Don Reimer

D.R. systems inc., Nanaimo, B.C.

Don Reimer

D.R. systems inc., Nanaimo, B.C.

Performance-Based Forest Performance-Based Forest

Land ManagementLand Management

(some implications)(some implications)

Key Features of PBFM Key Features of PBFM Forecast of future expectationsForecast of future expectations

resource inventoriesresource inventories projection system(s)projection system(s) model(s) & assumptionsmodel(s) & assumptions

Measurements of achievementsMeasurements of achievements monitoring systemsmonitoring systems reporting systemsreporting systems

Adaptive Management ProcessAdaptive Management Process continuous improvementcontinuous improvement

Features of PBFM Data Features of PBFM Data The data you have is not the The data you have is not the

data you wantdata you wantThe data you want is not the The data you want is not the

data you need data you need The data you need you cannot The data you need you cannot

getgetThe data you can get you cannot The data you can get you cannot

affordafford

HCP Scope and Timetable

Project took 2 years to complete (1994 - 1996) and involved a project team of 15-20 scientists and analysts.

Project used a “multi-disciplinary, science-team approach” to defining habitats and habitat management objectives

The science team based their work on the substantial amount of work done by Plum Creek previously on spotted owl habitat and spotted owl activity patterns as well as published work done by other gov’t and industrial researchers and biologists on the relevant endangered species present.

The Cascades HCP included habitat considerations for all 285 vertebrate species which were thought to be found on Plum Creek’s land base. These species were grouped in guilds/lifeforms. Habitat requirements and habitat definitions were established for the lifeforms by the science team.

All scenarios and analyses were based upon a spatially-explicit modeling approach. All resource inventories, resource constraints, land management operating rules, and habitat requirements were entered into a common, multi-layer GIS database.

D.R. systems inc. did all of the modeling and business and spatial analyses associated with the project.

Land Ownership (acres) Plum Creek 169,200Forest Service 201,800State & Private 41,100Lakes 6,800 Total Project 418,900

Featured SpeciesNorthern Spotted OwlMarbled MurreletGray WolfGrizzly Bear281 Other Species

Seedling/Sapling

Old Growth

Stand Structures

Dispersal Forest

Table 15. - Lifeform Descriptions used in Plum Creek’s HCP

LIFEFORM SEARCH No.No. TYPE AREA Spp REPRODUCES FEEDS1 fish RHAs 4 in water in water Primary: Water

2frogs, salamanders

RHAs 10 in wateron the ground, in bushes, and/or in trees

Primary: DF/MF/MOG/OG

Secondary: SI/SS/YF/PT

3 turtles, ducks RHAs 36on the ground around water

on the ground, and in bushes, trees, and water

Primary: DF/MF/MOG/OG

Secondary: SI/SS/YF/PT

4 falcons, goatsRocks &

Talus17

in cliffs, caves, rimrock, and/or talus

on the ground or in the air

Primary: PT/DF/MF/MOG/OG

Secondary: SI/SS/YF

5grouse, hares, elk/deer (gray wolf)

0.5 mile window

33

on the ground without specific water, cliff, rimrock or talus association

on the ground Forage: SI/SS/YF

Cover: PT/DF/MF/MOG/OG

6warblers, porcupines

RHAs 8 on the groundin bushes, trees, or in the air

Primary: SI/SS/YF

Secondary: PT/DF/MF/MOG/OG

7sparrows, blackbirds, thrushes

RHAs 19 in busheson the ground, in water, or in the air

Primary: SS/YF/PT/DF

Secondary: SI/MF/MOG/OG

8warblers, flycatchers

HCP 7 in bushesin trees, bushes, or in the air

Primary: SS/YF/PT

Secondary: DF/MF/MOG/OG

HABITAT

Table 34. - Plum Creek HCP Monitoring/Reporting Schedule.

