impact of adjacency and green-up constraints on wood supply in georgia, usa
DESCRIPTION
Impact of adjacency and green-up constraints on wood supply in Georgia, USA. Michal Zasada, Chris J. Cieszewski, Roger C. Lowe, Don Reimer 2 nd International Conference on Forest Measurements and Quantitative Methods and Management & the 2004 Southern Mensurationists Meeting - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Impact of adjacency and green-up constraints
on wood supply in Georgia, USA
Michal Zasada, Chris J. Cieszewski, Roger C. Lowe, Don Reimer
2nd International Conference on Forest Measurements and Quantitative Methods and Management & the 2004 Southern
Mensurationists MeetingHot Springs, AR, June 15-18, 2004
Outline Where are we? What have we already done? Project objectives and assumptions Results we’ve got so far Short discussion
Georgia Located in the southeastern part of the
United States 3rd fastest growing state in the US Total land area: ~150,000 km2 Population: ~8.6 million
Georgia ~ 9.7 million ha in commercial forests
(almost as much as Germany or France) 66% of the total area of the state the highest area of commercial forests in
the US growing stock ~900 million m3 (1/3 of
Germany or France) Avg. volume ~100m3/ha & MAI 3.8 m3/ha annual harvest over 40 million m3 (almost
as this in Germany or France)
Forest ownership structure in Georgia
Public
NIPF
TI
Georgia• Public forests: 7%;
practically no commercial utilization
• Timber industry: 21%; intensive management, planning, harvest scheduling, …
• ~700,000 private owners: 72%; a whole variety of uses, no coordination nor optimization
• Changes: more TIMOs
Current situation rapid changes to the US Southeast harvesting limitations in public forests,
especially in the western part of the country
increasing demand on wood from southern region
fast population growth with associated urban and suburban development - shifts in land uses
Current situation research on possibilities of increasing
forest productivity from shrinking commercial forest areas
investments in silviculture and g&y research more than doubled growth rates of pine plantations and significantly shortened rotation ages
questions related to the forest resource sustainability
Sustainability project “Long-term sustainability analysis of
forest resources in Georgia and assessment of potential effects of riparian zones and other regulatory and business constraints”
Granted in 2001 by the Georgia TIP3 committee
Already in its final stage
Sustainability project Proof of concept Impact of:
SMZs and RBBs Intensive management
The final stage: increased resolution, combined multi-source data, spatial analyses
Sustainability project Data: Landsat TM5, Georgia GAP
ecological data, Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) nationwide inventory from USDA Forest Service, proprietary industrial data, various GIS data available from state sources, published and unpublished research
Simulation tool: Options, a forest estate planning and modeling application
Adjacency/green-up constraints spatial restrictions in harvesting stands
bordering previously harvested areas allow some length of time for establishing a
new stand before the adjacent stand can be harvested
may introduce additional costs or loses caused by non-optimal harvest timings
impact on ecological and social functions of forests
help in preventing the forest from windthrows
Adjacency effects depend on…
allowable size of forest management blocks before an adjacency rule is activated
length of time an adjacency rule is in effect once it is activated
the parameter(s) used to determine when an adjacency rule has been satisfied (e.g., average height of dominant trees)
the range of silvicultural and harvesting treatments subject to adjacency rules
Adjacency effects depend on…
existence of additional constraints or regulations affecting the availability of forest stands for harvest (e.g., SMZs, RBBs, etc)
growth rates of newly regenerated or treated stands relative to the adjacency rule (note that if time is being used, then growth rates are immaterial)
size of the landbase
Assumptions
Base (“no action”) scenario: Constant landbase Current management practices and
trends in their transition Constant harvesting of 42 million m3/year Constant extent of intensive management
(current 30% of all pine plantations)
Assumptions Modifies base (“realistic”) scenario Constant landbase Current management practices and
trends in their transition Gradually increasing cut (+50%/50y, from
42 to 63 million m3/year in 2050) Increasing extent of IMP (30% rate of
conversion)
Assumptions Rule 1: neighboring stand can be
harvested when a newly established stand reaches the average height of 1.5 meters
Rule 2: regeneration has to be at least 2 meters high, but harvesting cannot take place earlier than 3 years after harvesting of the adjacent stand
Results
Base scenario, Rule 1, Rule 2: Volume available for harvesting
(sum of volume of all stands that reached or passed their maturity age)
Volume cut Extent of deferred area and volume
Base (“no action”) scenario
Base
Rule 1
Rule 2
Deferred areaArea
0
5
10
15
20
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Year
% Rule 1
Rule 2
Deferred volumeVolume
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Year
% Rule 1
Rule 2
Modifies base (“realistic”) scenario
Base
Rule 1
Rule 2
Deferred areaArea
0
5
10
15
20
25
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Year
%Rule 1
Rule 2
Deferred volumeVolume
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Year
%Rule 1
Rule 2
Discussion harvesting and constraints pushed
harder – more noticeable impact small impact for large areas,
especially when harvesting is way below the resource capacity,
large impact on smaller areas, especially if other spatial constraints are considered
Discussion can affect wood availability in the
future, however this depends on the assumed rules
effects can be significant especially with combination with other factors
impact on particular owners, their management and additional costs is can be significant in any case
Thank you!