Appendix A. TFL 52 Yield Table Summary Report

Transcription

1 Appendix A TFL 52 Yield Table Summary Report

2 West Fraser Mills Ltd. Tree Farm Licence 52 Yield Tables Summary Report prepared by: Guillaume Thérien e Avenue, Trois-Rivières, QC, Canada G8Z 3E2 May 12, 214

3

4 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page i Table of Contents 1 Introduction Report Overview Report Objectives Generating Yield Tables Terms of Reference Spatial Data Preparation Spatial Data Overview TFL 52 Boundary BCTS Managed Areas TFL 52 VRI TFL 52 Depletions TFL 52 TEM SIA ESSFwk1 SIA SBSwk1 SIA SBSmw SIA Productive Forest Land Base Definition Spatial Distribution Natural Stand Yield Tables Description Input Summary Ouput Summary Ground Check May 12, 214

5 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page ii 5 Existing Managed Stand Yield Tables Description Silviculture Regimes Site Index Input Summary Ouput Summary Ground Check Future Managed Stand Yield Tables Description Input Summary Ouput Summary Addendum Overview Results A Silviculture Regimes 19 B Site Series Distribution in the TFL 52 PFLB 24 C Pl-Sx Site Index Conversion Equation 25 D Managed Stands Site Index Source 26 E Subzone Summary for Future Stand Yield Tables, 221 and Beyond 27 May 12, 214

6 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page iii List of Tables 3.1 PFLB netdown Natural stand area by biogeoclimatic subzone Culmination MAI statistics by biogeoclimatic subzone for natural stands Managed stand area by biogeoclimatic subzone Average TIPSY input by species Culmination MAI statistics by biogeoclimatic subzone for existing stands Average future managed stand yield tables input by species Culmination MAI statistics by biogeoclimatic subzone for future stands Age correction for yield tables based on CMI analysis A.1 Species composition for silviculture regimes A.1 Species composition for silviculture regimes A.2 Regeneration data for silviculture regimes A.2 Regeneration data for silviculture regimes A.3 Genetic Gain by era, subzone, and species A.4 Operational adjustment factors by subzone B.1 Site series distribution on TFL D.1 Area distribution by site index source and species for existing managed stands D.2 Area distribution by site index source and species for future managed stands E.1 Tipsy input for SBSwk E.2 Culmination MAI statistics for SBSwk E.3 Tipsy input for ESSFwk E.4 Culmination MAI statistics for ESSFwk E.5 Tipsy input for SBSmw May 12, 214

7 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page iv E.6 Culmination MAI statistics for SBSmw E.7 Tipsy input for ESSFwc E.8 Culmination MAI statistics for ESSFwc E.9 Tipsy input for SBSwk E.1 Culmination MAI statistics for SBSmh E.11 Tipsy input for SBSwk E.12 Culmination MAI statistics for SBSdw E.13 Tipsy input for ICHmk E.14 Culmination MAI statistics for ICHmk E.15 Tipsy input for ICHwk E.16 Culmination MAI statistics for ICHwk May 12, 214

8 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page v List of Figures 3.1 TFL 52 PFLB Area distribution within natural stands by leading species, MoF age class, site index, and basal area Main biogeoclimatic subzone average volume vs. age curves for natural stands. (Black dotted line is the overall average.) Distribution of area by culmination MAI and age for all natural stands Average volume vs. age curves for existing stands. (Black dotted line is the overall average.) Distribution of area by culmination MAI and age for all existing stands Average volume vs. age curves for future stands. (The black dotted line is the overall average.) Distribution of area by culmination MAI and age for all future stands C.1 Pl-Sx site index conversion equation using TFL 52 data E.1 Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the SBSwk E.2 Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the ESSFwk E.3 Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the SBSmw E.4 Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the ESSFwc E.5 Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the SBSmh E.6 Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the SBSdw E.7 Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the ICHmk E.8 Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the ICHwk May 12, 214

9

10 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page Report Overview 1. Introduction Natural and managed stand yield tables were generated for West Fraser Mills Ltd. (West Fraser) Tree Farm Licence (TFL) 52. The most accurate sources of growth and yield information were used as input to generate these yield tables. These sources included: 1. the Vegetation Resources Inventory (VRI) with statistical adjustment, 1 2. the Terrestrial Ecological Map (TEM), and 3. the site index adjustment (SIA) projects The natural and managed stand yield tables described in this report were generated with the VDYP7 and BatchTipsy growth models, respectively. These main purpose of these yield tables is to be incorporated in timber supply analysis. 1.2 Report Objectives The objectives of this report are to: 1. document the natural and managed stand yield tables input, and 2. summarize the tables output. A database containing the yield tables and a shapefile spatially linking the yield tables to the TFL are also submitted under separate cover. 1.3 Generating Yield Tables Two yield tables were generated for each polygon in the productive forest land base (PFLB): one for the current stand and one for the future stand that will replace the current stand when harvested. Subsequent stands are assumed to be similar to the first future stand. Yield tables for current stands were divided into two groups, natural and managed stands, while all future stands were considered managed stands. 1 Guillaume Thérien Tree Farm Licence 52 Vegetation Resource Inventory Statistical Adjustment Update. Unpublished Report, Trois-Rivières (QC), April 28, pp. 2 Guillaume Thérien. 29. Updating Potential Site Index for Commercial Tree Species on Tree Farm Licence 52. Unpublished Report, Vancouver (BC), November 2, pp. 3 Guillaume Thérien Site Index Adjustment for Interior Spruce in Tree Farm Licence 52 ESSFwk1 Biogeoclimati Subzone Final Report. Unpublished Report, Trois-Rivières (QC), January 11, pp. 4 Guillaume Thérien Updated Site Index Adjustment for Interior Spruce and Lodgepole Pine in SBSwk1 Biogeoclimatic Subzone Final Report. Unpublished Report, Trois-Rivières (QC), January 16, pp. 5 Guillaume Thérien Updated Site Index Adjustment for Interior Spruce and Lodgepole Pine in Tree Farm Licence 52 SBSmw Biogeoclimatic Subzone Final Report. Unpublishered Report, Montréal (QC), December 14, pp. May 12, 214

