Chosen Alternative

The Final Run

In December 2001, the College Lands Planning Committee decided to further develop Alternatives 5 and 7 for presentation to Dean Bare, with preference for Alternative 7 (see Management Alternatives). These two alternatives were take to the "final run" stage, as described below:

• All stands were assigned 50-year silvicultural pathways in proportion to the percent allocations prescribed for each group through the toggle process. Treatments were then entered into a LMS portfolio containing all stands. Stand treatment schedules had opportunity to be modified from the "cookie cutter" pathway prescriptions as LMS portfolios were developed. This can be done to match treatment specifications with specific stand conditions; for example a pre-commercial thin date can be changed or omitted. (To demonstrate the stand assignment process, stand suitability tables and are provided for each of the Alternative 7 groups and each table is accompanied by a description of selection criteria.)

• Once the stands in both alternatives were assigned pathways and entered into LMS portfolios, all stands were projected and treated in LMS to create two 50-year portfolios.

• A variety of analysis tables were then created with LMS to enter into a "modified toggle" for each alternative, which treats all forest stands as one group and produces the same analysis aids (tables and charts).

• The toggled versions of the alternatives (based on the average stands for the six groups) can then be compared to final run versions (created using all of the stands) to determine how well the toggle represents all forest stands.

Decision of the Dean of the College of Forest Resources

Once the final run analysis was completed, Pack Forest presented Alternatives 5 and 7 to Dean Bare with the recommendation to select Alternative 7. A summary of the final run analysis is provided by linking to a simplified version of the Powerpoint presentation given to the Dean on February 1, 2002. At the end of the meeting, the Dean accepted the recommendation of the College Lands Planning Committee and selected Alternative 7 as the chosen alternative.

Fine Tuning the Alternative

Upon Dean Bare's acceptance of Alternative 7, Pack Forest managers subjected it to a fine-tuning process review which is a common-sense evaluation of stand pathway assignments. For example, one stand may have been assigned to a pathway when another stand from a different group would have been a better selection. The changes made during the fine-tuning process were relatively minor and are reflected in the Expected Outcomes for the forest.

Pack Forest managers should continue fine-tuning throughout the current planning cycle. Suggested changes will be evaluated and incorporated into the next round of planning and implementation in 2005. For example, as described under Management Alternatives in the Powerpoint presentation, the chosen alternative places an additional five percent of each group into reserve status that is above and beyond existing reserves and special management areas. It is important to note that at this point in the planning process, placement of this additional percentage is approximate and will require a comprehensive look at the reserve needs of the forest and best placement strategies. It may involve the stand boundary changes or creation of new stands. The same holds true to a slightly lesser degree for the stands in selection management. These decisions should be made during the current planning cycle and incorporated when the plan is updated in 2005. For now, the approximated placements will suffice for providing a reasonable sense of the landscape-level effects of the chosen alternative.

Mason McKinley, Pack Forest