TFL
6 Tree
Farm License
Type II Incremental Silviculture Strategy
Prepared for
Western Forest Products Ltd.
Prepared by
Jeff McWilliams, RPF
B. A. Blackwell and
Associates Ltd.
Funded by
Forest
March, 2002
TFL 6 INCREMENTAL
SILVICULTURE STRATEGY (TYPE II)
Acknowledgements
This project was coordinated through Mr. Larry Sigurdson of the
Ministry of Forests, Vancouver Forest Region.
Funding was provided by Forest Renewal BC. Input from the following people is gratefully
acknowledged:
|
Name |
Organization |
|
Paul Bavis |
WFP |
|
David Byng |
WFP |
|
Eric Gagné |
WFP |
|
Brian Voth |
WFP |
|
Doug Folkins |
Canfor |
|
Jeff Mosher |
WFP |
|
|
WFP |
|
Dave Mogensen |
WFP |
|
|
WFP |
|
Tom Hartz |
MoF – |
|
Larry Sigurdson |
MoF – |
|
Ken Polsson |
MoF – Research Branch |
|
Dwight Crouse |
Olympic Resource Management |
|
Jerry Miehm |
Olympic Resource Management |
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report
describes a “Type 2” incremental silviculture strategy for TFL 6 which is held
by Western Forest Products Ltd. (WFP). This
strategy utilized the results of a “Type 1” project (an interim strategy)
completed in July, 2001.
The “Type 2” focused
on stand and forest-level growth and yield and financial analysis of short-term
(next 5 years) incremental programs and some key basic reforestation
strategies. TIPSY and TASS were used for
stand-level growth and yield analysis and COMPLAN was used for forest-level
analysis. The net present value approach
to stand-level financial analysis was used assuming static, current conditions
for log values and treatment costs.
Scenario planning and sensitivity analysis were used to address future
un-certainty with respect to relative timber values and treatment costs.
The key timber
supply and quality issues identified for TFL 6 are:
- Policies developed over the last two
decades to ensure multi-resource sustainability limit the timber supply in
the short to medium-term.
Reductions in the amount of old forest available for harvest result
in the annual allowable cut (
- Unlike most timber supply management
units on the coast, the minimum harvest ages for timber supply analysis (
- The TFL 6
- Existing second growth stands in TFL 6
are dominated by Hw. If the current
depressed market demand (price) for Hw relative to other primary coastal
species continues, this lack of species diversification will limit the
economic returns from harvesting in TFL 6.
- Past silviculture efforts have softened
the effects of recent harvesting restrictions. Aggressive basic reforestation and
intensive treatments such as tree improvement and fertilization have been included in
the current management option (
Several scenarios
were developed to evaluate assumptions in the current management option (
Analysis confirmed
that SCHIRP fertilization and use of genetically improved stock positively
impact long-term timber supply and are financially viable. Juvenile spacing was not found to be an
effective tool for improving timber supply and was not economically justifiable. Pruning of Hw was not found to be financially
viable.
Of the alternative reforestation
species analyzed, increasing the use of Cw on S1ha sites was identified as the
most promising. The benefit of
increasing the use of Cw would be higher harvest log values (assuming current
log prices), however harvest levels may be decreased. In addition there are un-certainties about
the impacts of competition from Hw natural in-fill on the growth of Cw on some
sites.
Analysis showed
that on sites which will regenerate naturally to Hw, planting genetically
improved Hw seedlings is not cost effective.
Based on the
results of the analysis and WFP’s current philosophy and understanding of the key
issues effecting timber supply, quality and habitat the key silviculture
strategies are:
Strategies to
Increase the Quantity of Future Timber Supply:
|
Short-term: |
1. Reduce
regeneration delay on salal sites by continuing to fertilize at the time of
planting. 2. Increase
the short-term |
|
Mid-term: |
1. Increase
the 2. If
non-SCHIRP Hw fertilization response can be demonstrated, the mid-term 3. If
commercial thinning can be proved to be viable, a program starting in about
2030 could be used to increase the |
|
Long-term: |
1. Increase
long-term 2. Reduce
long-term minimum harvest ages by continuing to use genetically improved
seed. 3. Increase
the long-term 4. Increase
the long-term 5. Increase
the long-term |
Strategies to
Increase the Quality of Future Timber Supply:
|
Short-term: |
1. Increase
product diversification by harvesting alder. |
|
Mid-term: |
1. Increase
product diversification and recover logs with some clear cuttings by growing
alder. 2. Juvenile
spacing to promote Cw and Yc. 3. If
commercial thinning can be proved to be viable, a program starting in about
2030 could be used to increase the quality of the final harvest. |
|
Long-term: |
1. Increase
value by modification/ diversification of the species mixes used in
reforestation. |
Strategies to
Increase the Quantity or Quality of Future Habitat Supply:
|
Long-term: |
1
Density management and conversion of alder-leading
stands in riparian management zones to mixed to deciduous-coniferous stands
will improve long-term fish and riparian habitat. |
The fundable treatment
priorities are:
1)
SCHIRP fertilization,
2)
Backlog brushing,
3)
Riparian restoration,
4)
Juvenile spacing and,
5)
Pruning
Finally a recommended
silviculture program for 2002 to 2006 is outlined which is based on a funding
level of slightly more than $1,000,000 per year. This program supports a timber supply which
is similar to the
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................................................................. v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................................................................................ xi
LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................................................................... xi
1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................................................... 13
2. METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.1 Growth and Yield...................................................................................................................................................... 14
Stand-level........................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Forest-level.......................................................................................................................................................................... 14
2.2 Financial Analysis................................................................................................................................................... 14
2.3 Analysis Assumptions............................................................................................................................................ 15
2.4 Use of Scenario Planning...................................................................................................................................... 15
3. SUMMARY OF
BASIC DATA, TIMBER SUPPLY AND SILVICULTURAL HISTORY............................................... 16
3.1 Basic Data...................................................................................................................................................................... 16
3.2 Timber Supply................................................................................................................................................................ 19
History of the AAC.............................................................................................................................................................. 19
Timber Supply Analysis Results for MP 9...................................................................................................................... 19
3.3 Silvicultural History............................................................................................................................................. 23
Recent Incremental Silviculture History........................................................................................................................ 23
4. Summary of ISSUES AFFECTING TIMBER
SUPPLY AND QUALITY..................................................................... 24
4.1 Non-Timber Resources............................................................................................................................................. 24
4.2 Timber Resources....................................................................................................................................................... 25
4.3 Other Timber Supply Issues by Period............................................................................................................ 26
5. OBJECTIVES
OF THE SILVICULTURE PROGRAM........................................................................................................... 26
5.1 TFL 6 Objectives............................................................................................................................................................ 26
5.2 Provincial Objectives.............................................................................................................................................. 26
5.3 Regional Objectives.................................................................................................................................................. 27
6. SUMMARY OF iDENTIFIED STRATEGIES TO iNCREASE
TIMBER sUPPLY, qUALITY AND hABITAT......... 28
Strategies to Increase the Quantity of Future
Timber Supply......................................................... 28
Strategies to Increase the Quality of Future Timber
Supply............................................................. 29
Strategies to Increase the Quantity or Quality of
Future Habitat Supply............................ 29
7. Analysis of the Key Timber Supply and Quality
Issues............................................................................ 29
8. DEVELOPMENT OF kEY SCENARIOS................................................................................................................................ 37
9. STAND-LEVEL STRATEGIES FOR KEY SCENARIOS...................................................................................................... 38
10. Results and evaluation of stand and
forest-level analysis of the key scenarios........ 40
Revised CMO....................................................................................................................................................................... 40
Effects of Natural Ingress on Genetically Improved Plantations.............................................................................. 40
Timber Volume Strategies:......................................................................................................................................... 41
Scenario #1 Impacts of Genetic Improvement and SCHIRP
fertilization....................................................... 41
Scenario #2 Impacts of Juvenile Spacing............................................................................................................. 43
Timber Quality Strategies:........................................................................................................................................ 49
Scenario #3 Pruning................................................................................................................................................ 49
Reforestation Strategies; Impacts of Changing
Species Mixes:........................................................ 51
Scenario #4 Cw versus Hw...................................................................................................................................... 51
Scenario #5 Ss/Hw versus Hw................................................................................................................................. 55
Scenario #6 Fd/Hw versus Hw................................................................................................................................ 58
Scenario #7 Dr versus Hw....................................................................................................................................... 59
Other Strategies:............................................................................................................................................................. 65
Scenario #8 Planting with Genetically Improved Stock Versus
Natural Regeneration............................. 65
Other Strategies.................................................................................................................................................................. 69
11. HABITAT................................................................................................................................................................................. 69
12.