11 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page 2 Natural stand yield tables were generated using the British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Land, and Natural Resource Operations (MoF) growth model VDYP7, version 7.7a.33, with input from the VRI. The modeling unit for the natural stand yield tables was the intersection between the VRI mapstand and the biogeoclimatic zone polygon. Managed stand yield tables were generated using the MoF growth model BatchTIPSY, version 4.3 (January 23, 213). Input for these tables were defined in silviculture regimes prepared by West Fraser (Appendix A). The silviculture regimes represent current and expected future managed stand conditions. The modeling unit for the managed stand yield tables was the intersection between the TEM polygon and the polygons from the different SIA projects. 1.4 Terms of Reference Guillaume Thérien generated the yield tables and prepared the report for West Fraser. Earl Spielman was West Fraser s contact person. Contributions from Jerry Miehm (Ecora Resource Group), Rene de Jong and Sam Otukol (MoF), as well as Earl Spielman and Guohua Li (West Fraser) are gratefully acknowledged. May 12, 214

12 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page 3 2. Spatial Data Preparation 2.1 Spatial Data Overview The different spatial layers needed to define the PFLB were: 1. TFL 52 boundary; 2. BC Timber Sales (BCTS) managed areas; 3. TFL 52 VRI; 4. TFL 52 depletions since 23; 5. TFL 52 TEM; SIA; 7. ESSFwk1 SIA, 8. SBSwk1 SIA, and 9. SBSmw SIA. In addition, the VRI was adjusted with the non-spatial VRI statistical adjustment database. 2.2 TFL 52 Boundary The TFL 52 boundary was dated November , and covered 262,988 ha. Over the years, the boundary has been slightly modified a number of times. The TFL VRI and TEM are not covering the entire TFL landbase due to these boundary modifications. 2.3 BCTS Managed Areas Some sliver areas (389 ha) included within the TFL 52 boundary are actually under BCTS jurisdiction. These areas were considered BCTS land and excluded from the PFLB. 2.4 TFL 52 VRI The TFL 52 VRI Phase I was completed in 21 and 22 on Block A and B, respectively. Areas not covered by the TFL 52 VRI (1,232 ha) were assigned data from the East Quesnel Timber Supply Area (TSA) VRI Phase I, completed in 29. Consequently, VRI data was available for the entire landbase. The VRI was adjusted using the statistical adjusment project completed on January 11, 211, with 25 as the year of adjustment. The adjusted area covered 129,461 ha, while the remaining area was left unadjusted. 2.5 TFL 52 Depletions The VRI was up-to-date as of 23. Depleted areas since 23 were identified and the establishment year of VRI polygons covered by depleted areas was estimated as one year after the end of the depletion. VRI data for depleted areas was ignored. May 12, 214

13 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page TFL 52 TEM The TFL 52 TEM was completed in 1998 and 1994 on Block A and B, respectively. The Block B TEM included SBSmh-mw ha in the subzone SBSmh-mw which is not an official subzone. This subzone was relabeled SBSmw. Some areas not covered by the TFL 52 TEM were assigned data from the Quesnel TSA TEM. A total of 1,87 ha within the PFLB were not covered by any TEM and therefore had no TEM information SIA The 28 SIA project was completed on November 2, 28. The project target population covered 27,133 ha. Estimates in the SBSwk1 biogeoclimatic subzone from the 28 SIA project were replaced by estimates from the 212 SBSwk1 SIA project while those in the SBSmw were replaced by the 213 SBSmw SIA project. A total of 34,1 ha from the 28 SIA remained within the 212 PFLB. 2.8 ESSFwk1 SIA The ESSFwk1 SIA project was completed on January 11, 211. The target population for the project covered 52,244 ha, of which 51,5 ha were included within the 212 PFLB. 2.9 SBSwk1 SIA The SBSwk1 SIA project was completed on January 16, 212. The project target population covered 78,276 ha, of which 77,96 ha were included within the 212 PFLB. Site index estimates from this project were considered more accurate than the 28 SIA estimates and were therefore used when available. 2.1 SBSmw SIA The SBSmw SIA project was completed on December The project target population covered 76,883 ha of which 71,468 ha were included within the 212 PFLB. Site index estimates from this project were considered more accurate than the 28 SIA estimates and were therefore used when available. May 12, 214

14 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page Definition 3. Productive Forest Land Base The PFLB is the area for which stand yield tables are generated. Every polygon in the PFLB were assigned a current and a future yield table. The timber harvesting land base (THLB), the timber supply analysis landbase, is a subset of the PFLB. Generating yield tables for every polygon in the PFLB ensures that the same is true for the THLB without knowing the THLB definition. The PFLB for TFL 52 was defined as outside BCTS areas, outside the AT zone and ESSFwcp3 subzone, not in ownership 5-N, 63- N, or 69-N, and not labeled as non-productive or non-commercial (ProjectedTypeID 5 or 6 in the VRI) (Table 3.1). The PFLB covered 241,632 ha (92% of the TFL). For comparison purposes, the THLB in the last Timber Supply Review was 199,376 ha. Table 3.1: PFLB netdown. Landclass Area (ha) (% TFL) Total TFL ,982 1% BCTS Land 389 % Wrong Ownership 254 % High Elevation 1,279 % Non-Forested 19,428 7% PFLB 241,632 92% 3.2 Spatial Distribution The areas outside the PFLB are located throughout the TFL, making the PFLB spatially representative of TFL 52 (Figure 3.2). Figure 3.1: TFL 52 PFLB. May 12, 214

