CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

---

On July 1, 1994, the Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program (IHRMP) began its ninth year directed at conservation of the state's almost 10 million acres of hardwood rangelands. This program represents a strong cooperative effort between the University of California, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and the California Department of Fish and Game. The IHRMP program direction has largely been driven by policy concerns voiced by and through the State Board of Forestry. In May 1993, the State Board of Forestry held hardwood hearings to focus on the accomplishments of the IHRMP and areas of continued concern, as well as to refocus program thrusts where needed. This report discusses the status of the IHRMP and the future program needs as a result of the 1993 hardwood hearings.

Background
The Board of Forestry has faced issues regarding the maintenance of California's hardwood forests since the early 1980’s. Asked to clarify hardwood stocking criteria in the Forest Practice Rules, the Board commissioned an Ad Hoc Committee on Policies for Forest Practice Regulation in California Hardwood Forest Types. Although focused primarily on hardwoods on commercial forest land, the 1982 Committee report also discussed the importance of hardwoods on "noncommercial" land.

Three incidents accelerated development of new Board policies on hardwoods: 1) Monterey and Santa Clara counties petition to classify oaks as commercial species regulated under the Forest
Practice Act because of concerns over hardwood harvesting; 2) a 1,000 acre THP in the Northern
Sierra requested removal of most black oaks in a critical migratory deer corridor; and 3) a warning that new biomass power plants would impact hardwoods on commercial and non-commercial lands. The Hardwood Task Force (HTF) was commissioned by the Board in 1983 to study all aspects of the state's hardwood resources. In its preliminary report, the HTF identified 19 issues affecting hardwoods and concluded that basic information about hardwood species and educa-tional outreach were lacking. HTF recommended delineating hardwood areas into either conifer lands or hardwood rangelands and that hardwoods on all lands should considered commercial species requiring regulation.

Based on the issues raised by the HTF, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the University of California (UC) prepared a joint report to the Board in 1986 entitled Status of the Hardwood Resource of California. Board Staff outlined possible policy directions in the 1986 paper Policy Options for California's Hardwoods. The Board asked UC, CDF and CDF&G to develop a program of research, education, and monitoring on hardwoods responsive to these policy issues, which became the Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program (IHRMP) effective July 1, 1986.

With this evolving clarification of hardwood issues, the Board adopted a Resolution on Hardwoods on February 3, 1987. This resolution concluded that although the Board had the authority and obligation under the Forest Practice Act to protect the hardwood resource, it was premature to declare hardwoods commercial. Instead, an intensive educational program, problem-focused research, and frequent monitoring of the resource were seen the most effective way to work with landowners and local governments to resolve hardwood issues. CDF was asked to take the lead in this effort with close coordination with UC, CDF&G, and RMAC. The IHRMP was the mechanism expected to accomplish the goals of this non-regulatory program. This policy has continued up to the present. IHRMP has kept the Board informed about effectiveness of educational programs in accomplishing voluntary compliance with resource protection standards, results of research studies, and trends in resource use, through presentations and annual reports.

Goals of Program

The Board's Policy Options paper, based on statewide concerns about regeneration, wildlife habitat, and conversion pressure, guided development of the IHRMP's initial goals and direction. IHRMP's goals and educational publications, initially focused at a stand or single property level. As understanding of the ecological processes on these lands have increased, the IHRMP goals have broadened to include landscape level considerations. Figure 1-1 below traces this evolution of program goals to broader landscape-based considerations.

Figure 1-1. Evolution of IHRMP program goals.




Program Administration

The IHRMP has been administered as a collaborative effort between CDF, CDF&G and UC. Each of these organizations meet together at least quarterly for joint planning and priority setting. CDF has developed monitoring programs; UC has developed educational outreach programs; and CDF&G has had primary responsibility in assessing wildlife habitat values of the hardwood resource. UC and CDF jointly manage a competitive, grants research program, to ensure that the highest priority problems are addressed and to eliminate duplication of effort. Program effectiveness is monitored by contrasting current attitudes and management practices with baseline studies conducted early in the program. Combined with ecological monitoring, these surveys ensure program accountability.

