Use of FVSfor a

Forest-wide Inventory

SPOKANE INDIAN RESERVATION

What I will cover

• Introduction to the Spokane CFI

• Summary data: overall trends• Analysis methods• FVS method• Results of FVS projections• Comparison of methods

Spokane Reservation CFI System

• Established in 1957• Remeasured 5 times since initiated• Last remeasurement done 1998 –

1999• Includes 994 one-fifth(1/5) acre

plots• Commercial forest area of

reservation is about 104,000 acres

 

Comparison of Measurements: Stocking per acre

Inventory Year

Number of Plots

Basal Area (sq.ft./ac)

Cubic Volume (cu.ft./ac)

Board Volume (bd.ft./ac)

1957 897 NA 1,324 4,478 1963 894 59 1,488 4,995 1969 666 64 1,600 5,509 1974 666 64 1,442 4,840 1985 946* 71 1,758 6,850 1998 991 71 1,856 8,053

Volumes Are Increasing Overall

Stocking Trends: Total Volume, 11" DBH +

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

1974 1985 1998

CFI measurement year

Vo

lum

e p

er a

cre

Cubic -foot volume

Board-foot volume

Stocking Changes 1985 to 1998

Basal Area / acre remained the same

Cubic-foot vol / acre increased 9%

Board-foot vol / acre increased 22%(based on 257-plot sort)

Trends in Board-foot Growth, Harvest & Mortality

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1974 - 1985 1985 - 1998

Bo

ard

-fe

et/

ac

re/y

ea

r

Growth

Harvest

Mortality

Growth Rates are Slowing, Mortality Increasing

Board-ft Growth, Harvest, and Mortality Changes, 1985 to 1998

Growth rate has decreased 18%

Harvest has increased 31%

Mortality has increased 103%(based on 257-plot sort)

Growth & Mortality by Species, 1985 - 1998

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Ponderosa Pine Douglas-fi r Lodgepole Pine Western Larch Grand Fir

Bo

ard

-fee

t/ac

re/y

r

Mortality

Net grow th

Growth & Mortality by Species, 1974 - 1985

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Ponderosa

Pine

Douglas-fi r Lodgepole Pine Western Larch Grand Fir

Bo

ard

-fee

t/ac

re/y

r

Mortality

Net grow th

Trends in Mortality as It Impacts Net Growth

Stand Age Conditions

Distribution of CFI Plots by Stand Age

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0-19 20-39 40-59 60-79 80-99 100-119 120-139 140+

Stand Age in Years

Pe

rce

nt

of

Plo

ts

Stratification of the Inventory Data

Data were sorted into four groups based on site quality

• Dry Pine: Dry ponderosa pine climax types

• Pine-fir: Ponderosa pine/snowberry & dry Douglas-fir climax types

• Ninebark: Douglas-fir & grand fir /ninebark types

• Wet grand fir: Grand fir/twinflower and wetter

Inventory StrataSpokane Indian Reservation

ANNUAL ALLOWABLE CUT CALCULATIONS

• Austrian Formula – used in 1985 • Area Volume Check Method – used in 1985• Forest Vegetation Simulator Model (FVS) – New method

Austrian Formula Method

Three different alternatives were tried which varied the

target future volumes

Austrian FormulaNo target future volume used

Gross Net

  1998 2008 1998 Yr 2045 Volume Per acre Per acre Stratum Net

Analysis Stratum I meas I proj V meas Vpred Adjust AAC AAC Acres AAC

  (bf/ac/yr) (bf/ac/yr) (bf/ac) (bf/ac) (bf/ac) (bf/ac/yr) (bf/ac/yr)   (MBF/yr)

Dry Pine 68.7 68.3 3,445.5 3,445.5 0.0 68.5 62.0 26,958 1,671.1

Pine-fir 177.9 156.8 8,494.6 8,494.6 0.0 167.3 152.0 41,790 6,354.1

Ninebark 249.8 232.9 11,967.4 11,967.4 0.0 241.3 216.8 16,915 3,667.3

Wet Grand fir 313.7 261.5 12,612.1 12,612.1 0.0 287.6 260.1 17,685 4,600.1

Sum of All Strata               103,348 16,293

Area-Volume Control

Check Method

Summary of results

Stratum Gross AAC

MBF/year Defect %

Net AAC MBF/year

Dry Pine 1,825 9.51 1,651 Pine Fir 6,717 9.13 6,103 Ninebark 3,616 10.17 3,248 Wet Grand Fir 4,601 9.56 4,161 All Strata 17,698 9.57 15,163

FVS Projections

Questions to address through FVS

• What yields are produced simulating current management practices over the next 40 to 50 years?