15 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page Description 4. Natural Stand Yield Tables Natural stand yield tables were generated for all stands not labeled as Not Sufficiently Restocked (NSR), established before 198 on Block A or before 195 on Block B, or at least 3 years of age at reference year. 1 These stands covered a total of 142,7 ha (54% of the PFLB). NSR stands only covered 52 ha. They were assigned their biogeoclimatic subzone average natural stand yield table. Stands established on eco-polygons that were 1% non-productive (423 ha) or stands without TEM data (1,87 ha) were also assigned their subzone average natural stand yield table. Yield tables were generated from age 1 to 25 by 1-year increment. The output included age, basal area 12.5 cm+ (BA), quadratic mean diameter (QMD) 12.5 cm+, dominant height, volume net of decay, waste, and breakage (Vol) at both 12.5 cm+ and 17.5 cm+. Mean annual increment (MAI) was computed for both 12.5 and 17.5-cm+ utilization limits. In a few cases, VDYP7 generated implausible output. Implausible output were corrected as follows: 1. When BA and QMD were larger than and whole-stem volume was, BA was set to and QMD to NULL. 2. When Vol was larger than 8 m 3 /ha, Vol was set to 8 m 3 /ha. 3. When MAI was larger than 12, Vol was set to 12 times the stand age. Sometimes, the entire yield table was not plausible. This was generally the case when the stand attributes were too low and the stand should have been labelled NSR but was not. In some cases, the stand attributes were inconsistent or implausible, in which case the yield table generated by VDYP7 was a flat line based on the stand attribute data. In all these situations, the subzone average will be used in timber supply analysis. 4.2 Input Summary Area distribution by leadings species, MoF age class, site index, and basal area are presented in (Figure 4.1). For compatibility purposes, MoF age and basal area were projected to Ouput Summary The SBSmw was the most productive subzone among the main subzones for natural stands, while the two ESSF subzones showed below-average productivity (Table 4.2, Figure 4.2, Figure 4.3). The culmination MAI was 3 m 3 /ha/yr on average at an average age of 122 years. The mean culmination MAI varied among subzones between 1.4 and 3. m 3 /ha/yr, and 95% of all culmination MAI were between.1 and 5. m 3 /ha/yr. Stands showing m 3 /ha/yr will be considered NSR in timber supply analysis. 1 Reference year is the year of VRI ground sampling (25) or inventory reference year if outside the VRI adjustment target population. May 12, 214

16 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page 7 While natural stands occur in eight subzones on TFL 52, four of these subzones are marginal, leaving SBSwk1, ESSFwk1, SBSmw, and ESSFwc3 as the important subzones (Table 4.1). A total of 121,31 ha in natural stands (about 85% of all natural stands) were adjusted. Height, age, BA 7.5 cm+, and trees/ha 7.5 cm+ were adjusted as input to VDYP7. Lorey height, BA 12.5 cm+, whole-stem volume 7.5 cm+ and 12.5 cm+, and close utilization volume 12.5 cm+, less decay, waste, and breakage were also provided. VRI Phase II ground sampling took place between 21 and 25 on TFL 52. The adjusment was applied at the last year of ground sampling (25). Table 4.1: Natural stand area by biogeoclimatic subzone. Total Area Avg.SI Subzone (ha) (%) (m) SBSwk1 39,655 28% 15.1 ESSFwk1 37,1 26% 12.3 SBSmw 33,26 23% 19. ESSFwc3 26,67 19% 9.8 SBSmh 4,423 3% 2.1 SBSdw1 1,534 1% 2.1 ICHmk3 265 % 12.6 ICHwk4 27 % 12.5 Total 143,115 1% 14.5 Table 4.2: Culmination MAI statistics by biogeoclimatic subzone for natural stands. Area Culm. MAI (m 3 /ha/yr) Culm. Age (yrs) Subzone (ha) Mean Min Max Mean Min Max SBSwk1 39, ESSFwk1 37, SBSmw 33, ESSFwc3 26, Total 143, May 12, 214

17 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page 8 Area (' ha) Area (' ha) Sx Bl Pl Fd Dec Con Leading Species Group MoF 212 Age Class Area (' ha) Area (' ha) < < Site Index Class (m) 212 Basal area ( m 2 ha) Figure 4.1: Area distribution within natural stands by leading species, MoF age class, site index, and basal area. 12.5cm+ Volume ( m 3 ha) ESSFwc3 ESSFwk1 SBSmw SBSwk Age (yrs) Figure 4.2: Main biogeoclimatic subzone average volume vs. age curves for natural stands. (Black dotted line is the overall average.) May 12, 214

18 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page 9 1 Culm. MAI ( m 3 ha yr) Culm. Age (yrs) Figure 4.3: Distribution of area by culmination MAI and age for all natural stands. 4.4 Ground Check There were 66 VRI Phase II plots located in natural stands. These ground plots can be used to validate the natural stand yield tables because the plots were randomly located. The ground volume of these VRI plots was 318 m 3 /ha while the corresponding yield table volume at age of sampling was 333 m 3 /ha, a difference of 5%. This result provides a level of comfort that the natural stand yield tables are reasonably accurate. May 12, 214

