1 / 35

Late Successional Old Growth (LSOG) the issue, the data, the look

Late Successional Old Growth (LSOG) the issue, the data, the look. Kenneth M. Laustsen Maine Forest Service 8 th Annual FIA Symposium, Monterey, CA October 18, 2006. Late Successional Old Growth (LSOG). A current policy issue percolating in Maine

becka
Download Presentation

Late Successional Old Growth (LSOG) the issue, the data, the look

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Late Successional Old Growth (LSOG)the issue, the data, the look Kenneth M. Laustsen Maine Forest Service 8th Annual FIA Symposium, Monterey, CA October 18, 2006

  2. Late Successional Old Growth (LSOG) • A current policy issue percolating in Maine • Loads of real concern on status, recent changes, and future distribution by lots of various stakeholders • How to assess? • There are already C&I benchmarks and implications for maintenance in Maine’s State of the Forest Report • Need an unbiased estimator – FIA data?

  3. Discussion Points • The Issue • LSOG definition • Extant • Change Dynamics • The Data • Manomet – Forest Conservation Program • ME Phase 2 • ME Phase 3 • The Look • FVS and SVS

  4. The Issue • Late Successional Old Growth (LSOG) stands are beyond silvicultural or financial maturity, with a dominant canopy cohort of trees 120 – 200 years old. • Deemed to be a integral and desirable component of biodiversity and sustainable forest management. • How to identify? • How to maintain or restore the attributes comprising LSOG?

  5. Manomet – Forest Conservation Program • LS Index – a simple, fast (< 30 minutes), science-based and field-tested tool that foresters can use to identify LSOG. • Built from a large number of variables • Relies on • Density of large-diameter trees (≥ 16”, alive or dead) (Large-tree Score of 0 – 9) • Density of 3 easily-identified lichen species (Lichen Score of 0 – 2) • LS Index = Large-tree Score + Lichen Score • Released in December 2004, with a separate index for Northern Hardwood and Upland Spruce-fir Forests

  6. Cooperation – Round #1 (12/1/04 – 1/28/05) • Manomet approached MFS with the idea of analyzing 1982, 1995, and 2003 FIA data to estimate LSOG acreage. • Manomet reconfigured the LS Index to a single LS Threshold using only the Large-tree Score for each of the Major Forest Type Groups (MFTYP). • MFS retained only single condition plots, therefore any qualified tree (live/dead/snag) had a discrete contribution value (5 or 6 TPA), depending on plot size. • MFS used reprocessed data with single algorithms across time for type, stocking, and stand size. • Presentation made to a LSOG Stakeholder group on January 28, 2005

  7. Conclusions • Minor loss from 16% to 13% of total timberland acreage over the 20 year period, ~500,000 acres • Compensating changes going on • > 83% of acres are in FIA Sawtimber size class. (Expected) • ~70% of acres are in the 60 – 120 year age class based on converting the Best Site Index Tree to a stump age basis. (Unexpected) • Satisfied stakeholders?

  8. Questions and Impacts • Should a recent harvest activity, i.e. since the previous inventory, remove a plot from consideration as LSOG? If yes, then • 1982 retains only 79% - 2.2 MM acres • 1995 retains only 72% - 1.9 MM acres • 2003 retains only 91% - 2.1 MM acres • Should LSOG have a minimum All Live Basal Area of ≥ 100 sq ft? If yes, then • 1982 retains only 72% - 2.0 MM acres • 1995 retains only 65% - 1.7 MM acres • 2003 retains only 79% - 1.8 MM acres

  9. How can forest management retain, recruit, and promote trees to fill this structural gap of 6 – 10 trees that are 16.0”+ DBH?

  10. Cooperation – Round #2 (2/1/05 – 4/27/05) • New primary interest was just in 3 MFTYP’s • White/Red/Jack Pine (100) • Upland Spruce-Fir (120 sub-group) • Maple/Beech/Birch (800) • Large-tree score of 4, 5, 6 was considered Potential LSOG, needing lichens to qualify or more time to add additional stocking • Large-tree score of 7, 8, 9 was considered Prime LSOG, qualifies now on just large trees • Presentation made at “Northeast LSOG Dialogue” on April 27, 2005

  11. Round #2 continued • Hypothesis - Change in sample population over the 20-year period was masking dynamics • Of all plots measured in 1982, only ~50% were retained and remeasured in 1995 • Of all plots measured in 1995, only ~50% were retained and remeasured in 1999 – 2003 • 707 plots were successively remeasured in the 1982, 1995, and 2003 inventories. This subset was expanded to a statewide estimate. • For the 3 MFTYP’s of interest there are 136 plots, qualifying as LSOG (Potential or Prime) at some point in the 20-year period, representing an aggregate of 3.9 MM acres. • What happens to each MFTYP?

  12. Summary • In aggregate, the trajectory of the remeasured plots in estimating LSOG is far different from the 3 sets of inventory plots: • 1982 remeasured plots estimate 20% more acres. • 1995 remeasured plots estimate 15% less acres. • 2003 remeasured plots estimate 36% less acres. • If you were an optimist, you were enthused with the acreage additions growing into or transitioning to other MFTYP and still be LSOG qualified. • If you were a pessimist, the sky was definitely falling. • My thoughts: • Counting just big trees (live/dead/snag) and calling it LSOG, does not bring a lot of analytical comfort. • Averaging the current core plot design may not represent the visual acre • Annualized inventory will improve these transitions • Audience not impressed!

