FREP Stand Development Monitoring (SDM) Is this what we planned for? Alex Woods, BC Ministry of Natural Resource Operations, Smithers BC

Transcription

1 FREP Stand Development Monitoring (SDM) Is this what we planned for? Alex Woods, BC Ministry of Natural Resource Operations, Smithers BC

2 Free-growing After logging public forest land in BC, forest companies are required to establish a new crop of trees, and tend them for a number of years to ensure they survive and grow into a healthy new forest. To achieve free-growing, the site must have a suitable number of well-spaced trees, ecologically appropriate to the site, of minimum height, and free from brush competition.

3 Monitoring post-free-growing? After free-growing is declared, possibly as early as age 7, stands are not likely assessed again until after age 60. G&Y models are used to project yield post freegrowing and these model outputs drive managed stand assumptions in Timber Supply Reviews (TSRs). There currently is no government lead formal reevaluation of managed stands post freegrowing in BC.

4 Overall Objectives of SDM: To look back at previous stand condition as determined at free-growing and see if stands are on assumed growth trajectories. To determine current yield in a manner that can be compared to G&Y model projections. To quantify species specific impacts due to damaging agents.

5 Combined FREP SDM coverage to date, Intensive studies and 2010 SDM pilots SDM is planned for full implementation under FREP program in

6 Percent of Stands Meeting Minimum Stocking by TSA Percent of Stands Meeting Minimum Stocking by TSA 83 % FG (mean) % FG (LCL) 80 Percent Lakes Okanagan Strathcona Headwaters Kootenay

7 1400 Lodgepole Pine at Site Index of 23 No OAFs TIPSY using the "Natural" Spatial Distribution W. Bergerud Free-growing or Well-spaced Density Stand Age

8 Percent of Stands Meeting Minimum Stocking by TSA Percent of Stands Meeting Minimum Stocking by TSA 83 % FG (mean) % FG (LCL) 80 Percent Lakes Okanagan Strathcona Headwaters Kootenay

9

10 DRA in S. Interior Drought in Cariboo

11 S. Zeglen Strathcona TSA

12 You can t stop trees from growing on the Coast R. Negrave

13 But...is this what we planned for?

14 The transition in harvest from older stands to second growth stands is one of the key drivers of timber supply dynamics in the Strathcona TSA Strathcona TSR Report 2004

15 About 68% of the THLB is below 60 years of age...

16 Managed stand productivity assumptions Strathcona TSR (2004) 25.2 SDM Mean FG density 700, Max 1040, min 240 Mean Total stems 2024, Max 9760, min 1173 Mean Site Index for Hw leading stands 29.1 m S. Zeglen

17 Managed stand productivity assumptions Strathcona TSR (2004) 31.3 SDM Mean FG density 624, Max 947, min 173 Mean Total stems 2600, Max 4427, min 773 Mean Site Index for Fd leading stands 32.7 m S. Zeglen

18 Doesn t TIPSY model stable species compositions?

19 FREP Intensive post-free-growing assessments Change in leading species based on inventory labels by stand by TSA TSA - Timber Supply Area: Did Leading Species Change? No Yes Percent Total Count Lakes % 60 Okanagan % 60 Strathcona % 58 Kootenay % 58 Headwaters % 30 Total % 266

20 Percent change in species abundance in inventory label from Free-growing to present Okanagan TSA Percent change Bl Cw Fd Hw Lw Pl Pw Se Act At Ep Inventory label species

21 Changes in leading species can be the Changes result in leading of insects and disease... species can be the result of insects and disease...

22 Change in leading species based on inventory labels by stand by TSA TSA - Timber Supply Area: Did Leading Species Change? No Yes Percent Total Count Lakes % 60 Okanagan % 60 Strathcona % 58 Kootenay % 58 Headwaters % 30 Total % 266

23 Percent change in species abundance in inventory label from Free-growing to present Strathcona TSA Percent change Ba Fd Ba Cw Yc Fd Hw Pl Pw Ss T Ac Dr Mb Vb Inventory label species S. Zeglen

24 Changes in leading inventory species can also be due to natural ingress

25 Possible implications of managed stands undergoing a change in leading inventory species across BC? 1. Losses to timber supply? 2. Unrealized genetic gain? 3. Increase in regeneration delay, longer rotations? 4. Modeled managed stands not being realized? 5. Carbon sequestration less than expected?