19 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page Description 5. Existing Managed Stand Yield Tables Existing managed stands were defined as stands with at least one productive site series, not labeled as NSR, established after 1979 on Block A or after 1949 on Block B, or less than 3 years of age at reference year. Existing managed stands covered 98,127 ha (37% of the PFLB). VDYP7 cannot project growth on stands less than 3 years. 1 Thus, stands less than 3 years at reference year were considered managed stands even if they were from natural origin. These stands covered 8,291 ha, about 8% of all existing managed stands. Yield tables were first generated from 1 to 25 years by 1-year increment for all silvicultural regimes and site index combinations. There were 6,39 such combinations. These tables were then apportionned at the eco-polygon level based on the site series distribution within the eco-polygon. There were a total of 1,327 stand yield tables for existing managed stands. Some silviculture regimes assumed a small proportion of At, Ep, or Sb. These three species required special considerations as a TIPSY input. Sb and Ep were modeled in TIPSY as white spruce and At, respectively. All conifers, except for Sb, were assumed to be planted while Sb and deciduous were assumed to regenerate naturally. Because of the dichotomy in the regeneration method between conifers and deciduous, mixed conifer-deciduous stands were modeled in two steps. First, separate yield tables were generated for the conifer and for the deciduous components. Second, the two tables were combined proportionally into a single table. The existing managed stand yield table variables included age, BA 12.5 cm+, QMD 12.5 cm+, height, and merchantable volumes 12.5 cm+ and 17.5 cm+. TIPSY does not output BA 12.5 cm+ and QMD 12.5 cm+ directly. The two attributes had to be estimated from other attributes: the 12.5-cm+ merchantable volume of the 25 prime trees (Vol25), the 12.5-cm+ QMD of the 25 prime trees (QMD25), and the 12.5-cm+ tree count (TC). First, the basal area of the 25 prime trees (BA25) was estimated using QMD25 and a tree count of 25 or the actual tree count if less than 25. Second a form factor was obtained by dividing BA25 by Vol25. This factor was then applied to the 12.5-cm+ merchantable volume to estimate BA 12.5 cm+. The 12.5-cm+ QMD was then derived using the BA 12.5 cm+ estimate and TC. TIPSY outputs a QMD of when there are no trees above the DBH utilization limit. This value was replaced by NULL. 5.2 Silviculture Regimes Silviculture regimes were developed by West Fraser to describe the conditions of managed stands. These regimes were developed by site series and describe species composition, stand density, and silvicultural treatments. These regimes represent past and current activities that have taken place on TFL 52. The importance of each regime is defined by the site series area within the PFLB. The site series area distribution in the PFLB is provided in Appendix B Genetic Gain The genetic gain for existing managed stands were divided into two time periods. Stands established prior to 1992 had no genetic gain applied while stands established after 1991 were assigned a weighted 1 Sam Otukol, MOF biometrician, personal communication, May 1, 212. May 12, 214

20 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page 11 genetic gain based on expected gain (Table A.3), usage (Table A.3), and survival rate (Table A.2). The TIPSY default selection age was used for genetic gain Regeneration Delay A regeneration delay of two years was assumed on all sites. Regeneration delay will be applied in the timber supply analysis stage and was not included in the managed stand yield tables Operational Adjustment factors The OAF1 estimate for existing managed stands was localized to TFL 52 using the TEM (Table A.4). This was done by assuming a base OAF1 of 7.5% with an additional amount added to account for non-productive areas described within eco-polygons. This additional non-productive area was approximated using the proportion of non-productive site series in each subzone. The standard MOF OAF2 of 5% was used for all subzones Fertilization Fertilization of existing managed stands has occurred on the TFL 52 on a small scale (12,241 ha). Fertilization treatment was considered too marginal to be included in the managed stand yield tables Commercial Thinning No commercial thinning was assumed for existing managed stands. However, the potential to use commercial thinning to help alleviate possible adjacency constraints may be examined if preliminary timber supply analysis suggests that this may be a limiting factor Juvenile Spacing Some existing managed stands on TFL 52 have been spaced, however, this was not explicitly included in the managed stand yield tables. The effects of spacing on stand growth and yield were considered adequately incorporated in stand descriptions in the silviculture regimes. 5.3 Site Index Site index estimates were obtained from the four SIA projects for Sx, Pl, Bl, and Fd. Not all SIA projects, however, provided estimates everywhere for Pl, Bl, and Fd. When not available, the site index for these three species was estimated from Sx (for Pl, Bl, and Fd in the ESSF) or Pl (for Fd outside the ESSF) and a site index conversion equation. The Sx-Pl site index conversion equation was locally built using TFL 52 data (Appendix C), while the MoF conversion equations was used for the two other species. Unadjusted site index estimates were used in the 28 SIA project due to a lack of sampling opportunities in two situations: high elevation areas and minor subzones. In high elevation areas, site index estimates were obtained from an elevation model. In minor subzones (ICHmk3, ICHwk4, SBSdw1, and SBSmh), site index was assigned by a panel of experts. These area represented about 9% of future stands. Site index in the ESSFwc3 was assigned an estimate based on an elevation model and that estimate was not adjusted. May 12, 214

21 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page 12 For polygons not covered by any of the SIA projects, the four main species (Sx, Pl, Bl, and Fd) were assigned the subzone average site index estimates from SIA projects. Site index for At was always estimated using the Sx site index and the MoF site index conversion equation. Ep and Sb were assigned the subzone average site index from natural stands. Prorated area by species and site index source for existing managed stands is given in Appendix D. 5.4 Input Summary The existing managed stands were mainly located in two subzones: SBSmw and SBSwk1 (Table 5.1). There were some harvesting in the ESSFwk1, but very little in the other five subzones. Site index and genetic gain are the main drivers of yield tables for managed stands. Pl and Sx were the two main species in the silviculture regimes for managed stands, The average site index was about 22 m, and the average genetic gain was about 6% for Sx and marginal for other species (Table 5.2). Table 5.1: Managed stand area by biogeoclimatic subzone. Total Area Subzone (ha) (%) SBSmw 39,299 4% SBSwk1 39,137 4% ESSFwk1 15,495 16% SBSmh 1,735 2% ESSFwc3 1,284 1% ICHmk % ICHwk4 253 % SBSdw1 96 % Table 5.2: Average TIPSY input by species. Spp SI Genetic % Area with Species % (m) Gain % Gen. Gain Pl 5% % 53% Sx 37% % 53% Bl 6% 21.1.% % Fd 3% % 24% At 3% 23.5.% % Sb % 1.8.% % Ep % 19.2.% % 5.5 Ouput Summary The three main subzones were very similar on average in terms of productivity (Table 5.3, Figure 5.1, Figure 5.2). The average culmination MAI was 6 m 3 /ha/yr at an average culmination age of 62 years. Table 5.3: Culmination MAI statistics by biogeoclimatic subzone for existing stands. Area Culm. MAI (m 3 /ha/yr) Culm. Age (yrs) Subzone (ha) Mean Min Max Mean Min Max SBSmw 39, SBSwk1 39, ESSFwk1 15, Total 98, May 12, 214