Report Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18Calendar Year 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14

ANNUALLY Habitat Verification Stand Structures X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Lifeform X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Spotted Owls X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Sp. Owl Carrying Capacity X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

OTHER TERRESTRIALSpotted Owl Monitoring X X X X X XMarbled Murrelet XGrizzly – Habitat & Roads X X X XGray Wolf – Habitat X X X XBreeding Bird Surveys X X X X X XAmphibian Surveys X X X X X XSmall Mammal/Prey Surveys X X X

AQUATIC RESOURCESFish Population Assessments X X X X X X XFish Habitat Surveys Channel Cross Sections & 100-meter survey reaches X X X X X XWatershed Analysis X X X X X Re-evaluations X X X X X X X X X XStream Temperatures 4 riparian scenarios X X X X X 303(d) listed & Bull Trout X X X XStream Biological Integrity Assessments X X X X X X X

Quantitative Monitoring Program Quantitative Monitoring Program

QMP ObjectiveQMP ObjectiveImprove and/or verify the Improve and/or verify the accuracy of informationaccuracy of information being used for being used for HCP HCP monitoringmonitoring to to foster confidencefoster confidence in the information for the in the information for the usersusers (PC) (PC) and the and the reviewersreviewers (Services and the general public) (Services and the general public)

Development of QMPDevelopment of QMP - Improved Inventory - Improved Inventory

Stand Level Cruise CriteriaStand Level Cruise Criteria

Established % to Cruise by Stand TypeEstablished % to Cruise by Stand Type

Established Frequency by Stand TypeEstablished Frequency by Stand Type

VerificationVerification

Site Index / AgeSite Index / Age

Stand StructureStand Structure

Growth MonitoringGrowth Monitoring

Quantitative Monitoring ProgramQuantitative Monitoring ProgramStand-level cruising criteriaStand-level cruising criteria

HCP CommitmentHCP Commitment““Accelerate Inventory Schedule to Obtain Accelerate Inventory Schedule to Obtain More Precise Information”More Precise Information”

Cruising StatusCruising Status19961996 2,978 acres 2,978 acres

19971997 28,334 acres28,334 acres

Terrestrial Monitoring OverviewTerrestrial Monitoring Overview

Tracking habitats for 285+ species

Habitatparameter

Species Verification

• snags

• down wood

• understory vegetation

• spotted owl

• marbled murrelet

• grizzly bear/gray wolf

• goshawk

• resident birds

• stream amphibians

• snag/recruitment tree retention

Aquatic Habitat and Resource Aquatic Habitat and Resource MonitoringMonitoring

Watershed AnalysisWatershed Analysis

Landscape-Wide Habitat ConditionsLandscape-Wide Habitat Conditions

Biotic IntegrityBiotic Integrity

Stream TemperatureStream Temperature

Table 34. - Plum Creek HCP Monitoring/Reporting Schedule.

Report Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18Calendar Year 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14

ANNUALLY Habitat Verification Stand Structures X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Lifeform X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Spotted Owls X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Sp. Owl Carrying Capacity X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

OTHER TERRESTRIALSpotted Owl Monitoring X X X X X XMarbled Murrelet XGrizzly – Habitat & Roads X X X XGray Wolf – Habitat X X X XBreeding Bird Surveys X X X X X XAmphibian Surveys X X X X X XSmall Mammal/Prey Surveys X X X

AQUATIC RESOURCESFish Population Assessments X X X X X X XFish Habitat Surveys Channel Cross Sections & 100-meter survey reaches X X X X X XWatershed Analysis X X X X X Re-evaluations X X X X X X X X X XStream Temperatures 4 riparian scenarios X X X X X 303(d) listed & Bull Trout X X X XStream Biological Integrity Assessments X X X X X X X

1997/MU Spotted Owl Habitat Definitions

HABITAT FMAZ_SIDE SPP_CODE RD_LOW RD_HIGH QMD_LOW QMD_HIGHAGE_LOW AGE_HIGHHABITATFD E DF 29.6 40.5 8.5 999.99 -99 999 FDFD E DF 40.6 1E+08 8.5 11.49 -99 999 FDFD E PP 29.6 40.5 8.5 999.99 -99 999 FDFD E PP 40.6 1E+08 8.5 11.49 -99 999 FDFD E TF 29.6 1E+08 8.5 999.99 -99 999 FDFD W DF 44.6 1E+08 9.5 13.49 -99 999 FDFD W PP 44.6 1E+08 9.5 13.49 -99 999 FDFD W TF 44.6 1E+08 9.5 999.99 -99 999 FD

NRF E DF 40.6 1E+08 12.5 999.99 -99 999 NRFNRF E PP 40.6 1E+08 12.5 999.99 -99 999 NRFNRF W DF 44.6 1E+08 13.5 999.99 -99 999 NRFNRF W PP 44.6 1E+08 13.5 999.99 -99 999 NRF