DETERMINATION OF THE PREFERRED SILVICULTURE STRATEGY...................................................................... 69
Summary of Timber Supply, Quality Issues and
General Silviculture Strategies:............... 69
Silviculture Strategies:.............................................................................................................................................. 70
Rank......................................................................................................................................................................................... 71
Rank......................................................................................................................................................................................... 71
Strategies to Increase the Quantity of Future Timber Supply................................................................................... 71
Strategies to Increase the Quality of Future Timber Supply...................................................................................... 72
Strategies to Increase the Quantity or Quality of Future Habitat Supply.............................................................. 72
13. INCREMENTAL
SILVICULTURE PROGRAM................................................................................................................... 72
14. REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................................................... 74
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Summary of 1999 to 2001 Expenditures for Backlog and Enhanced
Silviculture................. 24
Table 2 Summary of Largest Analysis Units by Stand Type.............................................................. 39
Table 3: 2002 to 2006 Recommended
Incremental Silviculture Program.......................................... 73
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Overview of TFL 6........................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2. Breakdown of Productive Forest Land.............................................................................. 17
Figure 3. Distribution of Tree Species by leading species area on the THLB...................................... 18
Figure 4. Age Class Distribution on the THLB.................................................................................. 18
Figure 5. Lewis Ecosystem Unit Distribution on the THLB................................................................ 19
Figure 6. Current Management Option (CMO)................................................................................ 20
Figure 7. Annual Area Harvested and Average Diameter Harvested under the
CMO........................ 21
Figure 8. Annual Volume/ha and Age Harvested under the CMO..................................................... 21
Figure 9. Growing Stock Distribution on the TFL 6 land base under the CMO.................................. 22
Figure 10. Age Class Distribution on the TFL 6 land base under the CMO....................................... 22
Figure 11. Forecast species composition with CMO........................................................................ 30
Figure 12. Comparison of CMO and CMO+95% MaxMAI............................................................ 31
Figure 13. CMO Annual Area Harvested and Average Diameter Harvested..................................... 32
Figure 14. CMO+95% MaxMAI Annual Area Harvested and Average Diameter
Harvested............ 32
Figure 15. CMO Annual Volume/ha and Age Harvested.................................................................. 33
Figure 16. CMO+95% MaxMAI Annual Volume/ha and Age Harvested......................................... 33
Figure 17. Second growth log grade profile for CMO...................................................................... 34
Figure 18. Second growth log grade profile for CMO+95% MaxMAI............................................. 35
Figure 19. CMO vs CMO+95% MaxMAI comparison of second growth harvest base
average log prices 35
Figure 20. CMO vs CMO+95% MaxMAI comparison of second growth harvest base
revenue forecasts 36
Figure 21. CMO vs CMO+95% MaxMAI comparison of second growth harvest steep
average log prices 36
Figure 22. Percent of Total volume harvested from future managed stands
(AUs 120-138)............... 40
Figure 23. Sensitivity Analysis- CMO+95% MaxMAI less fertilization and
tree improvement............ 42
Figure 24. Sensitivity Analysis- CMO less fertilization and tree
improvement..................................... 43
Figure 25. MVol vs Age (Run 25: No Treat; Run 26: JS600; Run 27: JS850;
Run 28: JS1000)........ 44
Figure 26. MAI vs Age (Run 25: No Treat; Run 26: JS600; Run 27: JS850; Run
28: JS1000) with 95% MaxMAI ages for each run highlighted................................................................................................................. 45
Figure 27. DBHq vs Age (Run 25: No Treat; Run 26: JS600; Run 27: JS850;
Run 28: JS1000) with the CMO min. harvest ages to achieve 37 cm DBH highlighted.................................................................................... 45
Figure 28. % H+I Logs vs Age (Run 25: No Treat; Run 26: JS600; Run 27:
JS850; Run 28: JS1000) 46
Figure 29. Base Log Value, $/m3 vs Age (Run 25: No Treat; Run 26: JS600;
Run 27: JS850; Run 27: JS1000) 47
Figure 30. Low JS Costs and Base Log Values, Age vs NPV (Run 25: No Treat;
Run 26: JS600; Run 27: JS850; Run 28: JS1000).................................................................................................................................. 47
Figure 31. Low JS Costs and Steep Log Values, Age vs NPV (Run 25: No
Treat; Run 26: JS600; Run 27: JS850; Run 27: JS1000).................................................................................................................................. 48
Figure 32. Sensitivity Analysis- CMO +1-15JS600+Future10yrsJS600........................................... 49
Figure 33. Age vs. Required Profit Increase Required to Break Even................................................ 51
Figure 34. MVol vs Age (Run 25: No Treat; Run 105: pltCw, No Treat.; Run
151: pltCw, JS1000). 53
Figure 35. DBHq vs Age (Run 25: No Treat; Run 105: pltCw, No Treat.; Run
151: pltCw, JS1000) 53
Figure 36. Base Case Avg $/m3 vs Age (Run 25: No Treat; Run 105: pltCw, No
Treat.; Run 151: pltCw, JS1000) 54
Figure 37. Base Case Age vs. NPV (Run 25: No Treat; Run 105: pltCw, No
Treat.; Run 151: pltCw, JS1000) 55
Figure 38. MVol vs Age (Run 65;
Ss/Hw, Run 25; Hw)................................................................. 56
Figure 39. DBHq vs Age (Run 65;
Ss/Hw, Run 25; Hw)................................................................ 57
Figure 40. Percent H+I Log grade outturn vs Age (Run 65; Ss/Hw, Run 25; Hw)........................... 58
Figure 41. MVol vs Age on better S1ha (Run 5; DrJS850, Run 6;
DrJS850CT275, Run 23; HwJS850) 60
Figure 42. MAI vs Age on better S1ha (Run 5; DrJS850, Run 6; DrJS850CT275,
Run 23; HwJS850) 61
Figure 43. DBHq vs Age on better S1Ha (Run 5; DrJS850, Run 6;
DrJS850CT275, Run 23; HwJS850) 61
Figure 44. MVol vs. Age on better S1ha (Run 14; Dr Plt1100, Run 21; Hw
Plt1100 5%GI+2000 Infill) 62
Figure 45. MAI vs Age (Run 14; Dr Plt1100, Run 21; Hw Plt1100 5%GI+2000
Infill)..................... 62
Figure 46. Base Case Avg $/m3 vs. Age (Run 5; DrJS850, Run 6;
DrJS850CT275, Run 23; HwJS850) 63
Figure 47. Base Case Age vs. NPV (Run 5; DrJS850, Run 6; DrJS850CT275, Run
23; HwJS850) 64
Figure 48. Avg $/m3 vs Age (Run 14; Dr Plt1100, Run 21; Hw Plt1100
5%GI+2000 Infill)............. 64
Figure 49. Base Case Age vs. NPV (Run 14; Dr Plt1100, Run 21; Hw Plt1100
5%GI+2000 Infill).. 65
Figure 50. MVol vs Age with 4000 sph infill (Run 5; Nat, Run 25; Plt5%;
Run 45; Plt15%GI).......... 66
Figure 51. DBHq vs Age with 4000 sph infill (Run 5; Nat, Run 25; Plt5%;
Run 45; Plt15%GI)......... 67
Figure 52. Base Case Age vs NPV with 4000 sph infill (Run 5; Nat, Run 25;
Plt5%; Run 45; Plt15%GI) 68
Figure 53. Variation 1Age vs. NPV with 4000 sph infill (Run 5; Nat with
fill plant, Run 25; Plt5%; Run 4515%GI) 68
1. INTRODUCTION
The terms of a service agreement between Forest Renewal BC
(FRBC) and the BC Ministry of Forests (MoF) require the MoF to develop, and FRBC
to fund, what is essentially a “Type 2” incremental silviculture strategy. This document addresses the contractual
requirement for Tree Farm License (TFL) 6, which is held by Western Forest
Products Limited (WFP).
