FW 404 McComb Ch10

Chapter 10: Habitat Management and Desired Future Conditions (DFCs)

I. Desired Future Conditions (DFCs) and Management Planning

• Definition: DFCs are goals or targets toward which habitat management is directed, expressed as ecosystem conditions preferred by stakeholders and managers. Articulating a DFC is considered a goal in ecosystem management.

• Purpose: DFCs help direct management actions while keeping options open for unexpected changes.

• Context and Uncertainty: Management goals must account for inherent uncertainty from stochastic disturbances, ecological pathways, and novel stresses (e.g., climate change, invasive species). Strategies should build resistance and resilience into current ecosystems.

• Implementability: DFCs must be implementable, meaning the site must be capable of producing those conditions, considering current conditions, past actions, and likely future changes. Stand growth models (e.g., FVS) aid in determining if the DFC can be met.

• Scale: Goals for habitat are typically set at large scales (regions) and achieved at small scales (stands).

II. Developing the Stand Prescription

Foresters use prescriptions (silvicultural management plans) to achieve a DFC for a stand. A written prescription is critical for future managers and should clearly describe several components:

1. Species Background: Identifies the plant and animal species goals, habitat needs, and the necessary spatial scale (e.g., home ranges, nest sites).

2. Current Stand Condition: Assesses existing habitat conditions, limiting factors for suitability, species composition, stocking, and the history leading to the current state.

3. Desired Future Condition (DFC): Specific description of target habitat conditions, including plant species composition, size classes, and basal area.

4. Management Actions: Details what steps will be taken now and over time to achieve the DFC, estimated timeline, duration of the DFC, and cost.

5. Monitoring Plans: Describes what will be measured and how often, ensuring the plan was implemented correctly (implementation monitoring) and if the actions were successful (effectiveness monitoring).

6. Budget: Costs associated with implementation and monitoring. Must consider trade-offs between economic and ecological products.

7. Schedule: When each step will be completed, though monitoring may lead to schedule changes.

8. References: Scientific references should support assumptions used in the prescription development.

III. Case Study: Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) Habitat Management

This example prescription manages a 7-ha pine stand on the Kisatchie National Forest to improve habitat for RCWs, Bachman’s Sparrows (BS), and Brown-headed Nuthatches (BHN).

1. Species Habitat Needs

• RCW (Threatened): Requires mature southern yellow pine forests. Nest trees are usually live pines >100 years old and >40 cm dbh, often with red heart disease (fungal decay). Cavities are excavated in live trees, unique among woodpeckers. Stands need low basal area (average 16 m$^2$/ha) with few midstory hardwoods.

• Bachman’s Sparrows (BS): Associated with mature pine woodlands characterized by widely spaced pines, an open midstory, and a dense understory of grasses and forbs. Maintaining this dense herbaceous understory requires frequent prescribed burning (3–5 year interval, early growing season).

• Brown-headed Nuthatches (BHN): Found in open, mature pine forests where snags (typically pine snags >20 cm dbh) are present for nesting and roosting.

2. Current Stand Condition (Year 2005)

• Dominated by loblolly and shortleaf pines.

• High basal area (23.3 m$^2$/ha).

• Hardwoods present (8% of basal area), suggesting lack of recent fire.

• Insufficient sunlight to support a dense grass-forb understory.

• Current stand serves as foraging habitat for RCWs but is inadequate for nesting due to high stocking, midstory hardwoods, and likely insufficient tree age for heart rot.

3. Desired Future Condition (DFC)

The goal is a stand where dominant trees are >100 years old, basal area is $\le$ 16 m$^2$/ha, midstory pines are few, and hardwoods are absent. The DFC also includes reestablishing longleaf pine and ensuring snags are available for BHN.

4. Management Strategy (2015–2125)

• Initiation (Year 2015): An irregular shelterwood is used, retaining 25 pines/ha (8 m$^2$/ha) and cutting all hardwoods. Site preparation includes a cool winter burn, followed by planting 250 longleaf pine seedlings per ha.

• Hardwood Control/Understory Maintenance: Frequent early spring burns (prior to bird nesting) are initiated after longleaf establishment (2–3 year intervals, later 3–4 year intervals) to control hardwoods and maintain the required grass–forb understory.

• Density Management: Precommercial thinning is planned (e.g., Year 2035, 2055) to reduce pine density, ensure continued tree growth, and provide light/growing space for grasses and forbs.

• Long-Term Strategy: By Year 2075, the stand will transition into a group selection regeneration system. Management continues in maintenance mode (Year 2085–2105), managing density and burning to maintain the understory.

• DFC Achievement (Year 2125): Basal area is projected to be 13.5 m$^2$/ha (below the 16 m$^2$/ha target), the stand is 80% longleaf by density, and remaining loblolly pines are over 60 cm dbh and over 150 years old.

5. Monitoring and Budget

• Effectiveness Monitoring: Includes monitoring tree growth, survival, basal area, and snag densities every 5–10 years. It also includes measuring understory cover to assess hardwood control and grass–forb development. For fauna, monitoring involves censusing RCW nest trees every 5 years and sampling bird density during the breeding season.

• Budget Analysis: The 100-year management plan is financially feasible. Total projected income from two timber sales (2015 and 2095) exceeded total expenditures for implementation and monitoring ($151,626 vs. $30,683), resulting in a positive net return. This demonstrates that both habitat objectives and timber income can be realized.