Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

National Forest Planning and NFMA Requirements

924 views

Published on

An evaluation of potential impacts of 2005 Planning Rule on forest planning and models.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

National Forest Planning and NFMA Requirements

  1. 1. National Forest Planning and NFMA Requirements Karl R. Walters
  2. 2. Purpose of Study <ul><li>Forest Service recently released new planning rules </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What do these changes in the rules mean? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Will the changes make a difference? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What are the implications for modelers? </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Why is this important? <ul><li>National Forest Planning bogged down </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Time and expense has become exorbitant </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Revisions required every 10-15yrs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>On some forests, taking almost that long </li></ul></ul><ul><li>New rules to reduce time to develop plans </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Less litigation, more implementation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Focus on sustainable forest management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Forest health is a major goal </li></ul></ul><ul><li>NFMA (1976) and NPLMA (1976) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Multiple use-sustained yield concept still applies </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Why is this important? <ul><li>What if the Forest Plan isn’t implemented? </li></ul><ul><li>Harvests are significantly lower than allowable across most Regions </li></ul><ul><li>Catastrophic insect & fire damage common </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fire suppression costs increasing yearly </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Do more with less </li></ul><ul><li>Increased mandates (fire protection on non-Federal land) </li></ul><ul><li>Budgets are being cut, not increased </li></ul>
  5. 5. Highlights of the New Rule <ul><li>Planning framed in EMS (ISO 14001) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Provides standards for management process, reporting, etc, across NFS </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Streamlined planning </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2-3 yr process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More internalized evaluation of alternatives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Public comment on the proposed plan rather than a variety of alternatives </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Allowable sale quantity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Still subject to LTSY constraints </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Viewed as an upper bound only on timber sales </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Implications <ul><li>Auditing for compliance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>EMS requires regular measurement of actions against the plan </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Need to do what you say you’re going to do </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Sustained yield – sustainable management </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Which is it? NFMA requirements at odds </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Planning models </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Smaller, simpler models to determine capacities, interactions, etc </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Spatially explicit to consider smaller scale effects </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>One final, detailed model for public comment </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Contrived Planning Problem <ul><li>~ 300,000 ac </li></ul><ul><li>Ponderosa pine dominated landscape </li></ul><ul><li>Major concerns </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Forest fires, mountain pine beetle </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Maintaining historical range of variability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>More dispersed age classes </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Greater presence of aspen and hardwoods </li></ul></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Example Forest - Covertype
  9. 9. Example Forest – Age distribution
  10. 10. Example Forest – Inholdings
  11. 11. Example Forest – Age Class Distribution
  12. 12. Current Conditions – Fire Risk
  13. 13. Current Conditions – Structural Stage
  14. 14. The Model <ul><li>Goal programming formulation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Minimize deviations from goals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>75% of area in wildland urban interface and 1 mile buffer in low or low-moderate fire hazard rating </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Maintain proportions of structural stages within key management areas </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Perform minimum acres of aspen and oak restoration </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Maintain minimum habitat acres in critical management area </li></ul></ul></ul>
  15. 15. Base Run Results <ul><li>Total Sale Program Quantity </li></ul><ul><li>Subject to </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Nondeclining yield (NDY) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>LTSYC-NDY link </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Perpetual timber harvest constraint </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Forest inventory </li></ul><ul><li>Generally increases </li></ul><ul><li>Goal achievement </li></ul><ul><li>Generally under-achieve </li></ul>
  16. 16. Current Conditions – Structural Stage
  17. 17. DFC (Planned) – Structural Stage
  18. 18. Current Conditions – Fire Risk
  19. 19. DFC (Planned) – Fire Risk
  20. 20. Current Conditions – Structural Stage
  21. 21. DFC (Planned) – Structural Stage
  22. 22. DFC (Implemented) – Structural Stage
  23. 23. Current Conditions – Fire Risk
  24. 24. DFC (Planned) – Fire Risk
  25. 25. DFC (Implemented) – Fire Risk
  26. 26. Is Sustainable Yield Sustainable? <ul><li>NFMA requires </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sale quantity < long-term sustained yield </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Departures from NDY ok if consistent with multiple-use </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New rule makes ASQ an upper bound only </li></ul></ul><ul><li>But what if forest health suffers because of NFMA requirements? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Luckert & Williamson (2005) question SY in the context of Sustainable Forest Management </li></ul></ul>
  27. 27. No NFMA constraints <ul><li>Sale Quantity </li></ul><ul><li>Large variations </li></ul><ul><li>Inventory </li></ul><ul><li>Marginal decrease relative to Base </li></ul><ul><li>Goal achievement </li></ul><ul><li>Better achievement </li></ul><ul><li>Higher forage production </li></ul>
  28. 28. DFC (Base) – Structural Stage
  29. 29. DFC (No NFMA) – Structural Stage
  30. 30. DFC (Planned) – Fire Risk
  31. 31. DFC (No NFMA) – Fire Risk
  32. 32. Model Attributes <ul><li>Example is a typical monolithic model </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Model II formulation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>13 landscape themes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>42 trillion potential development types </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2055 defined at start </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>42 yield components </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Goal programming formulation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Goals used because constraint set infeasible </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Constraints specified in isolation with no testing for compatibility or feasibility </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Big and slow </li></ul></ul>
  33. 33. Discussion <ul><li>Backlog of NF’s requiring Plan revisions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Litigation has hampered </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Development of plans </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Implementation of plans </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>New rule implies a disconnect between harvests and other outputs (ASQ = ceiling) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cannot use silviculture to achieve vegetation management goals if you don’t implement it </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>With reduced budgets, how will vegetation management be funded without a timber program? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SAF advocates use of silviculture on NF’s </li></ul></ul>
  34. 34. Discussion <ul><li>Sustained yield and sustainable forest management seem to be at odds </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Timber production facilitates improving forest structure but is limited by SY laws </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Non-timber benefits require vegetation management and silviculture is best option </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ability to improve forest conditions is hampered </li></ul></ul>
  35. 35. Discussion <ul><li>Large scale models to address multiple goals often don’t work well </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Complex and hard to interpret </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Constraints and objectives are often conflicting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Developed in isolation from each other </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Yields/prescriptions often out-of-sync with overall objectives </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Using treatments developed to produce timber to effect fire risk reduction </li></ul></ul>
  36. 36. Discussion <ul><li>Use multiple small models to look at issues </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Determine which objectives conflict and which ones complement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Focus on real trade-offs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Determine reasonable range of values </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Finally, create a smaller, tightly focused model representing a single alternative </li></ul>
  37. 37. FORSight Resources, LLC World-Class Natural Resource Decision Support

×