Management Plan for Plum Creek

Management Area 3

Brian Bartels

Danielle Behr

Sarah Duggins

Sandra Obando

Dalton Smith

  2  

Table of Contents I. General Description of Property………………………………………… 4

a. Location/Legal Description…………………………………………. 5

b. General Habitat/Total Size………………………………………….. 6

c. History / Cultural Significance……………………………………... 6

d. Current Uses ……………………………………………………….. 7

II. Landowner Objectives …………………………………………………. 8

III. Resource Inventory…………………………………………………….. 10

a. Soils ……………………………………………………………….. 10

b. Hydrology …………………………………………………………. 13

c. Timber Inventory…………………………………………………... 14

i. Methodology……………………………………………….. 15

ii. Stand Types………………………………………………….17

1. Non-Timber Stands………………………………… 17

2. Timber Stands………………………………………. 18

3. Stand Type 1: Loblolly Pine Plantation, Age 11…….19

4. Stand Type 2: Loblolly Pine Plantation, Age 20…… 21

5. Stand Type 3: Slash Pine Plantation, Age 14………..23

6. Stand Type 4: Slash Pine Plantation, Age 19………..25

7. Stand Type 5: Hardwood Hammock………………....27

d. Wildlife Inventory…………………………………………………... 30

IV. Management Plan Alternatives…………………………………………..31

V. Selection and Justification of Preferred Alternative……………………..40

VI. References………………………………………………………………. 42

  3  

Table of Contents: Figures/Tables Figure 1……………………………………………………………………………… 4

Figure 2……………………………………………………………………………....11

Figure 3……………………………………………………………………………... 13

Figure 4………………………………………………………………………………16

Figure 5………………………………………………………………………………19

Figure 6………………………………………………………………………………20

Figure 7………………………………………………………………………………21

Figure 8………………………………………………………………………………22

Figure 9……………………………………………………………………………... 23

Figure 10……………………………………………………………………………. 24

Figure 11……………………………………………………………………………..25

Figure 12……………………………………………………………………………..26

Figure 13……………………………………………………………………………..27

Figure 14 …………………………………………………………………………… 28

Figure 15……………………………………………………………………………. 28

Figure 16…………………………………………………………………………….34

Figure 17…………………………………………………………………………….38

Figure 18…………………………………………………………………………….38

Figure 19…………………………………………………………………………….41

Table 1……………………………………………………………………………… 12

Table 2……………………………………………………………………………… 29

Table 3………………………………………………………………………………32

Table 4………………………………………………………………………………36

  4  

I. General Description of Property

Location/ Legal Description

The designated land description for section-township-range is 23-8-19, 24-8-19, 25-8-19,

35-8-19, 36-8-19. The property is located in Northwest Gainesville in Alachua County, Florida.

To the east is Alachua County Public Works (which is mainly a water treatment facility), and to

the west is State Road 121. To the north, there are small rural residential areas, and U.S. Route

441 is located to the south.

Figure 1. Map showing the property boundary in red and the surrounding area.

  5  

General Habitat/ Total Size

The land size for Plum Creek Management Area 3 is approximately 1550 acres. Within

this area, there are Pinus elliottii (slash pines), Pinus taeda (loblolly pines), and various

hardwood species in the overstory. Plum Creek regulates the species composition for planted

plantations, and it is composed of an estimated 70% loblolly pine and 30% slash pine. The

composition found with the inventory sampling, however, is approximately 35% loblolly pine

and 65% slash pine. Plum Creek acknowledges their desire to gradually convert from slash pine

to loblolly pine due to loblolly’s faster growth rate. The market for hardwoods is variable,

dependent on the market value, and usually low in monetary return, so Plum Creek conducts

opportunistic harvesting operations, and is not as concerned with hardwood composition.

Overall, Plum Creek participates in wetland improvements, restorations, and preservation

of natural upland and wetland habitats. About 11% of its wildlife habitat is designated as

Management Areas and managed for public access in partnership with the Florida Fish and

Wildlife Conservation Commission (Plum Creek in Florida 2015). Plum Creek also works

directly with The Nature Conservancy and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection

(FDEP) to help conserve lands for visual, historic and recreational value or wildlife habitat.

