The Future of Washington’s Forests and Forestry Industries:Practical applications of FIA data

April 4, 2007Bruce Lippke and Ara Erickson

Rural Technology InitiativeCollege of Forest Resources University of Washington

Today’s Presentation

• Future of Washington Forests and Forestry Industries study Background Key points

• Use of FIA data Forest land conversion Timber supply

Future of Washington’s Forests and Forestry

Industries

Competitive Position Study

Land Conversion Study and Cascade Foothills Forestry

Viability

Timber Supply Study

Economic Contribution Study

State Granted Lands Return on

Investment Study

Analyze the competitive position of

Washington’s forests products industry

Legislature Scope of Work

Update the 1992 Timber Supply Study

Evaluate the economic contribution of the

forest products industry

A

B

C

Assess the trends and dynamics that

commercial and residential

development play in the conversion of the state’s forests to non-

forestry uses

D

Recommend policy changes E

Assess the expected rate of return from

state granted lands F

Analyze and recommend policies

and programs to assist Cascade foothills area

landowners and communities in developing and implementing

innovative approaches to retaining traditional

forestry

G

Eastside Issues

1. Forest health

2. Increased fire risk

3. Declining timber harvest and

processing infrastructure

Mortality by MPB in ponderosa and lodgepole pine in eastern Washington from 1979-2004 (tallied 1980-2005)

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000

1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004

Year

To

tal

Mo

rtal

ity

(# t

rees

)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

Mo

rtal

ity/

acre

(T

rees

/Acr

e)

# Trees killed by MPB # Trees/acre killed by MPB

1979-1999 Mortality Rate = 2.2 TPA

Latest inventory

2000+ Mortality Rate 8.4 TPA

Impact on Fire Hazard of Thinning to BA 45Fire Ris k

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Ye ar

Acr

es

High Moderate Low

Westside Issues

1. Economic viability is key to sustaining lands in forests and reducing conversions

2. Changing management technology increases income, jobs and even carbon but reduces habitat

3. Many opportunities to improve the environment at low cost are being missed

No Harvest: TPA-170, QMD-16.8

Plant & Harvest: TPA-358, QMD-9.7

Plant Veg Control & Harvest: TPA-346, QMD-11.0

Plant Thin & Harvest: TPA-168, QMD-12.1

BioPath Short: TPA OS-31, QMD OS-26

BioPath Long(retention):

TPA OS-14, QMD OS-29

Sample Westside Management Treatments

from No Harvest to BioPathways @100 years (medium site)

Buffer canopy cover @ 110yrsnever more than 17% open stands outside of stability zone

Washington’s Forest Sector Today

• During past 15 years the industry was forced to adjust to new harvest levels as result of federal changes, HCPs, ESA and other regulations.

• Primarily a commodity production business model

• Produces lumber and newsprint

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

8000000

9000000

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Other Fed

NF

Other Non-fed

State DNR

Small Private

Large Private

Forest Ind

Native Am

Region (All)

Year

Data

Source: WA DNR Harvest Reports

Mbf

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

8000000

9000000

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Other Fed

NF

Other Non-fed

State DNR

Small Private

Large Private

Forest Ind

Native Am

Region (All)

Year

Data

Source: WA DNR Harvest Reports

Mbf

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

8000000

9000000

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Other Fed

NF

Other Non-fed

State DNR

Small Private

Large Private

Forest Ind

Native Am

Region (All)

Year

Data

Source: WA DNR Harvest Reports

Mbf

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

8000000

9000000

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Other Fed

NF

Other Non-fed

State DNR

Small Private

Large Private

Forest Ind

Native Am

Region (All)

Year

Data

Source: WA DNR Harvest Reports

Mbf

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

8000000

9000000

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Other Fed

NF

Other Non-fed

State DNR

Small Private

Large Private

Forest Ind

Native Am

Region (All)

Year

Data

Source: WA DNR Harvest Reports

Mbf

Effective Tax Rates on Private Timber RevenueGross Revenue from Timber: $10,080 (80 acres)Net Revenue: $8,568Revenue after State taxes: $7,959

