SPATIAL TIMBER SUPPLY ANALYSIS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC TREND REPORTING FOR THE KOOTENAY BOUNDARY HIGHER LEVEL PLAN ORDER

Transcription

1 SPATIAL TIMBER SUPPLY ANALYSIS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC TREND REPORTING FOR THE KOOTENAY BOUNDARY HIGHER LEVEL PLAN ORDER ON TREE FARM LICENCE 8 Prepared for: Pope and Talbot Ltd. Boundary Timber Division Prepared by: Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants Ltd Spall Road Kelowna, B.C. V1Y 4R1 December 24 Project Number:

2 2

3 March 31, 25 Pope and Talbot Ltd. 116 Highway 3 Midway, B.C. VH 1M File: Attention: Geoff Bekker RPF Reference: Spatial timber supply analysis with environmental and economic trend reporting for the Kootenay Boundary Higher Level Plan Order on TFL 8 Please accept this final report for the above-mentioned project. We wish to thank you and all the spatial analysis committee members for their help and co-operation. Yours truly, TIMBERLINE FOREST INVENTORY CONSULTANTS LTD Kelly Sherman, R.P.F. Forester, Resource Analysis SUITE SPALL ROAD, KELOWNA, BC V1Y 4R1 TEL: (25) FAX: (25) THINKGREEN Partner of the Tree Canada Foundation

4

5 KBHLPO Spatial Analysis TFL 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Kootenay-Boundary Higher Level Plan Order (KBHLPO) was declared on December 22, 2, and a proposed new higher level plan order was released on October 26, 22. The monitoring and review section of the KBHLPO requires a spatial timber supply analysis for each management unit in order to evaluate the economic and environmental impact of the KBHLPO. Timberline has been retained by Pope and Talbot Ltd. (P&T) to carry out these tasks on Tree Farm Licence 8 (TFL 8). This project implements a spatial timber supply analysis to assess economic and environmental trends. The current analysis and reporting for TFL 8 includes the standard information required in a timber supply analysis report. In addition it provides environmental and economic trend reporting. This report is the last of two reports for TFL 8 spatial analysis and trend reporting project. The first report is the Information Package (see Appendix I), which follows the MoF timber supply review methodology in describing the inputs and assumptions for the analysis. The intention of this analysis is to thoroughly review the implications of the KBHLPO. In the case of TFL 8 the most recent timber supply review (TSR), which was carried out along with Management Plan 1, included the KBHLPO. However the Base Case was enhanced to include: Proposed OGMAs; Proposed UWR planning cells and modelling assumptions; Natural disturbances in the non-thlb; and Spatial analysis (adjacency modelled for 3 years). The analysis shows that the maximum even flow harvest level for the Base Case is 187, m 3 /year, which is seven percent higher than the current AAC of 175, m 3 /year. The changes to the management assumptions are considerably more constraining to timber supply than the MP 1 Base Case. The MP 1 benchmark scenario is able to maintain a harvest level of 27, m 3 /year, which is 1% higher than the Base Case harvest level of 187, m 3 /year. The sensitivity analyses included are: Using seral zones in place of OGMAs; Using MP 1 UWR analysis assumptions; Using P&T UWR retention requirements in place of the proposed WLAP retention requirements; and Turning off natural disturbances in the non-thlb. The message from the sensitivities is very clear in showing that almost all of the timber supply impact is coming from the removal of the OGMAs (1% impact on timber supply). The UWR modelling and the natural disturbances have little to no timber supply impact. The main objectives of this project is to assess the economic and environmental trends on TFL 8 as a result of modelling the KBHLPO. The intentions of this report are to provide continuity between more traditional timber-oriented reporting and the environmental trend reporting. All of the content of a traditional analysis report is included within this report: i

6 KBHLPO Spatial Analysis TFL 8 Harvest flow (including growing stock profile); Timber availability; Introducing risk classes for harvest flows based on timber availabilities; Alternative harvest flows; Timber types harvested by decade (natural vs. managed stands); Representation of major forest types; Species groupings harvested by decade; Average harvest diameter by decade; Average harvest volume per hectare by decade; Average harvest age by decade; and Age class distribution of the land base in selected periods. In addition, the new environmental trend reports are provided for: Structural stage by LU for selected periods; Structural stage by BEC variant for selected periods; Structural stage in the connectivity corridor for selected periods; Structural stage in NDT 4 for selected periods; Deciduous component throughout the planning horizon; Area covered by shrub throughout the planning horizon; Levels of coarse woody debris accumulation throughout the planning horizon; Snags per hectare throughout the planning horizon; Patch size distribution at selected decades; and Site series representation in an unmanaged state. The environmental trend that stands out the most on TFL 8 is the ecosystems representation, which is shown to be almost entirely in the high risk classes (poorly represented in an unmanaged state). This is because there is a high proportion of THLB in these ecosystems. Having a poor representation of the ecosystem in an unmanaged state is undesirable because it does not provide the preferred safeguard for the lesser known species. In MP 1, P&T proposed a harvest level well below the maximum potential harvest level shown in the analysis. A harvest level of 175, m 3 /year was selected in the subsequent AAC decision, which was higher than requested, but less than the maximum sustainable harvest level indicated by the analysis. The Base Case reports are shown using the maximum even flow harvest level of 187, m 3 /year. For many of the reports additional figures have been included to help quantify the environmental and potentially economic benefits of the harvesting the reduced harvest level (current AAC). While there are many additional figures in the report three have been shown in the executive summary: specifically: changes to timber availbality risk classes; changes to the future age class distribution and the difference in area harvested by period. ii