Additionally, Plum Creek has worked directly with the St. Johns Water Management District and

the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to protect active gopher tortoise

burrows and assist in relocation projects (Plum Creek in Florida 2015). In 2013, Plum Creek has

planted more than 6.9 million seedlings in Florida during the growing cycle. This area provides a

habitat for native wildlife species including bears, turkeys, deer, and migrating birds (Plum

Creek in Florida 2015).

  6  

Habitat management is not a top priority within our property boundaries. The general

habitat types found in our site, according to Florida Natural Areas Inventory, are upland pine

(pine plantation), bottomland forest (mixed hardwoods and pines), and baygall (depressional

hardwood areas).

History/Cultural Significance

In 1998 Plum Creek purchased the property from Georgia-Pacific (GP) and started

business in Florida in 2001 (Plum Creek History 2015). Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU),

who purchased the land from Plum Creek about 7 years ago, currently owns our property. Plum

Creek and GRU have a contract indicating that GRU owns the property rights to the land while

Plum Creek has perpetual rights to timber management. Not much else is known regarding the

silvicultural management practices of the land. This includes thermal management, chemical

management, or mechanical management methods in regards to understory, midstory, and

overstory. Plum Creek is adamant that they will not use prescribed fire as a method for

silvicultural management in order to avoid liability issues. As a result, it is known that fire has

been suppressed for the past 17 years.

Cultural significance is evident through the presence of several broken turpentine

containers found scattered throughout the property. The presence of these broken turpentine

containers leads to the assumption that pine trees on the property were used to collect resin in the

past. Historically, turpentining was a common practice in northern Florida during the early 20th

century. Slashes were carved into prospective pine trees and a turpentine container was placed at

the base of the pine tree to collect the newly released pine resin, which would later be converted

into turpentine. The slashes inflicted upon the trees created a V-shaped pattern resembling

  7  

whiskers jutting off the face of a cat, and so the term “catfacing” was applied to describe

turpentine production.

Current Uses

Currently, the property is being utilized for timber production for Plum Creek. There is a

power line that goes through the middle of the property, which is regularly maintained by GRU.

In addition, there are a variety of smaller local roads going through the property, which are

maintained by Plum Creek and are used primarily to get heavy equipment and trucks in for

harvesting trees.

  8  

II. Landowner and Landowner Objectives

Plum Creek is a private landowner company and their primary line of business is with

timber harvesting and timber operations. Plum Creek’s main office is located in Gainesville,

Florida at P.O Box 357700, Gainesville, FL 32635-7700 (Plum Creek 2015). GRU is a multi-

service utility owned by the City of Gainesville and is the fifth largest municipal electric utility

in Florida. The landowner representative we spoke with was John Sabine who is the resource

supervisor and is responsible for leading the land management efforts for the Plum Creek Timber

Company.

Plum Creek’s short-term objectives are to maintain a steady cash flow from timber

operations on loblolly pine and slash pine harvesting. The long-term objectives are to receive

positive cash flow annually based on silvicultural operations. Plum Creek wants to maintain a

steady cash flow without any fluctuation; the initiative is to have a sustainable forest. Plum

Creek’s objective also includes following the Sustainable Forest Initiative (SFI) for market

credibility. There are several limitations, however, when deemed a certified forest. There is a

maximum clearcut area of 250 acres for pine and a maximum clearcut area of 120 acres for

hardwood clearcut; Plum Creek’s clearcuts average around 120 acres. In terms of spacing, there

is a three chain buffer between clearcut areas. In addition, there must be three years of

establishment before the next stand, unless the clearcut area is less than 75 acres. No more than

a quarter mile clearcut is allowed adjacent to a highway unless there is a timber buffer of at least

two chains between the road and the designated clearcut area. Finally, Plum Creek will not

allocate resources for conducting a clearcut unless there is a minimum of 20 acres.