Incremental silviculture (treatments that are beyond a
licensee’s reforestation responsibilities) is part of a suite of strategies,
which can have a significant influence on the future quality and quantity of
habitat and timber supply. A “Type 2”
strategy uses stand and forest-level computer modeling to analyze potential
silvicultural strategies and choose a preferred plan. A “Type 1” strategy uses the most recent
timber supply analysis and other existing data to develop an interim
incremental silvicultural. A “Type 1”
project was completed for TFL 6 in July, 2001.
An incremental silviculture strategy should not be confused
with the Allowable Annual Cut (
Although the intention of “Type 2” strategies is to focus
primarily on developing short-term (ie:
next 5 years) incremental silviculture programs, it is recognized that
basic silviculture strategies can have a significant impact on medium to
long-term (ie: >10 years) enhanced silviculture programs. As a result, this project included review and
analysis of some key basic reforestation strategies.
2. METHODOLOGY
Using the “Type 1” project as a starting point this “Type 2”
strategy was prepared through the following process:
1. Clarifying
WFP’s objectives relative to silvicultural strategies for TFL 6.
2. Further
analysis of timber supply, quality and habitat issues and potential treatments.
3. Development
of the key scenarios to review through stand and forest level analysis.
4. Research
and development of potential strategies and treatment regimes.
5. Stand-level
growth and yield and financial analysis of the different regimes to determine
the most viable options.
6. Forest-level
analysis to evaluate the impacts of the most viable regimes on the key scenarios.
7. Evaluation
of the key scenarios and selection of a preferred strategy.
8. Development
of a 5 year incremental silviculture program.
Following preliminary completion of steps 1 through 6, a
field tour of selected sites within the Port McNeill Operation was carried out
in February 2002.
In March 2002 Jeff McWilliams of B. A. Blackwell and
Associates Ltd. led a workshop at WFP’s Port McNeill office. This workshop was attended by WFP staff from
TFL 6, TFL 19 and head office, Larry Sigurdson of the MoF Regional Office and a
representative of the Port McNeill MoF district office. Participants reviewed the preliminary stand
and forest-level analysis and provided feedback to guide the rest of the project.
Following the workshop revisions/additions to stand and forest-level analysis
were completed and a draft report produced.
After WFP and MoF review, a completed strategy document was submitted.
2.1 Growth and Yield
Stand-level
This project utilized stand-level data generated by WFP from
the Table Interpolation Program for Stand Yields (TIPSY) version 2.1 during the
Timber Supply Analysis (
Forest-level
This project utilized the proprietary forest estate simulation
model COMPLAN. COMPLAN was used by WFP
in the most recent
2.2 Financial Analysis
For stand-level analysis the net present value (NPV)
approach was used. The NPV of a
treatment regime is the sum of its discounted revenues minus the sum of its
discounted costs. By calculating NPV’s,
treatment regimes with costs and revenues at different points in time can be
compared. For this project a customized
spreadsheet was developed to facilitate financial analysis. This spreadsheet incorporates the use of
sensitivity analysis by allowing cost, revenue and discount rate assumptions to
be varied. The appendices include this
spreadsheet and an explanation of the key formulas and assumptions. A CD has been included which contains the
spreadsheet and brief instructions for its use.
For this project stand-level financial analysis was used
primarily to rank the potential treatment regimes.
For forest-level analysis the potential recommended
treatment regimes were applied to all suitable stands in the inventory and the
costs and responses were recorded.
2.3 Analysis Assumptions
Assumed log grades and values, treatment costs and
employment criteria used in the analysis are listed in the appendices.
2.4 Use of Scenario Planning
There are many uncertainties that may affect the development
of a strategic silvicultural plan. Some examples
of key unknowns or risks over an extended time horizon include the following.
·
What if market demand and hence price of a
particular species significantly increases relative to other species? or,
·
What if a significant technological breakthrough
creates new processing opportunities for particular timber grades? or,
·
What if new substitutes significantly depress
the demand and hence price of different species and/or timber grades?
There are also uncertainties in
treatment responses to some silvicultural regimes. In many cases, these uncertainties cannot be
eliminated. But they can greatly affect the ultimate value of different
silvicultural strategies. Scenario planning helps to understand the significant
issues that control future outcomes related to stated objectives by simplifying
the complex interactions.
The basic steps involved in scenario planning are:
1. Identify
the focal issues and key decisions to be made. Develop alternative management
strategies and appropriate outcome indicators.
2. Identify
the driving forces that shape future outcomes along with key uncertainties.
Develop a range of scenarios along different “themes” that reflect meaningful
combinations of key uncertainties.
3. Evaluate
outcome indicators against each scenario to help develop and refine an optimal
strategy.
For this project scenario planning
was used to develop a range of different forest-level outcomes for which
management regimes were designed. These
scenarios were evaluated and used to determine a preferred option. The actual final strategy may be composed of
portions of several scenarios.
In developing potential strategies to address key
forest-level issues the following factors were considered:
·
Uncertainty over relative future log prices was dealt
with by developing different sets of prices to reflect increased future
premiums for larger logs and relatively flat log prices versus increasing log
size.
·
Log prices were separated by species with the
allowances for differential premiums to be placed on selected species.
·
Ranges of silviculture and harvesting costs were
used to allow for sensitivity analysis of the effect of varying current costs
and uncertainty over future costs.
3. SUMMARY OF BASIC DATA ,
TIMBER SUPPLY AND
SILVICULTURAL HISTORY
3.1 Basic Data
(Source for this Section: Timber Supply Analysis Information
Package for Management Plan 9 for TFL 6, WFP)
The following figures and table summarize
some of the key basic data for TFL 6.
Forests on the timber harvesting land base (THLB) are dominated by
western hemlock with lesser components of western red cedar and balsam. The age class distribution is unbalanced with
significant components of old and young forest but a relative lack of mature
stands. Ecosystems are classified using
the Lewis Ecosystem Units and are dominated by S1hemlock-amabalis (roughly
equivalent to site series 01 in the MoF biogeoclimatic system). Site indices have been assigned by
productivity group based on recent sampling and statistical analysis.
Figure
1. Overview of TFL 6
Figure 2. Breakdown of
Productive
Figure
3. Distribution of
Tree Species by leading species area on the THLB
Figure 4. Age Class Distribution on the THLB
Figure
5. Lewis Ecosystem Unit Distribution on the THLB
3.2 Timber Supply
(Source for this Section:
History of the AAC
The
Timber Supply Analysis Results for MP 9
The following figures summarize the
Figure 9 shows the impact of the
Figure 6. Current Management Option (
Figure 7. Annual Area
Harvested and Average Diameter Harvested under the
Figure 8. Annual
Volume/ha and Age Harvested under the
Figure 9. Growing Stock Distribution on the TFL 6
land base under the
Figure 10. Age Class Distribution on the TFL 6 land
base under the
3.3 Silvicultural History
WFP has consistently carried out aggressive basic and
enhanced silviculture programs on TFL 6.
Currently, almost all of the harvested area is planted within 3 years of
harvest and the majority of planted seedlings are from genetically improved
seed. There is virtually no backlog “not
satisfactorily restocked” (NSR) area. To
date the vast majority of free growing obligations due have been met according
to management plan standards.
Since 1965 almost 11,000 hectares (ha) have been juvenile
spaced and about 10,000 ha have been fertilized. Most of this fertilization has occurred
within the last five years and has been primarily on salal sites. Since 1984 almost 2,800 ha have been
pruned. Since 1981 several small
commercial thinning trials have been done.
WFP has been a leader on the Salal Cedar Hemlock Integrated
Research Program (SCHIRP) research team for over 10 years. Results from this program have shown that
crop tree growth on salal-dominated (CH) and transitional CH – non salal sites
can be improved through fertilization and that responses are long-lasting.
Recent Incremental Silviculture History
Table 1 shows the last 3 years of incremental silviculture
activity in TFL 6. Over this period
annual Forest Renewal British Columbia (FRBC) expenditures have averaged
approximately $1,846,000/yr for the backlog and enhanced programs. However over the last 2 years the
expenditures have averaged about $1,278,000/yr.
The Forest Investment Account (
Table 1.