22 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page cm+ Volume ( m 3 ha) ESSFwk1 SBSmw SBSwk Age (yrs) Figure 5.1: Average volume vs. age curves for existing stands. (Black dotted line is the overall average.) 1 Culm. MAI ( m 3 ha yr) Culm. Age (yrs) Figure 5.2: Distribution of area by culmination MAI and age for all existing stands. May 12, 214

23 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page Ground Check There were 124 Change Monitoring Inventory (CMI) ground plots located in existing managed stands. Just like the VRI Phase II plots, the CMI plots were randomly located. The most recent measurement on these plots can therefore be used to provide a basic check of the managed stand yield tables accuracy. The average ground volume of these CMI plots was 41 m 3 /ha while the corresponding average yield table volume at age of sampling was 43 m 3 /ha, a difference of 6%. The CMI plots are relatively young (all are less than 5 years), therefore, this basic validation does not mean that the yield tables will remain accurate in the future. However, the CMI plots represent the best information available on the current accuracy of the managed stand yield tables. West Fraser should maintain its network of CMI plots, as they are the best tool to validate yield tables. May 12, 214

24 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page Description 6. Future Managed Stand Yield Tables Every polygon with at least one productive site series was assigned a future managed stand yield table. These stands covered 236,942 ha. Polygons without a productive site series, covering 4,69 ha, were assigned their respective subzone average natural stand yield table. Two sets of future managed stand yield tables were generated for each polygon. One for the period and one for the period 221 and beyond. Both sets of future managed stand yield tables used the same silviculture regimes as the existing managed stand yield tables, except for the expected genetic gain (Table A.3). For simplicity purposes, only the future managed stand yield tables for the 221 and beyond period are presented in this report. Future managed stand yield tables were generated using the same methodology as for existing managed stand yield tables. The different silviculture regimes translated into 6,417 individual tables. These tables were apportionned into 8,427 stand yield tables for future stands. The number of tables was identical for both time periods. The source of the site index estimates used for future managed stand yield tables is provided in Appendix D. Detailed information is given for future managed stand yield tables for the period 221 and beyond in Appendix E. 6.2 Input Summary The Tipsy input for future managed stand yield tables is similar to the input for existing managed stand yield tables (Table 6.1). All possible silviculture regimes are present in future stands (which is not true for existing stands), and the proportion of each silviculture regime corresponds to the exact proportion of the site series within the PFLB. Table 6.1: Average future managed stand yield tables input by species. Spp SI Genetic % Area with Species % (m) Gain % Gen. Gain Pl 46% % 89% Sx 39% % 89% Bl 9% 19.5.% % Fd 3% % 36% At 3% 23.5.% % Sb % 1.7.% % Ep % 19.1.% % 6.3 Ouput Summary As expected, the future managed stand yield tables are similar to the tables for existing stands. The average culmination MAI was 6 m 3 /ha/yr at an average culmination age of 64 years (Table 6.2, Figure 6.1, Figure 6.2). May 12, 214

25 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page 16 Table 6.2: Culmination MAI statistics by biogeoclimatic subzone for future stands. Area Culm. MAI (m 3 /ha/yr) Culm. Age (yrs) Subzone (ha) Mean Min Max Mean Min Max SBSwk1 77, SBSmw 72, ESSFwk1 51, ESSFwc3 26, Total 236, cm+ Volume ( m 3 ha) ESSFwc3 ESSFwk1 SBSmw SBSwk Age (yrs) Figure 6.1: Average volume vs. age curves for future stands. (The black dotted line is the overall average.) May 12, 214

26 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page 17 1 Culm. MAI ( m 3 ha yr) Culm. Age (yrs) Figure 6.2: Distribution of area by culmination MAI and age for all future stands. May 12, 214

27 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page Overview 7. Addendum At the end of 213, 82 CMI plots originally established on TFL 52 between 21 and 23 had been re-measured for a second time, providing a 1-year growth ground estimate for these plots. Of these 82 plots, 71 of them were located in stands where an existing managed stand yield table was generated. The growth estimates of these 71 plots were compared to the growth predicted by the yield tables. 1 This addendum summarizes the results and recommends a correction to be applied to the yield tables to reduce the observed bias. 7.2 Results The area covered by existing managed stand yield tables was divided into four distinct zones: i) high MPB mortality; ii) natural stands; iii) stands in the ESSFwk1, and iv) all other stands (Table 7.1). The yield tables over-estimated the 1-year growth in all zones with the exception of the ESSFwk1. It is likely that the bias is due to the stands taking longer than anticipated by the yield tables to reach merchantibility limits. An age-correction delay in the yield tables was proposed as the preferred method to correct the over-estimation. Table 7.1: Age correction for yield tables based on CMI analysis. Area CMI Plots Delay Zone (ha) (%) n (%) (yrs) High MPB Mortality 1,94 2% 7 1% 1 Natural Stands 6,878 7% 16 23% 1 ESSFwk1 14,856 15% 7 1% Others 74,453 76% 41 58% 3 1 Guillaume Thérien Change Monitoring Inventory on Tree Farm Licence 52: Second Remeasurement Analysis. Unpublished Report, Montréal (QC), April 11, pp. May 12, 214