Some landowner constraints include GRU possibly wanting to buy back the timber rights

from Plum Creek. Currently, Plum Creek’s objective is to obtain an estimate as to how much

  9  

revenue they will obtain if they sell their rights to GRU, compared to how much revenue they

would make if they continue to manage the area. An overall goal is to sell their rights of

harvesting timber on this specific property, if it is financially worth it. If Plum Creek agrees to

sell the timber rights to GRU, then GRU will most likely use the area as a buffer for their water

treatment facility. More landowner constraints include no hunting leases because GRU is the

property owner; no reduction of the wetland footprint; and no conservation easement on this

land.

  10  

III. Resource Inventory

Soils

We have highlighted the top 3 soils that are present in the property, as they are the most

influential on determining the habitats and growth of the pines.

Pomona (14) series is typically seen in low, broad ridges in flatwood areas. The average

annual precipitation is 50-60 inches and the average annual temperature is 70-74 F. These soils

are seen in humid subtropical climates and experience rabid to moderate permeability. The most

common use is for wildlife habitat. Pertinent vegetation species include longleaf pine, slash pine,

and saw palmetto. The depth to the water table is 31 cm. and the soil is poorly drained.

Wauchula (17) series is seen on flats, depressions, and low slopes. They have a humid

subtropical climate with an average annual precipitation from 50-60 inches and an average

annual temperature of 70-74 F. They experience moderately slow/slow permeability. The most

common use is for pastures. The pertinent vegetation species include longleaf pine and slash

pine. The depth to the water table is 38 cm. and the soil is poorly drained.

Monteocha (19) series is seen in wet depressions in flatwoods. The mean annual

precipitation is 50-55 inches with a mean annual temperature of 73 F. These soils are ponded for

4 months or more. The typical use is for wildlife habitat with pertinent species being cypress and

pond pine. The depth to the water table is 0 cm. (water present on the surface) and the soil is very

poorly drained.

  11  

Figure 2. A map of the soils found within the property boundary.

  12  

Table 1. A legend for Figure 2 of the soil types found in our property.

  13  

Hydrology

The wetlands present at the Management Area 3 are freshwater emergent and freshwater

forested shrub. The dominant wetland, accounting for approximately 95%, is the freshwater

forested shrub, so this wetland type will be our main focus. This wetland is described as having

“forested swamp or wetland shrub bog or wetland” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2015).

The soil series present along with the wetlands is the (19) Monteocha Loamy Sand and

the (26) Samsula Muck, with the Monteocha Loamy Sand accounting for the majority of the

wetland. The combination of the soils series and the wetland types indicate that the area is wet

and remains wet for the majority of the year.

Figure 3. A map of the hydrology of our property.

  14  

IV. Timber Inventory Methodology

The preliminary method of inventory was to use aerial maps of the property to determine

where different stand types would be located and delineate boundaries for these possible stand

types in the AcrMap program. The total property acreage is around 1550 acres total with about a

third of that area being pine plantation. Using ArcMap and the preliminary stand types, random

points were selected along a grid to encompass a wide variety from each preliminary stand type

of pine plantation and random points inside the hardwood stand type. From the aerial maps used

to determine where the preliminary stand types were going to be located, there were depressional

wetland/swamps that were noticed and cataloged and a small area of cleared land where no trees

were planted. The points in AcrMap were recorded and copied into a GPS iPhone app that could

be followed in the field. Upon arriving to that point, a center stake was set up and plots taken

from this single point.

Once arriving at property and observing the amount of trees per acre, it was decided that

1/40th acre plots were to be used for the areas with planted pines. In these 1/40th acre plots the

DBH was taken for all pines within the 1/40th acre plot that were above 2” in width. The age was

recorded for each preliminary stand type or where the trees were observed to be different than

the preliminary stand types. In addition, the height of every third tree was recorded in order to

determine an average height of the dominant and co-dominant trees in order to achieve a value

for site index later in the calculations.

