Upload
terry
View
16
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Oregon Department of Forestry Harvest & Habitat Model Project Final Report Oregon Board of Forestry Meeting March 8, 2006. Harvest & Habitat Model Project. Topics for Today Final Report Presentation Project overview Model strengths and limitations Comparison of alternatives - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Oregon Department of Forestry Harvest & Habitat Model Project
Final ReportOregon Board of Forestry Meeting
March 8, 2006
Topics for Today Final Report Presentation
• Project overview• Model strengths and limitations • Comparison of alternatives• Questions analyzed• Level of confidence
Where to from here?
Harvest & Habitat Model Project
Purpose of the Project
To provide information to assist decision-makers in: Determining if changes should be made to ODF’s NW & SW Oregon Forest Management Plans
Determining whether to pursue a Habitat Conservation Plan
Establishing timber harvesting objectives for 7 ODF Districts (~ 632,000 acres)
Project Overview
Project OverviewScope of the Model
Northwest & Southwest Oregon State Forest Management Plans7 Districts Involved
Astoria
Tillamook
Forest Grove
West Oregon
North Cascade
Western Lane
Southwest Oregon
Project Overview Organizational Structure
4-member ODF Exec Policy Team
10-member Policy Team
16-member Core Team
10 Subcommittees
Major ContractsModel Creation: Dr. Sessions
Harvest Units-Roads
Growth-Yield Tables
GIS InformationFTLAC(Forest Trust LandsAdvisory Committee)
Other ODF District & Staff Personnel
Legislature
LFO (Legislative Fiscal Office)+
DAS (Dept. of Admin. Services)+
DSL (Dept. of State Lands)5-member H&H Team
Greater Emphasis on Reserves
Greater Emphasis on Wood Production
Forestry Program for Oregon
Forest Management PlansForest Management Plan using an HCP
Forest Management Plan using Take Avoidance(Seven Districts)
Reserve-Based Alternative(Three North
Coast Districts)
Wood Emphasis Alternative(Three North
Coast Districts)
Project OverviewScope of Modeling
The “Greatest Permanent Value”Social, Economic & Environmental Benefits
Project OverviewAlternative Development
FMP~HCP Simulates NW & SW FMPs and HCP strategies
FMP~TA Simulates NW & SW FMPs and ODF TA strategies
Wood Emphasis In consultation with: OFIC, AOL, Counties
Reserve-Based
In consultation with: Ecotrust, Oregon Trout, Portland Audubon, The Wildlife Society of Oregon, Trout Unlimited, Wild Salmon Center, Wildlife Conservation Society
Project OverviewAlternative Strategies
FMP~HCP FMP~TA Wood Emphasis Reserve-Based
NW/SW FMPs Yes Yes No Yes, Outside
Reserves
T&E Species Protection
HCP, ODF TA 1st
periodODF TA ODF TA 56-60%
Reserves
Riparian Strategy NW FMP NW FMP FPA Modified NW
FMP
Project OverviewAlternative Goals
FMP~HCP FMP~TA Wood Emphasis Reserve-Based
Even Flow Harvest volume
Yes Yes No, Initial Departure Yes
Complex Structure Target
Yes Yes None Yes, Outside Reserves
NPV Yes Yes Yes Yes
50-Year Harvest Rotation
No No Yes No
Topics for Today Final Report Presentation
• Project overview• Model strengths and limitations • Comparison of alternatives• Questions analyzed• Level of confidence
Where to from here?
Harvest & Habitat Model Project
Model Strengths & Limitations
Model Strengths Useful as strategic-tactical tool
• Strategic-Tactical: long-term, district-wide harvest planning – i.e. Strategic level: FMP; Tactical level: District IPs
Useful because:• Ability to integrate multiple goals over time and space• Displays spatial location of harvest plan• Used updated input data• Developed with strong field involvement• Many options to fine-tune goals and constraints
Model Strengths & Limitations
Model Strengths (continued) Many enhancements to 2000 model, including:
• New – forest inventory and Swiss Needle Cast data • New – road layer and cost information• New – realistic harvest units linked to road system• New – model design structure• Updated – harvest prescriptions, costs, and revenues• Updated – spatial data• Addition of landscape design concepts• District involvement and implementation review
Model Strengths & Limitations
Model Limitations Amount of stand level inventory Use of strata-based inventory (explanation on next slide) Model’s stand structure definitions Many different model solutions meet the goals: finding the “best” is a challenge Model included operational elements, but was not intended to be an operational tool
• Operational: short-term, site-specific harvest plans – i.e. Annual Operation Plans
Similar stands comprise a “strata” – some measured, some un-measured
Model Strengths & LimitationsStrata-Based Inventory – What is a “Strata”?