After Tax Income Bracket Rate Revenue

• Less than $30,650: 21.0% $6,765

• Less than $74,200: 30.3% $5,969• Less than $154,800: 33.1% $5,730• Less than $336,550: 37.8% $5,332• More than $336,550: 39.6% $5,173

Per Acre Tax Burdens All States

Source: WFPA 2002 study

$0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00

Washington - West

California - Coastal

Texas

New Hampshire

Georgia

Louisiana

Idaho

Florida

West Virginia

Mississippi

California - Inland

Washington - East

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Oregon - West

Montana

South Carolina

Maine

North Carolina

Alabama

Virginia

Oklahoma

Michigan

Arkansas

Oregon - East

PropertyTimber

2037 1901 1885

40123833

3389

16361662

1763

Timberland area in 1978-1979 in 1988-1989 (remeasured) in 2001

35

95

60

281

88

Other Public

Forest Industry

Other Private

Owner Group

Net ownership change

Timberland Ownership and Net Flow – Western Washington

75

48

56

26

51

123

24

50

23 Non-timberland

Right-of-way

Urban

Agriculture

2037 1901 1885

40123833

3389

16361662

1763

Timberland area in 1978-1979 in 1988-1989 (remeasured) in 2001

35

95

60

281

88

3

5

52

75

7

48

56

26

In/Out of FIA Inventory

National Forest

Reserve

Other Public

Forest Industry

Other Private

Owner Group

Net ownership change

754

25

12

6

51

123

24

Timberland Ownership and Net Flow – Western Washington

(+78)

(-7)

(-119)

50

236

Non-timberland

Right-of-way

Urban

Agriculture

Christmas Tree Farm

17

ÆPublic Forest Land

Private Forest Land

Source: National Land Cover Data (forest cover)and compilation of federal and state ownership boundaries (public lands).0 25 50 75 10012.5

Miles Ara Erickson, Rural Technology Initiative, 2005

Washington's Forest Cover

Timber Supply and FIA Inventory

• FIA points provide tree list measurements

• Challenges Location, density, privacy, time

• Solution Update current state from past

inventory and additional data

To start…

• Stratify FIA points• Sum acreage• Choose representative stand• Grow representative stand• Produce volume yield streams• Calculate available volumes

Measurement and Data Improvement Alternatives

• FIA ground survey plots are too sparse to provide information on sensitive areas.

• LiDAR and related systems could provide more accurate information on a timely basis at a competitive price.

• The information collected would be of value to a broader range of users to share costs.

Deductive Flow

Stand Structure

Health OverlayInsects

& Disease

LWDRiparian Function

Habitat Models

Fire Risk & Carbon

Forest Economics

Community Economics

Regen & Treatment

Costs

Buffers & Zones

PredictedTree List

Fire & Fuel

Log CutTreatment & Harvest Cost

Mill ProductionFunction: Labor &

other costs

Jobs, TaxesBus Income

Growth Model(vols & metrics)

GISDEM, Health

TreatmentAlts

Current Inventory

By Location& Owner

Alts by treatment scenario, region & owner

RegsMgt

IntensitySurveys

FIA (& better) Inventory

Plots

Treatment &

Disturbance History

Acres at Risk

Habitat Suitability

Riparian Function& Diversity

ROI / SEV

Health Risk

Model & Result

Out

IN

Mgt Treatment for each plot stratified to acres

Mgt ScenarioEco & Econ Region

By OwnerBy Zone

Key Inputs Intermediate Drivers Output (acres & objectives) Inventory Plots (tree lists) Health Overlays & Density Insects & Disease Mgt Intensity Intentions (treatments)

Regs & Buffers LWD / Riparian Function

Stand Structure Diversity GIS layers (spatial) (DEM, Streams, Health)

Fire Risk Model Fire Risk & Carbon

Growth Models: Organon, FVS (tree lists)

Treatments on Tree Lists Habitat Suitability

Log Cut & Marketing Forest Economics Processor Production Function Community Economics

