Upload
karl-r-walters
View
397
Download
4
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
An evaluation of potential impacts of 2005 Planning Rule on forest planning and models.
Citation preview
National Forest Planning and NFMA Requirements
Karl R. Walters
Purpose of Study
• Forest Service recently released new planning rules– What do these changes in the rules mean?– Will the changes make a difference?– What are the implications for modelers?
Why is this important?
• National Forest Planning bogged down– Time and expense has become exorbitant– Revisions required every 10-15yrs– On some forests, taking almost that long
• New rules to reduce time to develop plans– Less litigation, more implementation– Focus on sustainable forest management– Forest health is a major goal
• NFMA (1976) and NPLMA (1976)– Multiple use-sustained yield concept still applies
Why is this important?
What if the Forest Plan isn’t implemented?• Harvests are significantly lower than
allowable across most Regions• Catastrophic insect & fire damage common
– Fire suppression costs increasing yearly
Do more with less• Increased mandates (fire protection on non-
Federal land) • Budgets are being cut, not increased
Highlights of the New Rule
• Planning framed in EMS (ISO 14001)– Provides standards for management process, reporting,
etc, across NFS
• Streamlined planning– 2-3 yr process– More internalized evaluation of alternatives– Public comment on the proposed plan rather than a
variety of alternatives
• Allowable sale quantity– Still subject to LTSY constraints– Viewed as an upper bound only on timber sales
Implications
• Auditing for compliance– EMS requires regular measurement of actions against
the plan– Need to do what you say you’re going to do
• Sustained yield – sustainable management– Which is it? NFMA requirements at odds
• Planning models– Smaller, simpler models to determine capacities,
interactions, etc– Spatially explicit to consider smaller scale effects– One final, detailed model for public comment
Contrived Planning Problem
• ~ 300,000 ac• Ponderosa pine dominated landscape• Major concerns
– Forest fires, mountain pine beetle– Maintaining historical range of variability
• More dispersed age classes• Greater presence of aspen and hardwoods
Example Forest - Covertype
Example Forest – Age distribution
Example Forest – Inholdings
Example Forest – Age Class Distribution
Current Conditions – Fire Risk
Current Conditions – Structural Stage
The Model
• Goal programming formulation– Minimize deviations from goals
• 75% of area in wildland urban interface and 1 mile buffer in low or low-moderate fire hazard rating
• Maintain proportions of structural stages within key management areas
• Perform minimum acres of aspen and oak restoration
• Maintain minimum habitat acres in critical management area
Base Run Results
Total Sale Program Quantity• Subject to
– Nondeclining yield (NDY)– LTSYC-NDY link– Perpetual timber harvest
constraint
Forest inventory• Generally increasesGoal achievement• Generally under-achieve
Current Conditions – Structural Stage
DFC (Planned) – Structural Stage
Current Conditions – Fire Risk
DFC (Planned) – Fire Risk
Current Conditions – Structural Stage
DFC (Planned) – Structural Stage
DFC (Implemented) – Structural Stage
Current Conditions – Fire Risk
DFC (Planned) – Fire Risk
DFC (Implemented) – Fire Risk
Is Sustainable Yield Sustainable?
• NFMA requires– Sale quantity < long-term sustained yield– Departures from NDY ok if consistent with
multiple-use– New rule makes ASQ an upper bound only
• But what if forest health suffers because of NFMA requirements?– Luckert & Williamson (2005) question SY in the
context of Sustainable Forest Management
No NFMA constraints
Sale Quantity• Large variationsInventory• Marginal decrease
relative to BaseGoal achievement• Better achievement• Higher forage
production
DFC (Base) – Structural Stage
DFC (No NFMA) – Structural Stage
DFC (Planned) – Fire Risk
DFC (No NFMA) – Fire Risk
Model Attributes
• Example is a typical monolithic model– Model II formulation– 13 landscape themes
• 42 trillion potential development types• 2055 defined at start
– 42 yield components– Goal programming formulation
• Goals used because constraint set infeasible• Constraints specified in isolation with no testing for
compatibility or feasibility
– Big and slow
Discussion
• Backlog of NF’s requiring Plan revisions– Litigation has hampered
• Development of plans• Implementation of plans
• New rule implies a disconnect between harvests and other outputs (ASQ = ceiling)– Cannot use silviculture to achieve vegetation
management goals if you don’t implement it– With reduced budgets, how will vegetation
management be funded without a timber program?– SAF advocates use of silviculture on NF’s
Discussion
• Sustained yield and sustainable forest management seem to be at odds– Timber production facilitates improving
forest structure but is limited by SY laws– Non-timber benefits require vegetation
management and silviculture is best option– Ability to improve forest conditions is
hampered
Discussion
• Large scale models to address multiple goals often don’t work well– Complex and hard to interpret– Constraints and objectives are often
conflicting • Developed in isolation from each other
• Yields/prescriptions often out-of-sync with overall objectives– Using treatments developed to produce
timber to effect fire risk reduction
Discussion
• Use multiple small models to look at issues– Determine which objectives conflict and
which ones complement– Focus on real trade-offs– Determine reasonable range of values
• Finally, create a smaller, tightly focused model representing a single alternative
FORSight Resources, LLC
World-Class Natural Resource Decision Support