“Strata” average is different than specific stands
Topics for Today Final Report Presentation
• Project overview• Model strengths and limitations • Comparison of alternatives• Questions analyzed• Level of confidence
Where to from here?
Harvest & Habitat Model Project
Comparison of Alternatives
Four Alternatives: 3 North Coast Districts Combined FMP~HCP vs.
FMP~TA vs. Wood Emphasis vs.
Reserve-Based
Two Alternatives: 7 Districts Combined FMP~HCP vs.
FMP~TA
Key Findings
Compared with FMP~HCP:
FMP~TA develops a similar amount of complex structure, but at a slower rate Wood Emphasis develops about 10% complex structure Reserve-Based develops 60% complex structure over 150 years, but at a slower rate due to less active management
Comparison of Alternatives Four Alternatives: 3 North Coast Districts Combined
Key Findings
Compared with FMP~HCP: FMP~TA produces more harvest volume in the first 30 years, but less volume over 150 years
Wood Emphasis produces twice the amount of volume in the first decade and more volume over 150 years because of:
50-year harvest rotation No goal for complex structure Fewer acres in owl protection and riparian buffers
Reserve-Based produces about 40% less harvest volume
Comparison of Alternatives Four Alternatives: 3 North Coast Districts Combined
Comparison of Alternatives Summary Table: Harvest Volume
Average Annual Volume (millions of bd. ft.)
FMP~HCP FMP~TA* Wood Emphasis Reserve-Based1st Dec 150 Yrs 1st Dec 150 Yrs 1st Dec 150 Yrs 1st Dec 150 Yrs
Ast 62 63 76 58 134 91 29 32Till 61 62 73 57 113 92 39 41FG 54 55 64 46 104 63 33 333 Sub: 177 180 213 161 351 246 101 106NC 12 13 12 11WO 12 14 12 12WL 9 10 6 7SW 2 2 2 24 Sub: 35 39 32 327 Grand Total 212 219 245 193* Base NSO Population Scenario
Comparison of Alternatives4 Alternatives: 3 North Coast Districts Combined
Coarse Filter Wildlife Matrix
Background
• Identifies acres of habitat, by period, for 37 North Coast wildlife species, 39 species for seven districts
• Habitat characteristics based on review of scientific literature
• Species grouped into classes
Generalist species – utilize multiple stand structures
Simple structure species – utilize REG and CSC stands
Complex structure species – utilize LYR and OFS stands
Comparison of Alternatives4 Alternatives: 3 North Coast Districts Combined
Coarse Filter Wildlife Matrix
Key Findings
• All alternatives: Generalist species have similar amounts of habitat for most of the 150 years
• Reserve-Based: Complex structure species have the most habitat acres; simple structure species have the least
• Wood Emphasis: Simple structure species have the most habitat acres; complex structure species have the least
Key Findings Compared with FMP~HCP
• FMP~TA produces more harvest volume for 7 districts over the first 30 years
Fewer acres are impacted by owls and murrelets Impacts differ by District
• TA reduces volume in 4 Southern Districts in first 30 years• TA increases volume in 3 North Coast Districts in first 30 years
• FMP~TA produces less volume over 150 years More acres are impacted by owls and murrelets Develops complex structure more slowly
• NPV for FMP~TA is 12% higher
Comparison of AlternativesTwo Alternatives: 7 Districts Combined
Topics for Today Final Report Presentation
• Project overview• Model strengths and limitations • Comparison of alternatives• Questions analyzed• Level of confidence
Where to from here?
Harvest & Habitat Model Project
Questions Analyzed3 North Coast Districts Combined
FMP~HCP: Complex Stand Structure Analysis
What is the impact on harvest volume with different complex structure targets - 40%, 50%, or 60%?