28 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page 19 Appendix A. Silviculture Regimes Table A.1: Species composition for silviculture regimes. Site Species Composition Subzone Series Sp1 Pct1 Sp2 Pct2 Sp3 Pct3 Sp4 Pct4 ESSFwc3 1 Se 5 Bl 3 Pl 2 ESSFwc3 2 Pl 6 Se 2 Bl 2 ESSFwc3 3 Se 5 Bl 3 Pl 2 ESSFwk1 1 Sx 45 Pl 35 Bl 2 ESSFwk1 2 Pl 6 Sx 35 At 5 ESSFwk1 3 Pl 55 Sx 4 At 5 ESSFwk1 4 Sx 6 Pl 3 Bl 1 ESSFwk1 5 Sx 6 Pl 3 Bl 1 ESSFwk1 6 Sx 5 Pl 35 Bl 15 ESSFwk1 7 Sx 5 Pl 35 Bl 15 ICHmk3 1 Pl 6 Sx 3 Fd 1 ICHmk3 4 Sx 5 Pl 3 Fd 2 ICHmk3 5 Sx 7 Pl 3 ICHmk3 6 Sx 7 Pl 3 ICHmk3 7 Sx 7 Pl 3 ICHwk4 1 Pl 6 Sx 3 Fd 1 ICHwk4 4 Pl 6 Sx 3 Fd 1 ICHwk4 6 Sx 7 Pl 3 ICHwk4 7 Sx 7 Pl 3 SBSdw1 1 Pl 4 Sx 3 Fd 25 Bl 5 SBSdw1 3 Pl 6 Fd 25 Sx 1 At 5 SBSdw1 4 Pl 55 Fd 25 Sx 15 Ep 5 SBSdw1 5 Pl 5 Sx 4 Fd 1 SBSdw1 6 Pl 35 Sx 35 Fd 3 SBSdw1 7 Sx 4 Pl 35 Fd 2 Ep 5 SBSdw1 8 Sx 4 Pl 3 Fd 2 Bl 1 SBSdw1 9 Sx 45 Pl 4 Bl 1 Ep 5 May 12, 214

29 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page 2 Table A.1: Species composition for silviculture regimes. Site Species Composition Subzone Series Sp1 Pct1 Sp2 Pct2 Sp3 Pct3 Sp4 Pct4 SBSmh 1 Sx 4 Pl 3 Fd 2 Bl 1 SBSmh 2 Pl 5 Fd 5 SBSmh 3 Pl 6 Fd 3 Sx 1 SBSmh 4 Fd 5 Sx 2 Bl 2 Pl 1 SBSmh 5 Sx 35 Pl 3 Fd 3 Ep 5 SBSmh 6 Sx 45 Fd 3 Pl 2 Ep 5 SBSmh 7 Sx 45 Pl 3 Fd 2 Ep 5 SBSmh 8 Sx 45 Pl 3 Fd 2 Ep 5 SBSmh 9 Sx 6 Bl 2 Pl 2 SBSmh 1 Sx 6 Bl 2 Pl 2 SBSmw 1 Pl 55 Sx 35 Fd 5 At 5 SBSmw 2 Pl 1 SBSmw 3 Pl 65 Sx 2 Fd 1 At 5 SBSmw 4 Pl 55 Fd 2 Sx 2 At 5 SBSmw 5 Pl 6 Sx 4 SBSmw 6 Pl 5 Sx 35 Fd 1 At 5 SBSmw 7 Pl 55 Sx 45 SBSmw 8 Pl 55 Sx 45 SBSmw 9 Sx 5 Pl 45 Bl 5 SBSmw 1 Pl 5 Sx 4 Ep 5 Sb 5 SBSwk1 1 Pl 5 Sx 35 Bl 1 At 5 SBSwk1 2 Pl 1 SBSwk1 3 Pl 75 Sx 2 Fd 5 SBSwk1 4 Pl 5 Sx 35 Fd 1 At 5 SBSwk1 5 Pl 5 Sx 35 Bl 1 Fd 5 SBSwk1 6 Pl 5 Sx 45 At 5 SBSwk1 7 Pl 5 Sx 35 Bl 1 At 5 SBSwk1 8 Sx 5 Pl 4 Bl 1 SBSwk1 9 Sx 45 Pl 4 Bl 1 At 5 SBSwk1 11 Pl 5 Sx 4 Bl 5 Sb 5 May 12, 214

30 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page 21 Table A.2: Regeneration data for silviculture regimes. Site Regeneration FTG Survival Subzone Series Type Delay Density Rate ESSFwc3 1 P 2 1,5 9 ESSFwc3 2 P 2 1,2 8 ESSFwc3 3 P 2 1,2 8 ESSFwk1 1 P 2 2, 95 ESSFwk1 2 P 2 1,5 8 ESSFwk1 3 P 2 2, 95 ESSFwk1 4 P 2 1,8 85 ESSFwk1 5 P 2 1,7 85 ESSFwk1 6 P 2 1,2 85 ESSFwk1 7 P 2 1,4 85 ICHmk3 1 P 2 2, 95 ICHmk3 4 P 2 2, 95 ICHmk3 5 P 2 1,8 85 ICHmk3 6 P 2 1,8 85 ICHmk3 7 P 2 1,8 85 ICHwk4 1 P 2 2, 95 ICHwk4 4 P 2 1,5 85 ICHwk4 6 P 2 1,8 85 ICHwk4 7 P 2 1,8 85 SBSdw1 1 P 2 1,7 95 SBSdw1 3 P 2 2, 85 SBSdw1 4 P 2 2, 95 SBSdw1 5 P 2 1,7 95 SBSdw1 6 P 2 1,7 85 SBSdw1 7 P 2 1,8 85 SBSdw1 8 P 2 1,8 85 SBSdw1 9 P 2 1,2 85 May 12, 214

