Transcript ACCOMPLISHMENT RECORD - Timberland Strategies

Apalachicola National Forest
2000-2009 Planning Period
In 2000 the three National Forests in Florida began
operating under a 10 year Land and Resource
Management Plan. This presentation will examine the
results of timber resource management on the largest
of these forests, the Apalachicola, for the planning
period that has just ended. We make reference to
other forests in the Southern Region as appropriate.
Land managers have two principal tools available: fire
and timber harvesting. The 10 year record for fire use
is good: 86% (947,000 acres) of the planned
prescribed burn area was treated. Let’s look at how
well the Forest managed the timber resource and how
this has affected some other key components of the
ecosystem.



Net annual growth
+ Annual mortality
= Gross annual growth
14.0 MMcf
5.7 MMcf
19.7 MMcf
mortality
29%
net growth
71%
Data from USFS FIA 2007
McC 01-25-10
How much wood are we talking about?
Timber on the Apalachicola N.F. is growing at the rate of
about ~2% annually: a gross increase of 19.7 million cubic
feet (MMcf) every year .
19.7 MMcf =~236,000 stacked cords
4 ft.
One stacked cord = 128
cubic feet of wood, bark
and air or ~85 cu. ft. of
wood.
100 cubic feet of wood
= ~1.2 stacked cords
8 ft.
The Forest grows enough wood each year to
make a line of stacked cords ~360 miles long
How much wood did we plan to cut?
The 1999 Land and Resource Plan calls for an annual average cut
of
3.5 MMcf or 18% of the total growth
Total growth = inventory increase + cut + mortality = 19.7 MMcf
mortality
planned cut
29%
18%
Inventory
increase
53%
Growth & mortality from USFS FIA 2007
McC 01-25-10
How much wood did we actually cut?
The 10 year average annual cut was
.95 MMcf or 5% of the total annual growth
mortality
Inventory
30%
increase
65%
actual cut
5%
Growth & Mortality USFS FIA 2007
McC 01-25-10
In Summary –
Annual Average , 10 year results of management
Millions of Cubic Feet
25
Growth, Mortality, Harvest
20
Net Annual Growth
15
14
10
5
Mortality
5.7
3.5
0
planned Cut
0.95
actual cut
McC 01-25-10
The Apalachicola NF harvested 5% of total annual growth
29 % of the growth died
Impacts of timber non-management
 Increase in the per unit cost of timber sales
 Decrease in the return to the land owners (people of the U.S.)
 Decline in the revenues to counties for schools and roads
 Forest dependent industries downsize or shut down
 Jobs are lost and communities suffer
 Harvesting infrastructure is lost
 Stands become denser; basal area increases
 Quality growth slows
 Mortality (insects, disease) increases
 Fire hazard, occurrence, and intensity increase
 Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) and other wildlife
habitat becomes poorer (More on this)
Timber Harvest and the RCW
20 year decline
3 year moving averages
McC 01-25-10
The Apalachicola National Forest is not alone in having this
problem.
The 20 year harvest decline and failure to meet planning goals
regionally, and nationally is very similar to our local situation. Here’s
the situation on the Ocala N.F.
Historic Creation of Scrub Jay Habitat
(Sand Pine Acres Sold)
Acres Accomplished vs. LRMP Objectives
6000
6000
5601
5601
5000
5000
4000
4000
4000 ac annual objective
3000
3000
2619
2619
2000
2000
2645
2645
2456
2456
2021
2021
1951
1951
1341
1341
1000
1000
723
723
00
00
00
01
01
02
02
03
03
04
04
Ac
Accomplished
Ac Accomplished
05*
05*
06
06
07
07
* Hurricanes
Slide by Carl Petrick, USFS
Here’s what has happened on the Pisgah and
Nantahala National Forests in North Carolina.
The ruffed grouse, along with many other game and non-game wildlife species is
dependent on early successional habitat created by forest disturbances, principally timber
harvesting. Reduced harvesting is associated with a declining population of this iconic
game bird of the forested uplands.
Here’s what has happened nationwide
The Record shows that:
 During the past 10 years, the Apalachicola National Forest planned to cut
18% of the annual growth and actually harvested about 5%. Mortality was 6
times greater that the cut.
 Over the past 20 years, the density of pine timber stands has
increased by about 30%, and more than 67,000 acres now have
densities exceeding 50 sq. ft./ac, the basal area required for optimum
RCW habitat
 Over the past 20 years, the population of the red-cockaded woodpecker
on the Apalachicola N.F. has suffered a 15% decline, all of it on the Wakulla
Habitat Management Area where the decline has been 45%.
 On the Ocala N.F. scrub jay habitat (created primarily by sand pine
timber sales) has declined by 10,000 acres over the past 6 years.
 Current manpower and financing is insufficient to support the timber sale
program needed to maintain forest health, provide adequate habitat for
endangered species, and to support forest dependent local governments,
communities and industries.
 The problem of National Forest virtual non-management of its timber
resource is nation wide.