Summary of 1999 to 2001 Expenditures for Backlog and Enhanced Silviculture
|
Treatment |
Actual 1999 |
Actual 2000 |
Plan or Actual 2001 |
|||
|
|
(ha) |
($ 000s) |
(ha) |
($ 000s) |
(ha)* |
($ 000)* |
|
Surveys |
1,141 |
36 |
361 |
12 |
211 |
7 |
|
Site Rehabilitation |
0 |
0 |
? |
33 |
|
|
|
Planting |
5 |
5 |
13 |
13 |
|
|
|
Spacing |
318 |
662 |
69 |
175 |
166 |
306 |
|
Pruning |
185 |
428 |
374 |
797 |
172 7637 |
376 |
|
Fertilization |
3,416 |
1,466 |
59 |
46 |
637 |
314 |
|
Conifer Release /Cleaning |
538 |
385 |
589 |
302 |
438 |
262 |
|
Habitat |
0 |
0 |
15 |
66 |
67 |
170 |
|
Plans and Prescriptions |
0[3] |
03 |
03 |
03 |
1076 |
5 |
|
Totals |
5,603 |
2,982 |
1,480 |
1,444 |
3425 |
1,111 |
*estimated
4. Summary
of ISSUES AFFECTING TIMBER SUPPLY AND QUALITY[4]
4.1 Non-Timber Resources
|
Period(s) Effected[5] |
Key Issues |
|
Short to Long-term |
Policies developed over the last two decades to ensure
multi-resource sustainability limit the timber supply in the short to
medium-term. Reductions in the amount
of old forest available for harvest result in the |
4.2 Timber Resources
|
Period(s) Effected |
Key Issues |
|
Short to medium-term |
Age Class
Distribution: An age class gap created
by the loss of old forest from the THLB is the key reason which leads to the
step down in the Minimum Harvest
Criteria: Minimum harvest ages are
set based on achievement of target diameters (DBHq). Minimum target DBH’s have been set by
productivity group. The Deciduous-leading
stands: There are about 2700 ha of
deciduous-leading stands on the THLB.
The deciduous volumes from deciduous-leading stands have not been
included in the Operability and
Utilization of stands on Low Sites: Recently
harvesting from stands growing on lower site classes has exceeded |
|
Mid to long-term |
Species Composition
and Timber Quality: Existing
second growth stands are dominated by Hw.
If the current depressed market demand (price) for Hw relative to other
species continues into the future, this lack of species diversification will
limit the economic returns from harvesting in TFL 6. The second growth log profile should be
relatively uniform and will yield mostly construction grades of lumber. However, using target DBH’s to set minimum
harvest ages should result in second growth piece sizes which are relatively
larger than log profiles from similar timber supplies with harvesting based
on biological culmination. Some clear
cuttings should come from pruned second growth stands which are harvested
after about 2070. |
|
Period(s) Effected |
Key Issues |
|
Long-term |
Intensive
Silviculture: Past silviculture
(basic and intensive) efforts have softened, and will continue to soften, the
effects of recent harvesting restrictions.
Modeling indicates that past silviculture treatments will augment the According to the |
4.3 Other Timber
Supply Issues by Period
Short-Term
·
Potential
inaccuracies in the old growth inventory.
·
Reductions
to the THLB which involve mature timber.
·
Changes in the regulations governing forest
practices that involve mature timber (ie:
maximum opening sizes, green-up, biodiversity, OGMAs, implementation of
“higher level plans” such as Landscape Unit Plans, and the VILUP Enhanced
Forestry Zones, and Special Management Zones).Changes to harvesting techniques
and/or markets which cause changes in physical and economic operability
Mid-Term
Potential inaccuracies in the managed stand inventory and growth projections.
·
Reductions to the THLB which involve immature
timber.
Changes in technology which affect operability and markets.
·
Improved silvicultural opportunities/returns
through research.
Long-Term
·
Short and medium term changes and
·
Global warming.
5. OBJECTIVES
OF THE SILVICULTURE PROGRAM
5.1 TFL 6 Objectives
The primary objectives of WFP’s silviculture plan are to
ease the transition to the long-term harvest level (LTHL) and to maintain or increase
the LTHL and/or increase the harvested value.
A secondary objective is to create job opportunities through a period of
declining harvest-related employment.
As well as improving timber supply and quality, silviculture
activities can enhance habitat values.
Where funding is available, treatment of areas otherwise reserved from
harvesting can enhance habitat values by accelerating succession and
development of structures.
5.2 Provincial Objectives
Until provincial targets for timber quantity and quality are
established, management unit strategies are to consider the following interim
provincial strategic objectives (MoF, 1998a):
·
Maintain current harvest levels as long
as possible without creating disruptive shortfalls in future timber supply.
·
Create a long-term timber supply capable
of supporting a steady long-term provincial harvest level similar to current
levels.
·
Minimize the interim shortfall in
provincial harvest anticipated before a steady long-term timber supply is
achieved.
·
Create a long-term timber supply, which
will enable the timber quality profile of future harvest to be the same or
better than the current profile.
It is recognized that
not every management unit has the same capability to contribute to these
interim objectives. Further, it is
recognized that these objectives may not be attainable at current funding
levels. Their purpose is to provide
general guidance to the application of available funds.
5.3
Regional Objectives
The objectives of the regional incremental silviculture
strategy (MoF, 1998b) are to:
·
Ensure a long term sustainable harvest,
which approximates the current harvest value and volume levels and that
produces a diversified mix of products necessary to create and maintain
sustainable forest employment.
·
Balance treatments that enhance growth
and yield such as fertilizing, spacing and forest health activities with those
that increase the value of the wood such as spacing and pruning.
·
Utilize incremental silviculture
treatments to contribute to sustainable management of non-timber values at the
landscape level.
6. SUMMARY
OF iDENTIFIED STRATEGIES TO iNCREASE TIMBER sUPPLY, qUALITY AND
hABITAT
Potential strategies identified in the “Type 1” report
include:
Strategies to Increase the Quantity of Future Timber Supply
|
Short-term: |
1.
Reduce regeneration delay on salal sites by
continuing to fertilize at the time of planting. 2.
Increase the short-term |
|
Mid-term: |
1.
Reduce the minimum harvest age (eg. faster diameter growth
to accelerate achievement of operable diameter assumptions) and thereby
increase the 2.
If commercial thinning can be proved to be viable, a
program starting in about 2030 could be used to increase the 3.
Increase the 4.
If non-SCHIRP fertilization response can be
demonstrated, the mid-term |
|
Long-term: |
1.
Increase long-term 2.
Reduce long-term minimum harvest ages by continuing
to use genetically improved seed. 3.
Increase the long-term 4.
Increase the long-term 5.
Increase the long-term |
Strategies
to Increase the Quality of Future Timber Supply
|
Short-term: |
1.
Increase product diversification by harvesting alder.
|
|
Mid-term: |
1.
Increase mid-term clear recovery by continuing or
increasing the current pruning program. 2.
Improve mid-term sawlog quality by continuing or
increasing current juvenile spacing levels and/or, if viable, starting an
“Early” commercial thinning program. 3.
If commercial thinning can be proved to be viable, a
program starting in about 2030 could be used to increase the quality of the
final harvest. 4.
Increase product diversification and recover logs
with some clear cuttings by growing alder. |
|
Long-term: |
1.
Diversification / refinement of the species mixes
used in reforestation can be used to diversify the mix of species harvested
in the long-term. |
Strategies to Increase the Quantity or Quality of Future Habitat
Supply
|
Long-term: |
1
Density management and conversion of alder-leading
stands in riparian management zones to mixed to deciduous-coniferous stands will
improve long-term fish and riparian habitat. |
7. Analysis of the Key
Timber Supply and
Quality Issues
As a starting point for discussions and analysis of timber
value Figure 11 shows the approximate species profile of the
Figure 11. Forecast species
composition with
Unlike most timber supply areas on the coast, for TFL 6
minimum harvest criteria have been set based on achievement of target
DBH’s. More commonly timber supplies are
based on rotation ages which are set at biological culmination with provisions
for minimum harvest ages which are based on a percentage of culmination age
(commonly 90 or 95%) or threshold ages and/or minimum volumes per hectare. In all cases the intention is for minimum
harvest criteria to reflect the minimum conditions necessary to allow for
potentially profitable harvesting (operability). With the current targets of 42 cm on the best
sites, 37 cm on the average sites and 35 cm on the poor sites, minimum harvest
ages in TFL 6 are greater than if criteria from other similar timber supplies
had been used.
