WOODSHED ANALYSIS Addison County Five Towns Analysis by Marc Lapin, Chris Rodgers, & David Brynn Winter/Spring 2009.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Objectives and achieved results of BBN project in Lithuania (II) Gintautas Mozgeris et al. Potsdam, 12/12/2007 PLANNING BIOENERGY LANDSCAPES IN THE BALTIC.
Advertisements

Session 6: Carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and soil Roy Haines-Young, Centre for Environmental Management, School of Geography, University of Nottingham.
Forest Legacy Assessment of Need Identifying Future Forest Legacy Areas Governors Commission for Protecting the Chesapeake Bay through Sustainable Forestry.
1 Site Capacity and Natural Resource Protection Relationships in Subdivision Design.
NEW ENGLAND FORESTRY FOUNDATION PRIVATE FORESTS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD SINCE
Lecture 7 Forestry 3218 Forest Mensuration II Lecture 7 Forest Inventories Avery and Burkhart Chapter 9.
Comparison of Use Value Appraisal Programs Jamey Fidel Vermont Natural Resources Council.
FORESTS – IMPORTANT ENERGY SOURCE. Forests in the EU Apart from their importance for ecology and environment conservation forests are one of the Europe's.
LECTURE XIII FORESTRY ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT. Introduction  If forestry is to contribute its full share to a more abundant life for the world’s increasing.
WOODSHED ANALYSIS Mad River Valley Towns Analysis by Marc Lapin, Chris Rodgers, & David Brynn Winter/Spring 2009.
Roles for Commodity Production in Sustaining Forests & Rangelands J. Keith Gilless Professor of Forest Economics UC Berkeley.
Gembloux Agricultural University Ministry of Walloon Region.
Forest Project Protocol v3.1 Use of FIA Data John Nickerson FIA Conference February 2010.
Forest Harvest Summary for Selected Towns in Addison and Washington Counties, VT Community Biomass Project.
Simulating Future Suburban Development in Connecticut Jason Parent, Daniel Civco, and James Hurd Center for Land Use Education and.
Managing for Forest Carbon Storage. Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change.
 Timber, wood fiber, fuel wood  Gas regulation and climate control  Carbon sequestration  Watershed services (water supply and quality)  Clean air.
Most Common Conservation Practices Forestry Illinois.
CO 2 Valuing Virginia’s ECOSYSTEM Services
Burl Carraway. Purpose of Redesign Shape and influence use of forest land on a scale and in a way that optimizes public benefits from trees and forests.
Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications DETEC Federal Office for the Environment FOEN Potential Wood Supply in Swiss.
Center for Watershed Protection USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry How to estimate future forest cover in a watershed.
Chapter 13: Forests, Parks an Landscapes. Modern Conflicts over Forestland and Forest Resources In recent decades forest conservation has become an international.
Centre for Non-Timber Resources Royal Roads University Victoria, BC Cost Benefit Analysis of Wildland Urban Interface Operations.
Degradation Accounting Methods Katie Goslee Program Officer, Ecosystem Services Unit Winrock International Measuring.
The stock is the present accumulated quantity of natural capital. It is a supply accumulated for future use; a store. The natural income is any sustainable.
Modeling the effects of climate change on multiple ecosystem services Marc Conte Stanford University Natural Capital Project Marc Conte, Josh Lawler, Erik.
Forestry-related Ordinances in Florida What are the potential influences of county and municipal ordinances on forest land retention and sustainability?
Center for Watershed Protection USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry How to estimate future forest cover in a watershed.
Kevin Behm – Addison County Regional Planning Commission Community Build-Out Analysis Nov 5, 2007 New techniques - for an old friend.
Land Use Scenarios Status. Encompass 2040 Scenarios Scenario 1: Continues similar development patterns of the past with no new zoning initiatives Scenario.
1. Natural Resources Conservation Service Strategic Plan Strategic Plan
LONG TERM ELECTRICAL SUPPLY PLAN STAFF RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS, ISSUES, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN NOVEMBER 2004 Presentation to the Gainesville City Commission.
Estimating impact of potential regulatory constrains on future wood supply in Georgia based on diverse sources of data Michal Zasada 1,2, Chris J. Cieszewski.
The WLP must be consistent with these objectives 1.maintaining or enhancing an economically valuable supply of commercial timber from the woodlot licence.
Guidelines and Applications of grant cycle Lindsay Balance Maximilian Merrill.
Island Biogeography First proposed by E.O. Wilson & Robert MacArthur in the 1960s. Now is a fundamental concept in conservation techniques. “Island” is.
Comments on possible revisions to Criterion 6 Indicators Maintenance and enhancement of long-term socio- economic benefits to meet needs of societies Part.
Spatial mapping as a tool for mainstreaming biodiversity values Subregional Workshop for South America on Valuation and Incentive Measures Santiago de.
Southern Forest Sustainability David Wear Project Leader Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service.
Desktop Analysis Used To: Identify areas that meet certain criteria (e.g. contig forest 50 acres+, id gaps as well, or set lower value in urban area) Identify.
____________________________ Raster GIS & Modeling ( )
Wisconsin’s Forests and the Comprehensive Planning Law Preserving forests in the wilderness of Smart Growth.
San Luis Obispo County Planning and Building Department Jeff Legato Mapping and Graphics Specialist
Characterizing, measuring and visualizing forest resources An inadequate treatment by an unqualified presenter.
Avoided Deforestation through Carbon trading in Buffer Zones of Protected Areas in Northern Lao PDR Pilot Activities and Research in the Lao-German Program.
Fredonia Mountain Properties Land value increased over 100-fold in the last five years. Development was primarily driven by non-residents (Figure 6). Wheeler.
Land Chapter 14. How we use land  Land usage- –Rangeland= used for grazing and wildlife –Forest land= used for harvesting wood, wildlife, fish, and other.
A Grand Plan for FIA’s role in a FS National Carbon Accounting System Linda S. Heath USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station, FIA Forest Carbon Accounting.
Brad Barber Project Manager for SCFA Texas Forest Service Brad Barber Project Manager for SCFA Texas Forest Service.
What Do NGOs Do With FIA Data? (Preview: a lot!) Christine Negra The Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment March 2009 SAF National FIA.
Sustaining Michigan’s Wetlands: Mitigation, Conservation Easements, and No Net Loss Andrew T. Kozich MTU School of Forest Resources & Environmental Science.
Oregon Department of Forestry Kevin Birch Planning Coordinator Use of Criteria & Indicators and Sustainable Forest Management at Different Scales Oregon.
By Cassian Sianga Forest Governance Learning Group – Coordinator Liberia - Monrovia, 7-8 October 2015 “Participatory Forest Management; an NGO perspective.
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNCTIONAL MASTER PLAN Prince George’s County MNCPP-C Draft: December, 2004.
Condition of Forests in San Diego County: Recent Conifer Tree Mortality and the Institutional Response Presented by California Department of Forestry Mark.
Ron Torgerson – FFSL Central Area Manager Nick Mustoe – Central Area Forester Fred Johnson – Fire Management Officer.
Modeling the Impacts of Forest Carbon Sequestration on Biodiversity Andrew J. Plantinga Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics Oregon State.
Network for Certification and Conservation of Forests.
Green infrastructure includes intact forests, tree canopy, wetlands, dune systems, parks and rivers, or agricultural soils that provide clean water, air.
Factors Influencing Conservation of Family Forests Brett J. Butler U.S. Forest Service Forest Land Conservation in the 21 st Century Symposium New Haven,
FORESTRY LAND USE Overview and Update Buckingham County Land Use Work Session September 18, 2017 Dean Cumbia Forest Resource Management Branch.
Tomas Lundmark SLU Sweden
Jean-Louis Weber & Emil Ivanov
23rd London Group Meeting San Jose Costa Rica, th October 2017
Rangelands & Forestry.
US Federal Land Use.
Of wetland mitigation sites constructed in the U.P.
Southern Vermont Arts Center Forest
Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Costa Rica
Presentation transcript:

