Type II Silviculture Strategy TFL 35 Jamieson Block

Transcription

1 Type II Silviculture Strategy TFL 35 Jamieson Block Prepared for Jamie Skinner Weyerhaeuser, Kamloops Project: BC th Avenue, Kamloops, British Columbia V2C 3N3 Phone: ; Fax: ;

2

3 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page i Executive Summary Mountain pine beetle (MPB) has decimated the Jamieson Block of TFL 35 over the past 6 years. In addition, the McLure Fire damaged or destroyed over 2,700 ha of forest in the northeast corner of the TFL in In March of 2004, the current allowable annual cut of 125,600 m 3 was increased for a maximum of 5 years to 325,600 m 3 to address these issues. This Type II Silviculture Strategy was initiated to identify and support strategic silviculture activities and investments that may mitigate the anticipated falldown in timber supply and wildlife habitat when salvage is completed. A new base case was determined at the initial meeting with Weyerhaeuser staff that incorporated recent salvage harvesting and anticipated mortality of the remaining Pl. The Type II base case was 34% lower than the MP 9 base case for the first 80 years (short-term) and 15% higher for the remainder of the planning horizon (long-term). Ten scenarios were run to determine the impacts of different strategies on the short- and long-term harvest flows. Many of these were also run at different minimum harvest volumes. The important highlights from the scenario analyses include: Increased future stand yields have little or no impact in the short-term harvest flow; The only option that shows a significant increase in short-term harvest flow is reduced minimum harvest volumes; Stand rehabilitation alone shows a minor increase in short-term and significant increases in longterm harvest flow; The highest short-term harvest flow gains are realized with a combination of rehabilitation and reduced minimum harvest volumes; Late rotation fertilization has no impact on the harvest flow; A strategy to reduce risk by increasing species diversity has a negative long-term impact on the harvest flow; A maximum yield scenario shows only small long-term gains to the harvest flow. A second meeting was held with Weyerhaeuser and Ministry of Forests and Range staff to discuss the scenario results and define a preferred silviculture strategy. The preferred strategy incorporates: Minimum harvest volume of 50m 3 /ha for all existing stands with a pine component; Minimum harvest volume of 150m 3 /ha for all other existing stands and all future stands; A $1 million per year program for 10 years to rehabilitate post-mpb stands and balsam leading stands in the McLure Fire. The preferred silviculture strategy resulted in a harvest flow that was 22% higher than the base case in the short-term and 20% higher in the long-term. A spatial analysis was competed for the base case and the preferred strategy. The results show a 12.9% decrease from the base case and a 15.8% decrease for the preferred scenario over the predicted harvest flow. These reductions result from applying spatial constraints to the non-spatial Woodstock results.

4 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page ii

5 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page iii Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND PROJECT OBJECTIVE REPORT OBJECTIVE TERMS OF REFERENCE DOCUMENT OVERVIEW BACKGROUND STUDY AREA SPECIES COMPOSITION AGE CLASSES SITE INDEX HISTORIC AAC RECENT ISSUES INCREMENTAL SILVICULTURE HISTORY FOREST HEALTH WILDLIFE ISSUES FERTILIZATION CLIMATE CHANGE MCLURE FIRE SILVICULTURE STRATEGY INCORPORATION OF COMPLETED PROJECTS RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES BASE CASE TYPE II BASE CASE (REVISED BASE CASE) FOREST-LEVEL SCENARIOS OVERVIEW SCENARIO RESULTS HABITAT SUPPLY SCENARIO SUMMARY STAND-LEVEL SCENARIOS BL-LEADING STANDS IN THE MCLURE FIRE HIGH ELEVATION FERTILIZATION PREFERRED SILVICULTURE STRATEGY SPATIAL ANALYSIS DESCRIPTION BASE CASE PREFERRED SILVICULTURE STRATEGY DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TIMBER SUPPLY APPENDIX I. INGRESS STUDIES APPENDIX II. SILVICULTURAL STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE APPENDIX III. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM AAC DETERMINATIONS AND OTHER SOURCES APPENDIX IV. PRELIMINARY MEETING JULY 26, APPENDIX V. SECOND MEETING APPENDIX VI. HARVEST FORECASTS FOR SCENARIOS APPENDIX VII. MAPS FROM SPATIAL ANALYSIS... 73

6 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page iv List of Tables Table 1. Potential fertilization opportunities...8 Table summary of area in TFL 35 within the McLure Fire....9 Table 3. Summary of projects to be incorporated into the silviculture strategy....9 Table 4. Type II base case compared to MP 9 harvest flow...12 Table 5. Summary of results compared to the base case Table 6. Summary of the scenario 1 pine minimum harvest volume of 100m³/ha results compared to all other scenarios run at a minimum harvest volume 100 m 3 /ha (incremental gains)...16 Table 7. Summary of the scenario 1 pine minimum harvest volume of 50m³/ha results compared to all other scenarios run at a minimum harvest volume 50 m 3 /ha (incremental gains) Table 8. Spatial analysis parameters - Base Case...34 Table 9. Spatial analysis results - base case Table 10. Spatial analysis parameters - Preferred Silviculture Strategy...37 Table 11. Spatial analysis results - Preferred Silviculture Strategy Table 12. Area Treated - Preferred Silviculture Strategy...40 Table 13. Summary of harvest levels relative to the base case Table 14. Harvest forecast Scenario 1 - reduced operability limits for post-mpb stands...58 Table 15 Harvest forecast Scenario 2 - reduced minimum harvest volumes for all stands...59 Table 16. Harvest forecast Scenario 3A - $ 100K/yr rehabilitation of MPB-killed stands...60 Table 17. Harvest forecast Scenario 3B -$ 200K/yr rehabilitation of MPB-killed stands...61 Table 18. Harvest forecast Scenario 4 - maximum late rotation fertilization of existing stands...62 Table 19. Harvest forecast Scenario 5 - maximum yield excluding rehabilitation...63 Table 20. Harvest forecast Scenario 6 - risk reduction...64 Table 21. Harvest forecast Scenario 7 - no genetic gain...65 Table 22. Harvest forecast Scenario 8 - McLure fire rehabilitation...66 Table 23. Harvest forecast Scenario 9 - maximum rehabilitation...67 Table 24. Harvest forecast Scenario 10 - reduced habitat constraints...68 Table 25. Harvest forecast Preferred Strategy Harvest Flow 1 one step up...69 Table 26. Harvest forecast Preferred Strategy Harvest Flow 2 non-declining yield...70 Table 27. Harvest forecast Preferred Strategy Harvest Flow 3 even flow...71 List of Figures Figure 1. CP 36-1 located at 21 km on Wentworth Forest Service Road....2 Figure 2. THLB area (ha) by BEC subzone...3 Figure 3. THLB area (ha) by leading species...3 Figure 4. Area (ha) by age....4 Figure 5. THLB area (ha) by age class in pine leading stands...4 Figure 6. Surveying the McLure Fire in Figure 7. Planted Pl tree attacked by MPB....6 Figure 8. Type II base case compared to MP 9 harvest flow Figure 9. Operable and available growing stock - Type II base case...13 Figure 10. Existing and future operable growing stock - Type II base case...13 Figure 11. Average harvest age and average volume harvested - Type II base case...14 Figure 12. Area harvested in existing and future stands - Type II base case...14