7 KBHLPO Spatial Analysis TFL 8 6, 5, There is 5 % surplus of timber available after harvest There is 1 % surplus of timber available after harvest 6, 5, Volume (m3) 4, 3, 2, Medium Risk Volume (m3) 4, 3, 2, Medium Risk 1, High Risk 1, High Risk Medium Risk High risk Harvest flow Availability Medium Risk High risk Harvest flow Availability Timber Availabilty Risk Classes Base Case versus Base Case with AAC Harvest level The timber availability risk classes suggest that there is a very high probability that the harvest level of 175, m 3 /year will be achievable throughout the planning horizon. The luxury of having excess timber available throughout the planning horizon should provide more flexibility in adjusting to market conditions and allow some operational flexibility. Conversely, the harvest level of 187, m 3 /year is at risk of not being achievable for a 7 year period between decade 4 and 11. In order to achieve that harvest level in decade five every merchantable piece of available timber would need to be harvested, which is unrealistic in any foreseeable market conditions. The figure below compares the projected age class distribution of TFL 8 in 25 years having the harvest level set at the maximum even-flow harvested level (187, m 3 /year) versus the AAC harvest level of 175, m 3 /year with AAC Harvest Level 2, 2, Area (ha) 15, 1, 5, Area (ha) 15, 1, 5, year age classes 1 year age classes Age class distribution for year 25 Base Case versus AAC Harvest level The amount of area older than 25 years is 26% higher using the AAC harvest level versus the maximum even-flow harvest level. This 26% increase in the amount of area older than 25 makes the amount of old growth very similar to that of the natural range of variation. The reason for the increase in the old area is because less area is harvested each year as shown in the figure below. iii

8 KBHLPO Spatial Analysis TFL 8 Area Harvest 175, m3/year Harvest 187, m3/year Area harvested Base Case versus Base Case with AAC Harvest level In summary, having the harvest level set below the maximum even-flow harvest level provides for improved environmental trends through having less area harvested and improved management flexibility through the increase level of available timber. iv

9 KBHLPO Spatial Analysis TFL 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF LAND BASE AND TENURE LAND BASE INFORMATION LAND BASE CLASSIFICATION Ecosystem Representation in Preserved Areas FOREST INVENTORY GROWTH AND YIELD Natural Stands Managed Stands Theoretical Productivity Estimates Analysis Units INVENTORY AGGREGATION Landscape Units Resource Emphasis Areas TIMBER SUPPLY ANALYSIS METHODS INTERPRETATION OF AVAILABILITY RISK CLASSES COMPARING MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS TIMBER SUPPLY FORECASTS KBHLPO TSR 2 BENCHMARK SCENARIO KBHLPO 22 BASE CASE HABITAT SUPPLY MODELLING FOR THE KBHLPO 22 SCENARIO Snag Frequency in the Productive Forest Downed Wood Volumes on the THLB Deciduous Percent on the THLB Percentage Shrub Cover on the THLB SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS USE ASPATIAL SERAL REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE OF OGMAS UNGULATE WINTER RANGE USING MP 1 REQUIREMENTS UNGULATE WINTER RANGE USING P&T REQUIREMENTS REMOVE DISTURBANCES IN THE NON-THLB REFERENCES...38 v

