The Future of Washington’s Forests and Forestry Industries: Practical applications of FIA data April 4, 2007 Bruce Lippke and Ara Erickson Rural Technology Initiative College 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 Rate = 2.2 TPA Latest inventory Mortality Rate 8.4 TPA

Impact on Fire Hazard of Thinning to BA 45

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 years (medium site)

Buffer canopy 110yrs never 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

Source: WA DNR Harvest Reports Mbf

Source: WA DNR Harvest Reports Mbf

Source: WA DNR Harvest Reports Mbf

Source: WA DNR Harvest Reports Mbf

Source: WA DNR Harvest Reports Mbf

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

Other Public Forest Industry Other Private Owner Group Net ownership change Timberland Ownership and Net Flow – Western Washington Non-timberland Right-of-way Urban Agriculture

In/Out of FIA Inventory National Forest Reserve Other Public Forest Industry Other Private Owner Group Net ownership change Timberland Ownership and Net Flow – Western Washington (+78) (-7) (-119) Non-timberland Right-of-way Urban Agriculture Christmas Tree Farm 17

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 Overlay Insects & Disease LWD Riparian Function Habitat Models Fire Risk & Carbon Forest Economics Community Economics Regen & Treatment Costs Buffers & Zones Predicted Tree List Fire & Fuel Log Cut Treatment & Harvest Cost Mill Production Function: Labor & other costs Jobs, Taxes Bus Income Growth Model (vols & metrics) GIS DEM, Health Treatment Alts Current Inventory By Location & Owner Alts by treatment scenario, region & owner Regs Mgt Intensity Surveys 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 Scenario Eco & Econ Region By Owner By Zone Inductive Map

Westside Treatments - medium site 1.NC (no cut): Seed or plant 435tpa and leave 2.P&C(plant & cut): Plant 435tpa & clearcut 3.PV&C(Ind: Veg-control & cut): Plant 435tpa 4.PT&C (NIPF: CT): Plant 435tpa, CT to 5.PTT&C (fast biopath): Plant 435tpa, WT to WT to with understory regen 6.PTT&H (riparian biopath & hold): Plant 435tpa, WT to WT to WT to &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

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

Habitat Suitability – single or indicator species Douglas Squirrel Need coniferous forests Common species Pileated Woodpecker Prefer complex forest structure Gold-Crown Kinglet Prefer closed forest structure Roosevelt Elk Large body size Prefer 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

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

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 acreage 3)Test validity using a LiDAR case study on streams with ground truthing (Mouton 2005)

Forested area (from DNR Site Class layer) Timbershed Grand Total North Puget Sound33,018473,028663,742234,88070,426114,313277,6311,867,037 Southwest25,0981,108,518346,545101,63825,95793,070140,3701,841,196 South Coast164,850528,404530,76718,952102,19495,5441,440,710 South Puget Sound8,292400,867709,964149,99919,01148,54076,7811,413,454 North Coast7,390450,94278,64633,81135,07517,567623,432 Grand Total231,2582,518,2072,701,961584,116149,204393,192607,8927,185,829

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 ClassTotal WidthCoreInnerOuter I II III IV V

Buffers as a percent of timberland on a county basis

Buffer area as a percent of forested area: total for westside private COREINNEROUTERNTotal 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, ,106 Southwest 55,074 69,137 29,861 62, ,066 North Puget Sound 42,884 46,754 23,304 24, ,549 South Puget Sound 34,771 36,161 19,016 17, ,877 North Coast 23,297 20,452 13,343 13,963 71,055 Grand Total 216, , , , ,652

Estimated Economic Impact: Lewis County Case Study Age class distribution is nearly uniform – cut & thin on 50 yr rotation Harvest 30 $396 net, thin 10 $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

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

Source: Gray et al PNW-RB-246 HistoricProjected

Identified Issues from Assessment NW Environmental Forum developed recommendations for DNR  Study overview  Progress reports  Streaming videos of presentations