Identifying and Prioritizing Critical Hardwood Resources

A logical framework is required to provide a focus for the implementation of a variety of landowner incentive techniques in accordance with existing goals to protect and enhance hardwood resources. A system is presented for identifying and prioritizing critical hardwood resources for site specific conservation purposes. Flexibility is built into this system so that various sources of information can be utilized, the scope can vary from state-wide to local perspectives, and additional criteria can be added within specified system parameters. Concern over California's hardwood resource has focused on: (1) decreased stocking of hardwood stands due to increased removals and limited successful regeneration; and (2) reduction in the extent, or number of acres, of hardwood land caused by conversion to more intensive uses. These changes, combined with a general shift in ownership and management of hardwood land, are resulting in a general decline in the diversity and quality of benefits available from the hardwood resource. To address this concern, the California State Board of Forestry (BOF) has adopted a policy of protection, enhancement and restoration of hardwood habitat to assure that (1) all hardwood species are regenerating; (2) soil and water quality are preserved; and (3) sufficient habitat diversity is maintained statewide to protect the viability of wildlife species. Currently, the Board relies on a program of research, education and monitoring to implement this policy. Most of the responsibility for management of hardwood resources remains with private landowners and local governments. This non-regulatory approach provides opportunities to utilize an array of conservation incentive techniques such as easements, land purchases, and landowner registry programs to protect important hardwood habitat that otherwise may be lost under overwhelming economic and social pressures. Given careful guidelines, these types of conservation efforts can supplement the BOF's program by addressing the short-term need to protect 'critical' hardwood areas. In order to provide a focus for these types of conservation efforts, it is first necessary to devise a system for defining, identifying and prioritizing these ‘critical’ hardwood areas. Numerous criteria have been utilized in the development of systems to identify and rank areas for conservation purposes. Presented at the Symposium on Oak Woodlands and Hardwood Rangeland Management, October 31 November 2, 1990, Davis, California. Vice President, Pacific Meridian Resources, Emeryville, California; Natural Resource Consultant, Burlingame, California; and Element Conservation Plan Coordinator, The Nature Conservancy, Sacramento, California. Efforts to evaluate the significance of natural areas and potential wildlife conservation areas have used both quantitative and qualitative criteria such as: rarity or uniqueness; diversity; size; naturalness; productivity; representativeness; educational value; amenity value; scientific value; ecological fragility; replicability; and threat (Smith and Theberge 1986; Margules and Usher 1981). All but one of these criteria speak to some type of value, whether ecological or cultural. The last criteria, threat, introduces the risk of resource value loss due to a potential change in land use or an undesirable management goal. The juxtaposition of value criteria and risk criteria provide opportunities to narrow the field of interest based on a sense of urgency of effort. Identifying hardwood resource conservation targets based on both value and risk criteria requires a system for identifying and prioritizing critical areas that can be readily utilized at statewide, regional and local levels. Such a system must be flexible enough both to respond to variations in both ecological and cultural characteristics and to utilize information sources of varying scope and intensity. It should be reasonably unconstrained, however, by lack of suitable information at any one level. This paper reports on the development of a flexible system responding to this need to: 1) define and identify critical hardwood resources using various ecological and cultural attributes; and 2) prioritize critical areas by relative need for conservation action. CRITICAL DEFINITION CRITERIA In the system proposed here, the definition of critical hardwood resources is the initial decision variable in the allocation of possible conservation strategies. Only those areas identified as critical will be considered for conservation action under this system. Critical resources are defined here in terms of: 1) resource attributes of concern; and 2) activities that threaten to diminish the value of those resource attributes. Since this system is intended to dovetail with current state efforts and programs, the goals of the BOF will act as a guide in identifying resource attributes of concern. For purposes of defining critical hardwood resources these attributes will be limited to: 1) the extent and distribution of hardwood species; 2) water and soil quality risks; and 236 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-126. 