Program Impacts

Research
The IHRMP has funded 58 research studies over seven years, which in turn has stimulated additional research. Specific areas investigated with IHRMP funding include: oak regeneration (19 projects); wildlife habitat (11 projects); land use issues (7 projects); hardwood rangeland management strategies (7 projects); and monitoring trends and status of hardwood rangelands (14 projects).

These research studies, resulting in 133 new scientific articles, contribute to our base understanding of hardwood rangelands. Research results have been disseminated in IHRMP-sponsored symposia and workshops and incorporated directly into educational documents and newsletters.

Research in oak regeneration has resulted in a better understanding of the ecological processes of natural regeneration. The high probability of achieving stump sprouting reduces the concern that a lack of sapling trees once suggested. Practical techniques for artificial regeneration have been developed and oak seedlings are now widely available commercially. Genetic studies to develop recommendations on oak seed sources for restoration projects have shown large within-population variability.

Studies on hardwood rangeland ecology have resulted in development of an ecologically-based classification system. Studies have also shown extensively managed blue oak stands in wide areas of the state have been quite stable over 60 years in the absence of land use changes. The nutrient cycling importance of oaks on rangelands has been demonstrated. It has also been shown that removal of up to one-third of the oak canopy has little effect on water quality and yield in one regional study.

Research on sustainable management practices has shown that diversifying enterprises on hardwood rangelands reduce the economic risks as well as the need for oak harvesting to offset livestock market fluctuations. Recreational hunting programs provide an oak conservation incentive, and can increase ranch net present value by 30 to 50 percent. Seasonal grazing practices have been developed to reduce moisture competition to oak seedlings. Relationships between forage growth and oak overstory has been described for various regional locations.

Hardwood rangeland wildlife studies have shown the value of different habitats on a variety of wildlife species. Models of habitat value have been developed and refined. The effects of urbanization on wildlife habitat have been documented.

Table 1-1. IHRMP educational methods addressed to various audiences

Educational Methods Audience Addressed Ranchers Resource Managers Planners Govt. Officials Developers Homeowners Youth Public Workshops X X X Field Days X X Symposia X X X X In-service X Consultation X X X X X X Through groups X X X X X Volunteers X X Publications X X X X X X X X News releases X X Direct mailing X X X Audio-visual X X X X X Curriculum X

Education
Table 1-1 shows a matrix of educational programs addressing diverse audiences and their effect on hardwood rangelands. A number of different surveys demonstrated educational program effectiveness.

A survey comparing participants in IHRMP educational program to the population at large showed that ranchers, resource managers, conservation groups, and consultants, though diverse, have many shared values. Natural beauty and maintenance of wildlife diversity were the two most important values of hardwood rangelands to all audiences surveyed. Cooperative Extension (CE) has had contact about oaks with approximately 49 percent of the ranchers, and 69 percent of resource managers. Of those who attended IHRMP educational workshops, 74 percent of the ranchers and 70 percent of the resource managers had some follow-up discussions about oaks with Cooperative Extension. Program participants were more likely to carry out oak enhancing management activities than non-participants.

A survey commissioned by the IHRMP in 1985 evaluated attitudes and management practices of hardwood rangeland owners. This same survey was repeated in 1992 to discern trends that resulted from the expanded educational programs. Response rate to the surveys was over 75 percent representing over 10 percent of the total hardwood rangeland acreage in the state. At least 18 percent of hardwood rangeland properties had been sold in the last seven years. The survey categorized owners into three categories, namely small (less than 200 owned), medium (200-5000 acres owned), and large (over 5000 acres). In seven years, the only major change in demographics was that in the small size class, average income increased dramatically and average parcel size decreased by 50 percent. Livestock continues to be the dominant hardwood rangeland use, occurring on 67 percent of all acres. The percentage of owners who rely on ranching as their major source of income declined, from 70 percent of the large parcels in 1985 to 50 percent of the large parcels in 1992. Oaks are now more valued for wildlife habitat, holding soil, property values, and browse and mast. The number of owners selling firewood decreased from 40 percent of the large owners in 1985 to 23 percent in 1992. The number of large landowners who cut living trees for forage enhancement declined from 58 percent in 1985 to 38 percent in the seven year period. During this same time period, the number of owners who conducted wildlife habitat improvements increased from 56 percent of the large landowners to 64 percent. The surveys showed that owners who value oaks for wildlife, erosion control, and beauty were more likely to undertake oak promoting activities (protect sprouts, maintain fixed canopy levels, thin softwoods to promote oak growth planting oaks). Owners who received advice from CE or other public advisory services were more likely to carry out oak promoting practices. Strong attitudes against regulation of hardwood rangelands continued in the majority of all ownership classes.