7 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page v Figure 13. Existing natural Bl yields and future planted Pl yields on the McLure Fire Figure 14. Spatial analysis results - base case Figure 15. Harvest area by cut block size class - base case...35 Figure 16. Number of blocks by cut block size class - base case Figure 17. Cut block statistics by harvest period - base case Figure 18. Spatial analysis results - Preferred Silviculture Strategy...37 Figure 19. Harvest area by cut block size class - Preferred Silviculture Strategy Figure 20. Number of harvest blocks by cut block size class - Preferred Silviculture Strategy Figure 21. Cut block statistics by harvest period - Preferred Silviculture Strategy Figure 22. Area Treated - Preferred Silviculture Strategy Figure 23. Rehab area by block size class - Preferred Silviculture Strategy Figure 24. Number of rehab. blocks by size class - Preferred Silviculture Strategy Figure 25. Rehab block statistics by period - Preferred Silviculture Strategy Figure 26. Comparing Ingress patterns between three of the destructively sampled PHR stands, vs. the TASS default ingress distribution Figure 27. A comparison of future TASS merchantable volume estimates between the four destructively sampled ingress stands, vs. the TASS default ingress distribution Figure 28. Comparing ingress patterns generated from modified silviculture survey data, averaged from SMR=4 sites surveyed by BGC subzone...45 Figure 29. Comparing ingress patterns generate from modified silviculture survey data, averaged from all stands surveyed by BGC subzone....45

8 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page vi

9 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page BACKGROUND 1. INTRODUCTION The development of Type I and II silviculture strategies began in the late 1990 s and strategies have been developed for a number of management units across the Province. The primary objective of these strategies is to identify means of improving the quality and quantity of timber and habitat through a strategic, forest level assessment of the impacts of various silviculture investments. Initially these strategies were developed to mitigate projected Provincial reductions in timber supply through incremental silviculture investment. However, more recently these strategies have been more specifically focused on the mitigation of impact of the mountain pine beetle (MPB) on timber supply. MPB has been attacking the Jamieson block of TFL 35 1 for several years, and an increased annual allowable cut (AAC) level is now in place to harvest the attacked lodgepole pine (Pl) stands. A significant reduction in AAC is expected following MPB harvests. Accordingly, this Type II project will be completed in order to estimate the magnitude of the AAC reduction due to MPB and to identify potential opportunities to mitigate this reduction. 1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVE The objective of this project is to identify and support strategic silviculture activities and investments that are practical and effective in mitigating timber supply and habitat objectives. 1.3 REPORT OBJECTIVE The objective of this report is to present and interpret the results of the Type II silviculture analysis scenarios conducted during this project. A separate data package report provides information on the land base, net downs, analysis units, management and growth and yield assumptions used in the timber supply analysis TERMS OF REFERENCE This project was completed for Jamie Skinner RPF of Weyerhaeuser, Kamloops Division. Work on this project was completed by Mary Lester RPF, Craig Mistal MPM RPF, Ian Cameron MF RPF, Eleanor McWilliams MSc RPF, Dan Turner RPF, Rene DeJong RPF, Jay Greenfield RPF, Lisa Trask and Bruce McClymont RPF of Timberline Natural Resource Group. This project was funded through the Forest Investment Account. 1 TFL 15 and 35 were merged effective July 14, The resulting unit is known as TFL 35, and the old management units are known as the Jamieson (TFL 35) and Inkaneep (TFL 15) blocks. The Type II will be completed as 2 separate projects with timber supply analysis and reporting separate for each block. 2 Type II Silviculture Strategy, TFL 35 Jamieson Block, Data Package (TNRG 2008)

10 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page DOCUMENT OVERVIEW The main sections of this report are: 1. Background (Section 2) Background on the Jamieson Block, information on the McLure Fire strategy, incorporation of completed projects, opportunities for fertilization, climate change implications, recommendations from AAC Determinations and other sources. 2. Base Case (Section 3) details and discussion 3. Forest-level Scenarios (Section 4) results and discussion 4. Stand-level Scenarios (Section 5) results and discussion 5. Preferred Silviculture Strategy (Section 6) results and discussion 6. Spatial Analysis (Section 7) results and discussion 7. Discussion and Recommendations (Section 8) discussion Figure 1. CP 36-1 located at 21 km on Wentworth Forest Service Road.

11 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 3 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 STUDY AREA The Jamieson Block of TFL 35 is located 30 kilometres north of the City of Kamloops in the Kamloops Forest District. This was the original block of TFL 35 prior to the amalgamation with TFL 15. This license has been held by Weyerhaeuser since The Jamieson block is 36,564 ha in size of which 31,394 ha form the long-term timber harvesting land base (THLB). This block is characterized by mid-elevation plateaus and gently rolling slopes. It includes numerous small waterways and lakes including Jamieson Creek, which runs in a general northwest to southeast direction through the TFL. The MSdm2 and the ESSFdc2 are the two most important BEC sub-zones on the Jamieson block and comprise over 87% of the THLB (Figure 2). 2.2 SPECIES COMPOSITION The primary commercial tree species on the Jamieson block are lodgepole pine (Pl) and spruce (Sx) with Douglas-fir (Fd) and sub-alpine fir (Bl) as secondary species (Figure 3). 20,000 12,000 Area (ha) 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Blank IDFxh2 ICHmk2 IDFdk2 ESSFxc ESSFdc2 MSdm2 Area (ha) 8,000 4,000 0 Other Blank Ac Fd Bl Sw Pl BEC Subzone Leading species Figure 2. THLB area (ha) by BEC subzone. Figure 3. THLB area (ha) by leading species. 2.3 AGE CLASSES Within the TFL there is significant area in stands under age 5 years (Figure 4) reflecting the increased cut to address past and present MPB infestations and all predicted mortality from MPB. Figure 5 provides a breakdown of the age class distribution for Pl-leading stands and shows that over 63% of Pl-leading stands are in age class 1. The area of leading Pl stands age 40 and older has decreased significantly since Management Plan (MP) 9 due to MPB harvesting and unsalvaged mortality.

12 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 4 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 Area 5,000 4,000 Non-THLB THLB 3,000 2,000 1, Figure 4. Area (ha) by age Age ,500 3,000 2,500 THLB (ha) 2,000 1,500 1, Age Figure 5. THLB area (ha) by age class in pine leading stands.

