New Elliott State Forest Research Advisory Committee Meeting … · 2019. 11. 15. · Friday,...

Elliott State Forest Research Advisory Committee Meeting Number Seven October 24th & 25th, 2019

Advisory Committee Website: https://www.oregon.gov/dsl/land/pages/elliott.aspx

Advisory Committee Members present: Steve Andringa, Bob Salinger, Paul Beck, Chris Boice, Jen Clark, Melissa Cribbins, Eric Farm, Geoff Huntington, Mike Kennedy, Michael Langley, Ken McCall, Mark Stern, Bob Sallinger, Keith Tymchuk, Vicki Walker, and Bob Van Dyk. Department of State Lands and Oregon State University Staff: Ken Armstrong, Ryan Singleton, Meliah Masiba, Robert Underwood, Jennah Stillman, and Bill Ryan. Oregon Consensus Facilitation Team: Peter Harkema and Amy Delahanty, Brett Brownscombe Action Items

Action Item Who Date

Circulate draft October 24 & 25 meeting summary to AC members for review and comment.

OC Completed.

Submit additional questions and/or information related to scenario modeling efforts to Oregon Consensus

Advisory Committee

Completed.

One-pager of rotation length assumptions in scenario modeling

Tom By (or at) November 8th

Provide any needed refinements or proposed additions to OSU’s draft guiding principles

Advisory Committee

Completed.

Welcome, Agenda Review and Process Overview Facilitator Peter Harkema welcomed the group then invited members to do a round of introductions. He then reviewed the agenda topics with the group, which were 1.) hear an update regarding Oregon State University’s (OSU) research design, research opportunities, and relationship to the proposed HCP; 2.) OSU’s preliminary modeling results of selected management scenarios for, harvest volume and revenue, and carbon market sequestration revenue; 3.) ownership and governance; and 4.) if time, review OSU’s draft Foundational Principles. Peter then shared the

https://www.oregon.gov/dsl/land/pages/elliott.aspx

https://www.oregon.gov/dsl/land/pages/elliott.aspx

Advisory Committee (AC) was invited on behalf of the Department of State Lands (DSL) and OSU to an informal dinner. OSU Research Design and HCP Katy Kavanagh (OSU) provided additional detail and information regarding OSU’s draft experimental design to Advisory Committee members. Presentation topics included a brief overview of OSU’s exploratory committee; review of Elliott State Research Forest overarching research question; a broad overview of the three types of silvicultural treatments (reserves, intensive, extensive); examples of initial sub watershed treatments and overlays; and desired outcomes. Following Katy’s presentation, there were questions and comments related to the definition of extensive management; sharing watersheds; concerns about research biases; and a desire to include local knowledge in the research design. Following the group’s discussions with Dr. Kavanagh, Geoff reminded the group that the research design is intended to serve several different functions, with a primary one being to create a stable platform with a variety of different treatments for research that are relevant at any point in time. He hoped that various stakeholders would be able to envision different types of research questions and experiments on the Elliott from their respective vantage points. HCP Update Troy Rahmig (ICF) provided a brief HCP update to the group. Presentations topics included ICF’s approach to analyzing effects in the HCP; determining minimization and mitigation needs; followed by a discussion with AC members. Troy highlighted the following take-aways from his presentation:

● Research forest design does not have to fully avoid all impacts to covered species ● Some take allowance can be permitted with a commitment to offset that take by improving

habitat on other parts of the forest, provided the applicant avoids and minimizes impacts to the maximum extent practicable

● The effects analysis will quantify effects on covered species habitat as we understand them today, but

● Will consider net effects on species over time, based on assumptions about the timing and type of harvest and the potential for management actions to improve habitat, as an assumption in the effects analysis

Following Troy’s presentation, there were questions and comments related to the timing of seeing spatial information of watersheds and the HCP, extensive forestry effects, edge effects, monitoring, and whether the adjacent Siuslaw National Forest habitat could be an opportunity area in the HCP. Regarding the Siuslaw, Troy noted adjacent lands will provide context in the HCP, but in terms of conservation commitments, would not be included as a factor because they are not part of the permit area. Geoff then shared the goal is how to balance the HCP requirements with maintaining the integrity of the research forest. He stressed the main objective would be to not compromise the objectives of the research design, and OSU would seek to avoid, minimize, and then mitigate for take.

Aquatic Update Gordie Reeves (OSU) provided a presentation about the aquatic components of the HCP. Gordie presented information about the wood recruitment potential; integrating wood recruitment on the conversation management areas; and discussed remaining tasks. Gordie highlighted the following next steps with the group:

● Establish what will/can happen in Conservation Research Watersheds. ● Understand effects of research designation. ● Determine acceptable level of wood recruitment. ● Identify potential mitigation options ● Identify benefits to other species.

There were comments and questions asked related to old growth and modeling assumptions; climate change; adequate loading of riparian buffers; testing from an ecological, operational and other perspectives. Geoff shared the purpose of the presentation is to talk about this outcome-based approach to establishing setbacks. He stated there has been a lot of interest for agencies to talk about biological outcomes instead of fixed aspects. Geoff shared the morning’s presentation is the sum total of the work to date, and will continue to refine as the process moves forward and seek to complete the work in 2020. OSU Scenario Modeling: Tom Tuchmann shared an update on OSU’s financial modeling efforts with Committee members and provided an overview of preliminary modeling results of selected management scenarios for, harvest volume and revenue, and carbon market sequestration revenue. It was noted the presentation is a snapshot of over 4million pieces of data used to inform the modeling and analysis. Tom reiterated the results from the modeling scenarios do not reflect a proposed OSU management plan for the Elliott, but rather an estimate of potential forest and carbon management scenarios and their outputs. He then highlighted several additional disclaimers with the group. Following this, Tom presented information regarding the scenario modeling process and components; methodology; limitations; and results with the group. During and following Tom’s presentation, there were comments and questions asked related to age class distribution; rotation length assumptions; definition of extensive management; concern regarding overestimating inventory levels; and costs and impacts associated with extensive forestry management. Following Tom’s presentation, Geoff shared OSU could conduct another scenario run (potential Scenario D) and solicited feedback from AC members regarding what questions they would like to be answered. A couple committee members shared that they would like to see a scenario with no age restrictions and one with an 80 year old age restriction. Advisory Committee members then began to discuss what would be presented at the December Land Board meeting. Director Vicki Walker (DSL) hoped there would be a willingness for the group to talk about the work they have accomplished and affirm the direction of pursuing an Elliott State