WOODSHED ANALYSIS Addison County Five Towns Analysis by Marc Lapin, Chris Rodgers, & David Brynn Winter/Spring 2009

Purpose To model the forest landbase suitable for sustainable harvest of forest biomass, and to estimate low-quality wood production on that landbase

General Methods Determine forestland sustainability criterion that can be utilized for spatial modeling Determine forestland sustainability criterion that can be utilized for spatial modeling Construct spatial model to evaluate the landscape Construct spatial model to evaluate the landscape Calculate the low-quality wood growth on the suitable forest landbase by applying several forest growth estimates to the suitable acreage Calculate the low-quality wood growth on the suitable forest landbase by applying several forest growth estimates to the suitable acreage

Sustainability Criteria Applicable to Spatial Modeling Ecological criteria for sustainability refer to forest health, productive capacity, soil and water, biodiversity, and carbon and nutrient budgets

Soils Soils Forestland Value Group Forestland Value Group Exclude two least productive groups, representing limited & very limited forestry potential (available from NRCS soils surveys) Slope Slope Exclude slopes >60% Separate slopes 30-60%, which may present sustainability/operability constraints

Water Quality and Wetlands Water Quality and Wetlands Exclude water bodies and wetlands Exclude water bodies and wetlands Exclude 75’ buffered area surrounding all water and wetlands Exclude 75’ buffered area surrounding all water and wetlands Fragile and ‘Significant’ Natural Communities Fragile and ‘Significant’ Natural Communities Exclude all lands above 2,500’ elevation Exclude all lands above 2,500’ elevation No reliable spatial data for significant natural communities, therefore exclude 10% of landbase to account for such features as well as for the forest access road network No reliable spatial data for significant natural communities, therefore exclude 10% of landbase to account for such features as well as for the forest access road network

Conserved Lands Conserved Lands Exclude all lands where timber extraction is legally prohibited Exclude all lands where timber extraction is legally prohibited Separate publically owned lands from privately owned lands for information purposes Separate publically owned lands from privately owned lands for information purposes Conserved lands GIS layer, GAP Protection Level data utilized Conserved lands GIS layer, GAP Protection Level data utilized

