Managing Bent Creek Experimental Forest Using NED

The Bent Creek Experimental Forest is an approximately 2,400 ha watershed which is part of Pisgah Ranger District of the Pisgah National Forest near Asheville, NC. The Experimental Forest is a management unit containing 65 forest stands. The stand is the essential unit of forest management for this property. A stand is defined as a contiguous group of trees sufficiently uniform in species composition, arrangement of age classes, and growing condition that it can be distinguished as a management unit. Most of these stands, 67% by area, are in the oak (Quercus spp.) forest type with 19% in the yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) forest type. The small sawtimber size class represents 76% of the forest area. Large sawtimber represents 19% of the area and the pole size class another 5%. None of the 65 stands are classed as regeneration. The average basal area is 27.3 sq. m /ha (range: 10-54). The average number of trees per ha is 410 (range: 69-2937) and the average quadratic mean diameter is 31.2 cm (range: 12.2-65.5 cm).

• Five goals were selected for the Bent Creek Experimental Forest in order to illustrate the Northeast Decision Model (NED) project-level natural resource management process. They represent five management concerns: visual quality, ecology, timber production, water, and wildlife. This small number of goals should not in any way be viewed as a limitation of the proposed natural resource management process.
• A current condition analysis allows us to understand how near or far the forest ecosystem currently is from achieving our goals. It also yields the knowledge we need to decide how to change the forest to better meet our goals. We seek this understanding in order to design a rich and interesting set of alternative courses of action. NED has been specifically developed to perform this function.
• Condition analysis compares a goal hierarchy to the current condition. The same method can be used to compare the goal hierarchy to any other alternative. This type of comparison is referred to as alternative analysis.Example analyses are provided for the following alternatives: (1) do nothing, i.e. custodial, (2) maximum sustainable sawtimber production, and (3) equal preference for all 5 goals.

• At this point we have created the goal hierarchy and designed alternative courses of action. For each alternative, we simulated its implementation and forecast the resultant forest ecosystem at the end of a 40-year period. We then evaluated each alternative by determining whether the desired future conditions in the goal hierarchy were fully satisfied, minimally satisfied, nearly satisfied, or unsatisfied (custodial, sawtimber, and equal preference). We found it convenient to treat the current condition as if it were an alternative because it allows us to compare whether any of the alternatives improved on the current condition of the forest ecosystem. This body of information may then be used to objectively select an alternative for implementation.