Key Findings There is a trade-off between achievement of harvest volume and attainment of complex stand structure:
Higher targets for complex structure yield lower harvest volumes Lower targets for complex structure yield higher harvest volumes
Questions Analyzed 3 North Coast Districts Combined
FMP~HCP: Volume Flow AnalysisHarvest Volume Flow Types
0102030405060708090
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29periods
mm
bf/y
ear
even flow
non-declining
departure
declining
Questions Analyzed 3 North Coast Districts Combined
FMP~HCP: Volume Flow Analysis
Can more volume be harvested in the first two decades without falling below a sustainable level?
Key Findings
• Total harvest volume in first decade could be increased by 15% without falling below baseline levels• Districts have not verified if this can be implemented on the ground
Questions Analyzed 3 North Coast Districts Combined
FMP~HCP: Volume Flow Analysis
Astoria
Forest Grove
harvest volume
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
1 6 11 16 21 26
time ( 5 year periods )
annu
al h
arve
st (m
mbf
)
baseline
high departure
complex structure percentage
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 6 11 16 21 26
time ( 5 year periods )
% c
ompl
ex
baseline
high departure
harvest volume
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1 6 11 16 21 26
time ( 5 year periods )
annu
al h
arve
st (m
mbf
)
baseline
high departure
complex structure percentage
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 6 11 16 21 26
time ( 5 year periods )
% c
ompl
ex
baseline
high departure
Questions Analyzed 3 North Coast Districts Combined
FMP~HCP: Volume Flow AnalysisTillamook
• Initial high volume is dependent on greater productivity of future stands. More stands clearcut early, yield a greater total harvest volume over 150 years
harvest volume
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
1 6 11 16 21 26
time ( 5 year periods )
annu
al h
arve
st (m
mbf
)
baseline
intermediate departure
intermediate departure
high departure
complex structure percentage
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 6 11 16 21 26
time ( 5 year periods )
% c
ompl
exbaseline
intermediate departure
intermediate departurehigh departure
Questions Analyzed3 North Coast Districts Combined
FMP~HCP: Salmon Anchor Habitat Analysis
What is the impact on harvest volume from 10-Year SAH strategies?
Key Findings
• 10-year SAH strategies result in less than 0.5% decrease in harvest volume in first decade, and less than 0.1% decrease over 150 years
Questions Analyzed3 North Coast Districts Combined
FMP~HCP: Landscape Design AnalysisWhat is the impact on harvest volume when using the mapped Desired Future Condition-Complex areas?
Note: Limitations in strata-based inventory prevent high confidence in analysis - more analysis is planned
Key Findings• Locating most of the complex structure inside mapped DFC:
Reduced harvest volume Delayed achieving complex structure goals for 50 years
• DFC Goal “off” – Complex patch sizes & frequencies resembled landscape design descriptions in FMP
Questions Analyzed3 North Coast Districts Combined
FMP~TA: No Complex Structure Goal Analysis
What is the impact on harvest volume and habitat if there is no specific goal for complex structure?
Key Findings
• Higher harvest volume is achieved in first decade and over 150 years (9%)• Nearly 30% complex structure was still achieved in 150 years• 28% fewer owl circles and 45% fewer marbled murrelet acres were found
Topics for Today Final Report Presentation
• Project overview• Model strengths and limitations • Comparison of alternatives• Questions analyzed• Level of confidence
Where to from here?
Harvest & Habitat Model Project
Level of ConfidenceModel Solution Reviews
Description Districts reviewed model solutions for 4 periods (20 years)
Focused on implementation in first 2 periods (10 years)
Verified input data and model rules
Reviewed spatial locations and harvest prescriptions for ground implementation
Identified implementation issues
Level of ConfidenceModel Solution Reviews
Key Findings FMP~HCP (50% complex structure goal; even flow)
• Results consistent with the FMP, HCP strategies and applicable policies that could be modeled
• Confidence in implementing first-decade harvest volume was high
• Long-term harvest volumes are sustainable
• Need flexibility in the mix of harvest acres (clearcut vs. thinning) to mitigate short-term operational issues
Level of Confidence Model Solution Reviews
Key Findings FMP~HCP and FMP~TA
• Low confidence in exact location of first-decade harvest units. Note: Models were not intended for operational purposes
FMP~TA• More analysis needed to understand impact of Take Avoidance strategies on southern districts• Districts have concerns regarding TA assumptions
Wood Emphasis & Reserve-Based• Verified spatial data and assumptions, not implementation
Thank You