Research Forest. One AC member suggested utilizing an Oregon Solutions-like model of a using a Declaration of Cooperation as a way to capture AC member commitments. Other members discussed their level of willingness to represent their interests at the Land Board meeting. There was then a question related to whether there would be an additional ask for money. One AC member shared the group was not charged with determining how to make the Common School Fund whole. Ownership and Governance The AC began a discussion regarding ownership and governance options in light of Committee member’s desired characteristics and outstanding questions and areas of uncertainty. Geoff provided a brief reminder of the three proposed frameworks 1.) OSU ownership and management; 2.) wholly owned subsidiary ownership and management; and 3.) OSU leases to a wholly owned subsidiary. Many subcommittee members spoke to the results of the carbon modeling and observed the monetary difference between a public or a private carbon project. It was noted by some that if OSU would pursue a private carbon project, aspects such as transparency and the existence of a representative board would be key considerations. Peter reminded AC members that they are still in a space of figuring things out, in part, because they need to see all of the pieces together. He acknowledged there is a risk when parties see numbers, things can begin to feel final. He encouraged members to ask themselves what an Elliott State Research Forest look could like to meet their interests. Peter then stated there will be a preliminary discussion the following day among the AC regarding the goals related to the December Land Board meeting. He thanked the group for their work and reviewed the meeting’s action items.

Friday, October 25th Elliott State Forest Field Tour: The Advisory Committee participated in a tour of the Elliott focused on three primary stops, including:

● Stop One: visit an older natural stand and discuss treatment vs. no treatment options and how that impacts various forest resource values.

● Stop Two: visit a riparian area containing a stand structural type that would be a candidate for treatment under OSU’s aquatic strategy (e.g. young dense plantation), where the objective is to grow large trees over time that would eventually become in-stream wood for fish habitat.

● Stop Three: visit an “Intermediate” structure stand (40-yr old plantation) and “Advanced” structure stand (older natural stand) and compare potential treatments under the OSU research forest concept and the discuss implications for future stand development trajectories, key wildlife species, visuals, timber production, etc.

Debrief Field Tour Advisory Committee members were invited to share reflections from the field tour of the Elliott. The following is a brief summary of those reflections:

● We discussed recreation opportunities. ○ Might need to think about ways to handle recreation user conflicts. ○ Make sure we continue to have access. ○ Recreation will take thoughtful planning and management associated with it. ○ Careful about managing expectations about recreation. ○ Available for public access, but maybe recreation is the second tier. People want the

status quo. ● There was a conversation about the older stands and what extensive management might look

like? Brought up what extensive stand treatments could look like. ○ It was suggested that OSU present visual examples of Extensive Management and

strive to bring something back by November 8. Peter invited Committee members to share examples of what Extensive Management could look like and share this with the university and full group at the next AC meeting.

Peter reviewed proposed topics for the upcoming November 8th Advisory Committee meeting, which included a follow-on conversation about governance and ownership, the December Land Board meeting, and a discussion regarding OSU’s proposed guiding principles. Geoff then circulated OSU’s draft guiding principles document to the AC, and encouraged members for any proposed additions or suggested changes to the document within the next week.

Peter thanked the group for their work and stated the next Committee meeting will be Friday, November 8th at the Department of State Lands.

Elliott State Research Forest Research Design; Update and Outcomes

Katy KavanaghAssociate Dean of Research

College of Forestry

OSU

DSL Advisory Committee Meeting

August 22, 2019

Balancing conservation, production, and

livelihood objectives on a forested landscape

within a changing world.

Importance

Matt Betts DSL Advisory Committee Meeting August 22, 2019

• Planted forest area has increased by over 105 million ha since 1990

• Planted forests now account for 7 percent of the world’s forests and 33% of roundwood production

• Is this the best direction for production of the world’s timber?

• 70% of terrestrial biodiversity found in forests


Guiding PrinciplesResearch: Advance and sustain transformational research.

Enduring: Remain relevant across many years, generations, and social, economic and environmental contexts.

At Scale: Leverage the unique opportunity the forest offers for experiments at large spatial and long temporal scales.

Tailored to the Landscape: Take full advantage of the forest’s capacity to provide science addressing research themes that are highly relevant.

Practical, Relevant, and Collaborative: Programs conducted on the forest must be relevant to forestry issues and challenges.

Conservation research watersheds and management research watersheds are both essential components of the research design

• One time harvest to reduce stand density and promote diversity• Becomes more

homogenous over time at a larger scale unless large-scale disturbance.• Testing restoration

methodology• Global change impacts w/o

active management• Species recovery/resilence

• Continuous harvests in time on a portion of the landscape varying by sub-basin• Heterogenous initially and

remains this way with greater departure of reserves and extensive relative to intensive.• Global change impacts w

active management• Species recovery/resilence

Total Analysis Area = 82,480 acresDSL Lands Only

Conservation Research

Watersheds 30,480 acres

Management Research

Watersheds 52,000 acres

DRAFT8/22/2019

2015 Age StructureLT60GTE60

Elliott State Research Forest

Elliott State Research Forest

2050 Age StructureLT60GTE60Extensive/Diverse


August 22, 2019

Gradient of Sub Watershed Treatments

Sharing Triad-E Triad-I Sparing

2 60%

20%

20%

Intensive (I) Extensive (E) Reserves (R)

Water-shed

Area LT60

Water-shed

Area LT60

1 19% 67 45%2 31% 68 36%4 60% 69 26%6 68% 70 51%8 97% 71 65%

10 58% 74 77%12 35% 75 43%13 21% 76 49%14 31% 77 98%15 22% 78 73%20 ODF 79 81%21 44% 80 88%22 41% 81 67%23 31% 82 54%24 42% 86 79%25 39% 87 43%26 17% 89 53%27 54% 90 91%30 78% 91 87%32 77% 93 36%34 48% 94 66%35 36% 95 84%36 49% 96 64%41 48% 97 48%42 37% 98 63%45 22% 99 44%46 26% 100 38%48 51% 101 41%49 32% 102 54%50 36% 103 85%51 30% 104 66%52 33% 105 73%53 41% 106 34%54 60% 107 80%55 16% 108 89%57 25% 109 87%58 27% 110 56%62 41% 111 65%63 36% 112 43%64 49% 113 55%65 37% 114 47%66 40% 117 37%

119 94%

Watersheds > 400 acres

Percent of watershed area less than 60 years old.