Suitable Forestlands Results 60% forested 60% forested 52% of forestlands suitable = 42,100 acres 52% of forestlands suitable = 42,100 acres 84% of suitable landbase privately owned 84% of suitable landbase privately owned 9% forested landbase legally protected from extraction 9% forested landbase legally protected from extraction 10% subtraction leaves 37,900 acres available 10% subtraction leaves 37,900 acres available

Excluded Lands by Criterion Percentages include ‘overlap’ among criteria Water, wetlands & their buffers – 8.5% Water, wetlands & their buffers – 8.5% Forestland value group – 36.6% Forestland value group – 36.6% Elevation – 5.4% Elevation – 5.4% Slopes >60% – 0.9% Slopes >60% – 0.9% Potentially unsuitable slopes – 9% Potentially unsuitable slopes – 9%

BRISTOL Small amount of suitable forest Small amount of suitable forest May be more than shown on less sloping parts of Hogback May be more than shown on less sloping parts of Hogback Most public land in wilderness protection Most public land in wilderness protection

LINCOLN Large acreage of suitable private forest landbase Large acreage of suitable private forest landbase Large amount suitable public lands Large amount suitable public lands Few areas with % slopes Few areas with % slopes Very small percentage with conservation easements Very small percentage with conservation easements

MONKTON Some moderate- sized patches of suitable forest Some moderate- sized patches of suitable forest Perhaps more than shown on less sloping areas of Hogback Perhaps more than shown on less sloping areas of Hogback Very small percentage with conservation easements Very small percentage with conservation easements

NEW HAVEN Mostly farmland with some large wetlands Mostly farmland with some large wetlands Very little suitable forest Very little suitable forest Small percentage with conservation easements Small percentage with conservation easements

STARKSBORO Large acreage of suitable forest Large acreage of suitable forest Substantial amount of 30-60% slopes Substantial amount of 30-60% slopes Small percentage with conservation easements Small percentage with conservation easements Large amount of suitable public lands Large amount of suitable public lands

Tree Growth Per Year Leak et al. (1987) – Northern Hardwoods modeling Leak et al. (1987) – Northern Hardwoods modeling Intensively managed – 1.7 green tons per acre Intensively managed – 1.7 green tons per acre Unmanaged – 1.2 green tons per acre Unmanaged – 1.2 green tons per acre Sherman (2007) – based on FIA plot data Sherman (2007) – based on FIA plot data Addison County – 2.6 green tons per acre Addison County – 2.6 green tons per acre Frieswyk and Widman (2000) – based FIA plot data Frieswyk and Widman (2000) – based FIA plot data 1.25 green tons per acre 1.25 green tons per acre Frank and Bjorkbom (1973) – Spruce-Fir modeling Frank and Bjorkbom (1973) – Spruce-Fir modeling Best case scenario – 1.25 green tons per acre Best case scenario – 1.25 green tons per acre

Estimated Low-Quality Wood Amounts in green tons/year Most conservative estimate = ~22,000 Most conservative estimate = ~22,000 Lowest growth rate, low amount low-quality Lowest growth rate, low amount low-quality Very believable Very believable Mid-range estimate = ~31,000 Mid-range estimate = ~31,000 Middle growth rate, low amount low quality Middle growth rate, low amount low quality Perhaps, with more intensive management Perhaps, with more intensive management High estimate = ~57,000 High estimate = ~57,000 Highest growth rate, high amount low quality Highest growth rate, high amount low quality Not supported by recent data Not supported by recent data

Unanswered Questions How much of the available and future wood in the woodshed is/will be low-quality wood whose ‘best’ use after harvest would be for burning? How much of the available and future wood in the woodshed is/will be low-quality wood whose ‘best’ use after harvest would be for burning? What is the actual growth per year? What is the actual growth per year? The models show substantial variation The models show substantial variation Without intensive field data collection in a specific woodshed, we don’t know how reliable the estimates are for any actual landscape Without intensive field data collection in a specific woodshed, we don’t know how reliable the estimates are for any actual landscape

Where to Place Confidence? Leak et al. model for unmanaged forests and recent FIA-based estimates coincide rather closely Leak et al. model for unmanaged forests and recent FIA-based estimates coincide rather closely Sherman growth estimates appear too high Sherman growth estimates appear too high A whole lot depends on management intensity, which depends on balancing numerous values, not merely maximizing biomass for burning A whole lot depends on management intensity, which depends on balancing numerous values, not merely maximizing biomass for burning Landowner choices are, perhaps, the greatest unknown Landowner choices are, perhaps, the greatest unknown

What to Continue Questioning Can our forests provide us with large amounts of biomass for energy while continuing to provide the other ecosystem functions and services we expect and hope for? Can our forests provide us with large amounts of biomass for energy while continuing to provide the other ecosystem functions and services we expect and hope for? Will landowners opt for more intensive management to strive for greater forest biomass? Will landowners opt for more intensive management to strive for greater forest biomass? As management proceeds over many decades, centuries, how much will the proportion of the low- quality wood supply diminish? As management proceeds over many decades, centuries, how much will the proportion of the low- quality wood supply diminish? A role for coppice management? A role for coppice management?

Thank you! & Time for Questions