31 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page 22 Table A.2: Regeneration data for silviculture regimes. Site Regeneration FTG Survival Subzone Series Type Delay Density Rate SBSmh 1 P 2 2, 95 SBSmh 2 P 2 1,2 85 SBSmh 3 P 2 2, 95 SBSmh 4 P 2 2, 95 SBSmh 5 P 2 2, 95 SBSmh 6 P 2 1,8 9 SBSmh 7 P 2 1,8 9 SBSmh 8 P 2 1,8 9 SBSmh 9 P 2 1,2 85 SBSmh 1 P 2 1,2 85 SBSmw 1 P 2 2,1 95 SBSmw 2 P 2 1,2 85 SBSmw 3 P 2 1,8 95 SBSmw 4 P 2 2, 95 SBSmw 5 P 2 1,2 85 SBSmw 6 P 2 2,1 95 SBSmw 7 P 2 1,7 85 SBSmw 8 P 2 2, 85 SBSmw 9 P 2 1,5 85 SBSmw 1 P 2 1, 8 SBSwk1 1 P 2 2,2 95 SBSwk1 2 P 2 1,2 85 SBSwk1 3 P 2 2, 95 SBSwk1 4 P 2 2, 95 SBSwk1 5 P 2 2,2 95 SBSwk1 6 P 2 1,2 85 SBSwk1 7 P 2 1,8 85 SBSwk1 8 P 2 2, 85 SBSwk1 9 P 2 1,5 85 SBSwk1 11 P 2 1,2 8 Note: The planting density is 1.1 times the FTG density. May 12, 214

32 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page 23 Table A.3: Genetic Gain by era, subzone, and species. Fd Pl Sx Tables Era Subzone Raw Gain Usage Raw Gain Usage Raw Gain Usage Current Pre-1992 ESSFwc3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ESSFwk1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Outside ESSF N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ESSFwc3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ESSFwk1 N/A N/A 13.5% 1% 7.2% 46% Outside ESSF 15.6% 36.% 9.9% 11% 18.2% 82% Future ESSFwc3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ESSFwk1 N/A N/A 14.2% 4% 12.% 7% Outside ESSF 3.% 93% 14.2% 22% 27.% 1% ESSFwc3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ESSFwk1 N/A N/A 16.% 67% 12.% 1% Outside ESSF 3.% 1% 16.% 1% 27.5% 1% Note: The effective gain is the raw gain times usage times survival percent. Table A.4: Operational adjustment factors by subzone. Subzone OAF1 OAF2 ESSFwc3 16.9% 5.% ESSFwk1 9.9% 5.% ICHmk3 8.6% 5.% ICHwk4 7.5% 5.% SBSdw1 12.1% 5.% SBSmh 7.8% 5.% SBSmw 9.5% 5.% SBSwk1 1.8% 5.% May 12, 214

33 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page 24 Appendix B. Site Series Distribution in the TFL 52 PFLB Table B.1: Site series distribution on TFL 52. Site Series Total Area Subzone NP (ha) (%) SBSwk1 1,798 35, , , ,853 1,576 2, ,469 33% SBSmw 1,442 41, ,213 1,579 4,16 5,452 1,345 1,72 1,187 1,473 72,42 3% ESSFwk1 1,23 29, ,461 5,27 1, ,986 22% ESSFwc3 1,429 2,373 2,777 1,685 26,264 11% SBSmh 1, , ,75 3% SBSdw ,554 1% ICHmk ,92 % ICHwk % Total 5,774 13,562 3,543 22,451 8,267 25,43 7,559 24,46 3,618 3,612 1, ,942 1% Note: About 1,87 ha have no TEM information in the PFLB. May 12, 214

34 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page 25 Appendix C. Pl-Sx Site Index Conversion Equation Pl Site Index (m) Pl SI = * Sx SI Sx Site Index (m) Figure C.1: Pl-Sx site index conversion equation using TFL 52 data. May 12, 214

35 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page 26 Appendix D. Managed Stands Site Index Source Table D.1: Area distribution by site index source and species for existing managed stands. Species Method Sx Pl Fd Bl At Sb Ep Total Adjusted SIA 34,721 41,25 1,28 77,251 MoFR Conversion from Pl 1,164 1,164 MoFR Conversion from Sx 597 6,38 3,73 9,78 Natural Subzone Average Subzone Avg. PSI ,1 Unadjusted Elevation Model Unadjusted SIA ,19 West Fraser Conversion from Sx 6,113 6,113 Total 36,198 48,679 3,75 6,114 3, ,224 Table D.2: Area distribution by site index source and species for future managed stands. Species Method Sx Pl Fd Bl At Sb Ep Total Adjusted SIA 76,488 77,534 3,32 157,54 MoFR Conversion from Pl 2,358 2,358 MoFR Conversion from Sx 1,115 21,19 5,959 28,184 Natural Subzone Average Subzone Avg. PSI 1,179 1, ,849 Unadjusted Elevation Model 11,463 6,2 17,483 Unadjusted SIA 1,172 1,37 2,479 West Fraser Conversion from Sx 2,415 2,415 Total 9,32 16,667 6,565 21,329 5, ,168 May 12, 214

36 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page 27 Appendix E. Subzone Summary for Future Stand Yield Tables, 221 and Beyond May 12, 214