13 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page SITE INDEX A site index adjustment project completed in resulted in an overall average potential site index (PSI) of 19.3 m for lodgepole pine, 20.0 m for spruce, 18.9 m for fir and 20.0 m for Douglas-fir. These improved site index estimates were used in MP 9 and were accepted by the Chief Forester. 2.5 HISTORIC AAC The AAC fluctuated between 99,109 and 83,600 m 3 until 1992 when it was raised to 125,600 in recognition of specific management commitments made by the licensee. In March of 2004, the AAC was further increased to 325,600 m 3 to facilitate increased harvesting and to minimize losses due to the McLure Fire in 2003 and the current MPB infestation. 2.6 RECENT ISSUES MPB decimated the Jamieson block of TFL 35 over the past 6 years. The AAC rationale from estimated that over 35% of the total volume within the THLB was in mixed-pl stands over age 60. At that time, it was estimated that approximately 1.1 million cubic metres of Pl within the TFL was susceptible to MPB. The McLure Fire also damaged or destroyed over 2,700 ha of forest in the northeast corner of the TFL. Over 1,100 ha of the fire were harvested but there are still approximately 800 ha that are not satisfactorily restocked and another 108 ha of mature stands that were not salvaged (Figure 6). In March of 2004, the AAC of the TFL was increased by 159% for a maximum of 5 years, to allow increased salvage harvesting of firedamaged and beetle-infested stands. Most of this salvage has been completed and the base case for the Type II includes all salvage harvesting to date and also models mortality of 50% of Pl in all age class 2 stands and 100% mortality of all any remaining Pl in stands age classes 3 and older. Figure 6. Surveying the McLure Fire in J.S. Thrower & Associates Site Index Adjustments using BEC Classification on TFL 35. Project WCK-054 completed for Weyerhaeuser, Kamloops Division. 4 British Columbia Ministry of Forests Tree Farm Licence 35. Rationale for Allowable Annual Cut (AAC) Determination Effective March 1, 2004.

14 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page INCREMENTAL SILVICULTURE HISTORY Other than a small amount of money spent on surveys on the McLure Fire, in recent years there has not been an intensive silviculture program on this block of the TFL. No incremental activities were included in the most recent AAC determination. 2.8 FOREST HEALTH Janice Hodge from JCH Forest Pest Management was not be able to attend the preliminary meeting but provided the following comments that should be considered in the Type II strategy 5. The one point that I would like to stress is that MPB impacts/losses in the young Pl stands will become a big issue, particularly in the original TFL 35 block (Figure 7). The long distance dispersal/ chance factor is something we can't even begin to quantify. I would highly recommend that once the beetle has peaked in both 15 and 35 (it may have peaked last year for 35 and not for a few years on 15) that some sort of young pine impact assessment be completed. TSR may have to be adjusted to reflect the losses in young pine. Western spruce budworm seems to be on the increase again which will affect portions of TFL 15 and possibly 35. Personally I think that the budworm is thinning out some of the overstocked L2-L4 layers. There is however potential for an increase in Douglas-fir beetle, during and after an outbreak event. Fir beetle is on the increase regionally. And then there's root disease, Armillaria and Phellinus in the Fdleading stands. Not too big an issue on 15 but not sure about 35. Forest health factors, other than MPB, are a going concern in young Pl. The usual suspects...dsc, DSG, IWP and DMP. Figure 7. Planted Pl tree attacked by MPB. 5 , Janice Hodge, July 13, 2007.

15 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page WILDLIFE ISSUES 6 Coarse filters (OGMA/WTP/RMZ retention, stand level biodiversity practices, patch size, etc) address most species except the following: Moose - LRMP species, incorporated into FSP, RMZ and forest cover constraints Mule Deer - LRMP species, incorporated into FSP, RMZ and forest cover constraints American Badger - IWMS species, draft WHA's created, restrictions on soil disturbance, road locations Other species outside of Jamieson block include Caribou, Flammulated Owl, Western Screech Owl, Lewis' Woodpecker and Spotted Bat FERTILIZATION Rob Brockley, Research Silviculturist, Forest Productivity at Kalamalka was unable to attend the preliminary meeting. However, he did provide the following recommendations 7 for ranking fertilization opportunities on the TFL based on the following criteria: 1) fertilization response potential based on research data or best guess, and 2) size of potential areas and suitable age classes. These are summarized in Table 1. Rob included these comments in summary: Overall, the relatively small size of potential area for fertilization, and the likelihood that much of the potential area will not be suitable due to other constraints (density, stocking, health, access etc.), probably indicates limited potential for improving future timber supply by operational fertilization. In both blocks, Pl offers the best future potential for fertilization. However, the risks of fertilizing surviving young Pl stands in the future will depend on the persistence of the current MPB epidemic. 6 , Sean Curry, Weyerhaeuser, Kamloops, August 3, , Rob Brockley RPF, July 18, 2007.

16 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 8 Table 1. Potential fertilization opportunities. Rank Stand description 1 Pl in MSdm2, age classes 1 and 2 Potential area (ha) 8 Comments 3,835 data indicates good response potential delay fertilization until after the current MPB epidemic subsides 1 Fd in the ICHmk2 346 data indicates very good response potential 2 Sx in the ESSFdc2, age classes Pl in the ESSFdc2, age classes Fd in the MSdm2, age classes Fd in the IDFdk2, age classes Sx in the MSdm2, age classes 1-4 Total 9,324 very limited area on TFL limited data indicates good response potential 1,725 limited data indicates good response potential delay fertilization until after the current MPB epidemic subsides 1,168 no response data, but growth response potential probably not limited by moisture deficit 89 no response data, but growth response potential probably not limited by moisture deficit 1,563 no response data, but growth response potential may not be limited by moisture deficit 2.11 CLIMATE CHANGE Greg O Neill, Research Scientist at Kalamalka Research Station, has provided a PowerPoint presentation for the Type II meeting (Appendix II). Guillaume Therien from Timberline discussed a potential climate change scenario at the preliminary meeting MCLURE FIRE SILVICULTURE STRATEGY A Type I silviculture strategy has not been completed for the Jamieson Block of TFL 35. However, a plan for regenerating stands burned in the McLure Fire in 2003 was completed in The McLure fire burned 2,835 ha of the Jamieson block in August of Elevation of the burned area ranges from 900 to 1,500 m within the MSdm2 and ICHmk2 subzones and 95% of the area is within the THLB. Of this area, 1,087 ha are eligible for funding under FIA or Forests for Tomorrow. An update on proposed and completed work on this area was provided at the preliminary meeting (Table 2) 8 The potential area summary was generated from MP 9 data. More recent inventory summaries completed in this analysis identified a potential fertilization area of 13,641 ha. 9 J.S. Thrower & Associates Silviculture Strategy TFL McLure Fire. Project WCK-092 completed for Weyerhaeuser, Kamloops.

