Expected Outcomes

LMS provides a number of expected outcomes from the finalized landscape plan. The outcomes discussed below are derived as tabular data from LMS and analyzed using Microsoft Excel and ArcView. However, the information included does not represent the complete range of data that could be extracted from LMS. A wide range of data sets related to the plan are available, but are beyond the scope of this web project.

LMS also can create visualizations of all stands during the planning period. These visualizations will prove helpful with field management efforts. For visualization examples please refer to Silvicultural Pathways and Pathway Visualizations.

The following paragraphs form a hyperlinked list of the maps and charts used for the outcomes discussion. The maps and charts open in new browser windows and have a row of tabs at the bottom. Each tab is titled and shows a new map or chart. Each linked item can also be downloaded in a format best viewed by Microsoft Excel.

Outcome Charts. This link provides a series of charts related to a variety of expected landscape plan outcomes which fall into four general categories (each with individual tabs at the bottom). The financial tab has four charts: Revenue, Expenses and Cashflow; Discounted Cashflow; Volume Growth and Cut; and Harvested Volume by Tree Size. The Products tab has charts for Volume Growth and Cut, Standing Volume; Standing Volume by Tree Size; and Cut Volume by Tree Size. Biodiversity has charts that show the stand structure distributions using Oliver 5C and HCSSPT and also displays acres of old growth and late succession stands. The Local Economy tab has charts depicting employment and local economic activity. There are also two tabbed categories that provide outcome summaries.

Operation Schedule Maps. The maps under this link show expected treatments for each of the landscape plan's five-year cycles. The map legends use abbreviations and terminology explained below:

Stand Structure Maps. These maps show the expected distributions of succession stages of the stands during the 50-year planning period using the Oliver 5C classification system. They are useful for assessing changes in habitat structures and for understanding the structural effects of certain stand treatments when used in conjunction with the operations maps.

Standing Volume Maps. This series of maps shows the changes in standing volume over time measured in Mbf. Standing volume is measured at the beginning of each five-year period.

Growth Rate Maps. These maps show expected growth rates for the various stands (Mbf/5-years).

 

Outcomes Discussion

Biodiversity (see biodiversity tab on outcomes charts)

This Landscape Plan scores fairly well with the Oliver 5C and HCSSPT coarse filters for biodiversity (see measurable criteria for biodiversity) It meets 53% of the Oliver 5C criteria during the planning period, which is good considering several limitations of the forest. It is only in the last three planning periods that the criteria for having 10% of the forest in old growth structure is met and future plans will rank higher in this category. The 5% requirement for savanna is never met, but it should be kept in mind that the importance of savanna in the mid-to-low elevation western Cascades is widely disputed. The 10% late sectional structure requirement is only met in the early portion of the planning period, but decreases as these structures are harvested and as they mature into old growth. This may prove to be one of the more difficult structures to provide, since stands are typically harvested just before they reach this condition, and stands left in such conditions will eventually mature into old growth. If it is deemed important to meet this condition in future planning efforts, a strategy will need to be established - one that actively creates and replaces such habitat as it matures.

Forest area in "old forest structure" reaches a maximum at the end of the planning period with 453 acres of old growth and 252 in late succession structures. This includes about 40 acres of naturally regenerated upland forest placed into reserve by this plan and several riparian buffers that reach late succession conditions. See the structural distributions discussion in Outreach, Education, Research and Structural Distributions below.

Revenue (see financial tab on outcomes charts)

The preferred method for evaluating timber related outputs from this landscape plan is net revenue. Because timber markets are so wildly variable, revenue figures cannot be relied upon as indicators of future financial gain, especially over the long-term. However, by using revenue figures calibrated to today's costs and values, we gain a view of relative value that is not tied into a fluctuating market. Log volumes could be used in a similar way, but this has some limitations. Essentially, volume figures are not adjusted for the cost of producing the volume. Costs of harvest and log values are not consistent for every unit of volume. For example, certain management periods may have a number of small diameter, low-value/high-cost operations while other time periods may harvest large quality logs at low cost. This skews the evaluation of output values. Net revenue, on the other hand, considers the value of the logs produced and the associated costs involved. Costs can be further tailored to meet specific stand conditions. Therefore, net revenue will be the preferred indicator of value until a better surrogate is developed.