The hardwood stands were much denser and therefore 1/60th acre plots were used at these

random plot locations. The DBH for trees above 1” were recorded and a count of trees under 1”

were recorded. The depressional wetlands/swamp stand type that was noticed in the preliminary

  15  

stand delineation were inundated with 3 feet of water and inaccessible, so no trees could be seen

from the edges so it was determined that no plots would be taken from these locations and the

cleared area had no trees present so there were no plots in this stand type as well. These were

determined to be the non-timber stand types and only observational data was recorded for these

two stand types. Observational data was continuously recorded for preliminary stands. The

vegetative cover, observations of site preparation or bedding, understory species, any disease or

damage, and wildlife evidence was the primary focus on this data.

Once the data had been recorded from all the plots, the final stand type map was created

based upon the tree species and age data. Some of the larger final stand types had received more

plot points than other because of the preliminary distribution of plots and some of the plots were

not completed because of time and accessibility constraints.

We used the computer program gApps to produce the volume of each pine plantation

stand type (numbers 1-4), as well as the current value. We also used statistics to calculate the

average stand age, average diameter at breast height (DBH), average height, trees per acre, basal

area, confidence intervals with percent error, and mean annual increment. The mean annual

increment was calculated by dividing each stand volume by the average age.

  16  

Figure 4. A map of the stand type delineation as well as the location of plots

sampled.

  17  

The final plot locations were as follows in the above figure (Figure 4). There were five

final timber stand types established following the data being processed. These include a loblolly

plantation at age 11, a loblolly plantation at age 20, a slash plantation at age 14, a slash

plantation at age 19, and the hardwoods. There were a total of 62 plots taken. The loblolly age 11

had 7 plots, the loblolly age 20 had 12 plots, the slash age 14 had 16 plots, the slash age 19 had

22 plots, and the hardwoods had 5 plots. The data recorded from all plots were then used to

determine the statistics below using Microsoft Excel.

Stand Types

Non-timber

There were two types of stands that were inaccessible for taking sampling plots. Even

though this area is solely focused on harvesting timber, we did not see very many clearcuts

indicating harvesting. The small area that we did find was only 10 acres in size, located in the

middle of the property, and seemed to have been clearcut in the past year. As there were no trees

present in this area, no sampling could be done.

Additionally, there was another area, which we have designated as muck, which was

inundated, full of mucky soils, and impossible to get to on foot. This area was approximately 162

acres and was located on the southwest side of the property in a few fragmented patches. From

our best estimations, there was very little growth other than a few hardwoods, and no pines were

present.

Timber

All of our timber stands had an understory characteristic of pine plantations that are not

regulated, with the use of fire or active mechanical control, except for thinning. Additionally, all

stands had been bedded to prevent mortality due to inundation.

  18  

Throughout the stand types, there was some evidence of disease. Pine pitch canker was

identified on several pine trees. Infected pines were observed to have external resinosis of the

bark and terminal branches, creating trails of white, dried resin on the trees. Resinosis is the

process by which pine trees exude resin as a defense mechanism to combat incoming pathogens,

resulting in an accumulation of pine resin at the infection site. As a result, in our analysis, we

designated our presence of disease/pest incidence as a standard 15% across all stand types.

An overall comparison of the stand types based on total acreage, average stand age,

average diameter at breast height (DBH), average height, site index, disease/pest incidence, trees

per acre, basal area, volume, confidence intervals with percent error, and current timber value

can be found in Table 2.

  19  

Stand Type 1

Figure 5. A typical representation of Stand Type 1.

Stand type 1 consists of Pinus taeda, or loblolly pine plantation at age 11, and is located

on the southwestern side of the property amidst the muck. Some of the species noted were

gallberry (Ilex coriacea), broomsedge (Andropogon spp.), deer moss (Cladonia spp.), saw

palmetto (Serenoa repens), dogfennel (Eupatorium spp.) and St. John’s wort (Hypericum spp.).

The average DBH was around 6 inches, and the distribution is a standard bell curve, indicating

that most of the trees were healthy and growing at the same rate (Figure 6).

  20  

Figure 6. A graphical representation of the average DBH class in Stand Type 1.

