Progress report: FREP routine Progress report: FREP routine and intensive protocols for the and intensive protocols for the FRPA timber value in partial cutsFRPA timber value in partial cuts

Patrick Martin

February 26, 2007

2

Outline

• Background

• Protocols

– Intensive

– Routine

• Paths not taken

• Next steps

Sample 5

3

Background

• Are the objectives for FRPA values being achieved?• FRPA timber value in partially harvested areas

Evaluation question:• To what degree are

stand conditions in partially harvested areas consistent with the FRPA timber objective to “maintain or enhance an economically valuable supply of commercial timber”?

4

Background

Classic approach• Goal/objective• Critical factors• Indicators• Benchmarks• Judgements

Health Report Card

Indicator Observed level

Benchmark Judgement

Blood pressure

110/75 mmHg

120/80 mmHg

Good

Cholesterol (LDL)

100 mg/dL 100 mg/dL Fair

Heart rate (resting)

100 bpm 80 bpm Poor

Overall Fair

“to maintain or enhance an economically valuable supply of commercial timber”

•Timber volume (m3/ha)•Timber value ($/ha)

5

Intensive - method

• Statistical sample• Population: areas

part-cut 2000-2002• 25 sample points• Measure stumps and

trees• Compile variables

that indicate status of timber objective

• Judge how consistent with FRPA timber objective

Sample 21

6

7

Indicator #1:• Stocking level• Well-spaced trees per hectareRationale: • Must be fully stocked to

capture site’s growth potentialObserved level:• Mean of 1055 ws/haBenchmark:• 700 ws/haJudgement:• Consistent with government’s

objectives for timber

600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200Multi-layer well-spaced density (trees/ha)

0

5

10

15

Num

ber

of s

amp l

es

Intensive results: Stocking

8

Indicator #2:

• m3/ha merch dead or down

Rationale:

• Volume and value reduced by unsalvaged-unrecovered timber

Intensive results: Dead or down timber

9

Observed level:• Mean of 12 m3/ha

merch dead or down timber

Benchmark: • 40-80 m3/haJudgement:• Consistent with

government’s objectives for timber

Dead or Down Merchantable Volume Class (m3/ha)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Nu

mb

er o

f P

lots

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Intensive results: Dead or down timber

10

Indicator #4:• m3/ha non-pine cut

Rationale: • With MPB outbreak,

during part-cut, objective maximized by logging all the pine and saving all the non-pine

Intensive results: Non-Pl harvested

11

Merchantable Non-Pli Volume Harvested (m3/ha)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600Mer

chan

tab

le N

on-P

li V

olu

me

Har

vest

ed (

%)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Observed level:• Mean of 125

m3/ha non-pine cut

Benchmark: • 80 m3/ha

Judgement: • Not consistent

with government’s objectives for timber

Intensive results: Non-pine harvested

12

Results: All indicators

Judged degree of consistency with FRPA objectives for

timber

Indicator Low Medium High

Level of stocking

Volume of merchantable dead or down wood

Pine volume remaining

Non-pine volume extracted

Site occupancy by poor quality trees

Value removal relative to volume removal

Forecast future volume trends

Qualitative assessment of 17 other factors

13

Routine evaluation protocol

• Tried this:

– Assess at sample point

– Classify into 1 of 7 condition classes

– Cross-reference for each class that interprets the degree of consistency: High, Medium, or Low

• Result:

– 22 sample points High; 3 sample points Medium

• Routine protocol:

– Needs much more work

– Whole block (or SU), not one point

– Use the concepts from the intensive

14

Paths not taken

• Forest-level perspective

• Conflicts among indicators

• Composite score• Explanatory data• Trade-offs during the

evaluation• Formal team• Conclusion for a

block

15

Next steps

Report

• 19 recommendations

• Comments, finalize, post

Presentations

• Series of presentations and review sessions

Procedures

• FREP will refine and test procedures next year

16

END

Sample 9

17

18

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4DFP class

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Nu

mb

er

of

s am

p le

s

Indicator:• Stocking level• DFPRationale: • Must be fully stocked to

capture site’s growth potentialObserved level:• Mean of 0.08Benchmark:• 0.2Judgement:• Consistent with government’s

objectives for timber

Intensive results: Stocking

19

Indicator:• m2/ha overstory

trees classed as poor timber quality

• ?? metric for understory

Rationale: • Growing space

occupied by poor trees reduces volume and value production by good trees

Intensive results: Poor quality trees

20

Observed level:• 1 m2/ha poor

Benchmark:• 5-10 m2/ha?