Original Habitat Definitions - Northern Spotted Owl

1997/MU Stand Structure Definitions

FMAZ_SIDESTNDSTRUCDIA_LOW DIA_HIGH HT_LOW HT_HIGH AGE_LOW AGE_HIGH DESCRE SI 0.0 0.99 0 99.9 -99 999 Stand InitiationE SS 1.0 1.99 0 99.9 -99 999 Shrub/SaplingE YF 2.0 5.49 0 99.9 -99 999 Young ForestE PT 5.5 8.49 0 99.9 -99 999 Pole TimberE DF 8.5 12.49 0 99.9 -99 999 Dispersal ForestE MF 12.5 15.49 0 99.9 -99 999 Mature ForestE MOG 15.5 99.99 0 99.9 -99 199 Managed Old GrowthE OG 15.5 99.99 0 99.9 200 999 Old GrowthW SI 0.0 0.99 0 99.9 -99 999 Stand InitiationW SS 1.0 1.99 0 99.9 -99 999 Shrub/SaplingW YF 2.0 5.49 0 99.9 -99 999 Young ForestW PT 5.5 9.49 0 99.9 -99 999 Pole TimberW DF 9.5 13.49 0 99.9 -99 999 Dispersal ForestW MF 13.5 20.49 0 99.9 -99 999 Mature ForestW MOG 20.5 99.99 0 99.9 -99 199 Managed Old GrowthW OG 20.5 99.99 0 99.9 200 999 Old Growth

Seral Stage Stand Structure Definitions

YEARCategory 1997 2006 2016 2026 2036 2045

PC PC PC PC PC PCSpotted Owl Habitat

NRF 18 8 6 6 6 7

FD 14 9 7 15 26 32

Total (Percent) 32 17 13 21 32 39

Structural Stages

SI/SS/YF 52 65 48 33 24 27

Pole Timber 12 10 28 32 31 23

Dispersal Forest 14 11 10 21 30 33

MF/MOG/OG 17 10 8 9 10 13

Non-Forested 5 5 5 5 5 5

Total (Percent) 100 101 99 100 100 101

Forecast Distribution of Habitat & Stand Structure 1997

Annual ReportingAnnual Reporting

% Plum Creek Lands . Actual . Proj.

1/1/97 1/1/98 1/1/99 2001

Spotted Owl Habitat

Nesting, Roosting & Foraging 20 18 16 16

Foraging & Dispersal 17 16 17 14

Total 37 34 33 30

Stand Structures

Stand Initiation 3 4 4 9

Shrub & Sapling 7 5 8 9

Young Forest 36 36 34 34

Pole Timber 7 9 10 7

Dispersal Forest 15 16 17 13

Mature Forest 19 17 16 16

Managed Old Growth 3 3 2 3

Old Growth 2 2 1 1

Non Forested 8 8 8 8

Total 100 100 100 100

Annual ReportingAnnual Reporting % Total HCP Acres .

Actual . Proj Lifeform Habitat

Area 1/1/97 1/1/98 1/1/99 2001

2 Frogs, Salamanders RHA 71 71 72 71

3 Turtles, Ducks RHA 71 71 72 71

4 Goats, Falcons Talus 60 59 58 57

5 Elk, Hares Edge 88 88 88 89

6 Warblers, Porcupines RHA 62 61 60 62

7 Sparrows, Thrushes RHA 73 75 75 74

8 Flycatchers HCP 70 69 70 67

9 Waxwings, Grosbeaks RHA 68 70 66 71

10 Squirrels, Tanagers HCP 68 68 67 62

11 Hawks, Vireos HCP 69 70 69 66

12 Herons, Osprey RHA 54 56 58 55

13 Woodpeckers HCP 61 61 58 54

13a Lewis’ Woodpecker HCP 53 53 50 47

14 Bats, Owls HCP 66 65 64 63

14a Vaux’s Swift, Fisher HCP 32 30 28 27

15 (Young) Shrews HCP 46 45 46 52

15 (Middle) Bears HCP 22 25 27 20

15 (Late) Voles HCP 24 22 19 20

16 Otters, Beavers RHA 71 71 72 71

Changes in Land MgmtChanges in Land Mgmt

As we address other resource As we address other resource objectives we are dramatically objectives we are dramatically changing how we manage the changing how we manage the landbase.landbase.