Stands ≥ 60 years

Stands < 60 years

CRW MRW

GT60 LT60CRW 60% 40%MRW 44% 56%

All 50% 50%

Initial sub watershed assignmentsAssign sub watersheds and stands within watersheds to the treatments by optimizing the following:

i. Prohibit any harvesting in stands that are greater than 160 years old.

ii.Focus harvests in stands that have had prior harvests (less than 60 years old).

iii.Limit harvesting of stands> 60 years old to Extensive.iv.Extensive harvests > 60-year-old will be preferentially done

in stands within this age category.

Acres by Age ClassMultiple Objective Watersheds Only

Land Allocation Intensive ExtensiveTreatment

ReserveUnassigned

Allocation Total

Extensive (Sharing) 0 8,966 0 0 8,966

Triad-E 2,300 6,901 2,300 0 11,502

Triad-I 4,672 2,336 4,672 0 11,679

Intensive (Sparing) 5,253 0 5,253 0 10,506

Unassigned 0 0 0 9,348 9,348

MOA All 12,225 18,203 12,225 9,348 52,001

CEA All 30,481

Elliott Total 82,482

Share/Spare Potential Land Allocation

DRAFT8/22/2019

Sharing Triad-E Triad-I Sparing

2 60%

20%

20%

Intensive (I) Extensive (E) Reserves (R)


• Reserves: Very limited intervention and management with initial treatments focused on enhancing conservation values then transitioning towards low to no touch. In cultivating old forest structure, any thinning would be done for ecological purposes on stands that have regenerated following logging. Natural processes would be unmanaged and allowed to create disturbances (with the exception of fire).

• Intensive: Maximize wood productivity per acre.

• Extensive: Multiple management objectives relative to intensive. Managing for diverse forest characteristics to meet a broad set of objectives and ecosystem services.

Stands are divided into three types of silvicultural treatments.

DRAFT10/24/2019

MRW Catchment 95Treatment = Extensive

Area = 1,518 acres


Area = 1,518 acresLT60 = 84%GTE60 = 16%

DRAFT10/24/2019

DRAFT10/24/2019


Area = 1,518 acresIntensiveExtensiveReserve

DRAFT10/24/2019



HCP ProtectionsMAMU/NSORMA

MRW Catchment 14Treatment = Triad-EArea = 1,993 acres

DRAFT10/24/2019


LT60 = 31%GTE60 = 69%

DRAFT10/24/2019


IntensiveExtensiveReserve

DRAFT10/24/2019

DRAFT10/24/2019




MRW Catchment 110Treatment = Triad-IArea = 1,375 acres

DRAFT10/24/2019


LT60 = 56%GTE60 = 44%

DRAFT10/24/2019

DRAFT10/24/2019



DRAFT10/24/2019




MRW Catchment 98Treatment = Intensive

Area = 1,390 acres

DRAFT10/24/2019


Area = 1,390 acresLT60 = 63%GTE60 = 37%

DRAFT10/24/2019

DRAFT10/24/2019



DRAFT10/24/2019




Desired Outcomes• Successfully install a landscape level experimental design that will

be one of the first long-term replicated tests of our overarching research question.

• Being able to answer a long-standing question; given the societal need for a wood, what is the best combination, in amount and spatial arrangement, of reserves, intensive and extensive forestry to supply wood while maintaining water quality, biodiversity, human needs and other forest services.

• An experimental design that is robust enough that disturbances will not disrupt the long-term goals.

• A research platform that is capable of incorporating a wide variety of research that vary in spatial and temporal scales.

• A nested set of experiments capable of producing data sufficient in time and space to prove or disprove hypotheses arising from our research questions.

Hypotheses/ Predictions

Marbled murrelet Water quality

Landslides

Early seral species

Recreation Social acceptability

Carbon storage


Potential Research AreasThe thematic areas are intended to describe nested sets of research activities, including short-term studies of specific research questions that are compatible with the research design

• Biodiversity, Including, but not limited to, at-risk species: As the Elliott contains a number of at-risk species, research needs to address the most pressing of issues associated with sustaining and enhancing terrestrial and aquatic species in the context of managed forested landscapes.

• Global Change Adaptation Forest and ecosystem health related to global change impacts; research to identify potential suite of management approaches to help mitigate impacts with a goal of forest resiliency and reduced vulnerability.

• Natural and Human caused Disturbance: The Elliott has and will continue to be the site of significant disturbances – whether natural or human caused. Research conducted on the forest will be tailored to account for this important opportunity.

• Forest Structure: Research will explore biodiversity and ecosystem services associated with advanced structure forests. Research will explore management options that provide for a variety of stand structures, including late-successional conditions, and associated range of biodiversity, wood products and ecosystem services

Potential Research Areas• Water Quantity and Quality in Relation to Forest Management: The Elliott

provides excellent opportunities to develop better scientific understanding of the effects and biological response of natural and human-caused disturbances in forest landscapes on water quality and quantity.

• Landscape and Scale Issues: Opportunities to investigate the role of adjacency (source-sink relationship), fragmentation, and connectivity.

• Harvest systems: Complex stand management on steep slopes.• Recreation: Opportunities for studies on existing and future prospects and

impacts. • Traditional knowledge in forest ecosystems: consultation and

contributions of native people in sustaining our forests.

