WSP10790 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

;j Management Situation by Revision Topic ,;1 Each model was formulated (zoned) to show the acreages and costs associated with twenty-six separate roadless areas. These separate roadless areas had unique and different collector road costs, which could greatly affect the economic results of the model. Each run was restricted, or constrained, by non-declining yields, and limited the amount of patch or c1earcuts in spruce-fir. Each model also limited the amount of openings created to 1,000 acres per year for all cover types. A financial value of $72/mbf for conifer was used in each model, which was the three-year average as calculated by the Regional Office. While aspen was included in the model, it was not harvested. This is primarily due to the fact that there is no demand for aspen and it has no associated revenue. Sensitivity analysis will be performed at a later date to determine the sustainability and associated volumes that would be harvested at different revenue levels. The first FORPLAN run made was to maximize timber outputs while incorporating new timber yields and stratification with the old standards and guidelines and the management area designations of the ,85 Forest Plan. This run depicts the physical limits of timber productio'l, and essentially ignores the costs of various actions. Because this run determines the maximum biological potential to produce timber on the Forest, the ASQ is the highest of the four runs. This run entered all roadless areas to maximize the timber outputs. Possible Sale Quantity Comparison Rio Grinde Nltional Forest MMlf 35 30 25 20 .'5 '0 5 o 15 forest CMA 'IIn Mill Yol CMA CMA Max PHV MIX Vol New SAGs eM' UaxPNV Ntw saGs Figure 11I-11. Possible Sale Quantity Comparison The second FORPLAN run made was to maximize present net value (PNV) while incorporating new timber yields and stratification with the old standards and guidelines and the management-area designations of the 1985 Forest Plan. This run basically tried to make the most money (net revenue) for the Forest while keeping costs to a minimum. Many of the road less areas were not accessed in this run due to the high collector costs and the relatively low revenues from timber sales. The potential sale quantity was the lowest in this model because of the reduced number of silvicultural prescriptions available and restrictions in the model based on openings. Once the openings restriction was at capacity, the model had no other silvicultural prescriptions to select. The third FORPLAN model developed was to maximize timber outputs, as was the first model, but this model incorporated more uneven-aged silvicultural prescriptions and new management-area uses. The result of these changes reduced the amount of land available for various timber prescriptions, but it also gave more silvicultural prescription choices.. This model also accessed all roadless areas and built the complete collector road system necessary to access the timber in these areas. In both this model and the fourth model, the ability to use individual-tree and group selection allowed the model to continue harvesting even though the opening restrictions were at capacity. 111-37 o ~J24S0