10 KBHLPO Spatial Analysis TFL 8 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 2.1 TFL FIGURE 3.3 EXTENT OF CONIFEROUS, MIXEDWOOD AND DECIDUOUS IN PRODUCTIVE LAND BASE...7 TABLE RISK TO ECOSYSTEM REPRESENTATION IN AN UNMANAGED STATE...8 FIGURE 5.1 TIMBER AVAILABILITY RISK CATEGORIES...5 FIGURE 5.2 COMPARISON OF TIMBER AVAILABILITY FOR TWO MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS...6 FIGURE 3 MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 TSR BENCHMARK...8 FIGURE 8.1 HARVEST AND GROWING STOCK PROFILE BASE CASE...1 FIGURE 8.2 HARVEST FLOW BASE CASE, MP 1 AND AAC...12 FIGURE 8.3 RISK CLASSES ASSIGNED TO TIMBER AVAILABILITY BASE CASE AAC HARVEST LEVEL...12 FIGURE 8.4 RISK CLASSES ASSIGNED TO TIMBER AVAILABILITY BASE CASE...13 FIGURE 8.5 ALTERNATIVE HARVEST FLOW BASE CASE...14 FIGURE 8.6 NATURAL AND MANAGED STANDS HARVESTED BY DECADE BASE CASE...14 FIGURE 8.7 HARVEST VOLUME BY SILVICULTURE SYSTEM KBHLPO FIGURE 8.8 AGE CLASS DISTRIBUTION FOR SELECTED YEARS BASE CASE...16 FIGURE 8.9 AGE CLASS DISTRIBUTION FOR YEAR 25 BASE CASE VERSUS AAC HARVEST LEVEL...17 FIGURE 8.1 STRUCTURAL STAGES FOR PRODUCTIVE LAND BASE...18 FIGURE 8.11 STRUCTURAL STAGES FOR PRODUCTIVE LAND BASE AAC HARVEST LEVEL...18 FIGURE 8.12 STRUCTURAL STAGE BY BIOGEOCLIMATIC ZONE FOR SELECTED YEARS...19 FIGURE 8.13 STRUCTURAL STAGE DISTRIBUTION IN THE CONNECTIVITY CORRIDOR FOR SELECTED PERIODS...19 FIGURE 8.14 STRUCTURAL STAGE DISTRIBUTIONS IN NDT FIGURE 8.15 PATCH SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND FREQUENCY NOW AND AT YEAR FIGURE 8.16 SPECIES HARVESTED BY DECADE KBHLP FIGURE 8.17 AVERAGE DBH, VOLUME AND AGE OF STANDS HARVESTED BASE CASE...22 FIGURE 8.18 AVERAGE STAND ATTRIBUTES FOR BASE CASE VERSUS BASE CASE WITH AAC HARVEST LEVEL...22 FIGURE 8.19 AREA HARVESTED BY DECADE BASE CASE COMPARED TO BASE CASE WITH AAC HARVEST LEVEL...23 FIGURE 8.2 CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOR SNAG FREQUENCY IN MSDM 1 DOUGLAS-FIR LEADING STANDS...24 FIGURE 8.21 EXPECTED SNAG FREQUENCY ON THE PRODUCTIVE FOREST LAND BASE BASE CASE...25 FIGURE 8.22 EXPECTED SNAG FREQUENCY ON THE PRODUCTIVE FOREST LAND BASE BASE CASE AAC...25 FIGURE 8.23 CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOR DOWNED WOOD IN MSDM 1 DOUGLAS-FIR LEADING STANDS...26 FIGURE 8.24 EXPECTED DOWNED WOOD VOLUMES BASE CASE...27 FIGURE 8.25 EXPECTED DOWNED WOOD VOLUMES BASE CASE WITH AAC HARVEST LEVEL...28 FIGURE 8.26 CONCEPTUAL MODELS FOR HARDWOOD ABUNDANCE IN MSDM 1 DOUGLAS-FIR LEADING STANDS...28 FIGURE 8.27 EXPECTED HARDWOOD CONTRIBUTION BASE CASE...28 FIGURE 8.28 CONCEPTUAL MODELS FOR PERCENT SHRUB COVER IN MSDM 1 DOUGLAS-FIR LEADING STANDS...29 FIGURE 8.22 EXPECTED PERCENT SHRUB COVER BASE CASE...3 FIGURE 9.1. TIMBER HARVEST REQUEST BASE CASE AND ASPATIAL SERAL REQUIREMENTS...31 FIGURE 9.2. TIMBER AVAILABILITY BASE CASE AND ASPATIAL SERAL REQUIREMENTS...32 FIGURE 9.3. TIMBER HARVEST REQUEST BASE CASE AND MP 1 UWR...33 FIGURE 9.4. TIMBER AVAILABILITY KBHLPO BASE CASE AND MP 1 UWR...33 TABLE 9.1. MULE DEER WINTER RANGE MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES...34 FIGURE 9.5. TIMBER HARVEST REQUEST BASE CASE AND P&T UWR...34 FIGURE 9.6. TIMBER AVAILABILITY BASE CASE AND P&T UWR...35 FIGURE 9.7 IMPACT OF UWR RETENTION REQUIREMENTS ON TFL FIGURE 9.7. TIMBER HARVEST REQUEST BASE CASE AND NO NATURAL DISTURBANCES...36 FIGURE 9.8. TIMBER AVAILABILITY BASE CASE AND NO NATURAL DISTURBANCES...37 vi

11 KBHLPO Spatial Analysis TFL 8 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 3.1 ECOSYSTEM REPRESENTATION IN AN UNMANAGED STATE...8 TABLE 8.1 HARVEST AND GROWING STOCK PROFILE BASE CASE...11 TABLE 8.2 STRUCTURAL STAGE DEFINITIONS...17 APPENDIX I INFORMATION PACKAGE LIST OF APPENDICES vii

12 KBHLPO Spatial Analysis TFL 8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding for this project has been provided by the Pope and Talbot Ltd. through the Forest Investment Account. We would like to thank Randy Waterous for his involvement and continuous contribution to the project. viii

13 1. INTRODUCTION The Kootenay-Boundary Higher Level Plan Order (KBHLPO) was declared on December 22, 2, and a proposed new higher level plan order was released on October 26, 22. The monitoring and review section of the KBHLPO requires a spatial timber supply analysis for each management unit in order to evaluate the economic and environmental impact of the KBHLPO. Timberline has been retained by Pope and Talbot Ltd. (P&T) to carry out these tasks on Tree Farm Licence 8 (TFL 8). This project implements a spatial timber supply analysis to assess economic and environmental trends. A pilot project for this process was previously undertaken on Tree Farm Licence (TFL) 14 which included two separate reports; one for the timber supply analysis and economic trend reporting (Timberline, 22) and another for environmental trend reporting (Utzig, 22). The current analysis and reporting for TFL 8 includes the standard information required in a timber supply analysis report. In addition it provides environmental and economic trend reporting. This report is the last of two reports for TFL 8 spatial analysis and trend reporting project. The first report is the Information Package (see Appendix I), which follows the MoF timber supply review methodology in describing the inputs and assumptions for the analysis. The intention of this analysis is to thoroughly review the implications of the KBHLPO. In the case of TFL 8 the most recent timber supply review (TSR), which was carried out along with Management Plan 1, included the KBHLPO. However the Base Case will be enhanced to include: Proposed OGMAs; Proposed UWR planning cells and management assumptions; Natural disturbances in the non-thlb; and Spatial analysis (adjacency modelled for 3 years). In contrast to standard timber supply analysis, this project includes little sensitivity analysis. The traditional sets of sensitivities (managed stand yields ± 1%, natural stand yields ± 1%, minimum harvest age ± 1 years, etc.) do not relate directly to the assessment of the KBHLPO. The sensitivity analyses included are: Using seral zones in place of OGMAs; Using MP 1 UWR areas and management assumptions; Using P&T UWR retention requirements in place of the proposed WLAP retention requirements; and Spatially locating old and mature budget via merchantability. Additional scenarios have also been tested to better understand the level of dependence the timber supply has on the productive non-timber harvest land base (non-thlb). Disturbing the non-thlb is not an issue that is addressed in the KBHLPO, but the Government spatial analysis committee considered it integral to this analysis. The intention behind disturbing the non-thlb is to avoid the erroneous assumption that the non-thlb will continuously age throughout the planning horizon. The Information Package provides a detailed description of the method used for disturbing the inoperable. 1

