Sustainable Harvest CalculationSustainable Harvest Calculation for Forested State Trust Lands in Western Washingtonin Western Washington

2007 Adjustment Project

Presentation to the Board of Natural ResourcesBruce Mackey and Angus BrodieJune 2007

June 1, 2007 DRAFT Subject to Change 1

Agenda

1. Policy Overview of Sustainable Harvest recalculations and adjustments

2 R i f h i i t2. Review of changing circumstancesRiparian Forest Restoration Strategy Settlement AgreementSettlement Agreement

3. Key elements for consideration in a Board resolutionBoard resolution

June 1, 2007 DRAFT Subject to Change 2

Paradigm shift in thinking about the Sustainable Harvest Calculation

• Focus of the sustainable harvest has been onFocus of the sustainable harvest has been on satisfying fiduciary duties: preserving the corpus of the trust and generating income

• Today primary focus is still in meeting the primary• Today, primary focus is still in meeting the primary fiduciary duty; however the sustainable harvest also is a tool that DNR uses to balance a multiple objectives: economic environmental and socialeconomic, environmental and social

• These objectives are reflected in Policy for Sustainable Forests, trust lands Habitat Conservation Plan and Board management principles

June 1, 2007 DRAFT Subject to Change 3

Why adjust 2004 Sustainable Harvest level?

Policy on Recalculation of the Sustainable HarvestPolicy on Recalculation of the Sustainable Harvest– DNR, with Board of Natural Resources approval, will

recalculate the statewide sustainable harvest level for Board adoption no less frequently than every ten yearsBoard adoption no less frequently than every ten years.

– DNR will adjust the calculation and recommend adoption by the Board when DNR determines changingadoption by the Board when DNR determines changing circumstances within the planning decade suggest that an adjusted harvest level would be prudent. Such circumstances may include major changes in legalcircumstances may include major changes in legal requirements, significant new policy direction from the Board, new information about the resource base available for harvest, or changes in technology.

June 1, 2007 DRAFT Subject to Change 4

available for harvest, or changes in technology.Source: Policy for Sustainable Forests, 2006

For the current decade: 2004 -2014For the current decade: 2004 -2014

Preferred Alternative – Innovative SilvicultureAlternative 5 – Intensive Management Approach

Alternative 4 – Passive Management ApproachAlternative 4 Passive Management ApproachAlternative 3 – Combined Ownerships

Alternative 2 – HCP IntentAlternative 1 – No Action

1996 SHCplus

ALT1 ALT2 ALT3 ALT4 ALT5 PANet Present Value (NPV)NPV 2014 ($ millions) $602 $801 $1,127 $516 $846 $804Rank 5 4 1 6 2 3

Older forests (OF)

additional procedures(Alt 1.No Action)

OF in 2067 ('000 acres) 78 74 70 76 30 137Rank 3 3 5 2 6 1

Combined rank 4 2 2 4 4 1

2014

June 1, 2007 DRAFT Subject to Change 5

2004 201420072000

For the current decade: 2004 -2014Settlement RFRSChange in

circumstances

For the current decade: 2004 -2014

Preferred Alternative – Innovative Silviculture

2007 Adjustment

Alternative 1 – No Action

ALT1 PA 2007 SHC

1996 SHCplus dditi l Net Present Value (NPV)

NPV 2014 ($ millions) $602 $804 $793

Decade 1 harvest level (mmbf/yr) 396 597 550

additional procedures(Alt 1.No Action)

Older forests (OF)

OF in 2067 ('000 acres) 78 137 213

2004 20142007

June 1, 2007 DRAFT Subject to Change 6

2004 201420072000

For the current decade: 2004 -2014Settlement RFRSChange in

circumstances

Marbled Murrelet Forest Land Plans

For the current decade: 2004 -2014

Preferred Alternative – Innovative Silviculture

1996 SHCplus dditi l

2007 Adjustment

Alternative 1 – No Action

ALT1 PA 2007 SHCadditional procedures(Alt 1.No Action)

