Modeling alternative forest management scenarios across landscapes in the Pacific Northwest Matthew Goslin Mike Mertens Ec...
Broad Question <ul><li>What are the  long-term consequences of current forestry practices? </li></ul><ul><li>vs. </li></ul...
Two Scenarios:  Current “Business as Usual” versus Alternative <ul><li>Longer rotations between harvests </li></ul><ul><li...
Forestry 2100 Pilot  Study Area
Forest Land Ownership 250,000 ac 162,000 ac 706,000 ac 513,000 ac
Analytical Approach Map  current vegetation Model development of individual plots Harvest Scheduler / Landscape Model Grow...
Sample Plot Distribution from  USFS Forest Inventory Analysis Program
<ul><li>Imputation: “a statistical analysis tool for incomplete data, whereby measured values ( from   plots ) are assigne...
Imputed Stand Ages from MSN classification
Imputed vs. Observed Species Distribution:  Sitka Spruce
Imputed vs. Observed Species Distribution:  Noble Fir
Imputed vs. Observed Species Distribution:  Bigleaf Maple
Projecting Future Conditions – Plot / Stand: Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) Harvest Scheduler / Landscape Model Growth ...
Sample Stand Development Modeled by FVS:   Basal Area, Tree Density and Mean Diameter Sample stand 11512: High density, hi...
State of Oregon Lands:  Current Practices and Prescriptions <ul><li>Current Practices </li></ul><ul><li>structure-based la...
State of Oregon Lands:  Alternative Prescriptions <ul><li>Alternative Practices </li></ul><ul><li>same framework:   struct...
Private Industrial Lands:  Current Practices and Prescriptions <ul><li>Current Practices </li></ul><ul><li>short rotations...
Private Industrial Lands:  Alternative Prescriptions <ul><li>Alternative Practices </li></ul><ul><li>lengthen rotations an...
Modeled Sample Stand 11512: Private Industrial – “Business as Usual” Prescription Basal area by species Standing and harve...
Modeled Sample Stand 11512: Private Industrial – Alternative Prescription 1 (85% of area) Basal area by species Standing a...
Modeled Sample Stand 11512: Private Industrial – Alternative Prescription 2 (15% of area) Basal area by species Standing a...
US Forest Service Lands:  Current Practices and Prescriptions <ul><li>Current Practices (Siuslaw National Forest) </li></u...
US Forest Service Lands:  Alternative Prescriptions <ul><li>Alternative Practices  </li></ul><ul><li>No final harvest (sam...
Projecting Future Conditions – Landscape Harvest Scheduler / Landscape Model Growth & Yield Model Projected harvest and st...
Even-flow Harvest Scheduling <ul><li>Sessions et. al. (2000) model uses simulated annealing to optimize harvests across ti...
State Land:  Annual Harvest Volumes
State Land:  Standing Volume and Average Stand Age
Private Industrial Land:  Annual Harvest Volumes
Private Industrial:  Standing Volume and Average Stand Age
Federal Land:  Annual Harvest Volumes
Federal Land:  Standing Volume and Average Stand Age
Conclusions <ul><li>While longer harvest rotations and/or greater retention lead to lower harvest volumes in  the immediat...
Project status and where are we going from here? <ul><li>Status </li></ul><ul><li>Vegetation mapping of coastal Oregon and...