  21  

Stand Type 2

Figure 7. A typical representation of Stand Type 2.

Stand type 2 also consists of loblolly pine plantation, but this stand type averaged at an

age of 20, and was located at the northeastern corner of the property. As a result of a more

established stand, the understory was significantly taller, averaging around 4 feet in height. In

addition, there was evidence of a midstory, as defined by red bay (Persea borbonia) and smaller

oaks (Quercus spp.). Some other observed species include bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum),

dogfennel, sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum), American beautyberry (Callicarpa americana),

and dahoon holly (Ilex cassine). The average DBH was around 7.4 inches, but there was a

greater spread around the mean. There is a clear bell curve with this distribution as well, yet it is

not as tight as in stand 1, indicating that there was greater variation in size (Figure 8). Some of

  22  

this variation could have occurred due to the third row thinning that was evident throughout the

stand type.

Figure 8. A graphical representation of the average DBH class in Stand Type 2.

  23  

Stand Type 3

Figure 9. A typical representation of Stand Type 3.

Stand type 3 conists of Pinus elliotti, or slash pine plantation at age 14, and is located at

the northwestern side of the property. The understory was consisted of deerberry (Vaccinium

stamineum), gallberry, smilax (Smilax spp.), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), shiny blueberry

(Vaccinium myrsinities), and saw palmetto. The average DBH of this stand type is around 5.4

inches, but the overall distribution of the trees in this stand type shows that there were more trees

per acre above the mean (Figure 10).

  24  

Figure 10. A graphical representation of the average DBH class in Stand Type 3.

  25  

Stand Type 4

Figure 11. A typical representation of Stand Type 4.

Stand type 4 was also slash pine, at an average age of 19, and is located

throughout the middle of the property, spanning from the western side to the southeastern side.

This stand type showed the most evidence of third row thinning, espeically since we saw several

crews out there harvesting. The understory was relatively clear, but still had a variety of species,

including saw palmetto, broomsedge, deer moss, blackberry (Rubus spp.), wax myrtle (Morella

cerifela), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), and elderberry (Sambucus spp.). The average DBH was at

6.9 inches, and the distribution was well-centered around the mean, although there was a wide

range of DBH (Figure 12).

  26  

Figure 12. A graphical representation of the average DBH class in Stand Type 4.

  27  

Stand Type 5

Figure 13 a. and b. A typical representation of Stand Type 5.

Stand type 5 is composed of hardwood hammock, with varying ages and species. Most of

the hardwoods were found in depressional areas that were too wet to grow pines, and were often

found with standing water present. The understory was usually not developed and only featured a

few types of grasses, but had a more developed midstory than the pine plantations. The midstory

composition can be found in Figure 14. The average DBH was around 4.7 inches, but the

distribution did not follow any particular pattern, indicating that there was large variability in the

size of the trees sampled (Figure 15).

  28  

Figure 14. The overall composition of hardwood species in Stand 5.

Figure 15. A graphical representation of the average DBH class in Stand Type 5.

  29  

Stand Type 1 2 3 4 5

Species Loblolly Pine

Loblolly Pine

Slash Pine

Slash Pine

Mixed Hardwoods

Total Size (ac) 225 154 240 483 234

Average Age (yr) 11 20 14 19 -

Average DBH (in) 6 7 5 7 5

Average Height (ft) 38 76 36 55 -

Site Index 70 80 70 65 -

Trees per Acre 509 398 476 360 900

Basal Area (sq ft/ac) 102 131 92 82 -

Volume (cords/ac) 13.9 34.7 17.7 22.8 -

Upper CI (cords/ac) 16.6 39.2 20 26 -

Lower CI (cords/ac) 11.2 30.2 15.4 19.6 -

Standard Error (%) 19.1 12.9 12.9 13.9 -

Current Timber Value per Stand ($)

114,300 99,900 175,000 415,300 -

Current Timber Value per Acre ($)

508 659 729 859 -

MAI 1.26 1.74 1.26 1.2 -

Table 2. A comparative summary of the analysis of each stand type. Note that most of the analysis could not be done with Stand Type 5, as the programs we used were designed for pine analysis only.