According to WFP staff, historically minimum target DBH’s
have been set conservatively to reflect uncertainty with the economic viability
of harvesting small diameter, hemlock-dominated, second growth stands on the
north end of Vancouver Island. At the
other end of the spectrum, in the last
Figure 12 compares the
Figure 12. Comparison of
However assuming the use of
Figure 13.
Figure 14.
Figure 15.
Figure 16.
As a further comparison between the effects of the
Figure 20 compares the harvest revenue generated for the two
strategies after 2041. Prior to about
2071 the
Figure 21 shows the impacts on the two strategies of
assuming increased future premiums for larger logs (Steep Log Prices which
assume a 45% price increase for H and I grade logs with no price changes for
the other grades).
Figure 17. Second growth
log grade profile for
Figure 18. Second growth log grade profile for
Figure 19.
Figure 20.
Figure 21.
Without presuming that WFP would, or should, change their
current approach of using target DBH’s to set minimum harvest ages, for the
purposes of this project, comparisons of conditions using
Setting minimum harvest ages based on dbh targets also
theoretically creates the potential for timber supply effects from density
management treatments such as juvenile spacing.
Potential impacts can occur because spacing generally removes the
smaller trees which effectively increases the average stand diameter. As a result the minimum harvest age is
theoretically reduced, albeit with a corresponding reduction in stand
volume. To illustrate this point the
forest-level supply and quality implications of different spacing regimes was
evaluated in this project.
8. DEVELOPMENT OF kEY
SCENARIOS
Evaluation of
Effects of Natural
Ingress on Genetically Improved Plantations
Some growth curves for future stands do not account for
natural in-fill. This analysis evaluates
the effects of ingress on volume and diameter growth of stands planted with
genetically improved stock.
Due to the large number of potential issues which could be
analyzed it was necessary to limit the number of scenarios reviewed. Based on review and discussion of the results
of the “Type 1” report and subsequent analysis of key timber supply and quality
issues, the following scenarios were developed for analysis:
Timber Volume Strategies:
Scenario #1 Impacts of Genetic Improvement and SCHIRP
fertilization
This scenario evaluates the effects of the use of
genetically improved seed and fertilization on timber supply.
Scenario #2 Impacts of Juvenile Spacing
As harvest ages are based on target DBH’s, density
management could have a timber supply effect.
This scenario evaluates the effects juvenile spacing on timber supply
and quality.
Timber Quality Strategies:
Scenario #3 Pruning
This strategy analyzes the impacts of creating clear wood by
pruning.
Reforestation Strategies; Impacts of Changing Species
Mixes:
The following strategies review the impacts of varying the
species used in reforestation of harvested sites on timber quality, supply and
potential future incremental silviculture programs. These strategies are designed to diversify
the species profile of the future timber supply by reducing the reliance on Hw.
Scenario #4 Cw versus Hw
Scenario #5 Ss/Hw versus Hw
Scenario #6 Fd/Hw versus Hw
Scenario #7 Dr versus Hw
Other Strategies:
Scenario #8 Planting with Genetically Improved Stock
Versus Natural Regeneration
This strategy compares the timber supply and economic
implications of natural versus artificial regeneration strategies on S1ha sites.
Other Strategies
This section covers other strategies identified during the
“Type 1” project.
9. STAND-LEVEL STRATEGIES FOR KEY
SCENARIOS
Based on the requirements for analysis of the key scenarios,
stand-level regimes were developed and modeled with TIPSY or TASS. For a complete listing of TIPSY and TASS
regime inputs and outputs see the appendices.
As a starting point for regime development, the inventory
aggregation results for the current management plan were reviewed. This information was used to focus regime
development around the most significant analysis units (AU’s). Manipulation of the largest AU’s provides the
key opportunities for forest-level silvicultural intervention. Table 2 lists the largest AU’s and their key
stand and site attributes. This
information confirms the predominance of Hw-leading stands in the timber supply
and shows that most stands are in Productivity Group (PG)[6]
2. PG 2 is dominated by the S1ha which
is the most significant ecosystem unit for future management. As a result the initial regimes were designed
for the S1ha ecosystem unit.
Table
2 Summary of Largest Analysis Units by Stand
Type
|
Stand Type |
AU |
Productivity Group
(PG)[7] |
Leading Species |
Age Class |
Treatment |
% of Total THLB |
|
Managed |
15 |
2 |
H |
1-2 |
None |
17.6 |
|
Managed |
7 |
4 |
C |
1-2 |
None |
3.5 |
|
Managed |
13 |
2 |
H |
1-2 |
Spaced |
3.3 |
|
Managed |
5 |
2 |
C |
1-2 |
None |
2.7 |
|
Managed |
19 |
4 |
H |
1-2 |
None |
2.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Managed Subtotal |
29.6 |
|
Natural Immature |
52 |
2 |
H |
3-7 |
None |
20.4 |
|
Mature |
73 |
2 |
H |
8-9 |
None |
17.0 |
|
Mature |
70 |
2 |
C |
8-9 |
None |
6.0 |
|
Mature |
71 |
4 |
C |
8-9 |
None |
5.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mature Subtotal |
28.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
78.0 |
Similarly, the
Figure 22. Percent of Total volume harvested from
future managed stands (AUs 120-138)
10. Results
and
evaluation of stand and
forest-level analysis of the key
scenarios
A significant amount of stand-level growth and yield and
financial analysis was completed for this project. The complete results are included in the
appendices and are included on a CD. The
spreadsheet model used for the financial analysis is also available on the
CD. A brief set of instructions for use
of this spreadsheet is included.
Revised CMO
During forest-level analysis it was discovered that spacing
regimes, which were assumed to be incorporated in the
Effects of Natural Ingress on Genetically Improved
Plantations
In TFL 6 natural regeneration of Hw on sites such as the
S1ha can be significant. WFP’s current
management practice on these sites is to plant primarily Hw, grown from
genetically improved seed, at about 1100 stems per hectare (
Analysis of the results showed that AU 121 achieved a dbh of
37 cm (target criteria for the
These results were somewhat suprising as it was expected
that natural ingress within several years after plantation establishment with
genetically superior trees would not have a significant effect on harvest
yields. According to the MoF[10]
most of the differences in the merchantable volume estimates for scenarios
involving ingress results from comparing TIPSY to TASS output with TIPSY output
being not as precise.
Given the sensitivity of the timber supply to minimum
harvest criteria and second growth yield, these results indicate that the
Timber Volume Strategies:
Scenario #1 Impacts
of Genetic Improvement and SCHIRP fertilization
The
The
The forest-level impacts of genetic improvement and SCHIRP
fertilization on the
Figure 23. Sensitivity Analysis-
Figure 24. Sensitivity
Analysis-
Scenario #2 Impacts
of Juvenile Spacing
Juvenile spacing has been done in TFL 6 to improve timber
quality and merchantability and habitat while creating employment. Recently, spacing for timber benefits has
been carried out on about 150 to 500 ha/year of moderately dense to dense
Hw-dominated stands to a residual density of about 850 sph. WFP is aware of the tradeoffs between timber
volume and size and quality when manipulating stand density. In summary, within the range of rotation ages
discussed in this report and the naturally occurring densities on S1ha sites,
juvenile spacing results in these general effects:
·
as residual density decreases harvested
merchantable volume decreases and average DBH increases (as juvenile spacing
primarily removing a high proportion of the smaller trees) and,
·
as residual density decreases, branch size,
taper and the proportion of juvenile wood increases. Juvenile spacing can also improve stand
quality by selecting the best trees.
Recently the amount of juvenile spacing done in TFL 6 (and
in the rest of the Vancouver Forest Region) has been decreasing as a result of uncertainties
over the economic benefits and a reduction in the number of stands requiring
treatment.
In addition increasing concerns have been raised over the
effects of reducing stand densities on wood quality. A 2002 FORINTEK study, “Second Growth Western
Hemlock Product Yields and Attributes Related to Stand Density” found that
lumber from Hw stands spaced to 580 sph had lower proportions of high grade
structural lumber, lower wood densities, lower modulus-of-elasticities and
lower modulus-of-ruptures than stands spaced to 930 sph.
