Transcript Evaluating approaches to "Ecosystem Management" using FVS.

Evaluating Approaches to
“Ecosystem Management”
Using FVS
Steve McConnell
NWIFC
August 29, 2002
Ecosystem Management
Principles
Multiple scales
Ecosystem processes
Humans
Sustainability
Biodiversity
Boundaries
Adaptive
Challenges Facing EM
Tradeoffs remain unknown
Tradeoffs?
Timber
Removed
• volume
• species
• piece size
• variability
• predictability
Tradeoffs?
Residual
Landscape
• snags
• old-growth
• relative density
• species composition
Tradeoffs?
Ecological
Changes
• bird habitat
• insects
• pathogens
• crown fire risk
Demonstration Project
Citizen partners
Landscape planning
Long history of management
10 years
ago
60 years ago
Landscape Planning for
Ecosystem Sustainability
• Develop a landscape
planning method that:
• 1) incorporates social,
economic and ecological
considerations, and
• 2) integrates between
stands and landscape
Landscape Planning for
Ecosystem Sustainability
• Identify landscape
management zones
• Develop silvicultural Rx’s
• Quantify outcomes using
the Forest Vegetation
Simulation (FVS) model
Site Characteristics
Warm moist forest at low elevation
Very productive
Diverse
Previous Management
Timber Harvest Progression
hectares
800
608
710
600
400
200
0
No-Cut
Cut
Previous Management
Harvest Type
hectares
400
324
300
200
164
127
96
100
0
CC
shltrw d
P-cut
2nd-gr
Change in Species Composition by
Shade Tolerance Grouping
80
60
40
Intolerant
Tolerant
20
0
-20
-40
Historic
Current
Difference
Diverse Social Values
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Recreation
Roads and fire risk
Visuals
Old-growth
Increase early seral
Biological diversity
Water quality
Change (economic, population, social)
Plan
• With Citizen Partners, develop an EM
approach
• Compare against a commodity and
custodial approach
What Really Happened
• FACA
• All approaches can be part of an EM
approach, scale-dependent
• Our EM ~ active approach to
maintaining ecological integrity
• Conservative cutting approaches
Contrasting
Management Scenarios
Custodial: reserve
Commodity: timber production
Active: ecological integrity
Custodial Scenario
• Objective: Reserve area
• Method: Monitor
• Practices:
hazard tree removal along highway - cut 5%
of trees 37m+ tall from stands adjacent to the
highway
Commodity Scenario
• Objectives: Timber production / Arearegulated forest
• Method: Even-aged intensive management
• Practices:
clearcut, overstory removal, commercial
thinning, pre-commercial thinning,
prescribed burning, planting
Commodity Scenario:
Stand Priority for Clearcuts
•
•
•
•
Relative density
Basal area
Merchantable bdft volume
Species composition - % of basal area in
shade-tolerant species
• Mortality/accretion ratio
Commodity Scenario:
Stand Priority for
Commercial Thinning
• Mortality/accretion ratio
• Relative density
• Species composition: % of basal area in
shade-intolerant species
• Age (after year 20) - younger stands with
higher priority
• Minimum 3000 bdft/acre
Active Scenario
• Objective: Ecological integrity
• Method: Intensive partial cutting to direct
structure and species composition
• Practices:
partial cuts (35% maxim), conversion cuts
(70-75%), composition control cuts,
prescribed burning, planting
Management Zones for Active Scenario
6 zones
Current forest condition
Biophysical site
Connectivity
Disturbance regimes
Social values
Active Scenario LMZ Goals
• Dry-Ridge: Open stands with WL, PP
• Multi-Resource: Structurally diverse,
older, mesic site tree species,
reestablish western white pine
• Ridge: Brushfields, scattered dry-site
trees
Active Scenario LMZ Goals
• Old-growth: Connected zone of oldgrowth conditions - structurally diverse,
large trees
• Riparian: Functional, shade-intolerant
trees
• Scenic Corridor: Protect visuals, avoid
hazards, shade-intolerant trees
Active Scenario
Prescription Generalizations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Target shade-tolerant trees for cut
Retain western larch
Retain relict overstory trees
Decrease relative density
Plant shade-intolerant species
Avoid windthrow
Remove 20, 35, or 70% of basal area
LMZ Prescription Matrix
Previous Harvest by Active Scenario
Landscape Management Zone
Hectares
No-cut
200
CC
100
Shltrw d
0
P-cut
DR
MR
OG
R
RPN
Landscape Management Zone
SC
2nd-gr
Using FVS
• 150 stands
• Projected for 60 Years
• Used Fire and Fuels Extension (prerelease version)
• Organized stands using SUPPOSE
(version 1.12)
• Dumped data to EXCEL Spreadsheets
Data
•
•
•
•
Stand Exams (79%)
Post-planting stocking surveys (9%)
Pre-commercial thinning surveys (4%)
Reforestation surveys for release and
thinning evaluation (7%)
• Regeneration Establishment Model
(0.1%)
Data Manipulation
• Stand Exams – tree list
3001
1.2C
51
0 38
3002
1.3WP
209
4
3003
1.9WP
135
0 70
3004
1.2GF
3005
0
03
1 30 905303
0345 497 2
2
0
00
0
78 16 55
0
03
1
2.2C
25
0 20
0
03
1
3006
1.2GF
42
0 25
0
01
1
4001
1.2GF
100 11 68
0
0420 1
1 451355303
4002
1.2GF
156
0108
0
04
1
4003
1.2GF
142
0105
0
04
1
4004
1.2C
1
0
3
0
05
1
4005
1.2GF
1
0
2
0
35
1
4006
6.2GF
1
0
1
0
05
1
105
Data Manipulation: PCT,
Stocking, and Regen surveys
• Small or understory trees
– Data collected by tpa and height class
– Derive average height from dbh classes
– Calculate diameter from equations in FVS
manual, by species
Data Manipulation:
PCT surveys
•
Overstory trees
1.