17 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 9 The burned area falls within the General Management zone and a Visual Landscape Management zone 10. Where possible, requirements under these zones were to be met in the unburned forest. In anticipation of continued mortality of stressed trees following the fire, monitoring of damaged live trees for bark beetles was recommended. High mortality of Bl was anticipated due to its thin bark. A trap tree program Table summary of area in TFL 35 within the McLure Fire. Funding Source / Responsibility was recommended if local build-up of Douglas-fir beetle was found. Status Immature NSR IA 1, S FS Total 1, The plan provided priorities for treatment: the youngest stands were considered the highest priority with ranking by potential site index. Stands suitable for salvage harvesting were also a high priority. Sub Total: 1, , ,727.2 Not logged (unburned MAT) Total of all areas: 2, INCORPORATION OF COMPLETED PROJECTS Many projects have been completed on both blocks of the TFL in the past 10 years. Results from some key projects are summarized in Table 3 and these will be incorporated into either the base case (e.g. site index adjustment, site code mapping) or scenarios in the silviculture strategy. Table 3. Summary of projects to be incorporated into the silviculture strategy. Project and date Results SIA TFL 35 Jamieson Block (February 2000) 11 Jamieson monitoring program (first remeasurement report 2002) 12 Jamieson mid-rotation survey (2004) 13 MPB impact study (2005) 14 Revised SI estimates were used in MP 9 and were confirmed in the monitoring program. 63 of 71 permanent sample plots were remeasured in These plots confirm SI, mean annual increment (MAI), volume, age, height and reflect MPB mortality. Information was used to update height, age, volume and SI for stands surveyed and to schedule any further stand treatments. For mature stands with less than 60% Pl in the inventory label, this 3 10 Zones are from the Kamloops LRMP (Kamloops Land and Resource Management Plan. July 1995) and District Manager orders under the Forest Practices Code (Ministry of Forests Forest Practices Code). 11 J.S. Thrower & Associates Site Index Adjustments using BEC Classification on TFL 35. Project WCK-054 completed for Weyerhaeuser, Kamloops Division. 12 J.S. Thrower & Associates TFL 35 Growth & Yield Monitoring Pilot Project: An Example Analysis of First Measurements Results. Project WCK-075 completed for Weyerhaeuser, Kamloops Division.

18 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 10 study estimates 75 m 3 /ha of Pl of which 49% was attacked by Maximum density/spacing in Pl (1998 to 2005) 15 High elevation Sx fertilization trial (2006) 16 Grant Creek spacing trial (2004) 17 Ingress Studies (ongoing) 18 Revised max density guidelines have been approved for the Inkaneep block. This will be incorporated into the timber supply. Results differ between Lumby and Kamloops; one scenario could look at the best-case results for reduced time to green-up Results between spaced and unspaced stands were not statistically different after 5 years. Recommendations are made for subzones and site series that may achieve acceptable stocking without planting. Details are included in Appendix I RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OTHER SOURCES Sean Curry RPF from Weyerhaeuser, Kamloops provided a summary of recommendations and solutions for issues raised in AAC determinations and from any other sources (Appendix III). 13 J.S. Thrower & Associates Operational Implementation of the Mid-Rotation Survey on TFL 35. Project WCK-089 completed for Weyerhaeuser, Kamloops Division. 14 J.S. Thrower & Associates A Pilot Test of Methods to Update the TFL 35 Inventory for MPB Losses in Mixed-Pl Stands: Year 2 Final Report. Project WCK-096 completed for Weyerhaeuser, Kamloops Division. 15 J.S. Thrower & Associates Impacts of Juvenile Spacing Lodgepole Pine on TFL 15. Project WCF-030 completed for Weyerhaeuser, Okanagan Falls Division. 16 J.S. Thrower & Associates Fertilizer Trial in High Elevation Spruce Plantations: Three-year Growth Response. Project WCF-046 completed for Weyerhaeuser, Okanagan Falls Division. 17 J.S. Thrower & Associates Grant Creek Juvenile Spacing Trial: Five-Year Remeasurement. Project WCM-023 completed for Weyerhaeuser, Princeton Division. 18 J.S. Thrower & Associates Pine Ingress Study Development of Decision Support Tools to Predict Ingress Patterns 2005 Preliminary Results. Project WCF-048 completed for Weyerhaeuser, Okanagan Falls Division.

19 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page TYPE II BASE CASE (REVISED BASE CASE) 3. BASE CASE A revised base case was developed based primarily on Management Plan 9 data and assumptions. These assumptions were updated to reflect changes in current management and / or legislation, new and improved data sources, recent harvesting, and the impacts of MPB. The Type II Base Case (or Revised Base Case) reflects the best estimate of the current timber supply for the Jamieson Block. All of the subsequent silviculture scenarios are compared to the Type II Base Case. Figure 8 and Table 4 compares the even-flow harvest from MP 9 to the Type II base case. The main differences between these projections are: The Type II incorporates mortality of unsalvaged pine (Data Package, Section 8.0); The Type II base case is allowed to step up after age 80 to capitalize on higher managed stand volumes; and The minimum harvest volume is 150 m 3 /ha for all stands in the Type II compared to more restrictive minimum harvest criteria in MP 9. These differences result in a 26% lower harvest in the short-term attributable primarily to increased harvesting since MP 9 and a significant loss of mature growing due to MPB. The Type II Base Case produces a long-term harvest level (LTHL) 17% higher than the MP 9 forecast. This is primarily due to the added flexibility in the Type II base case allowing the harvest to increase at year 85 as more productive managed stands become available for harvest. 160 Type II Base Case M P 9 Base Case 140 Harvest Volume (1,000 m3/yr) Years From Now Figure 8. Type II base case compared to MP 9 harvest flow.

20 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 12 Table 4. Type II base case compared to MP 9 harvest flow. Years From Now MP 9 Base Case % Difference % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % TOTAL 31,400 32, % Figure 9 shows the operable growing stock and available growing stock over the 250-year planning horizon. Operable growing stock is the total standing volume on the THLB while the available growing stock is the portion of this volume that is above the minimum harvest volume of 150m 3 /ha. The Base Case and all scenarios include the requirement to produce a sustainable growing stock level in the longterm. Figure 10 shows the portion of the operable growing stock found in existing and future stands.

21 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page Operable Growing Stock Available Growing Stock Growing Stock (100,000 m3) Years From Now Figure 9. Operable and available growing stock - Type II base case 35 Operable Growing Stock - Exisiting Stands Operable Growing Stock - Future Stands 30 Growing Stock (100,000 m3)) Years From Now Figure 10. Existing and future operable growing stock - Type II base case The average volume per hectare harvested and average harvest age are shown in Figure 11. Figure 12 shows the amount of area harvested in each five-year period from existing and future stands.

22 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page Average Harvest Age Average VPH Harvested 350 Average Harvest Age (Years) Average Harvest Volume (m3/ha) Years From Now - Figure 11. Average harvest age and average volume harvested - Type II base case 3,500 Future Stands Existing Stands 3,000 Harvest Area (ha/yr) 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, Years From Now Figure 12. Area harvested in existing and future stands - Type II base case