Forest habitat needs of at-risk species

– Ongoing 10-year study of Marbled Murrelet

Research Area-ExampleSpecies at Risk

Youth Aspirations and Labor Market Perceptions in Rural CommunitiesPrincipal Investigator: Mindy Crandall, University of Maine, [email protected] (Oregon State University, [email protected])Co-Principal Investigators: Jessica Leahy, University of Maine; Jesse Abrams, University of Georgia; Heidi Huber-Stearns, University of OregonPrincipal Collaborators: Alexa Carleton, Coos Watershed Association; Andrea Muller, Appalachian Mountain ClubFunded by the USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture, Award 2017-67023-26240

The Rural Youth Futures project seeks to understand youth aspirations in Coos County, Oregon and Piscataquis County, Maine and better develop local infrastructure to support youth retention and recruitment in rural places.

mailto:[email protected]


Questions?

0

90

180

270

360

Crosett Exp

For

Harvard Forest

Swanton Pacific Ranch

TeaKettle Exp

erimental Fo

rest

Pack Forest

Fernow

Duke Forest

Coram Exp For

Hubbard Brook

McDonald Dunn Fo

rest

Cascade Head

Berheim

Robinson Forest HJA

Vinton Furnace Stat

e Res For

Horizontes E

xp Forest

Fraser

Clemson Exp For

Hofman Research

Forest

Elliott S

tate E

xp For

Area

(km

2)

Research Forests Area

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Acre

s

Age class range (10yrs)

Elliott State Research Forest Land area by age class (as of 2019) 1=0-10, 2=20-30

Acres by Age ClassMultiple Objective Watersheds Only

01000200030004000500060007000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27

Acre

s

Age Class (10yr increments)Intensive Extensive Reserves DRAFT

8/22/2019

Elliott State Research Forest HCP: The Aquatic Component

Gordon ReevesOregon State University

Wood Delivery Potential70% Overall - 80% CRWs - 63.2% MRWs

Elliott State Research ForestRiparian Management Areas

Fish-bearingRMA Width 150’

Non-fish bearingRMA Width 50’



CRWs MRWs

Wood Delivery Potential70% Overall - 80% CRWs - 63.2% MRWs

Elliott State Research ForestRiparian Management Areas





22.4% of area 10.2% of area

CRWs MRWs

DRAFT 10/24/2019

Wood Recruitment Potential

CRW MRW All

Without Terrestrial Reserves 80% 63% 70%

Including Terrestrial Reserves 83% 73% 77%

DRAFT 10/24/2019

Elliott State Research ForestStream Network

FB = fish-bearing; WNFB = wood-producing non-fish-bearing; PNFB = perennial non-fish-bearing

Remaining Tasks• Establish what will/can happen in

CRWs


CRWs• Understand effects of research

designations


CRWs• Determine acceptable level of wood

recruitment • Identify potential mitigation options



designation• Determine acceptable level of wood

recruitment

Type 5 criteria: Achieve 20% of potential NPNFB wood recruitment (select most productive streams)Olympic HCP Stream Type Length (mi) Buffer Width Acres RecruitmentType 2: Major Fish-bearing 132/263 120 feet 3,791 23,520Type 3: Minor Fish-bearing 131/263 100 feet 3,048 22,466Type 4: Perennial Non-fish-bearing 265/265 100 feet 6,274 7,976Type 5: 20% of Potential NPNFB Recruitment 70/1820 25 feet 349 1,221Total 598/2348 13,462 55,182

14.5% 64.7%

Application of Olympic Exp. State Forest Riparian Standards

64.7% of wood delivery potential

CEW FB NFBBuffer Width (feet) 120 50Stream Miles 92 782

Stream Miles (%) 100% 100%

Recruitment 69%Forest Area 33%












designations• Determine acceptable level of wood

recruitment• Identify potential mitigation options

Plantations

From: S. Johnson, Siuslaw NF, Corvallis

L o w e rL o w e rU m p q u aU m p q u a

R i v e rR i v e r

Te n m i l eTe n m i l eC r e e k - F r o n t a lC r e e k - F r o n t a lP a c i f i c O c e a nP a c i f i c O c e a n

M i l l i c o m aM i l l i c o m aR i v e rR i v e r

M i l l M i l l C r e e kC r e e k

Milli

com a

River

UmpquaRiver

W F rk

Millic oma

R iver

Wes

tFork

Millicoma River

Umpqua River

SolDifMax-86.22 - 1000.00

1000.01 - 2500.00

2500.01 - 3801.24

Stream Reaches Where Riparian Vegetation Exerts Most Influence on Water Temperature




recruitment• Identify potential mitigation options• Identify benefits to other species




recruitment• Identify potential mitigation options• Identify benefits to other species• Integrate with carbon component

Summary Report OSU College of Forestry

Financial and Carbon Modeling for the

Elliott State Research ForestOctober 25, 2019

DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-10.25.19 1

Disclaimerv The information provided herein is supplied to Oregon State University and is in no way warranted or guaranteed. Specifically, no representations are expressed or implied with respect to the use of land, including, but not limited to, development potential, timber marketability, harvestability, volume, quality, acreage or access and carbon project registration and sales. It is the prospective users obligation to evaluate any and all environmental and regulatory constraints relating to the use of the property and the harvest therefrom. Receipt of this presentation and the information herein shall not be deemed to constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security.

v This analysis does not reflect a proposed management plan for the Elliot State Forest, rather it is a coarse screen estimate of potential forest and carbon management scenarios and their potential outputs.


US Forest Capital Team

v US Forest Capital, LLC

v Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

v Spatial Informatics Group

v Dr. John Sessions


Draft Analysis

v This presentation represents the modeling team’s best efforts to analyze conservation and financial outcomes associated with assumptions and data provided by OSU.

v Such assumptions do not reflect any management decisions by OSU. As such the results of this analysis should be viewed as preliminary as well and subject to change based on future decisions by OSU.

v Additionally, the modeling results presented herein are being further reviewed by the modeling team for accuracy and do not represent a final report.


