Alternative Design and Analysis - Equal Preference for All Five Goals

Another possible alternative might be to give all five goals equal preference. The equal preference alternative would, in our example, lead to a more moderate management intensity. To improve the status of three of the five goals, we still need to strive for a more balanced size distribution. But because adequate coarse woody debris, which is a desired condition for the black bear goal, is associated with either regeneration or large sawtimber size classes, we might want to over-represent the large sawtimber size class. We can only keep a stand in the regenerating size class for 10 years but we can maintain a healthy large sawtimber size stand for a much longer time. We can also create more coarse woody debris by altering how we thin stands. If we prescribe that low value trees, either due to low value species, poor form, or size, be simply felled and left on the site during the commercial thinning operations, then we can artificially improve bear habitat at relatively low cost. Of course our assumption that small sawtimber size stands do not have adequate woody debris may not be accurate. Monitoring and evaluation of that assumption may alter it and thus produce a substantial change in the satisfaction rating for that desired future condition (DFC).

To implement this alternative, we thinned the same stands as under the maximum sustained sawtimber alternative. We also regenerated the stands in the large and small sawtimber size classes with lower than optimum stand density. The well-stocked, small sawtimber stands with deficient high value species, however, were left to grow.

In addition, the equal preferences alternative provided the justification to spend resources to artificially introduce an evergreen component into the 8 riparian stands in order to satisfy the "Limit Peak Flow" goal. We simulated the underplanting of hemlock along with a light release thinning for each hemlock planted.

Implementing the equal preferences alternative just described resulted in satisfying all the goals to some degree (BROKEN-LINK BROKEN-LINK Table). As before, we used FVS, the Southern Appalachian Hardwood Regeneration Simulation Model, and NED to simulate implementing this alternative. Goal G-1 (Large Scale Variety) was rated as "Minimally Satisfied" because the Large Sawtimber size class represented 46% of the area of the stand, which is just barely below the threshold of 50% in DFC-3. Goal G-2 (Local Biological Diversity) was "Fully Satisfied." Goal G-3 (Sawtimber Production) was rated "Nearly Satisfied" primarily because the percentage of stands in the sapling and pole size class was just under the minimum 35% threshold value and the large sawtimber size class was just over the maximum 15% threshold value. Within the time frame of the example we were unable to harvest and regenerate a sufficient number of stands to fully satisfy the balanced size class requirements of Goal G-3. At the stand level, this alternative was not as good as the maximum sawtimber alternative (BROKEN-LINK BROKEN-LINK Table) but was substantially better than the current condition or the custodial alternative (BROKEN-LINK BROKEN-LINK Table and BROKEN-LINK BROKEN-LINK Table). Because we planted the riparian stands with hemlock, we were able to fully satisfy goal G-4 (Limit Peak Flow). Finally Black Bear was "Fully Satisfied" because many stands had enough coarse woody debris to satisfy the threshold in DFC2. This alternative fostered many large sawtimber sized stands, some regenerating stands, and, improved the amount of coarse woody debris in other size class stands by leaving coarse woody debris in thinned stands.