14 The main objectives of this project is to assess the economic and environmental trends on TFL 8 as a result of modelling the KBHLPO. The intentions of this report are to provide continuity between more traditional timber-oriented reporting and the environmental trend reporting. All of the content of a traditional analysis report is included within this report: Harvest flow (including growing stock profile); Timber availability; Introducing risk classes for harvest flows based on timber availabilities; Alternative harvest flows; Timber types harvested by decade (natural vs. managed stands); Representation of major forest types; Species groupings harvested by decade; Average harvest diameter by decade; Average harvest volume per hectare by decade; Average harvest age by decade; and Age class distribution of the land base in selected periods. In addition, the new environmental trend reports are provided for: Structural stage by LU for selected periods; Structural stage by BEC variant for selected periods; Structural stage in the connectivity corridor for selected periods; Structural stage in NDT 4 for selected periods; Deciduous component throughout the planning horizon; Area covered by shrub throughout the planning horizon; Levels of coarse woody debris accumulation throughout the planning horizon; Snags per hectare throughout the planning horizon; Patch size distribution at selected decades; and Site series representation in an unmanaged state. In MP 1, P&T proposed a harvest level well below the maximum potential harvest level shown in the analysis. A harvest level of 175, m 3 /year was selected in the subsequent AAC decision, which was higher than requested, but less than the maximum sustainable harvest level indicated by the analysis. The Base Case reports are shown using the maximum even flow harvest level of 187, m 3 /year. For many of the reports additional figures have been included to help quantify the environmental and potentially economic benefits of the harvesting the reduced harvest level (current AAC). In an effort to provide continuity throughout the report and to recognise the common set of objectives, there has been no separation between those reports that are considered timber orientated versus those considered environmental trend reporting. Reports that will not change over time (eg. site series representation) are provided with the land base information (Section 3.), whereas reports that change over time are reported in the section dealing with the specific analysis scenario. The KBHLPO Base case scenario has a complete set of reports, whereas other scenarios have a reduced set of reports. 2

15 2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF LAND BASE AND TENURE TFL 8, held by P&T Boundary Timber Division, consists of two (2) distinct units; Block 1 in the Boundary Creek area, north of Greenwood, and Block 2 in the Trapping Creek and Carmi Creek drainages, north of Beaverdell. Communities in the vicinity of TFL 8 include Grand Forks, Greenwood, Midway, Rock Creek, Westbridge and Beaverdell. These towns are located along Highway 3 and Highway 33 which connect Rock Creek with Kelowna. An overview of the TFL is shown in Figure 2.1. Historically, TFL 8 originally consisted only of Block 1, which was granted to Boundary Sawmills Ltd. in Block 2, formerly known as TFL 11 and managed by the Olinger Lumber Company, was reassigned to Boundary Sawmills Ltd. as part of TFL 8 in In 1969 Pope & Talbot Inc. of Portland Oregon purchased Boundary Forest Products, which itself was a consolidation of Boundary Sawmills Ltd. and several other operations based in Grand Forks. The company was renamed Pope & Talbot Ltd. and remains a subsidiary of the parent company. The current TFL 8 is located within the Southern Interior Forest Region, and is administered from the Arrow Boundary Forest District office in Castlegar. The total area of TFL 8 is approximately 77,456 hectares (excluding non-crown land), of which 5% is non-productive or non-forested. All of TFL 8 is Schedule B (crown) land. Approximately 35% of the net timber harvesting land base (THLB) is Douglas-fir leading forest over 6 years of age. Another 24% of the THLB is lodgepole pine leading forest, also over 6 years of age. The AAC is currently set at 175, cubic meters per year (m 3 /yr). 3

16 Figure 2.1 TFL 8 4

17 3. LAND BASE INFORMATION A complete description of the information used in the timber supply analysis is contained in the document Information Package, which has been included as Appendix I. 3.1 LAND BASE CLASSIFICATION Land is classified based on four broad criteria: It is unproductive for forest management purposes; It is or will become non-thlb under the assumptions of the analysis; It is unavailable for harvest for other reasons (eg. wildlife habitat or recreation); or It is available for integrated use (including harvesting). The classification of the TFL 8 land base area is summarized in the following figures. Figure 3.1 illustrates the distribution of the total TFL area (excluding non-crown areas within the TFL boundary) between productive and non-productive or non-forested areas. Figure 3.2 illustrates the process by which the productive land base of 73,46 hectares is classified in terms of its contribution to timber and non-timber uses. The THLB area of 65,919 hectares includes 2,698 hectares of NSR (not sufficiently restocked) area that is scheduled for full restocking within the first 5 years of the planning horizon. Whole TFL (77,456 ha) Productive (95%) Non-productive, non-forest (5%) Figure 3.1 Distribution of total TFL Area The THLB consists of all productive land expected to be available for harvest over the long term. This land base is determined by reclassifying the total land base according to specified land base classification criteria. 5

18 The non-harvestable component includes exclusions such as low site removals and uneconomic areas. Figure 3.2 provides a graphic representation of the land base reductions for the Boundary TSA. Productive Landbase (73,46 ha) Non-commercial (.31% ) ESAs, unstable terrain (2.64% ) Net harvesting landbase (89.8%) Problem forest types (3.11% ) Existing roads (1.45% ) Riparian reserves (2.67% ) Trans-canada trail (.1% ) Figure 3.2 Classification of productive land base The land base distribution by major forest types (coniferous, mixedwood, and deciduous) is useful when considering ecosystem diversity. The representation of the major forest types is the foundation upon which allocation and management of forest lands should be based (CCFM, 2). The levels of stand conversion are of interest, but this information is not available from the analysis because modelling of the deciduous component assumes that stand conversion does not occur. Deciduous stands are removed from the THLB, and the deciduous components of remaining stands are not harvested during simulation. The amount of deciduous over time has been addressed using the habitat supply modelling approach described in Section Figure 3.3 shows the current distribution of the productive land base by major forest types, and the deciduous and mixedwood areas. 6