  13. Hardwoods All species Softwoods Figure 78. Estimated number of trees per acre greater than 16.0-inches in diameter at breast height, Maine, 2003. Is this a better way of answering the LSOG extant?

  14. Figure 77. Number of Late-Successional lichen species, Maine, 2003 Or do we promote this approach, using Phase 3 data

  15. The conundrum • For the first time, estimates using plots from separate inventories to infer change did not match up to remeasured plots and their exact estimate of trends and point-in-time inventory levels. • Challenge is how to get agreement on the analytical process before seeing the results? • What to do? • Out loud thinking on the white board! • Or more cooperation

  16. Cooperation – Round #3 (5/1/05 – 4/1/06) Manomet believes in the continuing use of FIA data for calibrating LSOG attributes, therefore - • Manomet revised the LS Index, the new procedure is now based solely on the frequency and stocking of large trees, ≥ 16” DBH, live or dead. • Northern Hardwood and Upland Spruce-fir are correlated to data from known Old Growth, Late Successional, and Silviculturally Mature stands. These two groups constitute 60% of Maine’s forestland. • Manomet and MFS agree that further segregation will be by: • Intact Forestland • Non-intact Forestland • Plots need to have an All Live Basal Area of ≥ 100 sq. ft. to be retained

  17. Round #3 continued • Contemplating setting a hurdle of qualified stocking on the sub-plot level for an implied spatial distribution across visual acre: • At least 1 large tree on at least 3 subplots, or • At least 2 large trees on at least 2 subplots • Using FVS and SVS to model and display the qualified plots. • This analysis has not been done and is in limbo, the parties are reluctant to commit. Manomet is trying to obtain a critical mass of agreement on the process. • Everybody wants FIA data to be the underpinning of calibration and the estimator of choice for statewide LSOG acreage.

  18. Round #4 – WHAT IF? (6/1/06 – Now) • Manomet – A forest stand does not instantly become LSOG, but rather slowly accumulates LS attributes and species over time. That is, being LS is not a black-and-white issue. LS is a matter of degree, and therefore it can be measured. If it can be measured, it can be managed. A corollary is that trees can be removed from a stand without removing all of the LS content. Our research indicates that timber harvesting can be compatible with managing and conserving LS attributes.

  19. Round #4 continued • Manomet supplied MFS with some known LSOG stand data (Non-FIA). • MFS has played what if, removing LSOG trees and others in an effort to retain minimum LSOG stocking. • This initial removal has a stumpage value to the landowner, which they can capture while still maintaining LSOG attributes. • Otherwise in actuality, in the same stand, the landowner can remove stumpage value down to the FPA minimum of 30 BAPA.

  20. Round #4 continued • The game plan is to allow the initial removal to take place, and then find a way to subsidize/underwrite/compensate the landowner so that the second stage doesn’t occur, making the landowner financially whole and forest management neutral on a short term basis on sufficient acres. • The additional twist is using ecosystem services and trying to access funds available for carbon sequestration/offsets. • What does this look like?

  21. Northern Hardwood Initial stand LSOG Value = $1,325 Non-LSOG Value = $1,056 268 MTCO2e Post harvest to FPA Minimum LSOG Value = $86 (Big cull) Non-LSOG Value = $91 99 MTCO2e Post harvest to Minimum LSOG LSOG Value = $0 (Dead Trees count!) Non-LSOG Value = $1,027 136 MTCO2e

  22. Preserving Minimum LSOG • Northern Hardwood • $850 worth of stumpage between Minimum LSOG and FPA Minimum • 37 MTCO2e differential between Minimum LSOG and FPA Minimum • Would you accept $23/MTCO2e today, for preserving LSOG for 20 years? • Or would you accept an annual payment of $87 for next 20 years to leave this minimum LSOG on this acre? • The risk of fire or blowdown; who’s liability?

  23. Upland Spruce-Fir Initial Stand LSOG Value = $688 Non-LSOG Value = $1,095 268 MTCO2e Post harvest to FPA Minimum LSOG Value = $0 Non-LSOG Value = $125 92 MTCO2e Post harvest to Minimum LSOG LSOG Value = $0 (Dead Trees count!) Non-LSOG Value = $285 147 MTCO2e

  24. Preserving Minimum LSOG • Upland Spruce-Fir • $160 in stumpage value between Minimum LSOG and FPA Minimum • 55 MTCO2e differential between Minimum LSOG and FPA Minimum • Would you accept $3/MTCO2e today, for preserving LSOG for the next 20 years? • Or would you accept an annual payment of $16 for next 20 years to leave minimum LSOG on this acre? • The risk of budworm; who’s liability?

  25. Summation – Where we’re at • Consensus is that some distributed level of LSOG is needed. • Change dynamics need to be better addressed, both recruitment and retention. • How best to reimburse a landowner for retaining or even self-perpetuating LSOG? • FIA data is the metric to use; its trusted, unbiased, scalable, and in-place. • How to use FIA data and reach a consensus without resorting to a “Referendum”. • Need for better modeling tools to predict recruitment, retention, and fall-down in pre and LSOG sized trees. • Triple Bottom Line (Financial, Social, Environment)?

  26. Stay Tuned Questions?

More Related