However as the
Figures 25 to 28 summarize the growth and yield and log
grade comparisons between different juvenile spacing regimes (including no
treatment) carried out on a stand with a total initial density of about 5100
sph of Hw (1100 sph planted and 4000 sph of natural ingress) on a S1ha site (Hw
SI of 28m) (typical stand and site conditions with TFL 6).
Figure 25. MVol vs Age (Run 25: No Treat; Run 26:
JS600; Run 27: JS850; Run 28: JS1000)
Figure 26.
Figure 27. DBHq vs Age (Run 25: No Treat; Run 26:
JS600; Run 27: JS850; Run 28: JS1000) with the
Figure 28. % H+I Logs vs Age (Run 25: No Treat; Run
26: JS600; Run 27: JS850; Run 28: JS1000)
These figures show that spacing can have a significant
effect on DBH and the relative proportion of larger logs (H and I grades)
produced but has little effect on merchantable volume. In addition spacing can have a significant
effect on minimum harvest ages. For
example with the
Figure 29 shows that the influence of spacing on DBH and log
grade distribution does not translate into a significant impact on average log
values using current log prices (Note:
this also assumes, for example, that an H grade log harvested from a
stand spaced to 600 sph has the same value as a log with the same grade
harvested from an un-spaced stand. As
the FORINTEK report noted earlier shows this may not be true).
Figure 30 shows that with current log prices and treatment
costs of between $1,300 and $1,700/ha (Low JS Costs), the three spacing regimes
analyzed are not profitable.
Figure 31 shows the impacts of assuming increased future
premiums for larger logs (Steep Log Values which assume a 45% price increase
for H and I grades log with no price changes for the other grades) on the NPV’s
for the different spacing regimes.
Figure 29. Base Log Value,
$/m3 vs Age (Run 25: No Treat; Run 26: JS600; Run 27: JS850; Run 27: JS1000)
Figure 30. Low JS Costs and Base Log Values, Age vs
NPV (Run 25: No Treat; Run 26: JS600; Run 27: JS850; Run 28: JS1000)
Figure 31. Low JS Costs and Steep Log Values, Age vs
NPV (Run 25: No Treat; Run 26: JS600; Run 27: JS850; Run 27: JS1000)
In an attempt to create a timber supply effect by spacing, a
forest-level simulation was done with the following regime; juvenile spacing of
up to 1000 ha/yr to a residual density of 600 sph for the next 30 years (
Figure 32. Sensitivity Analysis-
For the
Timber Quality Strategies:
Scenario #3 Pruning
Pruning has been occurring on spaced stands of predominantly
Hw in TFL 6 to create a component of clear wood and to create employment. WFP’s current regime is to first lift prune
about two thirds of the spaced stand and to second lift prune the majority of
the originally pruned stems. Pruning is
assumed to have an insignificant impact on tree growth, therefore no stand or
forest-level growth and yield modeling was done. As a basis for discussion stand-level
financial analysis of pruning Hw was completed.
Figure 33 shows the trend in the average stand profit
increase required from pruning to break even based on financial analysis. As expected, the longer the pruning
investment is carried the higher profits which are required to break even.
However, although Figure 33 shows there is a financial
incentive to harvest pruned stands as soon as possible, it should be noted the
clear shells on the pruned logs must become large enough to produce the amount
of clear lumber required to make the pruning financially viable.
For example the expected profit required to break even at a
harvest age of 80 years is about $38/m3 (about a 63% increase on a stand with
an average log value of $60). This means
that the average value of all of the volume in the stand (pruned and unpruned
logs) must increase by $38/m3 to cover the cost of the pruning. Given that about 40% of trees in the stand
are pruned to 5.5m (assume about 40% of tree volume) and about 26% are pruned
to 3m (assume about 22% of tree volume), the value of the wood from pruned logs
needs to increase by $38/(40% x 40%)+(26% x 22%) = $175/m3 to result in an
average increase of $38 for all of the volume in the stand. With current log prices, this would mean that
pruning would have to increase the value of an H grade log by about two times.
As a comparison, work by the Forest Practices Branch using
TASS simulations with current market prices for clear and non-clear lumber
suggests that a pruned stand will be 40% more valuable than an un-pruned stand
at a harvest age of about 80 years[11]. In the same report the MoF compared recent
clear and non-clear lumber prices and found that clear Hw 2x4’s were about 4
times as valuable as non-clear grades of the same size. However, it is unclear from this MoF report
whether the prices being compared were for products from second growth or old
growth logs (currently, clear Hw prices for lumber from fast-grown (<8
rings/inch) second growth is worth about half of similar-sized lumber from old
growth[12]).
According to this analysis and other similar studies,
assumptions about huge premiums for clear versus non-clear wood must be
forecast before significant pruning programs can be justified. In addition, in order to maximize pruning
benefits, pruned stands must be harvested within a narrow range of ages. This inflexibility in harvest scheduling
increases the risks of not maximizing pruning benefits.
It should also be noted that continuation of a Hw pruning
program likely requires maintaining a significant spacing program.
Figure 33. Age vs. Required Profit Increase Required
to Break Even
Reforestation Strategies; Impacts of Changing
Species Mixes:
The following strategies are based on attempting to
diversify the long-term species profile.
In all cases this involves substituting alternative species for Hw. Initially these strategies were targeted for
the S1ha as manipulation of this ecosystem unit offers the greatest potential
for forest-level impacts. However some
of the regimes are appropriate for other ecosystem units as well. While these strategies are felt to be
ecologically feasible over small to large portions of the TFL and broad
opportunity areas are listed for each regime, further study and refinement
would be required prior to implementation.
Significant pros and cons for each strategy have been included.
Scenario #4 Cw
versus Hw
This strategy is based on managing all or significant
portions of the S1ha for Cw[13]. Cw is also ecologically suitable on many
other non-salal dominated ecosystems in TFL 6.
Therefore a Cw strategy could be applicable to a significant portion of
TFL 6.
The potential benefits from growing Cw are:
·
based on today’s log prices, average log values for
second growth Cw are significantly higher than for Hw. Significantly, this differential exists for
the smaller logs which will be the dominant products of the second growth
harvest and,
·
the potential for future Cw prices and markets
to remain strong relative to other species is realistic as few other
jurisdictions in the world are growing significant amounts of Cw. Significantly the second growth Cw log market
is relatively mature, where several mills in the Pacific Northwest of the
United States have been cutting mostly second growth Cw into the siding market
for the last decade and,
·
as a result of the higher log values, especially
for small logs, it may be economically viable to invest in significant enhanced
silviculture treatments such as density management, pruning and fertilization.
The potential risks of growing Cw are:
·
the site productivity (as measured by site
index) for Cw is apparently lower than for Hw (24m at 50 years for Cw versus
28m for Hw). As a result, growing a
significant amount of Cw may result in a long-term reduction in the
·
ungulate browse can have a significant impact on
early stand performance of Cw
Several regimes were developed to simulate potential Cw
management regimes for comparison with a currently used Hw regime (Run 25; plt
1100 sph of Hw (with low gain genetic improvement) with natural infill of 4000
sph with a site index of 28m). Run 105
simulates planting 1100 genetically improved (low gain) Cw (site index 24m) per
hectare with an ingress of 4000 sph of Hw (site index 28m). Run 151 simulates planting a higher density
of Cw (1800 sph with low gain genetic improvement with site index 24m) (or
assuming natural ingress of Hw) and spacing to 1000 sph.
Figures 34 and 35 show the growth and yield
comparisons. The results for Run 105
should be considered with the following rider; either the growth and yield
estimations are accurate but are reflecting a stand dominated by Hw (this was
not the intention but is likely what happened) or if you assume a significant
Cw component at harvest, the yield estimates are overstated. A more realistic, conservative Cw scenario is
Run 151 where spacing or cleaning of competing conifers (likely Hw) is required
to assure a Cw crop at rotation. Figure
34 shows that Run 151 results in a merchantable volume reduction of about 190
m3/ha or 19% as compared with the Hw run at about the minimum harvest age (
Figure 34. MVol vs Age (Run 25: No Treat; Run 105:
pltCw, No Treat.; Run 151: pltCw, JS1000)
Figure 35. DBHq vs Age (Run 25: No Treat; Run 105:
pltCw, No Treat.; Run 151: pltCw, JS1000)
Figure 36 shows the comparison between average log values
for the different strategies using current second growth log prices. The results for Run 105 assume a 50% Cw
component at harvest, which as mentioned previously, may be optimistic. As Run 151 was spaced to Cw the harvest is
assumed to consist of 100% Cw. Comparing
Runs 25 and 151 show the significant value improvement of the Cw versus the Hw
strategy.