Project Overview

Primary Objectives

v Work w/OSU to narrow mgt. approaches associated w/research forest

v Create a strategic planning model that can be used by OSU when research objectives & corresponding mgt. scenarios are finalized

Deliverables

v 3 Management Scenarios

v Financial Model

v Acre allocations by management approach

v Financial report

v Carbonv Preliminary Report

v Implementation Plan

v Assessment of potential stocks


Methodology


Modeling Limitations of this Analysis

v The model focused on allocating acres to various management intensities. Although reserve acres & HCP expectations provide a measure, ecological/species trends were not estimated in this analysis.

v OSU’s research design attributes as of August, 2019 were simulated with additional policy constraints. (See accompanying matrix for detailed set of modeling assumptions)

v Model was built so that refined research design prescriptions that are evolving over time can be incorporated in the future.

v The results provide coarse-screen filter estimates and do not result from a forest management plan that has been finalized.


Numbers in Perspective

v Modeling results show general trends based on assumptions and not necessarily specifics. For example,

v Estimated avg. annual outputs in 5 year periods, not individual years.

v Stands, not trees, available and unavailable for harvest

v Actual outputs will be derived from forest management plan which will specify yearly harvest unit design.

v The model estimates average periodic costs and revenues based on historic trends. Actual costs and revenues are expected to fluctuate more dramatically than modeled. This is an important consideration to more fully analyze if financing is being considered.


2019 Modeling Process & Components

v 3 Scenarios

v (A) OSU Research Design-100 – No harvest of stands currently 100+ years

v (B) OSU Research Design-160 – No harvest of stands currently 160+ years

v (C) Commercial w/HCP

v Application of Treatments – 1 of 6 treatments were applied to each of 119 sub-basins for Scenario A& B. Scenario C assumed intensive treatment across the landscape with an HCP overlay.

v There are approximately 5,000 acres of “partial basins” along property perimeter that were assigned intensive or reserve.

v Application of HCP – Certain riparian and terrestrial reserves & management requirements were applied to Scenario A&B. Another set of requirements were applied to Scenario C. These are based on HCP expectations as of August, 2019 that may be modified in the future.


2019 Modeling Process & ComponentsContinued

v Management regimes were applied to each treatmentv Reserve – 3 types – HCP related, CEW related,

Intensive related

v Extensive – Retention harvest to Residual Density 20

v Intensive – Final harvest using clear-cutting

v Each management regime includes standards and guidelines (i.e. riparian prescriptions, older stand reserves, stand harvest prescriptions)

v See CEW and MOW matrix for relationship of modeling components by scenario


Elliott Forest by CEW & MOW

v 82,540 acres in Coos and Douglas County

v Relatively high site

v Steep terrain

v Bi-modal age class distribution


Experimental Design

Experimental Design

v MOW:

v 4 Treatment Types by sub-basin

v Fit the landscape

v For MOW, partial basins outside experiment assigned intensive except adjacent to MOW basins 1 &13 (NE corner) which are assigned reserve.

v CEW:

v No scheduled harvest

v Restoration thins for 20 years

v Partial basins assigned reserve


Treatment Type - Stands Allocated to Combinations of Intensive, Extensive, Reserve

Management Regimes


Scenario C – No Experimental Design w/HCP

v Scenario C applies intensive treatments across the landscape with an HCP overlay.

v No modeled harvest on:

v 8,611 Terrestrial Acres

v 12,414 Riparian Acres

v Represents how the Elliott could potentially be managed under existing law


Scenario A & B Differences

Scenario A

v CEW – no thin

v No harvest in existing stands > 100 years old

Scenario B

v CEW – Thin existing plantations < 60 years old

v No harvest in existing stands >160 years old


Scenario A: Reserves & Available for Harvest

v Property divided into CEW & MOW

v No harvest of stands that were 100 years old the project start date

v Stands available for harvest include intensive or extensive treatments.

v Habitat restoration thins in first 20 years in MOW reserves that are former plantations


Scenario B: Reserves & Available for Harvest

v Property divided into CEW & MOW

v No harvest of stands that were 160 year old at the project start date

v Habitat restoration thins in first 20 years in CEW and MOW reserves that are former plantations


Scenario C: Reserves & Available for Harvest

v Property available for commercial harvest w/HCP

v HCP requires 30,000 acres of adequate age to provide dispersal habitat. (120 year old in plantations, 80 year old in natural stands.)


OSU Forest Management Cost Assumptions

v Does not include research & other program costs & is variable based on acres managed.

v Whole budget that includes recreation, HCP monitoring, fire, etc.

v Assumed $27/acres based on cost/harvest level below


Log Price Projection

Revenue projections are based on current log prices by species and grade. All modeled future costs and revenues are reported in real dollars – net of inflation.

DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT-10.25.19

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

$1,000

Pric

e pe

r Mbf

Nominal Price Trends for Domestic Douglas-fir #2 SawlogRegion 3 - Southern Oregon and the Willamette Valley

HistoricProjection

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

Real

201

7 pe

r Mbf

Real Price Trends for Douglas-fir Domestic #2 SawlogRegion 3 - Southern Oregon and the Willamette Valley

HistoricProjection

20

ModelingResults


Reserve & Harvest Acreages

AcreSummary

ScenarioA

ScenarioB

Scenario C

Reserve &No Harvest

56,91569%

48,04558%

22,16927%

Harvestable 25,62231%

34,49242%

60,36873%


AcreSummary

ScenarioA

ScenarioB

Scenario C

Extensive 12,47815%

21,12726%

00%

Intensive13,14416%

13,36516%

60,36873%

Harvestable vs. No Harvest & Reserve (not including thins)