19 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% % MoF Age Class Coniferous Mixedwood Decidous 25 2 Area (ha) MoF Age Class Mixedwood Decidous Figure 3.3 Extent of coniferous, mixedwood and deciduous in productive land base Figure 3.3 shows that a very small portion of TFL 8 is deciduous or mixed wood. 7

20 3.1.1 Ecosystem Representation in Preserved Areas Ecosystem representation in reserved areas has been identified as a measure of interest for the Boundary TSA. The measure is quite common in Sustainable Forest Management Plans (SFMP), reading: Ecologically distinct habitat types are represented in an unmanaged state in TFL 8to sustain lesser known species and ecological function. For this report ecosystem representation is defined by groupings of site series based on a cluster analysis of plant prominence data from provincial databases (Wells et al.). The resulting distinct ecosystems are mapped using the most recent ecosystem mapping (TEM) coverage. The productive forest that is non-thlb is considered unmanaged, in that it is never available for harvest in this analysis. The percent representation is calculated by dividing the non-thlb by the total crown productive forest for each unique ecosystem, based on the entire Boundary district (Table 3.1). Table 3.1 Ecosystem representation in an unmanaged state % Unmanaged Forest Productive Area (ha) -1 1, , , , , , Environmental risk associated with ecosystem representation in an unmanaged state is calculated using a function developed by Wilson (24). The function is based on the proportion of the ecosystem in an unmanaged state, the proportion of the land base comprised by the ecosystem, and the size and distribution of ecosystem patches in the unmanaged land base compared to the land base as a whole (see Table 3.2). Table Risk to Ecosystem representation in an unmanaged state Representation Risk Productive Area (ha) -1 1, , , ,851 8

21 The ecosystems representation in TFL 8 is shown to be almost entirely in the high risk classes, which are poorly represented in an unmanaged state. This is because there is a high proportion of THLB in these ecosystems. Having a poor representation of the ecosystem in an unmanaged state is undesirable because it does not provide the preferred safeguard for the lesser known species. 3.2 FOREST INVENTORY The TFL 8 forest cover inventory has been updated for disturbance and projected to the year 2 by Forsite Consultants Ltd. Furthermore, a statistical adjustment of inventory attributes was applied to dense lodgepole pine stands, following the results of a study undertaken for Pope & Talbot by J.S. Thrower & Associates (JST, 1999). Figure 3.4 provides a visual summary of the standing forest inventory on the THLB. The figure shows the distribution of net landbase area by leading age (the oldest age in each 1-year age class), and by the rank1 leading species within each age class. The figure shows a significant gap in the age class inventory in the 31 to 6 year age range, which will tend to limit the rate at which a uniform distribution of area within each age class can be established. 3.3 GROWTH AND YIELD J. S. Thrower and Associates undertook the development of growth and yield relationships for the analysis of TFL 8. A report documenting this work and the results is included as an appendix to the TFL 8 MP No. 1 report (JST 21a). The following is a brief summary of the contents of that report Natural Stands Natural stands were defined as all stands in the current forest cover inventory with age greater than 25 years. Natural stand yield tables (NSYTs) for the timber supply analysis were developed using the batch version of the Ministry of Forests (MoF) program BatchVDYP (version 6.6d) Managed Stands Existing managed stands were defined as all stands in the current forest cover inventory with age less than 26 years. These stands have been managed since establishment and include both natural and artificially regenerated sites. 9

22 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, TFL 8 TIMBER SUPPLY ANALYSIS REPORT Leading age Lodgepole pine Douglas-fir/Western Larch Spruce/Balsam Cedar Whitebark pine/yellow pine Deciduous Figure 3.4 Distribution of net landbase by age and leading species 1 Net landbase area (ha)

23 P&T regularly prescribe a combination of clearcut (CC), patchcut (PC) and single tree selection (STS) silvicultural systems within mule deer winter range areas, depending on ecological site series and the Kootenay-Boundary Land Use Plan Implementation Strategy (KBLUP-IS) guidelines. Managed stand yield tables (MSYTs) incorporating improved estimates of potential site index 1 were developed using BatchTIPSY (version 3.a) for CC and PC systems. These MSYTs also incorporate future genetic gain expectations based on information provided by the Tree Improvement Branch. MSYTs for the STS regimes were based on a system of custom equations derived from permanent sample plot data and Prognosis BC model analysis (JST, 21a) Theoretical Productivity Estimates Table 3.2 provides average theoretical productivity estimates for the TFL 8 landbase, derived from both natural and managed stand yield tables. The actual long-term harvest level (LTHL) will always be slightly below the theoretical long run sustained yield (LRSY), which is attainable only if all stands are harvested at the age of maximum mean annual increment (MAI). This is due to the imposition of minimum harvest ages and forest cover requirements, which alter time of harvest Analysis Units Table 3.2 Theoretical long-term productivity estimates Description Natural Managed THLB, including NSR (ha) 65,918 65,918 - Future roads (ha) 2,91 = Long term THLB (ha) 65,918 63,827 * Average MAI at culmination (m 3 /ha) = Theoretical gross LRSY (m 3 /yr) 178, ,184 - Wildlife tree patch retention (m 3 /yr) 7,146 1,767 - Non-recoverable losses (m 3 /yr) 9 9 = Theoretical net LRSY (m 3 /yr) 17, ,517 In order to reduce the complexity of the forest description for the purposes of timber supply simulation, considerable aggregation of individual stands is necessary. However, it is critical that these aggregations obscure neither biological differences in forest productivity, nor differences in management objectives and prescriptions. Aggregation based on similarities in forest productivity and management prescriptions results in the assignment of each individual stand to a particular analysis unit as described below. The basic modelling units used to derive natural stand yield estimates for the present analysis were the individual forest cover inventory polygons. The fundamental modelling units used to derive managed stand yield estimates for CC and PC regimes were the eco-polygons formed by the spatial intersection of the forest cover inventory polygons and the TEM polygons. This procedure resulted in a total of 8,927 NSYTs and 9,647 MSYTs. This number of yield tables is generally intractable for timber supply analysis, so they were aggregated to form analysis units (also known as clusters). Clusters were defined as groups of similar curves based on treatment stratum (CC or PC), leading species, site index class, presence or absence of genetically improved stock, proportion of conifer volume and model type (VDYP or TIPSY). The clustering process resulted in a total of 437 analysis units, each with a natural and 1 - Improved potential site index estimates were based on the site index adjustment work of J.S.Thrower and Associates (JST 21b) 1