Click picture above for larger view.

Monitoring changes in hardwood coverage
CDF has assumed responsibility for monitoring changes in the availability and condition of hardwood rangelands. This included an effort to detect long-term changes on hardwood rangelands based on periodic statewide mapping. A baseline map was developed from 1981 photos and distributed to planners, CDF field personnel and others. Standardized maps in hard copy or in ARC/ INFO format are available by county. A second project produced an accuracy assessment of the first map and a new map based on 1991 Landsat imagery.

Annual monitoring of firewood harvesting trends was implemented using CDF personnel to visually estimate acreage, intensity, and location of harvest sites from aircraft. About 27,000 acres had some level of harvest in the last four years, yielding approximately 314,000 cords of firewood. There is a general downward trend in both acreage and volume harvested over this time period, consistent with the results in the sociological survey described above. This survey includes most major acreages harvested during this period. The survey indicated that 0.1 percent of the total hardwood rangeland acreage is harvested annually. Canopy retention after harvest was less than the recommendations in the Preliminary Guidelines for Managing Hardwood Rangelands in 96 of 120 areas observed in this 4-year period. However, since light partial cutting recommended by the IHRMP could probably not be detected by aerial observers, this may not accurately reflect typical harvest practices.

The aerial monitoring, however, shows significant regional impacts from firewood harvesting. Although Shasta and Tehama counties have less than 10 percent of the hardwood rangeland acreage, 50 percent of the total cords are harvested here. To evaluate the sustainability of this level of harvest, a general evaluation of growth rate indicates that harvest levels exceed growth by about 10 percent over the past 4 years. Therefore, current harvest levels are not sustainable, and volume and canopy cover will gradually decline should this trend continue. No other counties had this harvest intensity. Additional landscape-level monitoring and cumulative effects analysis may be needed to determine whether this type of cutting is sustainable with respect to wildlife and watershed stability.

Future Directions
As a result of the 1993 Board of Forestry hearings, there was strong support for the continuation of a strong program of research, outreach, and monitoring. It was recognized that the kinds of threats facing hardwood rangelands vary greatly in different parts of the state. Firewood harvesting was recognized to be a concern in the northern Sacramento Valley, conversion to subdivisions was important in the central Sierra and southern California, and conversion to intensive agriculture is a concern in the North Coast. For this reason, it was felt that a statewide regulatory process would not be able to effectively address the wide diversity in the state. The Board, instead, opted to intensify its outreach to local governments, and encourage their participation in the development of local policies with the assistance of the IHRMP. After a three-year period, the Board will evaluate progress by local governments in providing policies which protect hardwood rangeland values, and determine where statewide policies might be needed to address continuing problems. The rest of this report outlines some of the specific program results that have occurred as a result of these hearings.

Table 1-2 on the next page summarizes some of the important accomplishments of the IHRMP. Important information has been developed on the ecology and sustainable management of hardwood rangelands. Diverse audiences have accepted and acted on information provided by IHRMP programs, as demonstrated by both sociological and biological monitoring. There is apparently more stability in hardwood rangeland stand types than was originally considered at the start of the program. Unregulated hardwood harvesting appears significant only in Shasta and Tehama counties. It is painfully clear, that conversion of hardwood rangelands by land use change is having the largest impact on sustainability of resource values. To address conversion issues, the IHRMP will need to develop regional goals for landscape patterns that can help direct the development process. The recently released A Planner's Guide for Oak Woodlands gives the IHRMP a new educational tool to expand outreach to the planning community. IHRMP work in artificial regeneration received wide acceptance in the restoration community, and will continue to be an important area of activity.