23 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page OVERVIEW 4. FOREST-LEVEL SCENARIOS The Type II examines many opportunities that were identified as having potential to maintain harvest levels for the Jamieson block. Details of the scenarios including objectives, the yield curves used, the resultant harvest flow and a discussion of the results are included in Section 4.2. The short- and longterm impacts of each scenario compared to the base case are summarized in Table 5. The short- and long-term impacts of each scenario run with a 100 m 3 /ha and 50 m 3 /ha minimum harvest volume are summarized Table 6 and Table 7. Table 5. Summary of results compared to the base case. Scenario Description Short-Term (1 to 80 yrs) Long-Term (81+ yrs) Total Base Case Base Case 92.6 A A A Scenario 1 Pine Min Harvest Volume (50m³/ha) 16% 16% 16% Pine Min Harvest Volume (100m³/ha) 9% 8% 8% Scenario 2 All Species Min Harvest Volume (50m³/ha) 17% 13% 14% All Species Min Harvest Volume (100m³/ha) 9% 8% 8% Scenario 3A MPB Rehab at $100K/yr for 50 years (50m³/ha) 20% 16% 17% MPB Rehab at $100K/yr for 50 years (100m³/ha) 11% 19% 17% MPB Rehab at $100K/yr for 50 years (150m³/ha) 2% 15% 12% Scenario 3B MPB Rehab at $200K/yr for 50 years (50m³/ha) 22% 16% 18% MPB Rehab at $200K/yr for 50 years (100m³/ha) 11% 21% 19% MPB Rehab at $200K/yr for 50 years (150m³/ha) 2% 21% 17% Scenario 4 Max. Late Rotation Fertilization 0% 0% 0% Scenario 5 Max Yield (50m³/ha) 15% 17% 17% Max Yield (100m³/ha) 6% 14% 12% Max Yield (150m³/ha) 0% 3% 3% Scenario 6 Risk Reduction (50m 3 /ha) 8% 8% 8% Risk Reduction (100m 3 /ha) 2% 0% 1% Risk Reduction (150m 3 /ha) -5% -6% -6% Scenario 7 No Genetic Gain -4% -6% -5% Scenario 8 McLure Fire Rehab ($100K/yr) 0% 1% 1% McLure Fire Rehab ($200K/yr) 0% 1% 1% Scenario 9 Maximum Rehab (50m 3 /ha) 26% 17% 19% Maximum Rehab (100m 3 /ha) 11% 22% 20% Maximum Rehab (150m 3 /ha) 2% 23% 18% Scenario 10 Reduced Habitat Constraints (150m 3 /ha) 1% -1% 0% A Average annual harvest in 1,000's m³

24 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 16 Table 6. Summary of the scenario 1 pine minimum harvest volume of 100m³/ha results compared to all other scenarios run at a minimum harvest volume 100 m 3 /ha (incremental gains). Scenario Description Short-Term (1 to 80 yrs) Long-Term (81+ yrs) Total Scenario 1 Pine Min Harvest Volume (100m³/ha) A A A Scenario 2 All Species Min Harvest Volume (100m³/ha) 0% 0% 0% Scenario 3A MPB Rehab at $100K/yr for 50 years (100m³/ha) 2% 11% 9% Scenario 3B MPB Rehab at $200K/yr for 50 years (100m³/ha) 2% 13% 11% Scenario 5 Max Yield (100m³/ha) -2% 6% 4% Scenario 6 Risk Reduction (100m 3 /ha) -7% -8% -7% Scenario 9 Maximum Rehab (100m 3 /ha) 2% 14% 12% A Average annual harvest in 1,000's m³ Table 7. Summary of the scenario 1 pine minimum harvest volume of 50m³/ha results compared to all other scenarios run at a minimum harvest volume 50 m 3 /ha (incremental gains). Scenario Description Short-Term (1 to 80 yrs) Long-Term (81+ yrs) Total Scenario 1 Pine Min Harvest Volume (50m³/ha) A A A Scenario 2 All Species Min Harvest Volume (50m³/ha) 1% -3% -2% Scenario 3A MPB Rehab at $100K/yr for 50 years (50m³/ha) 4% 0% 1% Scenario 3B MPB Rehab at $200K/yr for 50 years (50m³/ha) 6% 0% 2% Scenario 5 Max Yield (50m³/ha) -1% 1% 1% Scenario 6 Risk Reduction (50m 3 /ha) -8% -8% -8% Scenario 9 Maximum Rehab (50m 3 /ha) 10% 1% 3% A Average annual harvest in 1,000's m³

25 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page SCENARIO RESULTS Details of each scenario including a description, the yield curves used, the resultant harvest flow and a discussion of the results are included in the following section. The harvest flow diagram in each of the following scenarios compares the results to the base case (as summarized in Table 5). However, in some instances, the discussion in each scenario may investigate the incremental gains compared to the alternate minimum harvest volumes in scenario 1 (as summarize in Table 6 & Table 7). Appendix VI includes the harvest forecast tables for each scenario. Scenario 1. Reduced minimum harvest volumes for post-mpb stands. Description Yield curves In the base case, all Pl in age classes 3 and higher is killed. As well, all pine is killed in 50% of pine-leading stands in age class 2. Where pine is less than 100% of the stand, the remaining volume of other species is left for future harvests. Although harvest volumes in many of these stands may be very low, some stands will still have mature volume that may help to maintain short-term cutting levels. 30,210ha of the THLB had a pine component pre-mpb and are candidate stands in this scenario. The scenario was run with minimum harvest volumes of 100 and 50m 3 /ha. Yield curves will not change. Harvest Flow Harvest Volume Base Case Pine Merch. Limit (50m3/ha) Pine Merch. Limit (100m3/ha) Years From Now Discussion Reducing the minimum harvest volume to 100m 3 /ha shows a short-term increase of approximately 9% and a long-term increase of 8%. A further reduction of the minimum harvest volume to 50m 3 /ha increases the harvest flow by 16% over the base case for the entire planning horizon. The feasibility of these scenarios would be very dependent on markets.

26 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 18 Scenario 2. Reduced minimum harvest volumes for all stands Description Yield curves There is also an opportunity to reduce the minimum harvest volumes for all existing and future stands. This scenario was run in the anticipation of a significant shortterm falldown and looks at the option of harvesting some stands earlier in their rotation to move volume from the mid-term to the short-term as well as recovering some of the residual volume in mature, low-volume post-mpb stands. Yield curves will not change. Harvest Flow Harvest Volume Base Case All Merch Limit (50m3/ha) All Merch Limit (100m3/ha) Years From Now Discussion Reducing the minimum harvest volume to 100 m 3 /ha show a 9% increase in the short-term and an 8% increase in the long-term harvest. This is unchanged from scenario 1. Increases for the 50 m 3 /ha scenario are 17% in the short- and midterm and 13% in the long-term. This run provides a 1% increase in short-term harvest over scenario 1 but it is at the expense of the long-term which is 3% lower than the first scenario.

27 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 19 Scenario 3A. Rehabilitation of MPB-killed stands annual budget $100,000. Description Yield curves Over 30,000 ha of stands on the TFL have a Pl component and are available for harvest under the first two scenarios or for rehabilitation under this scenario. The scenario is run with an annual budget of $100,000 (71 ha/year) for 50 years. The projected cost of $1,400 per hectare includes site preparation, planting and surveys. Priority for rehabilitation will be the youngest stands with the highest % Pl. Stands will go onto the post-harvest regenerated (PHR) yield curve for the appropriate site series following rehabilitation. Harvest Flow Harvest Volume Base Case MPB Rehab 50m3/ha ($100K/yr) MPB Rehab 100m3/ha ($100K/yr) MPB Rehab 150m3/ha ($100K/yr) Years From Now Discussion Short- term effects of this scenario at a minimum harvest volume of 150 m 3 /ha are limited to 2% as there is little mature volume to support an allowable cut effect. The long-term effects however are significant with a 15% increase. The 50-year term of the rehabilitation is probably unrealistic but the impacts of a higher budget, shorterterm rehabilitation program should exceed the increases shown here. When this scenario is run at a minimum harvest volume of 100 m 3 /ha, it shows a small short-term incremental increase of 2%. However, the long-term incremental increase is significant at 11% for an annual budget of $100,000. The total impact (compared to the base case) is 11% in the short-term and 19% in the long-term. With a minimum harvest volume of 50 m 3 /ha, the incremental short-term increase over scenario 1 is 4% and there is no increase in the long-term. The total impact (compared to the base case) is 20% in the short-term and 16% in the long-term.