Acknowledgements <ul><li>Support:  The M. J. Murdock Charitable Trust </li></ul><ul><li>Cooperators:  </li></ul><ul><li>Jo...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Modeling alternative forest management scenarios across landscapes in the Pacific Northwest

1,167 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,167
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
30
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Modeling alternative forest management scenarios across landscapes in the Pacific Northwest

    1. 1. Modeling alternative forest management scenarios across landscapes in the Pacific Northwest Matthew Goslin Mike Mertens Ecotrust -- Portland, OR The Forestry 2100 project
    2. 2. Broad Question <ul><li>What are the long-term consequences of current forestry practices? </li></ul><ul><li>vs. </li></ul><ul><li>What would be the consequences of large-scale adoption of alternative “sustainable” practices? </li></ul><ul><li>ecological benefits? </li></ul><ul><li>economic costs? would we still be able to produce enough wood? </li></ul>
    3. 3. Two Scenarios: Current “Business as Usual” versus Alternative <ul><li>Longer rotations between harvests </li></ul><ul><li>Greater retention at harvest </li></ul><ul><li>Additional thinnings in between harvests (or instead of harvests) </li></ul><ul><li>Species diversity: preferential retention of minor species not maintained in plantation forestry (e.g. redcedar) </li></ul><ul><li>Wider riparian buffers </li></ul>
    4. 4. Forestry 2100 Pilot Study Area
    5. 5. Forest Land Ownership 250,000 ac 162,000 ac 706,000 ac 513,000 ac
    6. 6. Analytical Approach Map current vegetation Model development of individual plots Harvest Scheduler / Landscape Model Growth & Yield Model Most Similar Neighbor Imputation Projected harvest and standing volumes, age classes and forest structure across landscape by scenario Forest Inventory Sample Plots Compare scenarios
    7. 7. Sample Plot Distribution from USFS Forest Inventory Analysis Program
    8. 8. <ul><li>Imputation: “a statistical analysis tool for incomplete data, whereby measured values ( from plots ) are assigned to observations that lack such data ( stand polygons )” (Ohmann et. al. 2001) </li></ul>Describing Current Conditions Most Similar Neighbor Imputation Satellite imagery (Landsat TM 2001) Elevation / Aspect Forest Inventory Sample Plots Climate data (PRISM) Delineate stand polygons from imagery Plot characteristics (species basal area, mean diameter, volume) Mean values for plot locations Mean values for stand polygons
    9. 9. Imputed Stand Ages from MSN classification
    10. 10. Imputed vs. Observed Species Distribution: Sitka Spruce
    11. 11. Imputed vs. Observed Species Distribution: Noble Fir
    12. 12. Imputed vs. Observed Species Distribution: Bigleaf Maple
    13. 13. Projecting Future Conditions – Plot / Stand: Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) Harvest Scheduler / Landscape Model Growth & Yield Model Projected harvest and standing volumes, age classes and forest structure across landscape by scenario Tree growth Tree regeneration Forest Inventory Sample Plots Tree mortality Natural Processes Management Prescriptions Timing of Harvests Retention at Harvest Planting
    14. 14. Sample Stand Development Modeled by FVS: Basal Area, Tree Density and Mean Diameter Sample stand 11512: High density, high site index Douglas-fir dominated stand 5 years old at beginning of simulation
    15. 15. State of Oregon Lands: Current Practices and Prescriptions <ul><li>Current Practices </li></ul><ul><li>structure-based landscape management by desired future condition (DFC) </li></ul><ul><li>special stewardship areas for spotted owls, marbled murrelets (no touch) </li></ul><ul><li>Inner, middle, outer riparian management zones (25 ft, 100 ft, 170 ft) </li></ul><ul><li>Model Prescriptions </li></ul><ul><li>All thins retain 35 % of max SDI (stand density index), proportional </li></ul><ul><li>General DFC: Harvest at 80 years; retain 8 trees/ac </li></ul><ul><li>Thins at 35, 55 years; </li></ul><ul><li>Older DFC: Harvest at 140 years; retain 7 trees/ac </li></ul><ul><li>Thin at 35, 55, 80 years; </li></ul>
    16. 16. State of Oregon Lands: Alternative Prescriptions <ul><li>Alternative Practices </li></ul><ul><li>same framework: structure-based landscape management with special stewardship areas for spotted owls, marbled murrelets </li></ul><ul><li>greater retention in thinnings and at harvest , redcedar preference </li></ul><ul><li>Alternative Prescriptions </li></ul><ul><li>All thins retain 70 % basal area, proportional </li></ul><ul><li>General DFC: Harvest at 80 years; retain 20 % basal area </li></ul><ul><li>Thin at 35, 55 years; </li></ul><ul><li>Older DFC: Harvest at 140 years; retain 15 % basal area </li></ul><ul><li>Thin at 35, 55, 80, 110 years; </li></ul>
    17. 17. Private Industrial Lands: Current Practices and Prescriptions <ul><li>Current Practices </li></ul><ul><li>short rotations </li></ul><ul><li>minimal retention </li></ul><ul><li>plantings predominantly Douglas-fir (80 %) </li></ul><ul><li>Model Prescription </li></ul><ul><li>Harvest at 40 years; retain 4 trees/ac </li></ul>