Extensive vs. Intensive Mgt Acres and % of Total Area

22

Scenario A - Acres Available for Harvest by Management Regime


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 23

ACRE

S

AGE CLASS

Scenario A MOW & CEW

Age Class Acres by Treatment Type

R

I

E

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 23

ACRE

S

AGE CLASS

Scenario A MOW Only


R

I

E

23

Scenario B - Acres Available for Harvest by Management Regime


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 23

ACRE

S

AGE CLASS

Scenario B MOW Only


R

I

E

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 23

ACR

ES

AGE CLASS

Scenario B MOW & CEW


R

I

E

24

Scenario A - CEW & MOW


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Acre

s/YR

5-Year Period

Acres Harvested

Reserve ThinExtensive ThinIntensive ThinExtensive RetentionIntensive Regen

SCENARIO A

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Mbf

/acr

e

5-Year Period

Average Volume Harvest per Acre

Final HarvestThinning

SCENARIO A

25

Scenario A: Acres and Volume Harvested

Reserve ReserveFinal Harvest Thin Retention Harvest Thin Thin Final Harvest Thin Retention Harvest Thin Thin

1 11.6 0 0.3 2.6 1.6 16.1 1 433 0 21 158 110 7202 9.4 0 2 3.6 1.3 16.2 2 321 0 83 236 112 7523 9.1 0 1.8 4.9 0.6 16.4 3 265 0 96 312 51 7244 6.9 0 1.6 7.7 0.6 16.8 4 218 0 74 460 47 7995 9.3 0 3.1 4.7 0 17.0 5 233 0 143 260 0 6366 9.8 0 4.5 3.1 0 17.3 6 290 0 174 158 0 6227 10.4 0 5.7 1.6 0 17.7 7 341 0 243 103 0 6878 6.7 3.2 7.2 0.9 0 17.9 8 148 214 245 57 0 6659 4.6 3.7 8 1.9 0 18.2 9 130 227 269 114 0 740

10 4.1 4.3 8.7 1.4 0 18.5 10 102 250 300 88 0 740


1 72% 0% 2% 16% 10% 100% 1 60% 0% 3% 22% 15% 100%2 58% 0% 12% 22% 8% 100% 2 43% 0% 11% 31% 15% 100%3 55% 0% 11% 30% 4% 100% 3 37% 0% 13% 43% 7% 100%4 41% 0% 10% 46% 4% 100% 4 27% 0% 9% 58% 6% 100%5 55% 0% 18% 28% 0% 100% 5 37% 0% 22% 41% 0% 100%6 57% 0% 26% 18% 0% 100% 6 47% 0% 28% 25% 0% 100%7 59% 0% 32% 9% 0% 100% 7 50% 0% 35% 15% 0% 100%8 37% 18% 40% 5% 0% 100% 8 22% 32% 37% 9% 0% 100%9 25% 20% 44% 10% 0% 100% 9 18% 31% 36% 15% 0% 100%

10 22% 23% 47% 8% 0% 100% 10 14% 34% 41% 12% 0% 100%

% Annual Harvest % Annual Harvest

Period Total PeriodIntensive Extensive

Total

IntensiveTotalPeriod Total Period

ExtensiveAnnual Harvest (MMbf/yr) Annual Harvest (Acres/yr)

Intensive Extensive

Intensive Extensive


Scenario B - CEW & MOW


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Acre

s/YR

5 Year Period

Acres Harvested

Reserve ThinExtensive ThinIntensive ThinExtensive RetentionIntensive Regen

SCENARIO B

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

MM

bf/Y

R

5-Year Period

Annual Harvest Volume

Reserve Thin

Extensive Thin

Intensive Thin

Extensive Retention

Intensive Regen

SCENARIO B

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Mbf

/acre

5-Year Period



SCENARIO B

27

Scenario B: Acres and Volume Harvested



1 3.7 0 10.1 3.4 6.8 24.0 1 114 0 247 139 503 1,004 2 5.2 0 8.2 1.9 8.6 23.9 2 180 0 212 152 731 1,274 3 7 0 6.8 4.4 5.8 24.0 3 213 0 171 244 475 1,103 4 6.9 0 11 2.4 3.7 24.0 4 188 0 282 148 307 925 5 9 0 11 4 0 24.0 5 212 0 260 191 0 663 6 8 0 11.1 4.9 0 24.0 6 185 0 285 231 0 702 7 11.2 0 9.1 3.6 0 24.0 7 242 0 204 155 0 601 8 12.7 0.5 8.5 2.2 0 24.0 8 303 34 199 95 0 632 9 11.2 1.1 8.9 2.8 0 24.0 9 207 66 255 124 0 652

10 9.2 2.7 9.1 3.1 0 24.0 10 169 166 240 121 0 695


1 15% 0% 42% 14% 28% 100% 1 11% 0% 25% 14% 50% 100%2 22% 0% 34% 8% 36% 100% 2 14% 0% 17% 12% 57% 100%3 29% 0% 28% 18% 24% 100% 3 19% 0% 16% 22% 43% 100%4 29% 0% 46% 10% 15% 100% 4 20% 0% 30% 16% 33% 100%5 37% 0% 46% 17% 0% 100% 5 32% 0% 39% 29% 0% 100%6 33% 0% 46% 20% 0% 100% 6 26% 0% 41% 33% 0% 100%7 47% 0% 38% 15% 0% 100% 7 40% 0% 34% 26% 0% 100%8 53% 2% 35% 9% 0% 100% 8 48% 5% 31% 15% 0% 100%9 47% 5% 37% 12% 0% 100% 9 32% 10% 39% 19% 0% 100%

10 38% 11% 38% 13% 0% 100% 10 24% 24% 35% 17% 0% 100%

% Annual Harvest % Annual Harvest

PeriodIntensive

TotalExtensive

Total PeriodIntensive Extensive

TotalPeriod Total

Annual Harvest (MMbf/yr) Annual Harvest (Acres/yr)Intensive Extensive Intensive Extensive

Period

Scenario C - CEW & MOW


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Mbf

/acre

5-Year Period



SCENARIO C

Scenario C - CEW & MOW


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Mbf

/acre

5-Year Period



SCENARIO C

Scenario C – Annual Harvest Volume & Acres Harvested

Annual Harvest (MMbf/yr)