The availability of GIS data on hardwood rangelands, coupled with planning watershed boundaries, general biological diversity data from models developed by IHRMP research, and areas undergoing conversion pressure, will enable cumulative impacts analysis to proceed at a watershed or landscape level. A sustainable landscapes project is underway in both the Central Coast and Northern Sacramento Valley to develop local-based goals for hardwood rangeland values, assess likely regional impacts to these values, and to produce local policies to achieve these goals. The concerns about non-sustainable firewood harvest levels in Shasta and Tehama counties will be addressed in this project.

Evaluation of CDF&G hardwood retention standards will also take place to determine consistency with research results, and their utility by field staff in evaluating wildlife impacts of projects is currently undergoing evaluation.


Table 1-2. General overview of Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program accomplishments and future plans

Problem Area Information Developed Current Policy/Outreach Trends Future Considerations Improvement of oak regeneration Successful artificial oak regeneration techniques Sprouting important Ecology of natural regeneration Oak genetic architecture Outreach to restoration and nursery community Cost-share available Develop community planting events 1 million seedlings yearly Stable stands - 60 years Sapling recruitment gaps Increase in market for oak loss mitigation Expand participation in cost-share programs2 Develop tree spacing and landscape goals3 ow cost regeneration techniques3 Maintenance of wildlife habitat diversity Models of wildlife habitat relationships and community diversity Wildlife among oaks publication Values of riparian zones, corridors, and habitat components Interim retention guidelines (CDF&G, IHRMP) Develop local habitat goals Wildlife part of all educational programs WHR for general diversity Habitat fragmentation, loss from development Increased consideration of wildlife by landowners Increasing fee hunting values Cumulative effects from previous conversions Evaluate retention guidelines3 Develop landscape habitat goals3 Refine WHR2,3 Work with bioregions2 Coordinated resource management process2 Show consequences of hardwood range conversion Effects of conversion on wildlife habitat Policy research on open space Planner's Guide publication Input on local policies Use taxation (CLCA, etc) Public acquisition funds Tax incentives for conservation easements Education for planners Utilize General Plans for conservation goals 11 county tree ordinances Leading cause of habitat loss is residential development Rapid population growth projected in hardwood rangelands Growth of land trusts as receivers for open space State-mandated tree ordinances4 Oak conservation element in General Plan2,3,4 Conversion permits1 oordinate Firesafe planning and oak conservation1,2 Develop local oak land use goals3 Develop economically viable and ecologically sound management strategies Publications on sustabinable management Grazing strategies for oak regeneration Oaks/forage production relationship Conservation incentives of diversified enterprises Local workshops for landowners, managers Ranching for Wildlife Resource monitoring by resource professionals Work with associations Develop new markets for environmental products Decrease in large- scale firewood harvest Localized impacts of firewood harvest Decrease in landowner reliance an livestock as sole income source Expand participation in cost-share Declare hardwoods commercial under FPA1 Develop sustainable landscape goals3 Coordinate with range water quality planning1,2,3 Certify management practices1 Monitor status of hardwood rangelands GIS developed Annual aerial monitoring for harvest Research into effective monitoring methods Satellite imagery and change detection Maps of hardwood range available to counties Work with conservation groups to map habitats Coordination between state/local databases Increasing use of GIS technology in counties New remote sensing may simplify monitoring Update GIS regularly2 Support regional1 landscape projects2,3 Systematic multi- agency monitoring effort2 Continue aerial harvest observations2 Notification of harvest1

Notes on Future Considerations: Implementation Mechanism: ¹Board of Forestry; ²Agency
Policy; ³Research/Education; ⁴Legislation

