Estimating impact of potential regulatory constrains on future wood supply in Georgia based on diverse sources of data

Michal Zasada1,2, Chris J. Cieszewski1, Roger C. Lowe1, Don Reimer3

1Warnell School of Forest Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA; 2Department of Dendrometry and Forest Productivity, Faculty of Forestry, Warsaw Agricultural University, Poland; 3DR Systems Inc., Nanaimo, BC,

Canada

2004 Western Mensurationists Meeting, Warm Springs, OR

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

Why?

Forestry in the state of Georgia

Current situation of the region and the state

Georgia ~24 million acres of commercial

forests the highest area of commercial

forests in the US 66% of the total area of the state growing stock ~35 billion cf annual harvest over 1.5 billion cf

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, shift of utilization to the Southeast

increasing demand on wood the region fast population growth with associated urban

and suburban development shifts in land uses increasing role of TIMOs increased growth rates of pine plantations and

significantly shortened rotation ages

Current situation

Questions related to the sustainability of future wood supply in the state

Impact of potential regulatory constraints affecting forest operations

Sustainability project Required elements:

Current inventory• Forest inventory • Spatial distribution

Rules of change• Models/yield tables• Ownership behavior

Simulation tool

Data Forest Inventory and Analysis data Proprietary industrial data Landsat TM5 Georgia GAP ecological data Various GIS data available from

state sources Published and unpublished research

Data

Data

Data Species group Age Site index class Volume per acre Management regime Other inventory information

Rules of change & software Models/yield tables for defined species

groups or simplified customized tables compiled from the FIA data if there are no models available; necessary adjustments

Management after harvesting: good guess + the only available research by Goetzl

Options, a forest estate planning and modeling application

Scenarios Sensitivity analysis (to assess

impact of certain actions / constraints / regulations / scenarios on wood supply, not to predict future forest inventory)

Base case (“current”) scenario - proof of concept

Modified base (“realistic”) scenario

Scenarios

Base (“current”, “no action”) scenario: Constant landbase Current management practices and

trends in their transition Constant harvesting of 1.5 billion cf/year Constant extent of intensive management

(30% of all existing pine plantations)

Scenarios

Modified base (“realistic”) scenario: as the base scenario, but

Gradually increasing cut (+50%/50years, from 1.5 to 2.25 billion cf/year in 2050)

Increasing extent of IMP (30% rate of conversion)

Sample results

Protective buffers

1976: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommended using of BMPs as a primary method for controlling non-point source pollution (NPSP)

“Georgia’s Best Management Practices For Forestry”, manual issued by Georgia Forestry Commission in 1999

Georgia chose a non-regulatory system of voluntary compliance

Possible introduction of mandatory BMPs

Buffer assessment

Forest Buffer Area % Volume %type regime [x10 3̂ ac] [x10 6̂ ft3]

Evergreen Primary 226 0.93 272 0.81Secondary 542 2.15 631 1.88

Mixed Primary 141 0.58 166 0.49Secondary 291 1.19 344 1.02

Deciduous Primary 613 2.51 1,015 3.01Secondary 1,296 5.31 2,147 6.38

Total Primary 980 4.01 1,453 4.32Secondary 2,112 8.65 3,122 9.27

Forest Buffer Area % Volume %type regime [x10 3̂ ac] [x10 6̂ ft3]

Evergreen Primary 401 1.64 482 1.43Secondary 964 3.95 1,160 3.45

Mixed Primary 225 0.92 265 0.79Secondary 521 2.13 615 1.83

Deciduous Primary 264 1.08 436 1.30Secondary 635 2.60 1,052 3.12

Total Primary 889 3.64 1,184 3.52Secondary 2,120 8.68 2,827 8.40

Stream Road

Buffer scenarios

Base and modified base scenario: Primary and Secondary buffers

Standing inventory Volume available for harvesting

(sum of volume of all stands that reached or passed their maturity age)

Base Modified base

No buffers

Primary

Secondary

Base Modified base

No buffers

Primary

Secondary

Buffers - discussion Costs of SMZ management Stream identification issue

Especially for small, intermittent At least doubled length comparing to reported

(mapped) in available sources – worth to perform a pilot study on the county level

Ownership impact on reported streams

Role of intensive management

Adjacency Rule 1: neighboring stand can be

harvested when a newly established stand reaches the average height of 5 feet

Rule 2: regeneration has to be at least 7 feet high, but harvesting cannot take place earlier than 3 years after harvesting of the adjacent stand

Adjacency

Base scenario, Rule 1, Rule 2: Volume available for harvesting

(sum of volume of all stands that reached or passed their maturity age)

Extent of deferred area and volume

No adjacency

Rule 1

Rule 2

Base Modified base

Area

0

5

10

15

20

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Year

% Rule 1

Rule 2

Base Modified base

Volume

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Year

% Rule 1

Rule 2

Area

0

5

10

15

20

25

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Year

%

Rule 1

Rule 2

Volume

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Year

%

Rule 1

Rule 2

Area

Volume

Adjacency - 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

Adjacency - discussion Adjacency an 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

Future directions Final runs of complex scenarios Increased resolution Improved segmentation of satellite

imagery and data distribution Age identification Models Ownership layer Other related studies Spatial reports available online

Thank you!