28 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 20 Scenario 3B. Rehabilitation of MPB-killed stands annual budget $200,000. Description Yield curves Over 30,000 ha of stands on the TFL have a Pl component and are available for harvest under the first two scenarios or for rehabilitation under this scenario. The scenario is run with an annual budget of $200,000 (142 ha/year) for 50 years. The projected cost of $1,400 per hectare includes site preparation, planting and surveys. Priority for rehabilitation will be the youngest stands with the highest % Pl. Stands will go onto the post-harvest regenerated (PHR) yield curve for the appropriate site series following rehabilitation Harvest flow Harvest Volume Base Case MPB Rehab 50m3/ha ($200K/yr) MPB Rehab 100m3/ha ($200K/yr) MPB Rehab 150m3/ha ($200K/yr) Years From Now Discussion When compared to the lower investment of $100K/yr (scenario 3A), compared to the base case, there is no increase in the short-term and a 6% increase in the longterm. The incremental increase compared to the lower investment, at a minimum harvest level 100 m 3 /ha, is zero in the short-term and 2% higher in the long-term. The incremental increase compared to the lower investment, at a minimum harvest level 50 m 3 /ha, is 2% in the short-term and zero in the long-term.

29 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 21 Scenario 4. Late-rotation fertilization of existing stands. Description There is a potential to fertilize 13,641 ha of existing stands on the TFL (Table 1). For each analysis unit, fertilization age is 10 years before they reach 150 m 3 /ha. Yield curves Use TIPSY defaults for fertilization. Harvest Flow Harvest Volume Base Case Max. Late Rot. Fert. (150m3/ha) Years From Now Discussion Despite having an area-weighted average yield that is 5m 3 /ha greater than the base case, this scenario shows no change in the short-term or long-term harvest levels. This is due to the limited opportunities for late-rotation fertilization. Additionally, the lack of flexibility in the short-term harvest schedule severely limits the allowable cut effect and the ability to realize any gains in the short-term.

30 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 22 Scenario 5. Maximum yield. Description Yield curves This scenario applies a combination of genetic gain, optimum establishment density, and late rotation fertilization for all existing and future stands. Optimum establishment densities range from 1,600 to 2,200 sph compared to 1,800 sph for most analysis units in the base case. The objective was to model the impacts of the highest anticipated yields for all stands in the THLB. This scenario was run at three minimum harvest volumes. Future stands TIPSY with optimum stand densities, genetic gain and late rotation fertilization on eligible stands (Table 1). Existing stands use the yield curves from the late rotation fertilization scenario. Harvest Flow Harvest Volume Base Case Max Yield (50m3/ha) Max Yield (100m3/ha) Max Yield (150m3/ha) Years From Now Discussion There was no change in the short-term harvest level from the base case for the 150m 3 /ha scenario. Once again, there is little mature volume available to support an allowable cut effect that would allow increases in the short-term. Long-term harvest levels were 3% higher. Compared to scenario 4, this shows that the gains are attributed to higher future stand yields, and not to late rotation fertilization. With a minimum harvest volume of 100 m 3 /ha, there is a short-term increase of 6% and an increase of 14% in the long-term. With a minimum harvest volume of 50 m 3 /ha, there is a short-term increase of 15% and an increase of 17% in the long-term.

31 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 23 Scenario 6. Risk Description The objective of this scenario was to modify future silviculture regimes to provide a more diverse and resilient forest by increasing the species diversity in planted regimes. This scenario was run at the three minimum harvest volumes. The following modifications were made to species composition for this scenario: If the secondary species was greater than 30%, the species composition was not changed Regimes with two species and ratios of 90:10 and 80:20 were changed to 50:50 Fd100 and Sx100 regimes were changed to 50:50 with Pl added as the second species Pl100 stands in the MS and ESSF were changed to Pl50Sx50 Pl100 stands in the ICH and IDF were changed to Pl50Fd50 Yield curves Changed future stand curves to increase species diversity Harvest Flow Harvest Volume Base Case Risk Reduction (50m3/ha) Risk Reduction (100m3/ha) Risk Reduction (150m3/ha) Years From Now Discussion A reduction in harvest flow was anticipated for this scenario as the culmination of mean annual increment for Pl is earlier than for Fd and Sx. There was no change in the short-term and a 13% decrease in the long-term when compared to the base case. Although this is a large reduction, in view of climate change and the MPB epidemic, this may be a small price to pay for a more resilient landbase. Comparisons to scenario 1 for 100 m 3 /ha show a 7% short-term reduction and an 8% long-term reduction. Comparisons to scenario 1 for 50 m 3 /ha show an 8% decrease for the entire planning horizon.

32 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 24 Scenario 7. No genetic gain Description Yield curves This scenario is run with no genetic gain. Intensive silviculture was not included in the base case. Base case yield curves with no genetic gain. Harvest Flow Harvest Volume Base Case No Genetic Gain Years From Now Discussion Removing genetic gain reduced the long-term harvest level by 6% and the overall harvest level by 5%. This is very close to the genetic gain of 5.4% for Pl and 5.7% for Sx that were applied in the base case.

33 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 25 Scenario 8. Rehabilitation and planting on the McLure Fire. Description Yield curves Approximately 230 ha of Bl-leading stands were established naturally following the McLure fire in The yield and the value of the products from these stands is expected to be considerably lower than if the stands were rehabilitated and planted. A graph comparing stand-level yields for the natural and planted stands is shown in Section 5.1. This scenario looks at rehabilitation of these areas where all stands are regenerated to the future yield curves for the site series on which they occur. The scenario is run for annual budgets of $100,000 and $200,000 per year. Use actual stocking numbers for the natural stands. Harvest Flow Harvest Volume Base Case McLure Fire rehab ($100K/yr) McLure Fire rehab ($200K/yr) Years From Now Discussion Although the area treated is small and the areas are already stocked, converting these stands from naturally regenerated Bl to planted Pl and Sx shows a 1% increase in the long-term harvest flow at both budgets. This scenario shows the importance of species in regenerating stands to future harvest levels. The same results would apply to natural regeneration of Bl/Sx mixes following MPB mortality but on a much larger scale.