Inductive Map

Westside Treatments - medium site

1. NC (no cut): Seed or plant 435tpa and leave

2. P&C(plant & cut): Plant 435tpa & clearcut (CC) @45

3. PV&C(Ind: Veg-control & cut): Plant 435tpa &CC @40

4. PT&C (NIPF: CT): Plant 435tpa, CT to 180 @30 &CC@50

5. PTT&C (fast biopath): Plant 435tpa, WT to 150@35, WT to 35 @50 with understory regen &CC@100

6. PTT&H (riparian biopath & hold): Plant 435tpa, WT to 150@35, WT to 60 @55, WT to 15 @75 &hold

NA: TPA-170, QMD-16.8

PC: TPA-358, QMD-9.7

PVC: TPA-346, QMD-11.0

PTC: TPA-168, QMD-12.1

PTTC: TPA All-262, TPA OS-31, QMD All-13.4, QMD OS-25.8

PTTH: TPA All-110, TPA OS-14, QMD All-12.9 QMD OS-29.1

SEV by Management Scenario for Douglas-fir Moderate Site

-$739.25

$1,015

$1,996

$887

$502 $477

-$1,000.00

-$500.00

$0.00

$500.00

$1,000.00

$1,500.00

$2,000.00

$2,500.00

No Harvest Plant &Harvest

Plant, VC,Harvest

Plant, CT,Harvest

Shortbio LongBio

Management Scenario

SE

V (

$/ac

)

Present Value of Direct Output by Scenario

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

NoHarvest

Plant &Harvest

Plant, VC,& Harvest

Plant, CT,& Harvest

BioShort BioLong

Scenario

Pre

sen

t V

alu

e o

f D

ire

ct O

utp

ut

(200

5

do

llars

) p

er t

reat

ed

ac

re

PrimP SecW.SawnwoodLogging

Stand Structure for Habitat Suitability

• Johnson & O’Neil (2001) stand structures are available directly from LMS.

• Calculated from overstory QMD, Canopy Closure and Canopy Layers

• With the addition of Habitat Elements (snags, logs, etc.) are related to habitat use in Wildlife Habitat Relationship matrices (Johnson & O’Neil, 2001)

Stand Structures for “Traditional” Treatments

J ohnson & Oneil Structural Stage Classes J ohnson & Oneil Structural Stage ClassesGrass-Forb SI Small-Multi-Closed SESeedling-Single-Open SI Medium-Single-Closed SESeedling-Single-Moderate SI Medium-Multi-Moderate SESeedling-Multi-Open SI Medium-Multi-Closed SESeedling-Multi-Moderate SI Large-Single-Closed SESapling-Pole-Single-Open SI Large-Multi-Closed SESapling-Pole-Multi-Open SI Medium-Single-Open URSapling-Pole-Multi-Moderate SI Medium-Single-Moderate URSmall-Single-Open SI Medium-Multi-Open URSmall-Multi-Open SI Large-Single-Open URSeedling-Single-Closed SE Large-Single-Moderate URSeedling-Multi-Closed SE Large-Multi-Open URSapling-Pole-Single-Moderate SE Large-Milti-Moderate URSapling-Pole-Single-Closed SE Giant-Single-Open URSapling-Pole-Multi-Closed SE Giant-Single-Moderate OGSmall-Single-Moderate SE Giant-Single-Closed OGSmall-Single-Closed SE Giant-Multi-Open OGSmall-Multi-Moderate SE Giant-Multi-Moderate OG

Habitat Suitability –single or indicator species• Douglas Squirrel

Need coniferous forestsCommon species

• Pileated WoodpeckerPrefer complex forest structure

• Gold-Crown KingletPrefer closed forest structure

• Roosevelt ElkLarge body sizePrefer open structure

NP: Not Present –

Species does not occur

P: Present –

Occasional use

GA: Generally Associated –

Supportive role for viability

CA: Closely Associated – Essential needs

Legend

NA. PC PTC PVC PTTC PTTL

Habitat Structural Condition for Douglas' Squirrel

Treatment Regime

Ye

ars

in S

tru

ctu

re

0

20

40

60

80

100

Wildlife Associaion

CA GA P NP

NA. PC PTC PVC PTTC PTTL

Habitat Structural Condition for Pileated Woodpecker

Treatment Regime

Ye

ars

in S

tru

ctu

re

0

20

40

60

80

100

Wildlife Associaion

CA GA P NP

NA. PC PTC PVC PTTC PTTL

Habitat Structural Condition for Golden-Crowned Kinglet

Treatment Regime

Ye

ars

in S

tru

ctu

re

0

20

40

60

80

100

Wildlife Associaion

CA GA P NP

NA. PC PTC PVC PTTC PTTL

Habitat Structural Condition for Roosevelt Elk

Treatment Regime

Ye

ars

in S

tru

ctu

re

0

20

40

60

80

100

Wildlife Associaion

CA GA P NP

 