    18. 18. Private Industrial Lands: Alternative Prescriptions <ul><li>Alternative Practices </li></ul><ul><li>lengthen rotations and increase retention </li></ul><ul><li>commercial thin for additional harvest volume prior to final harvest </li></ul><ul><li>Alternative Prescription (initial) </li></ul><ul><li>Harvest at 60 years; retain 15 % basal area </li></ul><ul><li>Thin at 35 years; 70 % basal area retained, proportional </li></ul><ul><li>Alternative Prescription (final) </li></ul><ul><li>-- mitigating for a non-spatial growth and yield model </li></ul><ul><li>85 % of area with minimal retention </li></ul><ul><li>Harvest at 60 years; retain 4 trees/ac </li></ul><ul><li>Thin at 35 years; 70 % basal area retained </li></ul><ul><li>15 % of area with minimal intervention </li></ul><ul><li>Thin at 35, 60 years and ongoing intervals, 70 % basal area retained, no final harvest </li></ul>
    19. 19. Modeled Sample Stand 11512: Private Industrial – “Business as Usual” Prescription Basal area by species Standing and harvested volume
    20. 20. Modeled Sample Stand 11512: Private Industrial – Alternative Prescription 1 (85% of area) Basal area by species Standing and harvested volume
    21. 21. Modeled Sample Stand 11512: Private Industrial – Alternative Prescription 2 (15% of area) Basal area by species Standing and harvested volume
    22. 22. US Forest Service Lands: Current Practices and Prescriptions <ul><li>Current Practices (Siuslaw National Forest) </li></ul><ul><li>Primary goal is to accelerate development of older forest structure -- growth of large trees and understory re-initiation </li></ul><ul><li>Intervention not conducted in stands > 80 years </li></ul><ul><li>Wide riparian buffers (100 ft no touch) </li></ul><ul><li>Model Prescriptions </li></ul><ul><li>Heavy thin (average slopes, bottomlands): </li></ul><ul><li>Heavy thin at 40 years; retain 40 trees/ac, thin from below </li></ul><ul><li>No final harvest </li></ul><ul><li>Light thins (steep slopes, ridgetops): </li></ul><ul><li>Light thin at 35 years; retain 90 trees/ac, thin from below </li></ul><ul><li>Heavier thin at 60 years; retain 40 trees/ac, thin from below </li></ul><ul><li>No final harvest </li></ul>
    23. 23. US Forest Service Lands: Alternative Prescriptions <ul><li>Alternative Practices </li></ul><ul><li>No final harvest (same as USFS) </li></ul><ul><li>Continual light thinnings with no age limit on interventions </li></ul><ul><li>Redcedar preferentially retained </li></ul><ul><li>Alternative Prescription </li></ul><ul><li>Thin at 35 years, continuing at 20 year intervals; </li></ul><ul><li>70 % basal area retained, proportional </li></ul><ul><li>Redcedar retained in early thins </li></ul>
    24. 24. Projecting Future Conditions – Landscape Harvest Scheduler / Landscape Model Growth & Yield Model Projected harvest and standing volumes, age classes and forest structure across landscape by scenario Even flow objective Adjacency constraints Overlay landscape with ownership bounds and management intent (GIS) Allocate prescriptions to stands Forest Inventory Sample Plots
    25. 25. Even-flow Harvest Scheduling <ul><li>Sessions et. al. (2000) model uses simulated annealing to optimize harvests across time </li></ul><ul><li>We use 5 offsets (different timing options) for each prescription </li></ul>
    26. 26. State Land: Annual Harvest Volumes
    27. 27. State Land: Standing Volume and Average Stand Age
    28. 28. Private Industrial Land: Annual Harvest Volumes
    29. 29. Private Industrial: Standing Volume and Average Stand Age
    30. 30. Federal Land: Annual Harvest Volumes
    31. 31. Federal Land: Standing Volume and Average Stand Age
    32. 32. Conclusions <ul><li>While longer harvest rotations and/or greater retention lead to lower harvest volumes in the immediate future, </li></ul><ul><li>there is the potential for equal or greater harvest volumes in the future (35-70 years) coupled with </li></ul><ul><li>an immediate and persistent increase in standing volume of forest across the landscape. </li></ul>
    33. 33. Project status and where are we going from here? <ul><li>Status </li></ul><ul><li>Vegetation mapping of coastal Oregon and Washington has been completed </li></ul><ul><li>Growth and yield modeling has been conducted for western Oregon and Washington </li></ul><ul><li>Further work </li></ul><ul><li>Validation of current results </li></ul><ul><li>Harvest scheduling for the remainder of the larger study area </li></ul><ul><li>Generate additional ecological indicators (species and structural diversity) </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluate additional economic and ecological values (carbon storage, salmon habitat, recreation opportunities) </li></ul>
    34. 34. Acknowledgements <ul><li>Support: The M. J. Murdock Charitable Trust </li></ul><ul><li>Cooperators: </li></ul><ul><li>John Sessions, Sean Gordon (Interforest Consulting Group/Oregon State University) </li></ul><ul><li>Michele Dailey, Bettina von Hagen (Ecotrust) </li></ul><ul><li>Assistance with </li></ul><ul><li>Forest Inventory Analysis Program: Dale Weyermann, Glenn Christensen (USFS) </li></ul><ul><li>Most Similar Neighbor Analysis: Melinda Moeur, Nicholas Crookston, Janet Ohmann (USFS) </li></ul><ul><li>State of Oregon Forest Plans: Pam Overhulser </li></ul>

    ×