34 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 26 Scenario 9. Maximum rehabilitation. Description Yield curves This scenario looks at the impacts of a maximum rehabilitation program. The scenario includes the rehabilitation of immature stands killed by MPB with no budget limitations. This scenario was also run at the three minimum harvest volumes. Stands will go onto the PHR yield curve for the appropriate site series following rehabilitation Harvest Flow Harvest Volume Base Case Maximum Rehab (50m3/ha) Maximum Rehab (100m3/ha) Maximum Rehab (150m3/ha) Years From Now Discussion When the model is not restricted by an annual budget, the majority of the rehabilitation occurs in the first 10 years. At the base case minimum harvest volume, this scenario rehabilitates 11,622 ha in the first 10 years at a cost of $16.3 million and results in a 2% short-term increase and a 23% long-term increase. With minimum harvest volume is reduced to the 100 m 3 /ha, the scenario rehabilitates 10,224 ha, at a cost of $14.3 million, and results in a 2% increase in the short-term and a 14% increase in the long-term when compared to scenario 1 (11% short-term and 22% long-term compared to the base case). With a further reduction in the minimum harvest volume to 50 m 3 /ha, 7,742 ha are rehabilitated at a cost of $10.8 million over the first 10 years. This results in a shortterm increase of 10% and a long-term increase of 1% compared to scenario 1 (26% short-term and 17% long-term compared to the base case). The 50 m 3 /ha scenario also shows a short-term increase of 4% and a long-term increase of 1% over the $200,000 annual budget in Scenario 4.

35 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 27 Scenario 10. Reduced habitat constraints. Description Yield curves This scenario looks at the sensitivity of the timber supply to habitat constraints by reducing the base case moose and mule deer constraints by 50%. This reduces habitat constraints on 1,700 ha of the THLB. No change to existing yield curves Harvest Flow Harvest Volume Base Case Reduced Habitat Constraints (150m3/ha) Years From Now Discussion The impacts of removing the habitat constraints are negligible, showing a 1% increase in the short-term and a 1% reduction in the long-term for no total impact on volume harvested. 4.3 HABITAT SUPPLY Some habitat values are not met at the start of the planning horizon, mainly because of salvage harvesting. The model does work toward meeting these goals and, as shown in Scenario 10, habitat is not constraining the timber supply. 4.4 SCENARIO SUMMARY The important highlights from the scenario analyses include: There appears to be no opportunity for an allowable cut effect because of the reduced inventory of mature volume due to MPB and a significant gap in the age class distribution between age 35 and 100. Increased future stand yields have little or no impact in the short-term. The only option that shows a significant increase in short-term harvest flow is reduced minimum harvest volumes on existing stands only or on existing and future stands.

36 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 28 Applying a reduced minimum harvest volume to all stands provides a small short-term increase at the expense of the long-term compared to reduced minimum harvest levels for existing stands only. Stand rehabilitation alone shows a minor increase in short-term harvest volumes over the base case but long-term harvest levels increase to 15 and 23% depending on budget levels. Late rotation fertilization has no impact on timber supply in either the short-term or the long-term. This is due to the limited opportunities for late-rotation fertilization. Additionally, the lack of flexibility in the short-term harvest schedule severely limits the allowable cut effect and the ability to realize any gains in the short-term. A strategy to reduce risk by increasing species diversity has a negative long-term impact. A combination of genetic gain, optimum establishment density, and late rotation fertilization (maximum yield) for all existing and future stands has a small long-term impact. The highest short-term gains are realized with a combination of rehabilitation and reduced minimum harvest volumes.

37 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page STAND-LEVEL SCENARIOS 5.1 BL-LEADING STANDS IN THE MCLURE FIRE Approximately 230 ha of Bl-leading stands were established naturally following the McLure fire in The yield and the value of the products from these stands are expected to be considerably lower than if the stands were rehabilitated and planted. Scenario 8 looks at rehabilitation of these areas where all stands are regenerated to the future yield curves for their site series. Figure 13 compares the yield from the naturally regenerated Bl-leading stands in blue with the future planted Pl yield curves in red. Even if the future curves are offset by the years between the fire and the time of rehabilitation, yields from the planted stands are considerably higher. These stands reach the minimum operable volume earlier and have higher mean annual increment at culmination, which is up to 30 years earlier. Net vol (m 3 /ha) Age Bl - existing Pl - future Figure 13. Existing natural Bl yields and future planted Pl yields on the McLure Fire. 5.2 HIGH ELEVATION FERTILIZATION A scenario was proposed based on a trial that showed reduced years to green-up in a fertilized high elevation spruce plantation. However, all of the future regimes for this subzone are Pl100. At a site index of 18, a Pl plantation will reach 3.0 m in height at age 12 compared to age 22 for a spruce plantation at the same site index 19. Because of this 10-year difference, there would be no advantage to changing regimes from Pl to Sx and fertilizing for a potential decrease of 1.5 years to green-up by fertilizing. 19 Ministry of Forests Age to Green-up Height: Using Regeneration Survey Data. FRBC. October 2000.

38 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page PREFERRED SILVICULTURE STRATEGY The preferred strategy was chosen at the second meeting. This strategy is a combination of Scenario 1 (reduced operability limits for residual stands) and Scenario 9 (maximum rehabilitation). The specifications are: Minimum harvest volume of 50m 3 /ha for all existing managed and existing natural stands with a pine component; Minimum harvest volume of 150m 3 /ha for the remaining existing stands and all future stands; Rehabilitation of post-mpb stands and balsam leading stands in the McLure Fire; Rehabilitation budget of $1,000,000 per year; Rehabilitation duration of 10 years; and Limitation of long-term harvest level to that of the base case plus ten percent with the intent of maximizing short-term improvements to timber supply (maximizing the allowable cut effect). 20 The reasons for choosing this scenario included: The only way to increase the short-term cut over the base case is to increase the harvest of existing stands. Although the post-mpb mature stands are low volume, many will still have mature volume that can be recovered. The reduced minimum harvest volume would show a commitment from the licensee to bring the residual mature stands back into productivity as soon as possible A large rehabilitation program maximizes long-term increases to the harvest flow. The combination of reduced minimum harvest volume and maximum rehabilitation has the highest short- and long-term impacts of any scenario. All three scenarios are required to meet or exceed the base case initial harvest level of 93,000m 3 /yr. The following describes the results of three different harvest flow variations of the Preferred Silviculture Strategy: One step up; Non-declining yield; and Even flow. 20 The impacts of this factor were tested on a number of scenarios. Limiting the long-term harvest level had no impact on the short-term harvest but did have an unnecessary reduction in the long-term harvest level. Therefore, this constraint was removed from the Preferred scenarios.

39 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 31 Preferred Strategy Harvest Flow 1. One step up. Description Yield curves Harvest Flow This scenario uses the base case harvest flow parameters, and thus allows for an even flow harvest with one step up after 80 years. Minimum operability is 50m 3 /ha for this scenario and includes rehabilitation treatments for the first 10 years up to $1 million / yr. Stands will go onto the PHR yield curve for the appropriate site series following rehabilitation Harvest Volume Base Case One Step Up Years From Now Discussion The short-term harvest level is 22% higher than the base case, while the long-term harvest level is 20% higher. Over the entire planning horizon, the total harvest level is 21% higher than the base case. In total, 5,842 ha are treated with total investment of $8.2 million over the first 10 years.