NA PC PTC PVC PTTC PTTL

Pileated Woodpecker 14.3 0.0 28.6 19.0 38.1 23.8

Douglas' Squirrel 71.4 33.3 38.1 19.0 66.7 71.4

Golden-Crown Kinglet 85.7 61.9 57.1 57.1 76.2 81.0

Roosevelt Elk 100 100 100 100 100 100

Percentages of suitable habitat conditions within 100 year time horizon for 4 wildlife species under different management regimes

TPA and QMD for Trees > 6" DBH

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

TPA

QM

D

Young

Old

Nest

Percent Time in DFC Target by Scenario

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

NoHarvest

Plant &Harvest

Plant, VC,& Harvest

Plant, CT,& Harvest

BioShort BioLong

Scenario

Pe

rce

nt

Tim

e in

DF

C T

arg

et

Forest, Product, Emissions, Displacement & Substitution Carbon by Component

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Year

Met

ric

Tons

Per

Hec

tare

Stem Root Crown Litter Dead Chips Lumber HarvEmis ManufEmis Displacement Substitution

Forestwith Products

with Substitution

Forest Carbon by Component

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Year

Metr

ic T

on

s P

er

Hecta

re

Stem Root Crown Litter Snags

Carbon Pools in: Forest, products & energy displacement, & fossil intensive substitutes

Carbon pools in unharvested forest, for stem, roots, crown, litter, and dead wood

CORRIM

Estimating Riparian Zone Impacts

1) Summarize stream mileage by owner type and stream type

2) Estimate riparian buffer acreage3) Test validity using a LiDAR case

study on streams with ground truthing

(Mouton 2005)

142-ha of buffers142-ha of buffers

21% of Study Area21% of Study Area

324-ha of buffers324-ha of buffers

41% of Study Area41% of Study Area

DNR Hydro Layer vs. LiDAR DEMDNR Hydro Layer vs. LiDAR DEM

Forested area (from DNR Site Class layer)

Timbershed 1 2 3 4 5 6 8Grand Total

North Puget Sound 33,018 473,028 663,742 234,880 70,426 114,313 277,631 1,867,037

Southwest 25,098 1,108,518 346,545 101,638 25,957 93,070 140,370 1,841,196

South Coast 164,850 528,404 530,767 18,952 102,194 95,544 1,440,710

South Puget Sound 8,292 400,867 709,964 149,999 19,011 48,540 76,781 1,413,454

North Coast 7,390 450,942 78,646 33,811 35,075 17,567 623,432

Grand Total 231,258 2,518,207 2,701,961 584,116 149,204 393,192 607,892 7,185,829

Stream Mileage

Timbershed S F N Grand Total

Southwest 1,764 3,692 11,061 16,517

South Coast 1,091 4,351 8,815 14,257

North Puget Sound 1,606 3,475 4,671 9,752

South Puget Sound 818 2,525 3,128 6,471

North Coast 434 1,707 2,650 4,792

Grand Total 5,714 15,751 30,325 51, 789

Westside Buffer widths (feet):

