Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Oregon Department of Forestry Harvest & Habitat Model Project Final Report Oregon Board of Forestry Meeting March 8, 2006.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Oregon Department of Forestry Harvest & Habitat Model Project Final Report Oregon Board of Forestry Meeting March 8, 2006."— Presentation transcript:

1 Oregon Department of Forestry Harvest & Habitat Model Project Final Report Oregon Board of Forestry Meeting March 8, 2006

2 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

3 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

4 Scope of the Model Northwest & Southwest Oregon State Forest Management Plans 7 Districts Involved Astoria Tillamook Forest Grove West Oregon North Cascade Western Lane Southwest Oregon

5 Project Overview Organizational Structure 4-member ODF Exec Policy Team 10-member Policy Team 16-member Core Team 10 Subcommittees Major Contracts Model Creation: Dr. Sessions Harvest Units-Roads Growth-Yield Tables GIS Information FTLAC (Forest Trust Lands Advisory 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

6 Greater Emphasis on Reserves Greater Emphasis on Wood Production Forestry Program for Oregon Forest Management Plans Forest 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 Overview Scope of Modeling The “Greatest Permanent Value” Social, Economic & Environmental Benefits

7 Project Overview Alternative Development FMP~HCPSimulates NW & SW FMPs and HCP strategies FMP~TASimulates 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

8 Project Overview Alternative Strategies FMP~HCPFMP~TAWood EmphasisReserve-Based NW/SW FMPs Yes No Yes, Outside Reserves T&E Species Protection HCP, ODF TA 1 st period ODF TA 56-60% Reserves Riparian Strategy NW FMP FPA Modified NW FMP

9 Project Overview Alternative Goals FMP~HCPFMP~TAWood EmphasisReserve-Based Even Flow Harvest volume Yes No, Initial Departure Yes Complex Structure Target Yes None Yes, Outside Reserves NPVYes 50-Year Harvest Rotation No YesNo

10 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

11 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

12 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

13 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

14 Similar stands comprise a “strata” – some measured, some un-measured Model Strengths & Limitations Strata-Based Inventory – What is a “Strata”?  “Strata” average is different than specific stands

15 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

16 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

17 Comparison of Alternatives Four Alternatives: 3 North Coast Districts Combined

18 Comparison of Alternatives Four Alternatives: 3 North Coast Districts Combined

19 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

20 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

21 Comparison of Alternatives Summary Table: Harvest Volume Average Annual Volume (millions of bd. ft.) FMP~HCP FMP~TA* Wood EmphasisReserve-Based 1 st Dec 150 Yrs 1 st Dec 150 Yrs 1 st Dec 150 Yrs1st Dec150 Yrs Ast Till FG Sub: NC WO WL SW Sub: Grand Total * Base NSO Population Scenario

22 Comparison of Alternatives 4 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

23 Comparison of Alternatives 4 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

24 Generalist Species Simple Structure Species Complex Structure Species Comparison of Alternatives Coarse Filter Wildlife Matrix 3 North Coast Districts Combined

25 Comparison of Alternatives Two Alternatives: 7 Districts Combined

26 Comparison of Alternatives Two Alternatives: 7 Districts Combined

27 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 Alternatives Two Alternatives: 7 Districts Combined

28 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

29 Questions Analyzed 3 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

30 Questions Analyzed 3 North Coast Districts Combined FMP~HCP: Complex Stand Structure Analysis

31 Questions Analyzed 3 North Coast Districts Combined FMP~HCP: Complex Stand Structure Analysis 194 mmbf/yr 177 mmbf/yr 159 mmbf/yr

32 Questions Analyzed 3 North Coast Districts Combined FMP~HCP: Volume Flow Analysis

33 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

34 Questions Analyzed 3 North Coast Districts Combined FMP~HCP: Volume Flow Analysis Astoria Forest Grove

35 Questions Analyzed 3 North Coast Districts Combined FMP~HCP: Volume Flow Analysis Tillamook Initial high volume is dependent on greater productivity of future stands. More stands clearcut early, yield a greater total harvest volume over 150 years

36 Questions Analyzed 3 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

37 Questions Analyzed 3 North Coast Districts Combined FMP~HCP: Salmon Anchor Habitat Analysis

38 Questions Analyzed 3 North Coast Districts Combined FMP~HCP: Landscape Design Analysis What 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

39 Questions Analyzed 3 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

40 Questions Analyzed 3 North Coast Districts Combined FMP~TA: No Complex Structure Goal Analysis

41 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

42 Level of Confidence Model 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

43 Level of Confidence Model 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

44 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

45 Thank You


Download ppt "Oregon Department of Forestry Harvest & Habitat Model Project Final Report Oregon Board of Forestry Meeting March 8, 2006."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google