24 managed stand yield table. In addition, 22 analysis units were defined for STS regimes based on potential site index and pre-harvest standing volume classes. 3.4 INVENTORY AGGREGATION Stands are also grouped into landscape units (LUs) and resource emphasis areas (REAs) to recognize similarities in management focus Landscape Units TFL 8 intersects portions of three of the LUs (LUs B1, B7 and B8 see Figure 8 in MP No. 1) designated by the Kootenay-Boundary Higher Level Plan Order (KBHLPO). In the timber supply analysis, most forest cover requirements must be met within the spatial units defined by the intersection of these LUs with the biogeoclimatic ecosystem classification (BEC) variant. Figure 3.5 summarizes the distribution of productive and net area by LU BEC variant BEO. 2, 18, 16, 14, Area (hectares) 12, 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, B1 - ICH mk 1 B1 - ICH mk 1 B1 - MS dm 1 B1 - MS dm 1 B1 - IDF dm 1 B1 - IDF dm 1 B7 - ICH mw 2 B7 - ESSFdc 1 B7 - ICH mk 1 B7 - MS dm 1 LU - BEC variant - BEO B7 - IDF dm 1 Productive landbase Net harvesting landbase B8 - ESSFdc 1 B8 - MS dm 1 B8 - IDF dm 1 Figure 3.5 Distribution of land base area by LU-BEC variant-beo Resource Emphasis Areas The land base has been divided into REAs to facilitate the application of forest cover constraints. These include: Mule deer winter range (DWR) areas; 2

25 Forest connectivity corridors (FCC); Known scenic areas for which draft visual quality classes (VQCs) have been identified; and Integrated resource management (IRM) areas. The distribution of productive land base area among the REAs is shown in Figure , 5, 4, Area (ha) 3, 2, 1, FCC IRM UWR VQC-M VQC-PR VQC-R Resource emphasis area Productive landbase Net landbase Figure 3.6 Resource emphasis areas 3

26 4. TIMBER SUPPLY ANALYSIS METHODS Timberline s proprietary simulation model CASH6 (Critical Analysis by Simulation of Harvesting), Version 6.2l was used to develop spatial harvest schedules in the Boundary TSA KBHLPO spatial analysis. This model uses an aspatial and spatial geographic approach to land base and inventory definition in order to adhere as closely as possible to the intent of forest cover requirements on harvesting. CASH6 can simulate the imposition of overlapping forest cover objectives on timber harvesting and resultant forest development. These objectives are addressed by placing restrictions on the age distribution, defining maximum or minimum limits on the amount of area in young and old age classes found in specified areas. For the purposes of this analysis, forest cover objectives fall into two categories: 1. Disturbance (green-up) The disturbance objective is defined as the total area below a specified green-up height or age. This disturbed area is to be maintained below a specified maximum percentage. The effect is to ensure that at no time will harvesting cause the disturbed area to exceed this maximum percentage. This category is typically used to model adjacency, visual quality, wildlife or hydrological green-up requirements in resource emphasis areas, and early seral stage requirements at the landscape unit level. 2. Retention (old growth) The retention objective is defined as the total area above a specified age. This retention area is to be maintained above a specified minimum percentage. The effect is to ensure that at no time will harvesting cause the retention area to drop below this minimum percentage. This category is typically used to model thermal cover and/or old growth requirements in wildlife management resource emphasis areas, and mature and old growth seral stage requirements at the landscape unit level. The model projects the development of a forest, allowing the analyst to impose different harvesting/silviculture strategies on its development, in order to determine the impact of each strategy on long-term resource management objectives. CASH6 was used to develop harvest schedules that incorporate all integrated resource management considerations including spatial feasibility factors, such as, for example, silviculture block green-up. In these analyses, timber availability is forecast in decadal time steps (periods). The main output from each analysis is a projection of the amount of future growing stock, given a set of growth and yield assumptions, and planned levels of harvest and silviculture activities. Growing stock is characterised in terms of operable volume (total volume on the timber harvesting land base), merchantable volume (operable volume above minimum harvest age), and available volume (maximum merchantable volume that could be harvested in a given decade without violating forest cover constraints). A 25-year time horizon was employed in these analyses to ensure that short and medium-term harvest targets do not compromise long-term growing stock stability. Also, modelled harvest levels included allowances for non-recoverable losses. Harvest figures reported here exclude this amount unless otherwise stated. Over the next rotation it may be necessary to reduce harvest levels prior to achieving the long-term level. Unless otherwise stated in the timber supply forecasts that follow, the decadal rate of decline was limited to 1%, and the mid-term harvest level was not permitted to drop below a level reflecting the basic productive capacity of the land base. The long-term steady harvest level will always be slightly below the theoretical long-term level, which is attainable only if all stands are harvested at the age when mean annual increment (MAI) maximises. This is due to the imposition of minimum harvest ages and forest cover requirements, which affect time of harvest. 4

