreation opportunity. A
problem with the harvest plans proposed in the management plan has now
become apparent, a problem that has been exacerbated by the housing
collapse and general economic downturn. Many of the harvest plans were
developed long before the form of the present management plan took its
final shape. Indeed, a number of these plans were initially developed
in the 1990’s under the 1984 management plan that was declared invalid
by the courts. The priorities and goals for forest management in the
new plan differ greatly from those of the 1984 plan (which primarily
addressed managing the forest for maximum timber yield, with no
attention to endangered species and ecological diversity and little
attention to recreation). The proposed plans included substantial
even-age management (clearcuts and variations) and group selection
(small clearcuts). Both of these are prohibited by the interim period
guidelines. Essentially, the plans are limited to single-tree
selection. Further, no more than 30% of the trees can be removed, and
the average size of the trees cannot be decreased. Further, some of
the plans with the highest potential harvest profitability were
excluded by the guidelines.
http://jacksonforum.org/blog/2009/01/02/harvest-plans-need-reconsideration/
— Posted to http://forestpolicyresearch.com via gmail to posterous and
also to forestpolicyresearch@yahoogroups.com
Posted via email from Deane’s posterous