Figure 36. Base Case Avg $/m3 vs Age (Run 25: No
Treat; Run 105: pltCw, No Treat.; Run 151: pltCw, JS1000)
Figure 37 compares the NPV’s of the different
strategies. This figure shows that,
despite the extra spacing costs incurred ($1,300/ha) and the reduced volume
available for harvest, the Run 151 Cw strategy is financially preferred over
the Hw strategy. Given these results
implementing a Cw strategy could have significant impacts on future harvest
levels, profitability and the magnitude of an economically-viable incremental
silviculture program in TFL 6. As a
result, additional stand-level analysis (financial and growth and yield
sensitivities) and forest-level timber supply and quality analysis is warranted.
Figure 37. Base Case Age vs. NPV (Run 25: No Treat;
Run 105: pltCw, No Treat.; Run 151: pltCw, JS1000)
Scenario #5 Ss/Hw
versus Hw
This strategy is based on managing a portion of the S1ha for
a component of Ss. Ss is also
ecologically-suitable on the S12ha, S13 and S3 ecosystem units.
The potential benefits from growing Ss are:
·
based on today’s log prices, average log values
for second growth Ss are somewhat higher than for Hw (although lower than for
Cw and Fd or similar grades) and,
·
the site productivity (as measured by site index)
for Ss is somewhat higher than for Hw (31m at 50 years for Ss versus 28m for
Hw). As a result, growing a significant
amount of Ss may result in a long-term increase in the
·
Ss and Hw are known to grow well together in
mixed stands and,
·
Ss responds to nitrogen fertilization leading to
future opportunities for incremental silviculture investments.
The potential risks of growing Ss are:
·
Ss plantations on northern Vancouver Island are
known to be susceptible to terminal weevil.
Incidence of attack has varied from high to low depending on the
location and biogeoclimatic variant.
Recently, genetically improved, weevil-resistant Ss seed has become
available for TFL 6. While the
effectiveness of this seed is unknown, it is currently estimated that with its
use weevil attack incidence can be reduced to acceptable levels of impact and,
·
The second growth Ss log market is currently
small and immature. Currently, the
prognosis for future uses of Ss second growth are un-certain. Therefore, future log values relative to
other species are un-certain.
For this analysis a planted Ss (50%)/Hw(50%) regime (Run
65; plt 550 sph of Hw (with low gain
genetic improvement and site index 28m) and 550 sph of Ss (with low gain
genetic improvement and site index 31m) with natural infill of 4000 sph of Hw
with a site index of 28m) was compared with a Hw regime (Run 25; plt 1100 sph of Hw (with low gain genetic
improvement) with natural infill of 4000 sph with a site index of 28m) on S1ha
sites.
Figures 38 to 40 show the growth and yield and log grade
outturn benefits of the Ss/Hw mix.
Figure 38. MVol vs Age (Run 65; Ss/Hw, Run 25; Hw)
Figure 39. DBHq vs Age (Run
65; Ss/Hw, Run 25; Hw)
Figure 40. Percent H+I Log
grade outturn vs Age (Run 65; Ss/Hw, Run
25; Hw)
Based on a cursory review of TFL 6 using ecological attributes
that are favorable for Ss, about 40,000 ha could be reforested to components of
Ss (see the appendices for ecological attributes which were used for these
queries). Therefore, keeping in mind the
uncertain future risks of the weevil, growing increased components of Ss has a
modest potential to improve timber supply and quality (average log price). In addition, the use of Ss could allow for
significant economically-viable future fertilization opportunities.
Scenario #6 Fd/Hw
versus Hw
This strategy is based on managing portions of the S1ha for
a component of Fd. Within the majority
of TFL 6, Fd is on the edge of its natural distribution therefore this strategy
would only be applicable to portions of the TFL.
The potential benefits from growing Fd are:
·
based on today’s log prices, average log values
for second growth Fd are higher than for Hw.
However, in order to achieve this premium for Fd logs the rate of growth
cannot be excessive. On the S1ha this
should not be a problem as the natural in-fill of Hw should maintain relatively
dense stands (as long as spacing is not done) which will moderate radial growth
once the stands achieve canopy closure and,
·
the site productivity (as measured by site
index) for Fd is somewhat higher than for Hw (31m at 50 years for Fd versus 28m
for Hw). Although, in this case, this
improvement in relative productivity will not likely translate into a long-term
increase in the
·
Fd responds to nitrogen fertilization leading to
future opportunities for incremental silviculture investments.
The potential risks of growing Fd are:
·
Some Fd plantations established in, and adjacent
to TFL 6 have been observed to have un-desirable growth characteristics that
could lead to reductions in log values.
Therefore, while it is felt that portions of the S1ha are suitable for
Fd management, site selection will be very important and,
·
Fd and Hw grown together are known to be
relatively incompatible due to their spatial needs.
For this analysis a planted Fd regime (Run 125; plt 1100 sph
of Fd (with low gain genetic improvement and site index 31m) with natural
infill of 4000 sph of Hw with a site index of 28m) was compared with a Hw
regime (Run 25; plt 1100 sph of Hw (with low gain genetic improvement) with
natural infill of 4000 sph with a site index of 28m) on S1ha sites.
Results of this analysis were that the Fd regime had
significantly less volume at the minimum harvest age but similar average
diameters. As expected average log
values for the Fd regime were much higher than for the Hw that resulted in the
Fd regime being financially superior (see the analysis results in the
appendices).
Based on a cursory review of TFL 6 using ecological attributes
that are favorable for Fd, about 10,000 to 15,000 ha could be reforested with
components of Fd (see the appendices for ecological attributes which were used
for these queries). Therefore, keeping
in mind the risks of establishing poor quality Fd stands, growing increased
components of Fd has the potential to improve quality (average log price) but
may cause a decrease in timber supply.
In addition, the use of Fd could allow for significant
economically-viable late rotation future fertilization opportunities.
Scenario #7 Dr
versus Hw
This strategy relates to establishing alder on currently
harvested areas. Starting with the “Type
1” project, alder reforestation strategies were developed as a species
diversification strategy and to potentially improve medium-term timber supply. This project continued this process by
researching and developing different potential management regimes, identifying
the most favourable ecosystem units for treatment and reviewing marketing
opportunities and constraints. Summaries
of the results of these processes are included in the appendices.
Currently interest in utilizing existing alder and managing
for future alder is increasing on the coast.
Weyerhaeuser, on their private lands in the USA have been managing for
alder for over 10 years. Weyerhaeuser on
the coast are currently investigating alder management strategies for their BC
private land and crown tenures.
The benefits of managing for alder in TFL 6 are:
·
on ecologically-suitable sites, alder has a
higher site index than most coniferous species except possibly Ss,
·
alder matures at a relatively early age relative
to coniferous species. Culmination of
·
with intensive silvicultural regimes,
significant components of high quality clear wood can be grown with relatively
short rotations and,
·
currently value-added alder markets are already
in place
Challenges to managing for alder in TFL 6 are:
·
no significant processing facilities are in
close proximity to TFL 6 lands. Logging
and milling alder have time sensitive requirements which cause logistical and
cost problems as distances to mills increase,
·
currently Weyerhaeuser controls the majority of
the coastal alder market which may make it difficult for other companies to get
fair market prices and,
·
based on a cursory review, TFL 6 does not appear
to have a large area of ecologically-preferable sites.
Adaptation of TASS to alder is currently under development. As a result it was not possible to complete
“accurate” stand-level modeling for this project. Some TASS runs were performed but the results
are considered experimental and will not be released with this project. However, figures 41 to 45 show some growth
and yield comparisons between selected alder and Hw regimes. These graphs are not to be used to finalize
alder management regimes or be used for business decision-making.
Figure 41. MVol vs Age on better S1ha (Run 5; DrJS850,
Run 6; DrJS850CT275, Run 23; HwJS850)
Figure 42.