  30  

Wildlife

The landowner did not indicate any considerations be given to wildlife or wildlife habitat.

Hunting leases for the property are not being sold at the moment, but our group noticed at least

two tree stands on the property, suggesting that the land may have been used for hunting

practices at one point in its history. With this in mind, we simply noted the presence of wildlife

on the property, including visual sightings of wildlife, tracks, and droppings, as well as structural

changes made to the property by animals. We observed a multitude of different species on the

property including white tailed deer, green tree frogs, Cuban tree frogs (which are invasive),

black racer snakes, rough green snakes, great blue herons, red tailed hawks, and red-bellied

woodpeckers. Our group discovered several different animal tracks that we believe belonged to

white tailed deer, feral hogs (also invasive), and either a coyote or domesticated canine.

Additionally, our group detected areas of disheveled earth and uprooted soil, suggesting the

presence of foraging feral hogs. The property contained several gopher tortoise burrows

throughout several of our stands, mostly inactive. We identified active gopher tortoise burrows

by a layer of freshly excavated soil lining the mouth of the burrow, also known as the sand

apron. There currently are not any special considerations for invasive or endangered wildlife

species.

  31  

V. Management Plan Alternatives The two management plan alternatives discussed in this report both provide a positive net

benefit for Plum Creek. The two alternatives, named Alternative A and Alternative B, take into

consideration the landowner’s objectives when devising both alternatives. Each alternative

focuses on different landowner objectives but satisfy the overall goals indicated by Plum Creek.

The main objective of the land management plan is to have a positive annual revenue flow. In

order to satisfy the objective, both Alternative A and Alternative B result in high net present

benefits. For the economic analysis of these two plans, a value of .05 was used to calculate

present values. Current timber market values were acquired from Timber Mark South in order to

estimate the total profits.

Alternative A

Alternative A’s management plan for the designated property has a primary objective of

maximizing Net Present Value (NPV) by using intensive silvicultural practices in order to

achieve the highest monetary return for Plum Creek. Costs include site preparation consisting of

mechanical racking and bedding. Chemical site preparation includes herbicide and fertilizer

application before planting occurs. The seedlings used in in Alternative A will be third

generation loblolly pine in order to maximize disease resistance and promote growth. Third row

thinning operations will be conducted at age 15 of each rotation in order to reduce costs. Another

round of release fertilizer will be added after the thinning to increase the growth of the remaining

pines in the stand. The harvest age is based off of the optimal rotation age of each species

present. Optimal rotation age is determined when NVP would be maximized by comparing the

soil expectation value for each year and choosing the year with the highest value. The intensive

silviculture and optimal rotational age harvests will maximize profits for the landowner. All SFI

  32  

considerations, harvest practices, and best management practices restraints placed by the

landowner, Plum Creek, will be followed.

Table 3. A breakdown of the operations that will be taking place during a five year period during the entirety of the planning horizon. DN-Do nothing, SP- Site preparation, PLT- planting, MRF- Mid rotation release fertilization, CHM- herbicide application, OP harvest-opportunistic harvest.

Table 3 provides a breakdown of the silvicultural operations that will be taking place

during each five year period of the management plan Alternative A. The thinning operations will

take place at age 15 in each stand. Optimal harvest age for the loblolly pine is 22 years of age.

The optimal harvest age for slash pine stands is 25 years of age. The conversion of slash pine to

loblolly pine was one landowner objective, so after slash pine stands are harvested, genetically

improved loblolly seedlings will be planted instead of slash pine. This will allow for the entire

block to be converted to loblolly pine plantations and the Plum Creek will be able to capitalize

on loblolly’s faster growth. Additionally, there will be a faster return on investment since the

optimal rotation age for loblolly is shorter than slash (22 years old vs. 25 years old). The

hardwood stands are listed as opportunistic harvests because the landowner has indicated that

  33  

hardwood harvests will be conducted based on ideal conditions and market prices. None of the

hardwood stands can be converted to plantation as this is one of the landowner’s constraints but

they are allowed to harvest single trees at their discretion.