Site Class Total Width Core Inner Outer

I 200 50 100 50

II 170 50 78 42

III 140 50 55 35

IV 110 50 33 27

V 90 50 18 22

Buffers as a percent of timberland on a county basis

3.00.50.50.91.1Island

3.40.40.60.91.4San Juan

6.91.61.12.22.0Pierce

7.11.31.12.32.4Thurston

7.11.41.22.22.3Whatcom

7.12.21.21.91.9Skamania

7.40.91.52.52.5Kitsap

7.70.91.32.82.6Snohomish

8.31.91.32.72.3Skagit

8.41.61.53.02.4King

9.31.11.83.43.1Mason

9.91.61.63.82.9Clark

10.72.41.93.03.4Jefferson

11.92.12.33.53.9Clallam

12.13.81.53.82.9Cowlitz

12.13.71.63.73.1Lewis

14.52.72.55.04.3Grays Harbor

15.24.22.25.13.6Wahkiakum

16.65.02.55.14.1Pacific

Grand TotalNOUTERINNERCORECounty

3.00.50.50.91.1Island

3.40.40.60.91.4San Juan

6.91.61.12.22.0Pierce

7.11.31.12.32.4Thurston

7.11.41.22.22.3Whatcom

7.12.21.21.91.9Skamania

7.40.91.52.52.5Kitsap

7.70.91.32.82.6Snohomish

8.31.91.32.72.3Skagit

8.41.61.53.02.4King

9.31.11.83.43.1Mason

9.91.61.63.82.9Clark

10.72.41.93.03.4Jefferson

11.92.12.33.53.9Clallam

12.13.81.53.82.9Cowlitz

12.13.71.63.73.1Lewis

14.52.72.55.04.3Grays Harbor

15.24.22.25.13.6Wahkiakum

16.65.02.55.14.1Pacific

Grand TotalNINNERCORECounty

Buffer area as a percent of forested area: total for westside private

CORE INNER OUTER

N Total

3.0% 3.4% 1.7% 2.4% 10.5%

Buffer Acreage

10.5% of total area

Timbershed CORE INNER OUTER N Grand Total

South Coast 60,583 72,444 36,103 49,976 219,106

Southwest 55,074 69,137 29,861 62,994 217,066

North Puget Sound 42,884 46,754 23,304 24,606 137,549

South Puget Sound 34,771 36,161 19,016 17,930 107,877

North Coast 23,297 20,452 13,343 13,963 71,055

Grand Total 216,609 244,948 121,626 169,469 752,652

Estimated Economic Impact: Lewis County Case Study

• Age class distribution is nearly uniform – cut & thin on 50 yr rotation

• Harvest 30 mbf/acre @ $396 net, thin 10 mbf @ $313• Estimate lost harvest revenue in buffers not

including leave tree requirement• Not including road or planning costs or impact of

more fragmented access• Compute for NIPF and Industry lands on F and Np

streams• Buffer acres derived from GIS and Hydrological

models in ArcGIS on 10 meter DEM for PIPs

Western Washington Industrial Management Intensity Forecast Comparison 1990-2006

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Natl Regen Plant Herb Fert Gen all PCT all CT PCT/CT No Mgmt

Treatment

Per

cen

t

1990 Forecast 2006 Forecast

Average Annual Available Timber Volumes: Industry Forests Historic Harvest Volumes (5-Yr) and Projected Inventory (10-Yr)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1965-1968

1969-1973

1974-1978

1979-1983

1984-1988

1989-1993

1994-1999

1999-2003

2004-2013

2014-2023

2024-2033

2034-2043

2044-2053

2054-2063

Harvest Interval

Mil

lio

n B

oar

d F

eet Historic Projected

Sources: DNR Timber Harvest Report 2002, FIA age-class data, UW/WFPA Management intensities Survey, Chambers 1980 DNR RPT 41.

Average Annual Available Timber Volumes: Industry Forests Historic Harvest Volumes (5-Yr) and Projected Inventory (10-Yr)

w&wo Industry Conversions

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1965-1968

1969-1973

1974-1978

1979-1983

1984-1988

1989-1993

1994-1999

1999-2003

2004-2013

2014-2023

2024-2033

2034-2043

2044-2053

2054-2063

Harvest Interval

Mil

lio

n B

oar

d F

eet

Industry Ind w/Conversion

Source: Gray et al. 2005. PNW-RB-246

Historic Projected

Identified Issues from Assessment

• NW Environmental Forum developed recommendations for DNR

• www.nwenvironmentalforum.org• www.ruraltech.org/projects/fwf

Study overview Progress reports Streaming videos of presentations