27 5. INTERPRETATION OF AVAILABILITY Harvest flow has traditionally been the primary indicator used to evaluate the timber supply impacts of various management scenarios. However, the harvest flow for a given scenario does not necessarily reveal the complete timber supply picture. Another useful indicator is timber availability, which is the total volume of merchantable timber that could be harvested in any given period without violating any forest cover requirements (over minimum harvest age and not needed for any land base requirements). The profile of timber availability provides valuable insights into the timber supply dynamics of a given scenario. In general, the periods with the least amount of timber available control the resulting harvest flow. Standard TSR harvest flows are generally controlled by pinch points, which are periods in which there is virtually no surplus timber available beyond the estimated harvest level. 5.1 RISK CLASSES The implications of a timber availability profile are not straightforward to interpret. To make their interpretation less complicated, risk classes have been introduced to represent the likelihood of being able to achieve the harvest flow operationally and economically. If the timber availability line is in the highrisk zone it can be assumed that it is highly unlikely that the harvest target will be achieved operationally. The operational reality is that it is very unlikely that all remaining timber will be located in areas that are accessible and feasible to harvest. The economic realities are that it is very unlikely that there will be a market for all of the available timber. These risk classes are subjective, and are simply intended to facilitate the interpretation of the available inventory profile. Figure 5.1 shows a sample harvest flow pattern and two possible risk classes for that harvest flow. The area above the medium risk zone suggests that there is little or no risk associated with the harvest request not being available (decades two through five). Volume (m3) 1,4, 1,2, 1,, 8, 6, 4, 2, There is 5 % surplus of timber available after harvest Medium Risk High Risk There is 1 % surplus of timber available after harvest Medium Risk High risk Harvest flow Availability Figure 5.1 Timber availability risk categories 5

28 5.2 COMPARING MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS Although a stand-alone timber availability profile can provide valuable information, it has greater utility for comparing management scenarios. When comparing different management scenarios using timber availability profiles, it is critical to use the same harvest request in both scenarios. In doing so the differences in the timber availability profiles can be entirely attributed to differences in the management assumptions. In every case when two timber availability profiles are displayed on the same graph, the profiles are created using the same harvest flow. Generally the harvest flow requested is the Base case harvest flow unless otherwise specified. Figure 5.2 shows an example that compares the timber availability profiles of an alternative management scenario to the Base case. The difference between the two availability profiles (slashed region) can be entirely attributed to the differences between the management scenario and the Base case. In many cases a scenario will have little or no impact on harvest flow, but considerable impact on timber availability. 1,2, 1,, Alternative management availability when using the basecase harvest request Volume (m3) 8, 6, 4, 2, Basecase availability Basecase Harvest Flow Figure 5.2 Comparison of timber availability for two management scenarios 6

29 6. TIMBER SUPPLY FORECASTS The objective of the analysis is to assess environmental and economic trends under the KBHLPO. The first step is to benchmark the most recent timber supply analysis (MP 1) in order to provide confidence that the analysis is consistent with the MoF timber supply review. Management Plan 1 for TFL 8 included the KBHLPO, so there was no need to further assess the timber supply impact. Instead the KBHLPO Base Case analysis is the MP 1 Base Case updated to include recent information (UWR and OGMAs) and disturbing of the non-thlb. A series of sensitivities has been done on the KBHLPO Base Case. 7

30 7. KBHLPO TSR 2 BENCHMARK SCENARIO The starting point for this analysis is a scenario that replicates the MP 1 Base Case for TFL 8. This establishes the credibility of the entire series of analyses that follow. The modelling assumptions are the same as TSR II, but the land base includes some updated information such as a new mule deer winter range coverage and spatial OGMAs. The details of this analysis can be found in the Information Package (Appendix I). This scenario has been carried out in order to link the analysis back to the provincial timber supply review. Figure 9 shows the MP 1 management plan benchmark scenario using this data set. Volume (m 3 ) 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, M anagement Plan 1 Available Volume M ax even-flow harvest level Base Case Harvest Flow Figure 3 Management Plan 1 TSR Benchmark The harvest level for our base run was the same as the maximum even flow harvest level using the MP1 Base Case. This provides us confidence that this analysis is comparable to the most recent TSR for TFL 8. This is expected because this analysis uses the same dataset, however the benchmarking is important because factors such as the additional line work from the new data layers can impact the modelling. 8

31 8. KBHLPO 22 BASE CASE This scenario and the associated reporting is the principal component of the TFL 8 KBHLPO analysis. A full suite of reports will be presented for this scenario as it represents the current KBHLPO. In additional there have been several of the reports provided using the AAC as the harvest level. These additional reports highlight the improvements in the environmental trends from P&T harvesting at reduced levels. The Base Case uses the MP 1 Base Case analysis and makes the following adjustments Proposed UWR planning cells have been used with retention requirements calculated using WLAPs proposed percentages and age; MSRM s proposed OGMA have been removed from the THLB for land base level biodiversity; Natural disturbances have been modelled in the productive non-thlb; and Harvest level is the maximum flatline (non-declining) harvest level. These three modelling assumptions are not part of the KBHLPO, but instead represent improvements over the MP 1 analyses. The MP 1 analysis included all of the requirements of the KBHLPO. This section will present the results of the KBHLPO Base case analysis scenario, and assess economic and environmental trends. At the broadest level, reports that focus on the timber harvested are considered economic variables, whereas reports that focus on the state of the forest (or land base) are considered environmental variables. The following is the economic and environmental trend reporting provided for this scenario: Harvest flow (including growing stock profile); Timber availability; Risk class by timber availability (additional report for AAC harvest level); Alternative harvest flows; Timber types harvested by decade (natural vs. managed stands); Species harvested by decade; Average harvest diameter by decade(additional report for AAC harvest level); Average harvest volume per hectare by decade (additional report for AAC harvest level); Average harvest age by decade (additional report for AAC harvest level); Age class distribution of the land base in selected periods (additional report for AAC harvest level); Structural stage by BEC variant for selected periods (additional report for AAC harvest level); Structural stage in the connectivity corridor for selected periods (additional report for AAC harvest level); Structural stage in NDT 4 for selected periods (additional report for AAC harvest level); Deciduous component throughout the planning horizon (additional report for AAC harvest level); Area covered by shrub throughout the planning horizon (additional report for AAC harvest level); Levels of coarse woody debris accumulation throughout the planning horizon (additional report for AAC harvest level); Snags per hectare throughout the planning horizon(additional report for AAC harvest level); and 9