1991 3) wildlife habitat diversity. These attributes are quite broad, and additional criteria are necessary to narrow the scope of interest. Hardwood resources that encompass the attributes stated above will be deemed critical only when their status is threatened by one of the following types of activities: 1) removal or harvesting of hardwoods; 2) conversion to intensive agricultural use or residential or commercial development; and 3) management activities (such as grazing, hydrologic manipulation, clearing, etc.). Critical hardwood resources then, are defined here as a function of (1) resource attributes of concern, and (2) activities which threaten their stability. That is: Critical Hardwood Resource f(Rc,Ta) where: R = hardwood related resources c = species extent & distribution, water & soil, and wildlife habitat diversity T = threats a = harvesting, conversion or management activities PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA The scope of potential critical areas, as defined above, is too broad to efficiently target sites for conservation. Further criteria are needed to prioritize areas by relative need for action. For example, endangered species habitat that is currently in the development permit process should logically receive a higher priority than similar areas under less immediate or damaging threats. Site prioritization will be achieved by: 1) ranking the resource value of each threatened hardwood area under consideration; 2) ranking the importance of the perceived threat(s); and 3) combining threat and resource value rankings to derive final site priority rankings. While initial identification of broad critical areas may occur at statewide and regional levels, proritization of these sites will likely occur at more local levels. To aid in the prioritization process, two other resource categories will be considered in addition to the three primary resource attribute criteria used to identify critical hardwood resources. These additional categories are: (1) range industry value; and (2) resources of particular local interest. Traditionally, livestock production has been the dominant renewable resource use on California's hardwood lands, and the range industry has been a vital force in sustaining vast areas of hardwood lands in open space. Retention of a viable range industry provides greater opportunities for maintaining the level of open space required by many wildlife populations. The viability of the livestock industry depends, among other things, upon maintaining a flexible range of management options for operators while ensuring sound conservation practices. Local interest in hardwoods reaches from individual character trees in urban settings to extensive areas of rural open space. Concern over change in the hardwood landscape often originates from local individuals or groups. This concern may be driven by a variety of factors including aesthetics, symbolism, and recreation. Moreover, most attempts to initiate conservation measures must involve both landowners and local government since these groups generally have the most discretion over hardwood land use (Doak and others 1989). Hardwoodrelated resources of particular local interest should be incorporated into the broader state-wide goals to ensure overall program support and success. ISSUES AND ASSUMPTIONS Several issues arise when considering criteria for defining and prioritizing ‘critical’ resources: • What level of information should be used to identify and rank critical areas? What is the relative availability of information? Should criteria vary from local to regional and statewide perspectives based on information type and availability? • Should protection efforts be focused on only the most viable areas, or should restoration potential be considered as well? In other words, should only the best be preserved, or should areas in poor condition be restored to their full biological potential? • How do size and biogeographic factors affect identification and ranking? When does a parcel become too small to be a viable conservation target? How does adjacency of different ownerships and land uses affect viability? • Should off-site mitigation be considered in the ranking process? That is, should preservation of areas under relatively low threat of destruction be considered as mitigation for the inevitable loss of ecologically similar sites? • How does 'do-ability' factor into the identification and ranking of critical sites? That is, given the socioeconomic environment affecting a given parcel, is it realistic to assume that desirable resource attributes can actually be preserved? The system developed here is designed to be flexible in terms of the type of information used to describe resource characteristics. Broad statewide information can be used in initial assessments, but more refined data can be utilized at focused site-specific levels. Moreover, the nature of the scoring system ensures that lack of information at any level will not USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-126. 1991 237 impede the evaluation process. The system is also designed so that additional criteria can be added, under the appropriate resource heading, without upsetting the overall process. In general, the focus of conservation efforts under this system is on sites that are ecologically viable. Opportunities do exist, however, for the inclusion of hardwood sites in need of restoration. While restoration of degraded sites is not a major focus of this system, it is considered when evaluating regeneration potential and the reversibility of the effects of various land use activities. Biogeographic factors and individual parcel size are important factors in ranking critical sites. It is extremely difficult, however, to provide meaningful quantitative guidelines for size and spatial relationships as these are likely to vary considerably with the nature of the resource in question. For example, the preservation of a one acre lot may be critical to an endangered species, but the fate of a 40 acre parcel may have relatively little effect on soil and water quality. For these reasons, size and biogeographic factors are included only in general qualitative considerations. The concept of off-site mitigation is not incorporated into this particular system. More likely, the process itself will be used in off-site mitigation efforts to identify certain types of resources. While the relative probability of conservation success, or 'do-ability,' is a critical question in directing resource conservation efforts, it is not incorporated in the system, but should be considered later when defining criteria for implementation .