Total gross revenue for the plan is $42.92 million, with an associated cost of $11.42 million. This produces an expected net revenue of $31.5 million. About $2 million is from the over-harvest surplus in 2020, and may not ever be realized.

Productive Capacity (see products tab on outcomes charts)

Final standing volume for the entire forest (including reserve areas) exceeds initial volume by 17 MMbf; a 19% increase. However, standing non-reserved volume decreases 15%; from 52 MMbf to 44 MMbf. This poses a critical management issue: it appears at face value that the portion of the forest in timber predication is not managed sustainably. However, there are a number of reasons not to be overly concerned at this stage in the planning process.

First, it is important to remember that the landscape plan begins with 1110 acres of 60-70 year-old well-stocked mature timber in production management. This is 32% of the productive area. As the timber production portion of the forest becomes more regulated, the amount of high-volume timber area will decrease significantly, meaning less standing volume. Of course, this will be offset by growth in currently young stands, but this will not come close to completely making up the difference. Based on this consideration, harvest over the long-term should not exceed growth, but in the short-term it is not as critical. It is in the short-term that we expect to work out many of the long-term issues through adaptive management.

Remember also that there is about a 4 MMbf harvest surplus scheduled for the 2020 planning cycle which is intended as a safety net for failed predictions. In all likelihood, much of this volume will not be harvested and will carry through to the end of the 50-years. This surplus volume would reduce the difference to about 4 MMbf - a minimal difference when spread out over 50 years. These details will be worked out in future planning sessions.

Modeling is the other major consideration. We know that LMS is set to predict low growth (see Growth Modeling). How well the growth model predicts growth will become more quantifiable with time and monitoring. At present, LMS predicts that the portion of the forest in productive management will grow 81 MMbf during the 50 year planning period. This is the equivalent of 465 bf/acre annually - a figure that seems intuitively low. In order to meet the total harvest of 89 MMbf (~1.77 MMbf annually) the 3500 production acres would need to grow at an annual rate of 500 bf/acre. CFI growth data from 625 plots indicates an average annual growth of 940 bf/acre, and this figure includes mechanical thinning as natural mortality (link provides CFI growth evaluation). This is almost twice the growth that LMS has predicted. However, it should be noted that the CFI plots are largely taken from the 30+ age range and do not well represent a landscape dominated by younger stands. Growth rates for younger stands will be better understood over the next couple planning cycles.

It is too early in our planning capability to get overly excited by a predicted decrease in non-reserved standing volume. There is sufficient reason to expect that the predicted over-harvest will not become a reality, and there is sufficient time to allow for midcourse corrections - the hallmark of adaptive management. The lack of information should be recognized at this point, but should not buck management intuition regarding such slight margins of uncertainty.

Outreach, Education, Research and Structural Distributions(see outcomes charts)

Other major considerations for the Pack Forest Landscape Plan are education, outreach and research. From a broad, long-term perspective, the landscape plan addresses these issues by providing a range of habitat structures, stand ages, ecological succession areas and species distributions. Pack Forest will have to evaluate and address more immediate needs with shorter-term planning.

This plan provides for approximately 125 acres of non-managed reserves in stands that regenerated naturally after the 1927 Eatonville Fire. In addition, Pack Forest will maintain 110 acres of stands from this same cohort as campus buffer, and 95 acres will serve as riparian management areas. Three-hundred-sixty acres of stands that date back to the 1800's fire are in ecological succession reserves. Of the stands that have initiated in the past 45 years through plantation management, about 58 acres are in reserve as riparian and wetland zones and another 90 for special management reserves. All of these stands represent a wide range of ages, structure and species and will supplement stand conditions found in the 3500 acres of stands in productive management.

Seedling species planting mixes are not addressed at the landscape planning level. This level of planning is best left to field operation planning to suit species availability, site conditions and specific needs. However, planting will follow the general regeneration philosophy of maintaining a representative mix of native species. This can be done by direct planting or allowing for natural regeneration and species selection during thinning operations.

 

 

Mason McKinley, Pack Forest