• Does FVS forecast an increase in mortality that might significantly impact yields?

• Will the current age-class distribution of the forest result in a future down-cycle in harvest yields?

• Can FVS be used to identify the more vulnerable components of the forest as a means to focus harvest in the coming decade?

• Does FVS indicate differing yields on a long-term basis using other alternatives to current management?

Model calibration and adjustments

• Large tree diameter growth (READCORD) • Large tree height growth (FIXHTG) • Regeneration inputs• Mortality (BAMAX)• Mortality (MORTMULT)• Mortality (Western Root Disease Model)

Stratum summary data

  Dry Pine Pine-fir Ninebark Wet Grand fir

Habitat Types

Pipo/Stco Pipo/Syal Psme/Phma Psme/Vaca

Pipo/Agsp Psme/Syal Abgr/Phma Abgr/Libo

Pipo/Feid Psme/Caru   Abgr/Clun

Pipo/Putr     Thpl/Clun

FVS HabTypes

130 170, 310, 320 260 250, 520, 530

Number of 227 390 217 160

Plots       92 GF / 68 LP

Commercial 26,954 41,788 16,914 GF: 10,169

Forest Acres       LP: 7,517

FVS Base Parameters by Stratum  Dry Pine Pine-fir Ninebark Wet Grand fir

Species Preferences

PP: -2.0 PP: -2.0 PP: -2.0 PP:-2.0

DF: +1.0 WL: -3.0 WL:-2.0 WL:-3.0

WL: -3.0 DF: +1.0 DF:+1.0 DF:+2.0

  LP: +3.0 LP:+4.0 LP: 0

    GF:+8.0 GF:+6.0

READCORD PP: 0.367 PP: 0.519 PP: 0.651 PP: 0.749

DF: 0.714 WL: 1.084 WL: 0.853 WL: 0.828

  DF: 0.946 DF: 0.966 DF: 1.077

  LP: 0.566 LP: 0.551 LP: 0.656

    GF: 0.793 GF: 0.888

Maximum BA from 1998 CFI

156 245 246 247

BAMAX used 160 220 250 280

MORTMULT PP: 0.55 PP: 1.17 PP: 1.25 PP: 1.142

used WL: 0.35 WL: 0.35 WL: 0.73 WL: 0.551

  DF: 0.79 DF: 0.41 DF: 0.51 DF: 0.468

    LP: 1.24 LP: 0.74 LP: 1.204

    GF: 2.00 GF: 2.00 GF: 1.454

Condition statement criteria• Stand age • Total basal area per acre• Sawtimber basal area per acre• Total number of trees per acre• Number of trees per acre of

saplings and/or pole sizes• Ratio of cubic-foot mortality to

cubic-foot stocking• Stand mistletoe rating • Quadratic mean diameter

Management activities invoked

• Initial input of regeneration • Overstory removal• Precommercial thinning, alt. 1 & 2• First commercial thinning, alt. 1 &

2• Second commercial thinning• Regeneration: Low volume stocking• Regeneration: High mortality• Regeneration: High mistletoe rating • Mature stand maintenance thin

Management options considered

• Regeneration unit size (uneven-aged vs. even-aged)

• Regeneration type, Natural vs. Planted *

• Regeneration density• Precommercial thinning

Combining the FVS projections

• CFI plots were grouped by stratum but projected individually

• Plot projections were combined in the FVSSTAND post-processor to produce a summary for each stratum

• FVSSTAND output tables were read into spreadsheets and expanded by acreages to produce “All Strata” summaries