2.
3.
4.
Use ht/dbh from field notes
Calculate ht from dbh
Calculate dbh from ht
Use Average of measured and calculated
heights and diameters
Data Manipulation:
Regeneration Establishment
Model
• Evaluated species composition of 4
nearby recent clearcuts,
• Planted average tpa, by species
composition,
• Grew out to start year
Stand File Organization
• For each stand
– A tree list file (*.fvs)
– An addfile (*.kcp)
• Treatments to stands in-between last inventory
and simulation start point (for example pct)
• Stand treatments throughout simulation
Stand File Organization Using
SUPPOSE
• For each scenario (cust, comm, actv)
– A different location file (*.loc) that
references a different stand list file (*.slf)
– The location file contains only reference to
the appropriate stand list file
Stand File Organization Using
SUPPOSE
• For each scenario (cust, comm, actv)
– The location file contains reference to
stand list files, site data, “groups”, and
treatment files
Generating Comparison
Attributes
• Used “Event Monitor” commands
• Placed in add.files
• Focused on:
– quantitative attributes of stands (e.g. basal
of DF of trees above 9” diameter)
– or site attributes (habitat type)
Generating Comparison
Attributes
• “Ecological” Algorithms developed from:
• 1) Habitat Suitability Indices,
• 2) Indices of stand susceptibility to
pathogens and insects, adapted a photo
interp method to FVS (Hessburg et al.
1999)
• 3) Features of FFE model (e.g.
crowning index)
Generating Comparison
Attributes
• “Commodity” or timber algorithms
developed from:
• 1) equations, evaluated timber by
– species,
– species group
– size class
– Periodicity
Area Entered For Cutting
Concentrated
40
30
20
Comm
Actv
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
time (years from present)
Cutting per Hectare
vs. Diffuse
bdft/ha (thousands)
percent of area
50
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Comm
Actv
0
10
20
30
40
time (years from present)
50
Data Extraction
• Data from .cp2 files goes easily into
EXCEL
• Data from tree list files can be excised
using TOSS program, needs additional
manipulation to go into EXCEL
• Data from FFE model was excised
manually, painstakingly
Problems with Model
• Management in patches not possible,
generalizes across one acre
• Lodgepole pine and hardwood
algorithms problematic
Problems with Model Linkages
• Outputs to spreadsheet difficult
Cumulative Cut by
“Shade-Group”
bdft (millions)
50
40
30
20
10
0
Tolerant
Intermediate
Intolerant
scenario
Custodial
Commodity
Active
Cumulative Size Distribution
percent of total
harvest
50
40
30
20
10
0
small
medium
larger
DBH Classes
Commodity
Active
largest
Shade-Intolerant Cover Types
percent of area
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
30
60
time (years from present)
Custodial
Commodity
Active
(kmh)
Crowning Index
Crown fire risk…
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
time (years from present)
Custodial
Commodity
Active
High Crown Fire Potential
Varies across
the landscape
percent of area
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
time (years from present)
Custodial
Commodity
Active
60
Spruce Budworm
percent of area
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
20
30
40
time (years from present)
Custodial
Commodity
Active
50
60
Findings
• Social concerns can, perhaps must be
incorporated into management, may be
somewhat predictable
• LMZs a useful organizing principle for
all scenarios
• Outcomes can be predicted and
compared on economic and other bases
Findings
• Active management (EM)
– Intensive
– Lower but predictable harvest volumes
– Decrease crown fire risk
– Decrease susceptibility to insects and
diseases
Findings
• Custodial
– Maintained high disturbance risk
– Lowest habitat diversity across landscape
but most old forest habitat
– Least road activity
Findings
• Commodity
– Highest timber volume
– Predictable
– Concentrated management leaves higher
potential risk to disturbance in some stands
– Diverse across a landscape
– Increased fragmentation
Significance
• Developed LMZs using social, ecological and
economic factors
• Developed silvicultural prescriptions
• Demonstrated predictable timber harvest can
result from active management
• Adapted growth and yield models for
landscape planning
• Compared outcomes for active, commodity,
and custodial scenarios
FVS Rocks: Predicts
Management Designed to be:
Ecologically sustainable
Socially acceptable
Economically feasible