Net Present Value (NPV)

NPV 2014 ($ millions) $602 $804 $793

Decade 1 harvest level (mmbf/yr) 396 597 550

Older forests (OF)

OF in 2067 ('000 acres) 78 137 213

2004 20142007

June 1, 2007 DRAFT Subject to Change 7

2004 201420072000

Trust Lands Habitat Conservation PlanTrust Lands Habitat Conservation Plan2006 Riparian Forest Restoration Strategy

Inner zone (0-25 ft)No harvest

Middle zone(25 -100 ft)

single tree removal, up to 10 percent

harvest of conifer, etc,Outer zone(>100 ~ 180 ft)Up 10 percent harvest of conifer, etc

Wind-buffer(50 ft on windward side)

June 1, 2007 DRAFT Subject to Change 8

Trust Lands Habitat Conservation Plan

Riparian Restoration Strategy simplifies

Trust Lands Habitat Conservation Plan2006 Riparian Forest Restoration StrategyRiparian Restoration Strategy simplifies operational layout of riparian management area from 4 zones to 2. Management in Restoration Zone:– Intermediate restoration goal– Inner zone (0-25 ft)Intermediate restoration goal

‘riparian desired future condition’– No management in stands in

‘riparian desired future condition’ or in stands over 70 years oldy

– Lower priority on hardwood conversions to conifer forests

– Limit gap/opening size to ¼ acre– Maintain relatively high

Restoration Zone The silvicultural prescriptions are – Maintain relatively high

density/stocking to reduce risk of blow-down

– Limit entries into riparian areas to two for all time

the same across all the previous zones(>25 ~ 180-220 ft)

June 1, 2007 DRAFT Subject to Change 9

two for all timeSource: DNR 2006, Implementation Procedures for the Riparian Forest Restoration Strategy

Outcomes of Riparian ForestOutcomes of Riparian Forest Restoration Strategy

50

60

/yea

r

The Strategy:• Meets the

commitments of the

30

40

st v

olum

e M

MB

F/commitments of the 70-year Habitat Conservation Plan

f

10

20R

ipar

ian

Har

ves• Provides flexible

implementation framework

01996 HCP

(Alternative 2i 2004 Fi l

1996-2006Actuals

2004 BoardApproved

2007Adjustment

• Provides a 3-year adaptive management review

June 1, 2007 DRAFT Subject to Change 10

in 2004 FinalEIS)

management review

Potential Effects of the Lawsuit inPotential Effects of the Lawsuit in decade 1

600

7005.97BBF2004 Board approved cumulative sustainable harvest

400

500

MB

F

No Settlement?

3 96 BBF 2004 Alternative 1

200

300

MM

Implementation of BNRapproved SHCAverage annual 597MMBF

Legend

3.96 BBF - 2004 Alternative 1 cumulative sustainable harvest

0

100

FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14

Fiscal Year

MMBFAlt 1

S t i bl H t d d (2004 2014)

June 1, 2007 DRAFT Subject to Change 11

Sustainable Harvest decade (2004- 2014)

Staff recommend an adjustment toStaff recommend an adjustment to 2004 Sustainable Harvest level• Resolution in July to adjust 2004 Sustainable Harvest due to effects y j

of Riparian Forest Restoration Strategy and Settlement Agreement• From discussion to date, we recommend that July resolution include:

– Keep policy outcomes and objectives developed in 2004Use Board’ s Management Principles (Resolution 1110)– Use Board’ s Management Principles (Resolution 1110)

– Consider changing circumstances triggering the readjustment of the sustainable harvest

– Adjust harvest levelAdjust harvest level– Reflect upon future anticipated adjustments this decade

• How does Board want resolution to be constructed?– What emphasis?– What content?– What issues should be specifically addressed?– What future anticipated adjustments should be included?

June 1, 2007 DRAFT Subject to Change 12