Topics for Today Final Report Presentation Project overview Model strengths and limitations

Oregon Department of Forestry Harvest & Habitat Model Project

Final ReportOregon Board of Forestry Meeting

March 8, 2006

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

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

Project OverviewScope of the Model

Northwest & Southwest Oregon State Forest Management Plans7 Districts Involved

Astoria

Tillamook

Forest Grove

West Oregon

North Cascade

Western Lane

Southwest Oregon

Project Overview Organizational Structure

4-member ODF Exec Policy Team

10-member Policy Team

16-member Core Team

10 Subcommittees

Major ContractsModel Creation: Dr. Sessions

Harvest Units-Roads

Growth-Yield Tables

GIS InformationFTLAC(Forest Trust LandsAdvisory 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

Greater Emphasis on Reserves

Greater Emphasis on Wood Production

Forestry Program for Oregon

Forest Management PlansForest 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 OverviewScope of Modeling

The “Greatest Permanent Value”Social, Economic & Environmental Benefits

Project OverviewAlternative Development

FMP~HCP Simulates NW & SW FMPs and HCP strategies

FMP~TA Simulates 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

Project OverviewAlternative Strategies

FMP~HCP FMP~TA Wood Emphasis Reserve-Based

NW/SW FMPs Yes Yes No Yes, Outside

Reserves

T&E Species Protection

HCP, ODF TA 1st

periodODF TA ODF TA 56-60%

Reserves

Riparian Strategy NW FMP NW FMP FPA Modified NW

FMP

Project OverviewAlternative Goals

FMP~HCP FMP~TA Wood Emphasis Reserve-Based

Even Flow Harvest volume

Yes Yes No, Initial Departure Yes

Complex Structure Target

Yes Yes None Yes, Outside Reserves

NPV Yes Yes Yes Yes

50-Year Harvest Rotation

No No Yes No



Where to from here?


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


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


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

Similar stands comprise a “strata” – some measured, some un-measured

Model Strengths & LimitationsStrata-Based Inventory – What is a “Strata”?

“Strata” average is different than specific stands



Where to from here?


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

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

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

Comparison of Alternatives Summary Table: Harvest Volume

Average Annual Volume (millions of bd. ft.)

FMP~HCP FMP~TA* Wood Emphasis Reserve-Based1st Dec 150 Yrs 1st Dec 150 Yrs 1st Dec 150 Yrs 1st Dec 150 Yrs

Ast 62 63 76 58 134 91 29 32Till 61 62 73 57 113 92 39 41FG 54 55 64 46 104 63 33 333 Sub: 177 180 213 161 351 246 101 106NC 12 13 12 11WO 12 14 12 12WL 9 10 6 7SW 2 2 2 24 Sub: 35 39 32 327 Grand Total 212 219 245 193* Base NSO Population Scenario

Comparison of Alternatives4 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

Comparison of Alternatives4 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

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 AlternativesTwo Alternatives: 7 Districts Combined



Where to from here?


Questions Analyzed3 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

Questions Analyzed 3 North Coast Districts Combined

FMP~HCP: Volume Flow AnalysisHarvest Volume Flow Types

0102030405060708090

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29periods

mm

bf/y

ear

even flow

non-declining

departure

declining


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


FMP~HCP: Volume Flow Analysis

Astoria

Forest Grove

harvest volume

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

1 6 11 16 21 26

time ( 5 year periods )

annu

al h

arve

st (m

mbf

)

baseline

high departure

complex structure percentage

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 6 11 16 21 26


% c

ompl

ex

baseline

high departure

harvest volume

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

1 6 11 16 21 26


annu

al h

arve

st (m

mbf

)

baseline

high departure


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 6 11 16 21 26


% c

ompl

ex

baseline

high departure


FMP~HCP: Volume Flow AnalysisTillamook

• Initial high volume is dependent on greater productivity of future stands. More stands clearcut early, yield a greater total harvest volume over 150 years

harvest volume

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

1 6 11 16 21 26


annu

al h

arve

st (m

mbf

)

baseline

intermediate departure


high departure


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 6 11 16 21 26


% c

ompl

exbaseline


intermediate departurehigh departure


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


FMP~HCP: Landscape Design AnalysisWhat 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


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



Where to from here?


Level of ConfidenceModel 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

Level of ConfidenceModel 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

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

Thank You

http://images.fws.gov/default.cfm?fuseaction=records.display&CFID=1827789&CFTOKEN=182cb26669b1743b-66F916A0-1143-3066-40BB5E640CD1BAF6&id=33011430%2D9FA6%2D4783%2DA693FAE6B5BD5708

http://images.fws.gov/default.cfm?fuseaction=records.display&CFID=1827789&CFTOKEN=182cb26669b1743b-66F916A0-1143-3066-40BB5E640CD1BAF6&id=D7AD5055%2D65B8%2DD693%2D7099B5B0F9E33F8B

Documents

Topics for Today Final Report Presentation Project overview Model strengths and limitations