Results of FVS Projections

Projected changes in board-foot stocking

Dry Pine Stratum

Dry Pine Stratum: FVS Board-foot Stocking

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078 2088 2098

Bo

ard

-fee

t p

er a

cre

Projected changes in board-foot stocking

Pine-fir Stratum

Pine-Fir Stratum: FVS Board-foot Stocking

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078 2088 2098

Bo

ard

-fee

t p

er a

cre

Projected changes in board-foot stockinNinebark Stratum

Ninebark Stratum: FVS Board-foot Stocking

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078 2088 2098

Bo

ard

-fo

ot

Vo

lum

e

Option 1

Option 2

Projected changes in board-foot stocking

Wet Grand fir Stratum

Wet Grand Fir Stratum: FVS Board-foot Stocking

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078 2088 2098

Bo

ard

-fee

t p

er a

cre]

Option 1

Option 2

Projected changes in board-foot stocking

Lodgepole Stratum

Lodgepole Stratum: FVS Board-foot Stocking

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078 2088 2098

Bo

ard

-fo

ot

Vo

lum

e

Option 1

Option 2

All Strata: FVS Board-foot Stocking

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

1998 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078 2088 2098

Bo

ard

-fee

t p

er a

cre

Option 1

Option 2

Projected changes in board-foot stockingAll strata

Harvest Levels Simulated for All Strata, Option 1

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078 2088 2098

Bo

ard

-fee

t p

er a

cre

All StrataDry PinePine-firNinebarkGrand FirLodgepole

Harvest trends for all strata

Projected changes in harvest yieldsAll strata

All Strata: FVS Projected Harvest Yield

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078 2088 2098

Har

vest

in M

BF

Option 1

Option 2

Projected changes in mortality

Dry Pine stratum

Dry Pine Stratum: FVS Projected 10-year Mortality as Percent of Stocking

0

1

2

3

4

5

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078 2088 2098

Per

cen

t M

ort

alit

y

Projected changes in mortality

Pine-fir stratum

Pine-fir Stratum: FVS Projected 10-year Mortality as Percent of Stocking

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078 2088 2098

Per

cen

t M

ort

alit

y

Projected changes in mortality

Ninebark stratum

Ninebark Stratum: FVS Projected 10-year Mortality as Percent of Stocking

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078 2088 2098

Per

cen

t M

ort

alit

y

Option 1

Option 2

Projected changes in mortality

Wet Grand Fir stratum

Wet Grand Fir Stratum: FVS Projected 10-year Mortality as Percent of Stocking

012345678

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078 2088 2098

Per

cen

t M

ort

alit

y

Option 1

Option 2

Projected changes in mortality

Lodgepole stratum

Lodgepole Stratum: FVS Projected 10-year Mortality as Percent of Stocking

0

2

4

6

8

10

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078 2088 2098

Per

cen

t M

ort

alit

y

Option 1

Option 2

Projected changes in mortalityAll strata

All Strata: FVS Projected 10-year Mortality as Percent of Stocking

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078 2088 2098

Per

cen

t M

ort

alit

y

Option 1

Option 2

Comparison of Methods

Overview of the results

Method AAC (MBF)

Austrian, high target future volume 11,574

Austrian, mid target future volume 13,573

Austrian, future volume unchanged 16,072

Area-volume Check 15,163

FVS, 20-yr average yield 15,368

FVS, 100-yr average yield, Opt. 1 16,797

FVS, 100-yr average yield, Opt. 2 17,527

Conclusions

• FVS estimated a harvest level for the first 20 years that was in line with other AAC computation methods

• FVS estimated a harvest level for the long term that was much higher

• FVS indicated that the dynamic trends of the individual strata may neutralize one another during the transition period to a regulated forest

Conclusions

• FVS projected that wetter sites are prone to increased mortality in the next two decades

• FVS projected higher yields for planting pine & larch vs. natural regen on disease prone sites

I do not change the underlying processes

of growth, and nature’s grip

is tightened on the site

where I have worked.

-Andy Goldsworthy