The silviculture operations in alternative A that will be used are as follows: The site

preparation includes shearing, raking, piling, and bedding; The site preparation for planting is

very important on this block because of the soils and hydrology stated earlier in this report. The

herbicide used for chemical treatment before planting is Velpar, which will be used to stop the

growth of woody and herbaceous species so as to favor the loblolly seedlings’ growth without

competition from other species on the site, such as oaks and hardwoods. Diammonium phosphate

(DAP) plus urea will be used as the fertilizer at the time of planting and after the thinning

operation as a release fertilizer to add nitrogen and phosphorus to the soil as these. The absence

of nitrogen and phosphorus nutrients is the typical limiting factor of growth, so the addition of

these elemental nutrients will increase growth rates in shorter time intervals. The fertilizer

specifications include 250 lbs/ac of DAP + urea used prior to planting and 150 lb/ac after

thinning. Again, the seedlings being planted will all be third generation best family loblolly

seedlings to maximize returns from the costs of site preparation, fertilization and planting.

  34  

Figure 16. The yearly distribution of total stand costs and benefits over the management horizon for alternative A.

The economic analysis of Alternative A is displayed in Figure 16. The returns from the

management plan are significantly higher than the costs associated with them. Because the plan

maximizes the NPV through a 30-year period, this is the best plan for the most return on

investment. The benefits are also spread over the entire 30 years, so there is a positive return

during each five-year period across the total management plans. This is important because the

landowner’s objective was to have annual returns in order to cover the costs of continued

silvicultural practices since Plum Creek’s main objective is to increase profits.

Total Net Present Benefits of Alternative A: $1,960,000.00

Total Net Present Costs of Alternative A: $460,000.00

Total Net Present Value of Alternative A: $1,500,000.00

Benefit Cost ratio of Alternative A: 4.3

$-250,000.00

$-50,000.00

$150,000.00

$350,000.00

$550,000.00

$750,000.00

$950,000.00

$1,150,000.00

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Year

Benefits

Costs

Net Benefits

  35  

The NPV of Alternative A is the maximum that can be achieved on this property at

approximately one and half million dollars in return. This value includes all of the value from

timber harvests as well as the value of the standing timber that will be present at the end of the

30 years.

At the end of the 30 year horizon there will be two main age classes of loblolly pine

stands present in the block and this will allow for continued operations at steady times making

this alternative the best management plan for continued returns in steady intervals.

Alternative B

The second management alternative for this block is much different than the first.

Alternative A had a primary objective of maximizing NVP and the most return from investments

whereas this management alternative will have more benefits to forest health and public image of

Plum Creek to show that they can promote healthy forests. In doing so there will be certain

restraints for this alternative that were not present in alternative A. A regulated forest at the end

of the 30-year management horizon should be reached in Alternative B, as well as having a

minimum harvest age of 30 years for both pine species on the site. The block will not be

converted to loblolly pines so where there was previously slash pine it will remain the same. This

offers value to forest health as to have more species diversity, habitat for wildlife and increased

watershed protection within the block, and other beneficial effects on forest health. In this

alternative, there will be minimal silvicultural operations in order to have fewer disturbances on

the site, again for beneficial forest health effects. There will be no herbicide application, no

thinning, and a prescribed burn regime will be implemented on all plantation stands within the

block. As a secondary objective to this plan there will also be timber harvests at ages above 30

  36  

and this will allow for more profitable timber to be harvested so as allowing for landowner object

of gaining returns for the investments made.

Table 4. A breakdown of the operations that will be taking place during a five year period during the entirety of the planning horizon. DN-Do nothing, SP- Site preparation, PLT- planting, BRN-prescribed burn, OP harvest-opportunistic harvest.