37 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page 28 SBSwk1 Table E.1: Tipsy input for SBSwk1. Spp SI Genetic % Area with Species % (m) Gain % Gen. Gain Pl 51% % 1% Sx 35% % 1% Bl 9% 21.4.% % Fd 1% % 29% At 3% 24..% % Sb % 9.9.% % Ep % Table E.2: Culmination MAI statistics for SBSwk1. Site Area Subzone MAI Age Series (ha) (%) (m 3 /ha/yr) (yrs) 1 35, % % ,93 3.9% % , % % , % , % , % % All 75,671 1.% cm+ Volume ( m 3 ha) Volume MAI Culm. MAI ( m 3 ha yr) Height (m) Height QMD QMD (cm) Age (yrs) Figure E.1: Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the SBSwk1. May 12, 214

38 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page 29 ESSFwk1 Table E.3: Tipsy input for ESSFwk1. Spp SI Genetic % Area with Species % (m) Gain % Gen. Gain Pl 4% 2. 1.% 1% Sx 45% % 1% Bl 13% 2.6.% % Fd % At 1% 23.6.% % Sb % Ep % Table E.4: Culmination MAI statistics for ESSFwk1. Site Area Subzone MAI Age Series (ha) (%) (m 3 /ha/yr) (yrs) 1 29, % % , % ,27 9.9% ,14 2.2% % % All 5,964 1.% cm+ Volume ( m 3 ha) Volume MAI Culm. MAI ( m 3 ha yr) Height (m) Height QMD QMD (cm) Age (yrs) Figure E.2: Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the ESSFwk1. May 12, 214

39 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page 3 SBSmw Table E.5: Tipsy input for SBSmw. Spp SI Genetic % Area with Species % (m) Gain % Gen. Gain Pl 55% % 1% Sx 36% % 1% Bl % 21.2.% % Fd 5% % 73% At 4% 23..% % Sb % 1.9.% % Ep % 18.6.% % Table E.6: Culmination MAI statistics for SBSmw. Site Area Subzone MAI Age Series (ha) (%) (m 3 /ha/yr) (yrs) 1 41, % % , % , % ,16 5.8% , % , % ,72 2.4% , % , % All 7,6 1.% cm+ Volume ( m 3 ha) Volume MAI Culm. MAI ( m 3 ha yr) Height (m) Height QMD QMD (cm) Age (yrs) Figure E.3: Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the SBSmw. May 12, 214

40 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page 31 ESSFwc3 Table E.7: Tipsy input for ESSFwc3. Spp SI Genetic % Area with Species % (m) Gain % Gen. Gain Pl 24% 14.6 % % Sx 47% 12.7 % % Bl 29% 12.6 % % Fd % At % Sb % Ep % Table E.8: Culmination MAI statistics for ESSFwc3. Site Area Subzone MAI Age Series (ha) (%) (m 3 /ha/yr) (yrs) 1 2, % , % , % All 24,835 1.% cm+ Volume ( m 3 ha) Volume MAI Culm. MAI ( m 3 ha yr) Height (m) Height QMD QMD (cm) Age (yrs) Figure E.4: Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the ESSFwc3. May 12, 214

41 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page 32 SBSmh Table E.1: SBSmh. Culmination MAI statistics for Table E.9: Tipsy input for SBSwk1. Spp SI Genetic % Area with Species % (m) Gain % Gen. Gain Pl 24% % 86% Sx 37% % 1% Bl 3% 16.6.% % Fd 28% % 99% At % Sb % Ep 3% 19.4.% % Site Area Subzone MAI Age Series (ha) (%) (m 3 /ha/yr) (yrs) 1 1, % % % % % % , % % % % All 6,75 1.% cm+ Volume ( m 3 ha) Volume MAI Culm. MAI ( m 3 ha yr) Height (m) Height QMD QMD (cm) Age (yrs) Figure E.5: Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the SBSmh. May 12, 214

42 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page 33 SBSdw1 Table E.11: Tipsy input for SBSwk1. Table E.12: SBSdw1. Culmination MAI statistics for Spp SI Genetic % Area with Species % (m) Gain % Gen. Gain Pl 41% % 1% Sx 31% % 1% Bl 4% 17.7.% % Fd 23% % 99% At % 13.4.% % Sb % Ep 1% 18.4.% % Site Area Subzone MAI Age Series (ha) (%) (m 3 /ha/yr) (yrs) % % % % % % % % All 1,486 1.% cm+ Volume ( m 3 ha) Volume MAI Culm. MAI ( m 3 ha yr) Height (m) Height QMD QMD (cm) Age (yrs) Figure E.6: Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the SBSdw1. May 12, 214

43 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page 34 ICHmk3 Table E.13: Tipsy input for ICHmk3. Table E.14: ICHmk3. Culmination MAI statistics for Spp SI Genetic % Area with Species % (m) Gain % Gen. Gain Pl 45% % 1% Sx 47% % 1% Bl % Fd 8% % 65% At % Sb % Ep % Site Area Subzone MAI Age Series (ha) (%) (m 3 /ha/yr) (yrs) % % % % % All 1,78 1.% cm+ Volume ( m 3 ha) Volume MAI Culm. MAI ( m 3 ha yr) Height (m) Height QMD QMD (cm) Age (yrs) Figure E.7: Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the ICHmk3. May 12, 214

44 TFL 52 Natural and Managed Stand Yield Tables Page 35 ICHwk4 Table E.15: Tipsy input for ICHwk4. Table E.16: ICHwk4. Culmination MAI statistics for Spp SI Genetic % Area with Species % (m) Gain % Gen. Gain Pl 49% % 1% Sx 44% % 1% Bl % Fd 6% % 65% At % Sb % Ep % Site Area Subzone MAI Age Series (ha) (%) (m 3 /ha/yr) (yrs) % % % % All 46 1.% cm+ Volume ( m 3 ha) Volume MAI Culm. MAI ( m 3 ha yr) Height (m) Height QMD QMD (cm) Age (yrs) Figure E.8: Yield curves for volume, MAI, height and QMD in the ICHwk4. May 12, 214