26 1. Losses to timber supply: A primary reason why managed stands may be less productive than G&Y model projections may be the calibration of mortality functions. No single factor, not site index, species composition nor growth rates, has a greater influence on modelled stand productivity than unexpected mortality (D. Coates pers. comm. July 28, 2009). It is the holes in the stands that affect productivity more than anything else (K. Mitchell pers. comm. 2002).

27 Armillaria root disease in the Okanagan TSA

28 Managed stand productivity assumptions Strathcona TSR (2004) 31.3 SDM Mean FG density 624, Max 947, min 173 Mean Total stems 2600, Max 4427, min 773 Mean Site Index for Fd leading stands 32.7 m S. Zeglen

29 P. Barolet

30 2. Unrealized genetic gain Genetic gain values are based on early selections of height growth. We have no 60- year-old realized gain trials. (Tanz, 2001)

31 2. Unrealized genetic gain Projected genetic gains in Strathcona TSA are more modest than provincial average and aren t expected to be harvested until age 145. Managed stand productivity assumptions Strathcona TSR (2004)

32 3. Increase in regeneration delay, longer rotations Is the assumption of a 2-year regeneration delay still valid when the leading inventory species has changed since the stand was last assessed? Managed stand productivity assumptions Strathcona TSR (2004)

33

34 4. Modeled stands not being realized? B. Wadey Percent damage by tree layer in a sample stand in DCO Percent % Damage Total trees total trees 0 0 Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Total

35 4. Modeled stands not being realized? SDM Pilot DCO Percentage of WS trees that are L1 (>12.5 cm dbh) B A A 31 15A Green Glow = Spaced Blue Glow = planted to 2000 stems/ha or greater B. Wadey

36 5. Carbon sequestration less than expected? P. Barolet

37 5. Carbon sequestration from managed stands less than expected? Examples of projected increases in harvest volumes at age 100, based on conversion from unmanaged to managed stand yields tables (C. Mulvihill) % Cranbrook Invermere Kootenay Golden Boundary Kamloops Mackenzie Timber Supply Areas

38 Free to grow or free to fail? Emerging science raises questions about health of our future forests Ben Parfitt Jan 31, 2011

39 Response to the Parfitt article Mike Wyeth // Feb 5, 2011 at 4:23 pm I was very interested to read this article. The comments that free growing is an inappropriate standard are correct Dirk Brinkman // Feb 6, 2011 at 11:38 pm Mike, so good to hear you join the chorus. You may remember that when we were negotiating the reforestation regulation, I conceded to the interim free-growing goal-post on the understanding that full rotation management would naturally follow in 12 to 15 years after demonstration of free growing success. What has gone off the rails is the accelerated effect of climate change, and the premature demise of the forest sector.

40 K. Hardy Inadequate reforestation goes from bad to worse Anthony Britneff, Special to the Sun February 3, 2011 British Columbia is blessed by nature with a vast, ecologically rich forest estate that also has been a source of sustained economic wealth for more than a century. But today there are troubling signs...

41 The good news! AAC Rationale for Prince George TSA, January 15, 2011 Results from the sensitivity analysis based on the preliminary SDM value of 850 sph indicate that the harvest levels projected in the fourth and fifth decades may be overestimated by about 11 percent and nine percent, respectively. However, there is still insufficient SDM data specific to the Prince George TSA to conclusively determine whether the stand densities assumed in the analysis were appropriate. J. Snetsinger, Chief Forester

42 The good news! AAC Rationale for Prince George TSA, January In consideration of the results from the sensitivity analysis and the preliminary results of SDM that indicate that stand development densities are likely lower than those used in the analysis, I conclude that the mid-term timber supply projected in the reference forecast has been overestimated by a significant, but unquantified amount, as noted in Reasons for Decision. In preparation for the next AAC determination, I instruct district staff to continue monitoring the performance of managed stands and I have issued an instruction to this effect in Implementation J. Snetsinger, Chief Forester

43 SDM in /22

44 Acknowledgements: Frank Barber, FREP Paul Barolet, North Island FD Wendy Bergerud, Research Branch* Peter Bradford, FREP Kevin Hardy, FAIB Erin Havard, Skeena MNRO Susan Hoyles, Omenica MNRO Chris Mulvihill, FAIB Barb Wadey, Columbia FD Stefan Zeglen, Coast MNRO Thanks for your attention!!