Period

Intensive Extensive Reserve

TotalFinal Harvest ThinRetention Harvest Thin Thin

1 29.2 2.9 0 0 0 32.12 30.4 2.2 0 0 0 32.63 28 4.9 0 0 0 32.94 21.9 10.8 0 0 0 32.75 19.2 13.7 0 0 0 32.86 22 11.1 0 0 0 33.17 20.8 12.3 0 0 0 33.18 29.6 3.8 0 0 0 33.49 30.7 2.9 0 0 0 33.6

10 32.9 1 0 0 0 33.9

Annual Harvest (Acres/yr)

Period


TotalFinal

Harvest ThinRetention Harvest Thin Thin

1 568 141 0 0 0 7092 556 139 0 0 0 6953 474 284 0 0 0 7584 378 602 0 0 0 9805 326 667 0 0 0 9936 396 495 0 0 0 8917 448 489 0 0 0 9378 634 141 0 0 0 7759 636 114 0 0 0 750

10 681 45 0 0 0 726

% Annual Harvest (MMbf/yr)

Period


TotalFinal Harvest ThinRetention

Harvest Thin Thin1 91% 9% 0% 0% 0% 100%2 93% 7% 0% 0% 0% 100%3 85% 15% 0% 0% 0% 100%4 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 100%5 58% 42% 0% 0% 0% 100%6 67% 34% 0% 0% 0% 100%7 63% 37% 0% 0% 0% 100%8 89% 11% 0% 0% 0% 100%9 91% 9% 0% 0% 0% 100%

10 97% 3% 0% 0% 0% 100%

% Annual Harvest (Acres/yr)

Period


TotalFinal

Harvest ThinRetention Harvest Thin Thin

1 80% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100%2 80% 20% 0% 0% 0% 100%3 63% 37% 0% 0% 0% 100%4 39% 61% 0% 0% 0% 100%5 33% 67% 0% 0% 0% 100%6 44% 56% 0% 0% 0% 100%7 48% 52% 0% 0% 0% 100%8 82% 18% 0% 0% 0% 100%9 85% 15% 0% 0% 0% 100%

10 94% 6% 0% 0% 0% 100%30

Total Standing Inventory


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

MM

BF

5-YEAR PERIOD

Total Annual Inventory

Scenario A All acresScenario B All AcresScenario C All AcresScenario A Managed AcresScenario B Managed AcresScenario C Managed Acres

31

Total Acres Harvested/Year


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

ACRE

S/YR

5-YEAR PERIOD

Total Annual Acres Harvested

Scenario AScenario BScenario C

32

Total Harvest Volume/Year


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

MM

BF/Y

R

5-YEAR PERIOD

Total Annual Harvest


33

Net Timber Revenue by 5-Year Period

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

MILL

ION

$/YR

5-YEAR PERIOD

Annual Net Revenue



Net Timber Revenue by 5-year Period(Avg. Annual in $Millions per Year per Period)


5-yr Period Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C1 2.7 6.2 9.82 2.9 5.9 10.13 3.2 5.9 10.14 3.3 6.3 9.75 3.2 6.4 9.66 3.5 6.4 9.87 3.6 6.5 9.48 3.5 6.2 9.99 4 6.1 9.7

10 4.1 6.2 1011 4.1 6.2 10.212 4.2 6.3 10.213 4.4 6.3 914 4.7 6.2 11.815 4.7 6.1 10.816 4.8 6.2 1117 4.9 6.2 11.318 5 6.1 10.919 5 6.3 10.420 5.1 6.3 9.421 5.1 6.5 9.222 5.2 6.3 8.623 5 6.4 8.824 4.9 6.4 8.825 5.2 6.4 8.926 5.3 6.6 927 5.3 6.6 9.128 5.3 6.4 929 5.4 6.6 9.130 5.4 6.5 9.1

35

Carbon ModelingResults


Total Standing Inventory


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

MM

BF

5-YEAR PERIOD

Total Annual Inventory

Scenario A All acresScenario B All AcresScenario C All AcresScenario A Managed AcresScenario B Managed AcresScenario C Managed Acres

37

Carbon Storage


18.0

19.0

20.0

21.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

2019

2024

2029

2034

2039

2044

2049

2054

2059

2064

2069

2074

2079

2084

2089

2094

2099

2104

2109

2114

Met

ric

Ton

s (m

illio

ns)

CO2 Equivalent for All Carbon Pools

Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C

38

Assumptions for Credit Estimates


v Results are estimates. Actual credits available for registration require review and approval of regulatory agencies and ARB.

v Private landowner baseline: Elliott will be managed under a governance structure that will be deemed private (similar to other universities and tribes)

v Assumes data provided for analysis represents stocking of a carbon plot network installed, specifically, for a forest carbon project.

v The final carbon inventory may indicate different stocking than cruise data provide for this analysis and, thus, credit generation will vary.

v Assumes a high and low bound estimate where further policy & business direction is required narrow project estimates and values with greater certainty.

39

Baseline Assumptions

High Bound Assumes

v OSU ownership structure allows use of private protocol

v NMFS/F&WS agree that HCP assumptions reflect what could be approved for private governance

v Baseline harvest levels constrained by NMFS/F&WS parameters

v Credit generation is a function of the ARB regional stocking guideline as a constraint on the baseline’s 100 year averagestocking.