Judgement:• Consistent with

government’s objectives for timberBasal Area Classified as Poor (m2/ha)

0 2 4 6 8

Bas

al A

rea

Cla

ssif

ied

as P

oor

(%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Intensive results: poor quality trees

21

Indicator:• Abundant, taller poor treesRationale: • In the US, abundant taller

poor trees out-compete good trees and capture growth potential

Observed levelBenchmark: ???Judgement:• Consistent with government’s

objectives for timber

Intensive results: poor quality trees

0 5000 10000 15000Small trees classified as poor (trees/ha)

-5

-3

-1

1

3

Hei

ght a

d van

tage

po o

r (m

)

22

Value Removed (%)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Vol

um

e R

emov

ed (

%)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Intensive results: Value-volume removal

Indicator:• % Value-volume %

removalRationale: • Reduced value growth if

high value component removed and low value component retained

Observed levelBenchmarkJudgement• Consistent with

government’s objectives for timber

Coastal, Cw50Hw50, Extract all Cw, Cw twice value of Hw

23

• PrognosisBC volume predictions

• Scenarios:– Current

– Clear-cut

– No harvest

• Beetle kill• With, and without,

harvested volume added on

Results: ForecastsCurrent State

Year

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120

Mer

chan

tabl

e V

olum

e (m

3 /ha)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Current State Plus Harvested Volume

Year

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120

Mer

chan

tabl

e V

olum

e (m

3 /ha)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Clear-cut

Year

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120

Mer

chan

tabl

e V

olum

e (m

3 /ha)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Clear-cut Plus Harvested Volume

Year

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120

Mer

chan

tabl

e V

olum

e (m

3 /ha

)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

No Harvest

Year

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120

Mer

chan

tabl

e V

olum

e (m

3 /ha)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

24

• Compare current state to:– Clearcut– No harvest

• Differences in volume over time

Results: ForecastsCurrent State Minus Clear-cutWithout Harvested Volumes

Year

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120

Mer

chan

tab

le V

olu

me

(m3 /h

a)

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

Current State Minus Clear-cutWith Harvested Volumes

Year

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120

Mer

chan

tab

le V

olu

me

(m3 /h

a)-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

Current State Minus No HarvestWithout Harvested Volumes

Year

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120

Mer

chan

tab

le V

olu

me

(m3 /h

a)

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

Current State Minus No HarvestWith Harvested Volumes

Year

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120

Mer

chan

tab

le V

olu

me

(m3 /h

a)

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

25

Results: Forecasts

Scenario

Year Volume Current No harvest Clear-cut

2036 Standing 146 (15) 376 (31) 0 (0)

Cumulative 437 (34) 376 (31) 400 (34)

• For next 50 years, the observed partial-cut will provide:– Less standing volume than the no harvest but more than

the clearcut– Slightly more cumulative volume than the no harvest

and the clearcut• Over the long-term, most stands will grow less than they

would as clear-cuts• Judged consistent with government’s objectives for timber

26

Rapid, qualitative assessment of 8 factors that could impact achievement of the FRPA timber-goal

• Notable concerns:– #4: Growth potential of

retained trees– #5: Species diversity– #1: Windthrow risk– #7: Cutting trees not

threatened

Results: Overstory factors

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Routine evaluation indicator (overstory)

0

10

20

30

Num

ber

of s

am

p le

s

HIGHMEDLOW

27

Rapid, qualitative assessment of 9 factors that could impact achievement of the FRPA timber-goal

• Notable concerns:– #11: Probability of add’l

regen– #12: Species diversity– #18: Poor interfering with

good trees

Results: Understory factors

10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 9Routine evaluation indicator (understory)

0

10

20

30

Nu

mb

er o

f sa

mp

les

HIGHMEDLOW

28

Degree to which observed condition meets FRPA objectives for timber

Condition class Low Medium High

1: Stocked by residual overstory, value removal did not greatly exceed volume removal 3

2: Stocked by residual overstory, value removal greatly exceeded volume removal

3: Stocked by residual overstory, value removal moderately exceeded volume removal

4: Not fully stocked by residual overstory, high level of poor quality timber retained

5: Not fully stocked by residual overstory, low level of poor quality timber retained, high level of seedling and sapling stocking

19

6: Not fully stocked by residual overstory, low level of poor quality timber retained, low level of seedling and sapling stocking

7: Not fully stocked by residual overstory, low level of poor quality timber retained, medium level of seedling and sapling stocking

3

Results: Routine – condition classes

• Routine evaluation procedure

• Classifies sample point into 1 of 7 condition classes

• Cross-reference for each class that interprets the degree of consistency: High, Medium, or Low

• Result:

– 22 sample points High

– 3 sample points Medium