|
|
|
|
| Home > Draft Report > Comments |
TMBR-2 documents a 50% increase in harvest through 2040 but does not project overall annual increase in cutting rates, total acreages harvested through 2040 and the effect of this increase in harvest on rotations. If even aged cuts currently occur on 5.3 million acres/year, a 50% increase would result in 8 million acres of even aged cutting annually by 2040. Over the course of the 40 year period, that means an estimated 270 million acres of forests will be logged. What does this mean regarding rotations on pine plantations and natural forests? -- Draft Report
(1) The chapter that indicates a 50% increase in harvest through 2040 is TMBR-1. This increase is a derivative of timber demand assumptions that are exogenous to the model used. As stated above, it is not correct to assume that even-age cutting occurs on 5.3 million ac in the South. (2) A 50% increase in harvest rates does not have to result in an increase of harvested area to 8 million ac annually. The reason is increasing productivity in intensively managed stands which offers the potential to produce more timber on a smaller forestland base and reduce harvest pressures on remaining forest resources (TMBR-1). Consequently, the estimate of 270 million ac of logged forestland in the South during the next 40 years seems excessive. In intensively managed stands, e.g., planted pine stands, rotations are becoming shorter, as noted. -- Final Report
The cutting terms need to be defined. Only "seed tree" is defined in the glossary as an even age cutting technique. It needs to be made clear that all management methods in the "partial cut" category are even age management. It needs to be stated that 5.3 million acres of timberland is under even age management per year in the southeast. In addition, while total area of forestland lost to sprawl was calculated for the entire 40 year study period, the total area of forestland harvested during the same period was not calculated and included in the Summary Report. -- Draft Report
(1) It appears that the glossary would be an appropriate place for the definitions of cutting terms which are used throughout the report. I already have suggested these definitions for inclusion in the glossary. In any case, the cutting terms are defined in FIA manuals; any additional assumptions (e.g., how some categories were merged to create new, common categories for both regions) are provided in the chapter. (2) It is not correct to assume that all "partial cut" management methods represent even-aged management. In most cases these methods represent two-aged management and in some cases uneven-aged management. While two-aged stands in due time may convert to predominantly even-aged stands, the same can often be observed in natural stands, which were partially cut or affected by various natural disturbances. (3) Consequently, it is incorrect to state that 5.3 million acres of timberland are under even-aged management per year in the Southeast, i.e., assuming that clearcutting is an essential component of even-aged management. (4) The total area of forestland harvested for the entire 40 year study period was not calculated in this chapter because it was beyond the chapter's scope, and data and approaches used in the chapter make the development of reasonably reliable long-term estimates of harvested area difficult. -- Final Report
Much emphasis is placed on more intensive management of plantations throughout the SFRA, however there is no analysis of the impacts of these practices on soil quality. This is a critical gap in the analysis that must be addressed. There is no discussion in the report of describing either the extent or impacts of specific management techniques that result from "more intensive management". What are the long term ecological and productivity implications of increased reliance on genetically modified trees? What are the long term implications of increased spraying of chemicals? -- Draft Report
This is a valid question which, however, is beyond the scope of the chapter and my expertise. -- Final Report
Additional discussion on the effect of the CRP program and other afforestation trends would be useful. -- Draft Report
The information about these programs and their impact on afforestation trends is provided in Chapter HLTH-1 (pages 5-6 and 15). Some of this information may also be found in Chapter SOCIO-1, which discusses land use changes. An index may help in looking up this information in the main report. -- Final Report
I was confused by the second paragraph on page 2 in Chapter 4. This paragraph discusses problems with plantation ages. The Southern Station has a stand origin variable and an age to the nearest one year for pine plantations. This data should give good information on historic planting levels for pine plantations. Most natural stands in the south central are of mixed age and the FIA did, as you state, attempt to create an age for these stands. The pine plantation planting data should be good; it is the natural stand regeneration data that is questionable. -- Draft Report
And this approach has been applied in developing plantation rate estimates. However, in some cases even planted stands were classified as mixed-age stands and this concern was reflected in the paragraph. -- Final Report
I can find no mention of sustainable forest management practices, either independent programs (SCS, FSC, Rainforest Alliance, etc) or industry-based (AF&Pas SFI, etc) anywhere in the draft assessment. Why this blatant omission? Consumer demand for certified sustainably harvested wood products is growing and is projected to continue to increase dramatically in the coming decades. The failure to recognize the entire movement of sustainably managed forests undermines the validity, credibility, and usefulness of the draft assessment as a planning tool. -- Draft Report
The discussion of certification schemes is beyond the scope of this chapter. The chapter simply discusses basic management practices. While it does not relate to individual certification schemes, this does not mean that the practices discussed in the chapter promote unsustainable forestry. Much of forest industry land is managed in accordance with SFI standards. Yet, this wood generally is not marketed as certified wood because there is no demand/need to do so. If certification becomes more widespread, it is possible that certain standards will affect the extent of some management practices in the region. At this time, however, this appears not to be the case. -- Final Report
|
|
webmaster: John M. Pye |
created: 4-OCT-2002 |