Michal Zasada 1,2 , Chris J. Cieszewski 1 , Roger C. Lowe 1 , Don Reimer 3

1. 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

2. 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

3. Why? • Forestry in the state of Georgia • Current situation of the region and the state

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. Current situation • Questions related to the sustainability of future wood supply in the state • Impact of potential regulatory constraints affecting forest operations

8. Sustainability project • Required elements: • Current inventory • Forest inventory • Spatial distribution • Rules of change • Models/yield tables • Ownership behavior • Simulation tool

9. 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data • Landsat TM5 • Georgia GAP ecological data • Various GIS data available from state sources • Published and unpublished research

10. Data

11. Data

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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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)

16. 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)

17. Sample results

18. 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

19. Buffer assessment Stream Road

20. 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)

21. Base Modified base No buffers Primary Secondary

22. Base Modified base No buffers Primary Secondary

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. Base Modified base No adjacency Rule 1 Rule 2

27. Base Modified base Area Volume

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. Thank you!