Joint Hardwood Policy Between the California Fish and Game Commission and California Board of Forestry

On May 27, 1994, the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) and California Board of Forestry (Board) adopted a Joint Policy on Hardwoods which established hardwood conservation policy for these two bodies plus the California Department of Fish and Game and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The Joint Policy was developed after the Commission began reviewing its original Hardwood Policy (originally adopted in March 1985) in January 1994. The cooperative development and adoption of the Joint Policy by the Commission and Board is especially significant for hardwood conservation efforts in California because of the regulatory authority vested in the two bodies to conserve plant and animal resources of hardwood habitats. It should prove exceedingly valuable to the Commission, Board, and Departments of Fish and Game and Forestry and Fire Protection, as well as anyone working with them on hardwood conservation efforts in California because of its breadth, guidance, and specific responsibilities.

The Joint Policy addresses several key issues involving conservation of California's hardwood resources. The Policy recognizes that hardwoods have many values, including fish and wildlife habitat, water quality, aesthetics, open space, wood products, rangeland, and private property. Human uses in hardwood habitats are ongoing and increasingly result in adverse habitat losses and modification. Yet, the resource values and human use effects vary throughout California depending on hardwood habitat types, associated plant and animal resources, human population size, prevailing land uses, and land ownership patterns.

Agency policies and responsibilities are many and diverse matching that of California's hardwood resources. The Policy stipulates that California's hardwood resources should be managed for long-term and widespread ecological and biological values and processes. State and local incentives and policies should be encouraged, designed, and adopted to promote ecological viability of hardwood ecosystems. Local governments are encouraged to develop appropriate conservation strategies, and Departmental personnel are asked to participate in reviewing these strategies. Departmental personnel should be guided by the principle that utilization and land uses in hardwood habitats should be conducted in a sustainable manner that protects and enhances all environmental, biological and ecological values. In addition, private property rights must also be recognized.

Ongoing implementation and support of the Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program (IHRMP) is stipulated, as is evaluation of the IHRMP by the Departments of Fish and Game and Forestry and Fire Protection. For the Department of Fish and Game, a variety of monitoring and study efforts were identified including monitoring hardwood status and determining composition and abundance of fish and wildlife communities in several hardwood-dominated habitats, depending on funding and personnel. Also, Fish and Game personnel shall review land use proposals in hardwood habitats and recommend appropriate protection, enhancement, and mitigation measures. For the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, existing programs shall be administered consistent with Joint Policy provisions, and they will, beginning in 1995, assess the status of California's hardwood resource contingent on available funding and personnel. Both Departments shall provide active liaisons with the Commission and Board so that each agency involved with the Joint Policy will frequently communicate.

The newly adopted Joint Policy has established conservation policy, agency responsibilities and direction, and identified information needs for California's hardwood resources. It should be a valuable tool for everyone working to conserve California's hardwood resources into the 21st century. However, the Joint Policy's success probably will ultimately depend upon long-term perpetuation and existence of these hardwood habitats. Full implementation of the Joint Policy by the Commission, Board, Department of Fish and Game, and Department of Forestry and Fire Protection will be helpful in this ambitious task.

The California Oak Foundation
The California Oak Foundation (COF) expanded its role with the Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program in the past year through a special grant from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The COF participated in designing, organizing, promoting, presenting, and reporting on seven oak woodlands conferences throughout the state between November 1993 and April 1994. COF surveyed counties current status on oak woodlands conservation measures and collected model ordinances from cities to distribute to other interested public entities. COF coordinated the drafting of oak woodlands protection language and resolutions to assist interested counties in their general plan updates. COF is distributing sample ordinances to cities working on tree ordinances.

A California Oak Information Clearinghouse has been created and oak books, pamphlets, and management information has been distributed to counties throughout California, as well as park districts, public utilities, other land management agencies, owners of large tracts of private land, interested associations, and citizens. General public education is continuing with the production of public service announcements, and potentially a CD-ROM which would contain the knowledge base on oaks for distribution to schools and libraries throughout California.