Low Bound Assumes

v OSU ownership structure requires public protocol to be used

v Baseline harvest levels constrained by NMFS/F&WS HCP, riparian buffer and dispersal habitat requirements

v Credit generation is a function of the ARB requirement to use a 60 year old forest’s stocking as a constraint on the project’s minimum annual stocking


Estimated Carbon Credits – Initial & Annual

Reversal Risk

Rating*

Acres Withdrawn from Timber

Harvest

Initial Credit Period

(tonnes)**

Average Annual Credits

Years 2 -> 10***

PrivateProtocol

17.6% 22,457 4,700,000 -5,100,000

105,000 –225,000/year

PublicProtocol

10.6% 40,494 865,000 –1,100,000

145,000 –195,000/year


* Rating establishes magnitude of buffer pool contribution** The credit range accounts for expected variations between current inventory and anticipated cruise results.*** Annual credit range represents range of results for Financial Scenarios A, B and C

41

Uncertainties Driving Pricing Spread

v Two primary reasons behind pricing spread

v Do not know whether regulatory agencies and ARB will accept assumed private protocol assumptions

v Effect of CA’s Direct Environmental Benefits (DEB) policy on pricing is unclear – See Preliminary Carbon Report for details

v New rules reduce amount of credits a compliance entity may use from 8% to 4% of their allowance cap.

v Of the 4%, no more than 50% can be from projects that do not provide DEBs to California

v Rule making is on-going

v It is not clear whether Elliott credits will be deemed a DEB

v There is downside price risk related to over-supply of non-DEBs


Preliminary Estimated Credit ValuePricing

AssumptionsEstimated

TonnesFirst Period Value

Range (Paid @ or near

registration)

Yearly Vintage Value Range

(Yearly Payment for Initial 3 years)

Private Protocol

• $15-$20/tonne for high and $10-$14 /tonne for low

• California DEB for high & non-DEB for low

• High demand for high & fragmented or low demand for low

• Assume registration of yearly vintages through 30

Range Midpoint - 4.9 mm tonnes

Yearly – 0.11 mm tonnes for Scenario B

High-$73.5 to $98 mmLow–$49 to $68.6 mm

n/a

n/a

High-$1.6 to $2.2 mmLow-$1.1 to $1.52 mm

Public Protocol

Range Midpoint – 0.950 mm tonnes Yearly – 0.13 mm tonnes for Scenario B

High-$14.3 mm/$19.0 mmLow-$9.5 mm/$13.3 mm

High–$1.95 mm/$2.6 mmLow-$1.3 mm/1.82 mm


Total Timber & Carbon Revenues ($Millions - 50 years)


Estimated Cash Flow RequirementsBeyond Forest Management

v Estimated Program Expenditures Above Forest Management Costs

• Research Program Funds: $2.5 M

• Program Administration: $1.0 M

• Facilities and Maintenance: $1.0 M

Estimated Operational Costs Before Debt Service $4.5 M

DRAFT-DRAFT-DRAFT

1

The HCP and Research Design

October 24, 2019

Advisory CommitteeElliott State Research Forest HCP

Troy RahmigConservation Planning and Implementation

ICF

2

Agenda

Analyzing effects in the HCP Determining minimization and mitigation needs Discussion

2

3

HCP Analysis - Summary

HCP PurposeoHabitat Conservation Plan provides regulatory certainty under the endangered

species act to ensure research forest will operate in compliance with the ESAoRegulatory assurances are provided as long as OSU avoids, minimizes, and

mitigates effects to the maximum extent practicableo Elliott State Research Forest design becomes the “project” analyzed and

permitted by the HCP

Effects AnalysisoHCP will analyze effects that the project could have on covered species o Takes into account any beneficial effects the project will have

Conservation StrategyoMemorializes any avoidance and minimization measures utilized to reduce effects

(e.g., limited operations during the nesting season)oDescribes any actions needed to mitigate effects that cannot be avoided

3

4

Key Assumptions in the Effects Analysis

Research Forest Designo Permanence of the research designo Assurances of habitat protections over time

Temporal Aspect of EffectsoNot all effects will occur on Day 1, but will occur over timeo Even management treatments provide conservation value until they are harvested

Improved habitat quality over timeo Long-term habitat value in Reserves, Extensive Management Areas, and CRW o Terrestrial habitat in CRW and Reserves that is not currently occupied would develop

into functioning habitat over the permit termo Active management in Reserves and CRWo Evaluation of habitat condition at points in time in order to determine forest

conditions and habitat values when effects occur

4

5

Land Allocation Total Acres MMMA MMMA

Percent

Extensive (Sharing) 8,966 516 6%

Triad-E 11,502 2,756 24%

Triad-I 11,679 3,818 33%

Intensive (Sparing) 10,506 1,986 19%

Unassigned 9,348 2,013 22%

Multi. Obj. All 52,001 11,089 21%

Cons. Emph. All 30,481 4,619 15%

Elliott Total 82,482 15,708 19%

Marbled Murrelet Management Areas

DRAFT10/23/2019

6

Northern Spotted Owl Protected StandsMultiple Objective Watersheds Only

DRAFT10/23/2019

Land Allocation Total Acres MMMA MMMA

Percent

Extensive (Sharing) 8,966 516 6%

Triad-E 11,502 2,756 24%

Triad-I 11,679 3,818 33%

Intensive (Sparing) 10,506 1,986 19%

Unassigned 9,348 2,013 22%

Multi. Obj. All 52,001 11,089 21%

Cons. Emph. All 30,481 4,619 15%

Elliott Total 82,482 15,708 19%

7


DRAFT10/24/2019

8

DRAFT10/24/2019

MRW Catchment 14Treatment = Triad-EArea = 1,993 acresIntensiveExtensiveReserveHCP Protections

MAMU/NSORMA

9


DRAFT10/24/2019

10

DRAFT10/24/2019

MRW Catchment 110Treatment = Triad-IArea = 1,375 acresIntensiveExtensiveReserve


11

MRW Catchment 98

Treatment = Intensive

Area = 1,390 acres

DRAFT10/24/2019

12

DRAFT10/24/2019




13

DRAFT10/24/2019


Area = 1,518 acres

14

DRAFT10/24/2019




15

Key Take-Aways

Research Forest Design does not have to fully avoid all impacts to covered species

Some take allowance can be permitted with a commitment to offset that take by improving habitat on other parts of the forest, provided the applicant avoids and minimizes impacts to the maximum extent practicable

Effects Analysis will quantify effects on covered species habitat as we understand them today, but…

Will consider net effects on species over time, based on assumptions about the timing and type of harvest and the potential for management actions to improve habitat, as an assumption in the effects analysis

15

16

Questions

Troy RahmigICF, Conservation Planning & [email protected]

16


Date post:	14-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

New Elliott State Forest Research Advisory Committee Meeting … · 2019. 11. 15. · Friday,...

Documents