The table displayed above shows the breakdown of operations done in each five-year

period for alternative B. In contrast to alternative A, it has much less silviculture and the

introduction of a burning regime is present in every period of the 30-year plan. The burn regime

will consist of doing a spring prescribed burn. The stand of slash pine age 20 was split into two

stands to achieve the regulated forest so one burn per year on every stand alternating years will

make every period have 5 burns, one stand burned every year. The only constraint on the

prescribed burns will be that a burn will not take place if the planted pines are younger than five

years of age to make sure that the plantation isn’t damaged using a prescribed burn. The harvests

will occur once the first stand is age 30 and the following harvests will take place in order to

  37  

achieve the regulated forest being as it is a main objective for alternative B. As stated before, the

slash pine plantations will not be converted to loblolly plantations so as to have more diversity

within the block. The site preparation of shearing, raking, piling, and bedded will still be used

because of the soil and to make sure that the pine seedlings are able to grow, but this will be the

only silvicultral operation done except for when the pine stands are harvested. Again there will

be opportunistic hardwood harvest during times when the pine plantations are harvested at the

logger’s discretion.

Figure 17. The age class distribution of all pine stands at the end of the management horizon for alternative B.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20

Are

a (A

c)

Age Class (Years)

Acres

  38  

Figure 18. The yearly distribution of annual costs and benefits over the management horizon for alternative B.

The economic analysis for alternative B shows how the costs and benefits differ from

those in alternative A. The annual costs are very minimal compared to that of alternative A and

the benefits come later in the management plan because of the minimum age of age 30 before a

harvest. After the forest becomes regulated, however, the returns come at regular intervals

because the forest will have five separate age classes present in the block, providing a much

more diverse forest and regulated returns after the 30 year management horizon.

Total Net Present Benefits of Alternative A: $1,200,000.00

Total Net Present Costs of Alternative A: $200,000

Total Net Present Value of Alternative A: $1,000,000.00

Benefit Cost ratio of Alternative A: 6

-$100,000.00

$100,000.00

$300,000.00

$500,000.00

$700,000.00

$900,000.00

$1,100,000.00

$1,300,000.00

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Year

Benefits

Costs

Net Benefits

  39  

The total NPV is lower than alternative B, which is to be expected, but there is still a high

value of return from this alternative because the timber being harvested has more time to grow so

there is much more saw timber than that of the stands in alternative A. The return on the

investments comes out to around one million dollars and from the benefit to cost ratio, this

management plan is actually higher because there is much less expense not doing the intense

silviculture and only having prescribed burning.

  40  

VI. Selection and Justification of the Preferred Alternative: Alternative A Alternative A is the preferred management plan for the landowner, considering all of the

objectives that they are trying to achieve. Plum Creek’s main objective is a high rate of return

and to maximize NPV while staying within the constraints that the landowner has to follow. The

benefit to cost ratio is higher in alternative B; however, because of the economic stability of

Plum Creek, costs will not be a problem to consider so they have the economic feasibility to put

in the investment for higher returns in the future. Additionally, alternative B includes a burn

regime which is against the landowner’s policies because of the risk it involves so this is yet

another reason that alternative A is the better choice when considering the two management

plans. In the end the landowner is able to follow SFI restrictions, best management practices, and

have the highest rate of return in alternative A, which is the main goal of the landowner. The

non-economic benefits of alternative B do not outweigh the real returns that the landowner can

achieve. Alternative A is the best management plan for the constraints and situation of this

property.

  41  

Figure 19. A final stand map projected for the end of the planning horizon (after 30 years) in Alternative A, the preferred alternative.

  42  

References

Florida Natural Areas Inventory, 2015. Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida.

http://www.fnai.org/naturalcommguide.cfm

Plum Creek (2015). Our Land Working Forests. http://www.plumcreek.com/about/our-land-

working-forests/florida

Plum Creek Florida (2015). Quick Facts: Plum Creek in Florida.

http://www.plumcreek.com/PlumCreek/media/Library/PDFs/Resources/Fact-Sheets/FL-

Fact-Sheet.pdf

Plum Creek History (2015). Plum Creek About History.

http://www.plumcreek.com/about/history

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2015. Wetlands Mapper Legend Categories.

https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper-Wetlands-Legend.html