32 Patch size distribution at selected decades. Indicators that are not affected by modelling (i.e. site series representation of non-thlb area) have been reported in Section 3.. The harvest flow and long-term growing stock implications for the Base case are shown in Figure 8.1. The operable growing stock and available growing stock are depicted based on Base Case scenario assumptions. Table 8.1 provides a numerical summary of the harvest and growing stock profile by decade. 1,, 9, 8, 7, Volume (m3) 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 187, Operable Stock Total Stock Available Stock Annual Harvest (m3) Figure 8.1 Harvest and growing stock profile Base Case 1

33 Table 8.1 Harvest and growing stock profile Base Case Annual Harvest (m3) Available Stock Operable Stock Total Stock MP 1 KBHLPO Base case (m3) (m3) (m3) 1 27, 187, 573,741 79, , , 187, 499, ,818 76, , 187, 385, , , , 187, 254,939 43,513 74, , 187, 191,95 389, , , 187, 253, , , , 187, 22, , , , 187, 222, , , , 187, 268,398 52, , , 187, 239,283 49, , , 187, 221, , , , 187, 314, , , , 187, 349, , , , 187, 315, , , , 187, 336,53 68, , , 187, 346, , , , 187, 341, ,771 87, , 187, 396, ,699 87, , 187, 392,85 643, , , 187, 335,47 593,83 857, , 187, 321, ,4 863, , 187, 334,625 65,2 871, , 187, 333,338 59, , , 187, 386,591 63,78 867, , 187, 382,78 635,19 86,18 The KBHLPO Base case can sustain a flatline harvest level of 187, m 3 /year, which is seven percent higher than the current AAC. This is 11% less than then maximum even flow harvest level that could be achieved in the MP 1 analysis. Almost the entire timber supply impact comes from the proposed OGMAs (See Section 9.1 on OGMA sensitivity) Figure 8.2 shows the KBHLPO 22 harvest flow compared to the TSR II and Prior to KBHLPO harvest flow. 11

34 25, 187, 27, 2, Volume (m3) 15, 1, 175, 5, KBHLPO Base Case MP 1 (max even flow) AAC Figure 8.2 Harvest Flow Base Case, MP 1 and AAC Figure 8.2 shows the incremental reduction in harvest flow from TSR II to the KBHLPO Base case. During MP 1 P&T requested a harvest level far below the maximum even flow harvest level and the AAC determination process selected an AAC of 175, m 3 /year cognisant that the maximum even flow harvest level is 15 % higher. Having the AAC set well below the maximum even flow harvest level provides a considerable buffer that is able to absorb the timber supply impacts of management changes (In this case OGMAs). Figure 8.3 shows the risk associated with the level of timber available at each decade throughout the planning horizon. This has been provided to aid in the interpretation of the timber available. The harvest level used is the current AAC of 175,m 3 /year. 6, 5, There is 5 % surplus of timber available after harvest There is 1 % surplus of timber available after harvest Volume (m3) 4, 3, 2, Medium Risk 1, High Risk Medium Risk High risk Harvest flow Availability Figure 8.3 Risk classes assigned to timber availability Base Case AAC Harvest Level 12

35 Figure 8.3 suggests that the KBHLPO Base Case harvest forecast has a high probability of being able to be achieved. Throughout the planning horizon there is a significant amount of excess timber available, which is shown to be a low risk in every period except for decade five where it is a medium risk. This is very promising because the excess available timber will increase the potential of the harvest levels being achieved regardless of the operational and economic realities discussed in Section 5.1. To put this in context, with other management units, that have had risk classes assigned, this is the first time that no period was considered high risk. Many of the other management units were consistently in a high risk category, because much of the available timber was required in order to achieve the harvest level. Other management units are more comparable to Figure 8.4, which shows the risk class assigned to timber availability using the maximum even-flow harvest level. 6, 5, There is 5 % surplus of timber available after harvest There is 1 % surplus of timber available after harvest Volume (m3) 4, 3, 2, Medium Risk 1, High Risk Medium Risk High risk Harvest flow Availability Figure 8.4 Risk classes assigned to timber availability Base Case Figure 8.4 shows that there is a high risk that the maximum even flow harvest level would never be achieved. 5 is in the high risk category and decades four through twelve are in the medium category. It should be noted that with the maximum even flow harvest level there is a considerable amount available timber for the next 4 years. The harvest flow chosen for the Base case is the maximum even-flow harvest level. Alternative harvest levels are usually tested to assess tradeoffs associated with various short-term harvest levels. Tow additional flows have been tested: 1. Maximum harvested level for one decade followed by 1% decreases to the mid term harvest level followed by a step up to the long term harvest level. 2. Current AAC through the short and mid term followed by the maximum long term harvest level. Figure 8.5 shows the harvest levels using the two methods discussed above. 13