Figure 43. DBHq vs Age on
better S1Ha (Run 5; DrJS850, Run 6; DrJS850CT275, Run 23; HwJS850)
Figure 44. MVol vs. Age on better S1ha (Run 14; Dr
Plt1100, Run 21; Hw Plt1100 5%GI+2000 Infill)
Figure 45.
These figures show that at a stand-level there is potential
for developing viable alder strategies that could improve medium to long-term
timber supply and quality.
Figures 46 to 49 compare the financial analysis results of
the selected regimes. These figures also
show that alder strategies could be financially viable especially relative to
Hw strategies.
Figure 46. Base Case Avg $/m3 vs. Age (Run 5; DrJS850,
Run 6; DrJS850CT275, Run 23; HwJS850)
Figure 47. Base Case Age vs. NPV (Run 5; DrJS850, Run
6; DrJS850CT275, Run 23; HwJS850)
Figure 48. Avg $/m3 vs Age (Run 14; Dr Plt1100, Run
21; Hw Plt1100 5%GI+2000 Infill)
Figure 49. Base Case Age vs. NPV (Run 14; Dr Plt1100,
Run 21; Hw Plt1100 5%GI+2000 Infill)
Based on a cursory review of TFL 6 using ecological
attributes which are preferable for Dr, only about 3,100 ha could be reforested
to Dr. (see the appendices for ecological attributes which were used for these
queries). However, based on further
analysis and knowledge about growth and yield of alder relative to different
sites, there may be a larger potential than is currently estimated. Based on the small area estimated to be
available for treatment, it is unlikely that an alder management strategy would
have a significant impact on timber supply and/or quality.
Other Strategies:
Scenario #8 Planting
with Genetically Improved Stock Versus Natural Regeneration
This strategy compares the growth and yield and financial
implications of allowing S1ha sites to regenerate naturally to Hw-dominated
stands or planting with genetically improved Hw. Currently the predominant treatment for S1ha
sites is to plant about 1100 sph genetically improved Hw per hectare within 2
years of harvest.
The potential benefits of this strategy are:
·
improved growth, and hopefully better quality,
of the improved trees versus the natural stock,
·
minimization of regeneration delay which
positively effects timber supply,
·
reduced risks of fill planting which can be
costly and may result in stocking standards not being achieved and,
·
reduced possibility that spacing to control
density will be required where natural infill rates are high
On the other hand planting is expensive relative to natural
regeneration.
For this analysis regimes were developed to compare the
growth of stands planted with low and high gain genetic stock with naturally regenerated
stands at various densities and with no spacing and various spacing
densities. Financial analysis was also
used to compare selected regimes. For
the base case no filling planting was assumed to be required for the naturally
regenerated regime. Variation 1 included
a low probability that fill planting would be required.
Figures 50 and 51 show the growth and yield
comparisons. As expected the genetically
improved stock improves yields at about the minimum harvest ages by about their
assumed genetic worths (5 or 15%). As
mentioned earlier, according to TASS, genetic improvement has virtually no
impact on DBH development.
Figure 50. MVol vs Age with 4000 sph infill (Run 5;
Nat, Run 25; Plt5%; Run 45; Plt15%GI)
Figure 51. DBHq vs Age with 4000 sph infill (Run 5;
Nat, Run 25; Plt5%; Run 45; Plt15%GI)
Figure 52 compares the NPV’s for the different regimes. For this analysis there was assumed to be no
increases in log quality with the use of genetically improved stock. Figure 53 compares the NPV’s for the
genetically improved regimes with the naturally regenerated regime assuming
that some fill planting would be required.
This analysis shows that, at the stand-level, use of genetically
improved stock does not appear to be cost effective when natural regeneration
is likely.
Scenario #1 showed that use of genetically improved stock
accounts for about a 5 to 10% improvement in timber supply under the
Forest-level financial analysis comparing the use of
genetically improved stock versus natural regeneration was not done for this
project. However, in general, unless
there are significant opportunities for an allowable cut effect, treatments
that are not financially beneficial at the stand-level do not pay at the forest
level.
Figure 52. Base Case Age vs NPV with 4000 sph infill
(Run 5; Nat, Run 25; Plt5%; Run 45; Plt15%GI)
Figure 53. Variation 1Age vs. NPV with 4000 sph infill
(Run 5; Nat with fill plant, Run 25; Plt5%; Run 4515%GI)
Other Strategies
The “Type 1” project identified timber supply and quality opportunities
from harvesting existing alder stands.
Since the “Type 1” project some alder harvesting has been done. This is expected to continue as long as
suitable stands are found and log prices and demand remain firm. As identified
in the “Type 1” project, utilization of these stands will have positive short
and long-term timber supply effects. As
harvesting and basic reforestation activities are not fundable by
Over the last few years WFP has been conducting aggressive alder
control programs along roadsides and within older plantations. These treatments are designed to release coniferous
crop trees from competition. The
preliminary Silviculture Investment Plan in the “Type 1” report shows that WFP
plans to treat about 300 ha/year for the next 5 years. Despite the size of this program, neither
this project or the “Type 1” project tackled the stand and forest-level growth
and yield and financial impacts of this program. Therefore, if this program continues to be
sizeable, it is recommended that a separate analysis be conducted to support the
planned expenditures.
11. HABITAT
Based on results of the “Type 1” a review of opportunities
for treatments to increase habitat quantity and quality was completed. While WFP remains committed to continue with
identified, feasible treatments, inventories and studies with available funding
no significant habitat-enhancing treatments identified which were deemed worthy
of stand or forest-level analysis.
Currently, priorities are continuing with density management
treatments in riparian areas. With the
small areas currently being treated, it was determined that forest-level timber
supply effects ould be minimal. In
future broader scale treatments may be considered.
12. DETERMINATION OF THE PREFERRED SILVICULTURE
STRATEGY
Summary of Timber Supply, Quality Issues and General
Silviculture Strategies:
Policies developed over the last two decades to ensure
multi-resource sustainability limit the timber supply in the short to
medium-term. Reductions in the amount of
old forest available for harvest result in the annual allowable cut (
Unlike most timber supply management units on the coast, the
minimum harvest ages for the
The TFL 6
Hw dominates existing second growth stands in TFL 6. If the current depressed market demand
(price) for Hw relative to other primary coastal species continues, this lack of
species diversification will limit the economic returns from harvesting in TFL
6. As a result, the “Type 2” project focused
on assessment of ecologically-viable regimes for growing alternatives to
Hw. Of the alternatives analyzed,
increasing the use of Cw on S1ha sites was identified as the most promising. The benefits of increasing the use of Cw
would be higher harvest values (assuming current log prices), however harvest
levels may be decreased. Given the
importance of strategic decisions such as this, it is recommended that
additional analysis be done prior to potential implementation of significant
changes in species management.
Past silviculture efforts have softened, and will continue
to soften, the effects of recent harvesting restrictions. Aggressive basic reforestation and intensive
treatments such as tree improvement and fertilization have been included in the
Otherwise, most of the additional suggested treatments are
considered “experimental” and require further study or research prior to
implementation.
Silviculture Strategies:
The “Type 1” project included an evaluation process to rank
the identified silviculture treatment options.
This evaluation process was completed by WFP foresters and used to
develop a preliminary 5-year tactical plan.
Primarily as a result of the relative importance placed on
creating short-term silviculture employment, the “Type 1” project evaluation
process resulted in the following treatment rankings for the main silviculture
treatments:
|
Treatment |
Rank
|
|
Juvenile spacing |
1 |
|
Pruning |
2 |
|
Backlog brushing |
3 |
|
SCHIRP fertilization |
4 |
|
Use of genetically improved stock |
5 |
|
Fertilization at time of planting |
6 |
Subsequently the FRBC’s priorities and WFP’s objectives for
TFL 6 have changed. Currently WFP’s focus
is on treatments that improve timber supply, quality or habitat and are
financially viable. As a result the
|
Treatment |
Rank
|
|
Juvenile spacing |
4 |
|
Pruning |
5 |
|
Backlog brushing |
2 |
|
SCHIRP fertilization |
1 |
|
Riparian Restoration |
3 |
In addition, based on the results of the “Type 2” project
the silviculture strategies have been amended to:
Strategies to Increase the Quantity of Future Timber
Supply
|
Short-term: |
1.
Reduce regeneration delay on salal sites by
continuing to fertilize at the time of planting. |