Some thoughts on solving the timber
program funding problem:
 Simplify EAs. (probability of success - excellent)
 Outsource field work and writing of EAs and sale prep.
(prob. - good to high)
 Reorder forest priorities and shift funds. (Prob. unknown)
 Secure Congressional approval for NFs in Florida and
other selected forests to test the feasibility of timber program
self-financing as is now done on DOD land (Title 10, USC
2665. See Appendices 1,2) . (prob. – unknown )
 Secure adequate congressional funding. (prob. - zero to
very low)
When all else fails:
 Transfer/sell manageable timber land to other federal,
state, NGO, or private entities with restrictive covenants and
convey the balance to the State or U.S. Park Service.
Conditions on the Apalachicola National Forest are
representative of the National Forest System and the basic
management principles involved are applicable
nationwide.
In general, the adverse economic, social, and mortality
(fire and insect) impacts of under-management on
Western National Forests have been much greater than on
those in the East.
For those wishing to research conditions on their local
Forest, growth and mortality data for all National Forests
are available on-line from the U.S.F.S. Forest Inventory
and Analysis program. Your local Forest Supervisor can
provide information on planned and harvested volumes.
This presentation was produced pro bono publico and
may be freely distributed for that purpose.
W. V. McConnell
U.S. Forest Service Ret. (1943-73)
1023 San Luis Road, Tallahassee, FL.
[email protected]
APPENDIX 1
Extract from United States Code
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART IV > CHAPTER 159 > § 2665
§ 2665. Sale of certain interests in land; logs
(a) The President, through an executive department, may sell to any person or foreign government any interest in land
that is acquired for the production of lumber or timber products, except land under the control of the Department of the
Army or the Department of the Air Force.
(b) The President, through an executive department, may sell to any person or foreign government any forest products
produced on land owned or leased by a military department or the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating.
(c) Sales under subsection (a) or (b) shall be at prices determined by the President acting through the selling agency.
(d) Appropriations of the Department of Defense may be reimbursed for all costs of production of forest products
pursuant to this section from amounts received as proceeds from the sale of any such property.
(e) (1) Each State in which is located a military installation or facility from which forest products are sold in a fiscal year
is entitled at the end of such year to an amount equal to 40 percent of (A) the amount received by the United States
during such year as proceeds from the sale of forest products produced on such installation or facility, less
(B) the amount of reimbursement of appropriations of the Department of Defense under subsection (d) during such year
attributable to such installation or facility.
(2) The amount paid to a State pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be expended as the State legislature may prescribe for the
benefit of the public schools and public roads of the county or counties in which the military installation or facility is
situated.
(3) In a case in which a military installation or facility is located in more than one State or county, the amount paid
pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be distributed in a manner proportional to the area of such installation or facility in each
State or county.
(f) (1) There is in the Treasury a reserve account administered by the Secretary of Defense for the purposes of this
section. Balances in the account may be used for costs of the military departments— (A) for improvements of forest
lands;
(B) for unanticipated contingencies in the administration of forest lands and the production of forest products for which
other sources of funds are not available in a timely manner; and
(C) for natural resources management that implements approved plans and agreements.
(2) There shall be deposited into the reserve account the total amount received by the United States as proceeds from
the sale of forest products sold under subsections (a) and (b) less— (A) reimbursements of appropriations made under
subsection (d), and
(B) payments made to States under subsection (e).
(3) The reserve account may not exceed $4,000,000 on December 31 of any calendar year. Unobligated balances
exceeding $4,000,000 on that date shall be deposited into the United States Treasury.
APPENDIX 2
Some Pro and Con arguments for a Self Financed Timber Program:
(These are arguments that have been advance d. They may or may not be factual. They may or may
not be relevant.)
Pro-
 Will provide the means, not now available, for the U.S. Forest Service to follow
Congressional direction for resource management as expressed in the National Forest
Management Act of 1976, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and related legislation.
 Will help insure continued economic survival of N.F. dependent counties after the
expiration, in the year 2011, of the Secure Rural Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act of 2000.
 Will create jobs and stimulate the economy
 Will allow increased local participation in decision making through Resource Advisory
Councils.
 Will provide an incentive for efficient management and be budget neutral or positive.
 A trial run of the program on selected forests will allow an assessment of its impacts on
the Federal budget and returns to the treasury, on the social and economic condition of
counties, communities and forest industries, and on the quality of resource management.
 The concept is simple, easy to apply, and has been thoroughly tested on timberlands
managed by the Department of Defense .
Con –
 Will reduce Congressional oversight over National Forest management and control over
the expenditure of federal monies.
 Will result in negative “scoring” in returns to the treasury and in an increase in the
public debt.
 Will encourage continued dependency of Forest Counties on the Federal Government
and discourage self-sufficiency and problem-solving through private enterprise.
 Will promote unrestrained, irresponsible logging and massive resource damage.
 The concept is non-traditional to and untested by the Forest Service.