Jade Creek

100 ft

200 ft

Bam Bam

RHAs /

Inner Gorge

Talus Slope

Cedar View

North Slope

200 ft RHA

Silverback

AfterBefore

Cabin Creek

Bear Clean

Flyover Helicopter

Wetlands

G-Bear Buffer

Landscape Diversity

Real Tree

Tree Line

Inner Gorge / Talus Slope

Five-Year Reporting Issues

•Changes to the landbase (large-scale trades with the USFS and some smaller sales to special interest groups). Resulted in a net loss of 40,000 acres in Plum Creek ownership

•Big push on forest inventory - lots of new samples

•Change from mgmt blocks to forest cover polygons

Five-Year Reporting Issues - cont.

•Changes to habitat definitions

•Changes to the reporting expectations

•Required reporting precision levels

•Model versions (upgrades over time)

Landbase Changes

• Net loss was 40,000 acres but trade involved over 90,000 acres

•Much of the high quality, older seral habitat was traded away

•The USFS lands received by Plum Creek had poor inventory data

Forest Inventory Changes

• HCP required dramatic improvement in %-age of cruised stands - ranked by seral stage

•USFS lands had to be re-cruised (25% of new net landbase)

Habitat Definition Changes

•Switched from management blocks to forest cover polygons

•Had to change habitat definitions to match biologists’ map calls on habitat

Reporting Expectations

• PC and the agencies had independently agreed to +/- 10% error in habitat statistics

• Focus was on owl habitat and older seral stages (error +/- 0.5% on NRF!)

• Reduction in landbase dramatically affected the range of allowable error (as low as +/- 0.2% error on NRF!)

• Over time PC and agencies wanted the same numbers across all 45 years

Modeling Changes Upgrades

• Software upgrades themselves were not a problem. But proving there were no effects with each upgrade was a problem due to all other changes.

• Switch to forest cover polygons

• Continual upgrades of forest inventory

• Changes to habitat definitions

• Drawn out land exchange process

What Have we Re-Learned

(supposedly we already know this)

• Never underestimate the power of senior management on both sides to create an impossible situation

• It is absolutely critical that all data components in the DSS be design compatible

• There never is enough money to do it right

What Have we Really Learned

• Our current concepts and designs for forest inventory no longer are adequate

• Growth and Yield forecasting has to go to stand tables (or tree lists)

• We have to pay attention to underlying statistical rules and use them in establishing decision rules for all habitats.

• Risk and Liability are not the same thing

What Have we Really Learned

• Our so-called monitoring systems only indirectly are affecting results -- and the effects are relatively minimal to date

• The big effects, even on lands which have not changed hands, have been inventory data changes and inventory data management issues

• In the near-term, we have to devise improved methods to link habitat and environmental goals to broad-based inventory systems. In the long-term?

What Have we Really LearnedWhat Have we Really Learned

Between decision-makers and Between decision-makers and monitoring agencies we CANNOT monitoring agencies we CANNOT handle changes in forecasts.handle changes in forecasts. Decision makers do not like Decision makers do not like

increases in habitat over original increases in habitat over original established/approved forecastsestablished/approved forecasts

Agency staff do not like decreases in Agency staff do not like decreases in habitat over original forecastshabitat over original forecasts

What Have we Really LearnedWhat Have we Really Learned

Risk and Liability are very different Risk and Liability are very different concepts - this is critical when dealing concepts - this is critical when dealing with PBFM issues.with PBFM issues.

We tend to design inventories and other We tend to design inventories and other sampling systems from the viewpoint of risksampling systems from the viewpoint of risk

Liabilities may be linked to degrees of risk - Liabilities may be linked to degrees of risk - but are often based upon an assumption but are often based upon an assumption that there exists a reasonable avoidance of that there exists a reasonable avoidance of risk.risk.

YEARCategory 1997 2006 2016 2026 2036 2045

PC PC PC PC PC PCSpotted Owl Habitat

NRF 18 8 6 6 6 7

FD 14 9 7 15 26 32

Total (Percent) 32 17 13 21 32 39

Structural Stages

SI/SS/YF 52 65 48 33 24 27

Pole Timber 12 10 28 32 31 23

Dispersal Forest 14 11 10 21 30 33

MF/MOG/OG 17 10 8 9 10 13

Non-Forested 5 5 5 5 5 5

Total (Percent) 100 101 99 100 100 101

Forecast Distribution of Habitat & Stand Structure 1997