40 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 32 Preferred Strategy Harvest Flow 2. Non-declining yield. Description Yield curves Harvest Flow This scenario uses non-declining yield criteria for the first 80 years in place of the even flow requirement of the base case. An even flow long-term harvest level is still required. Stands will go onto the PHR yield curve for the appropriate site series following rehabilitation Harvest Volume Base Case Non-Decling Yield Years From Now Discussion The harvest level is 79% higher in the short-term and 12% higher in the long-term than the base case, while the non-declining yield requirement allows the harvest level to step up sooner than the base case. Even though the long-term harvest level is higher than the base case, it is 9%)lower than the long-term harvest level of the One Step Up scenario. Also, the short-term harvest level is 21% lower than the One Step Up scenario for the first 25 years. The average harvest flow in the first 80 years is 48% higher than the base case. Over the entire 250 years, the total harvest is 21% higher than the base case. In total, 7,143 ha are treated with total investment of $10 million over the first 10 years.

41 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 33 Preferred Strategy Harvest Flow 3. Even flow. Description This scenario also requires an even flow harvest forecast across the planning horizon with no opportunity to step up. Yield curves Harvest Flow Stands will go onto the PHR yield curve for the appropriate site series following rehabilitation Harvest Volume Base Case Even Flow Years From Now Discussion This scenario produces a harvest flow that is 22% higher in the short-term, which is equitable to the One Step Up scenario above. However, the long-term harvest level is 23% lower than the base case. Over the 250 year planning horizon the total harvest level is 13% lower than the base case. In total, 5,539 ha are treated with total investment of $7.8 million over the first 10 years. These three harvest flow variations provide an indication of the range of potential harvest levels attainable through the application of the Preferred Silviculture Strategy. Although the Non-Declining Yield scenario reached its long-term harvest level sooner, the One Step Up scenario has the highest short-term harvest level and higher overall harvest volume. Scenarios that limited the long-term harvest level with the objective of maximizing the short-term harvest level through the allowable cut affect had no impact on the short-term suggesting that the One Step Up scenario represents the highest possible non-declining shortterm harvest level.

42 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page DESCRIPTION 7. SPATIAL ANALYSIS Stanley, the spatial component of the Woodstock Stanley planning system, applies the Woodstock harvest forecasts to specific polygons on the land base. Stanley aggregates individual polygons into suitable harvest units (blocks) based on specified minimum, maximum and target block sizes. The model also enforces green-up and adjacency requirements as it schedules the harvest spatially. 7.2 BASE CASE A spatial analysis was conducted for the first 20 years of the base case harvest schedule according to the spatial parameters listed in Table 8. Figure 14 and Table 9 show the impact on timber supply of applying these spatial constraints to the non-spatial harvest schedule (Objective) from Woodstock. On average, harvest levels are reduced by 12.9% in consideration of these spatial requirements. Maps of the spatial analysis for both the base case and the preferred silviculture strategy are provided in Appendix VII. Table 8. Spatial analysis parameters - Base Case. Parameter Value Description Spatial Planning Horizon 20 years The length of time for which a spatial harvest and treatment schedule was generated. Adjacent distance 50 m The maximum distance between two polygons that can be considered part of the same block. Minimum block size 3 ha Minimum allowed cut block size. Any polygons that are smaller than this area that cannot be grouped with adjacent polygons are not harvestable. Proximal distance 100 m The minimum distance between two cut blocks that have not "greened-up". Greenup delay 10 years The length of time to achieve "green-up". Maximum opening size 40 ha The maximum allowed cut block size. Allow multi-period openings Yes Allow harvest activities to occur on the same block in multiple periods. Block size is still constrained by the maximum cut block size.

43 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 35 Annual Harvest 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10, Years From Now Objective Allocated Figure 14. Spatial analysis results - base case. Table 9. Spatial analysis results - base case. Years From Now Harvest Volume Objective (m 3 /yr) Harvest Volume Allocated (m 3 /yr) Percent 5 92,570 86, % 10 92,563 81, % 15 92,566 77, % 20 92,571 77, % Total 370, , % Figure 15, Figure 16 and Figure 17 show the distribution of cut block sizes generated through the planning horizon. Figure 15. Harvest area by cut block size class - base case.

44 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 36 Figure 16. Number of blocks by cut block size class - base case. Figure 17. Cut block statistics by harvest period - base case. 7.3 PREFERRED SILVICULTURE STRATEGY The spatial analysis for the Preferred Silviculture Strategy was conducted for the first 20 years according to the spatial parameters listed in Table 10. Additionally, rehabilitation treatments were limited to blocks greater than 3 ha with no maximum size limit. Figure 18 and Table 11 show the impact on timber supply of applying these spatial constraints to the non-spatial harvest schedule (Objective) from Woodstock. On average, harvest levels are reduced by 15.8% in consideration of these spatial requirements. In comparing these results the base case it is important to note that the overall harvest is higher even though the harvest reduction due to spatial constraints is higher.

45 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 37 Table 10. Spatial analysis parameters - Preferred Silviculture Strategy. Parameter Value Description Spatial Planning Horizon 20 years The length of time for which a spatial harvest and treatment schedule was generated. Adjacent distance 50 m The maximum distance between two polygons that can be considered part of the same block. Minimum block size 3 ha Minimum allowed cut block size. Any polygons that are smaller than this area that cannot be grouped with adjacent polygons are not harvestable. Proximal distance 100 m The minimum distance between two cut blocks that have not "greened-up". Greenup delay 10 years The length of time to achieve "green-up". Maximum opening size 40 ha The maximum allowed cut block size. Allow multi-period openings Yes Allow harvest activities to occur on the same block in multiple periods. Block size is still constrained by the maximum cut block size. 120,000 Annual Harvest (m3/yr) 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 Objective Allocated Years From Now Figure 18. Spatial analysis results - Preferred Silviculture Strategy.

46 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 38 Table 11. Spatial analysis results - Preferred Silviculture Strategy. Years From Now Harvest Volume Objective (m 3 /yr) Harvest Volume Allocated (m 3 /yr) Percent 5 113, , % , , % ,002 71, % , , % Total 452, , % Figure 19, Figure 20 and Figure 21 show the distribution of cut block sizes generated through the spatial planning horizon. Figure 19. Harvest area by cut block size class - Preferred Silviculture Strategy.

47 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 39 Figure 20. Number of harvest blocks by cut block size class - Preferred Silviculture Strategy. Figure 21. Cut block statistics by harvest period - Preferred Silviculture Strategy. Figure 22 and Table 12 show the proportion of the area scheduled for rehabilitation treatment that was actually scheduled spatially. The area that not treated could not be grouped into the minimum 3ha treatment unit. Figure 23, Figure 24 and Figure 25 show rehabilitation treatment area statistics.

48 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 40 4,000 3,500 Area Treated (ha) 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1, Objective Allocated Years From Now Figure 22. Area Treated - Preferred Silviculture Strategy. Table 12. Area Treated - Preferred Silviculture Strategy. Years From Now Rehab. Area Objective (ha) Rehab. Area Allocated (ha) Percent 5 3,571 3, % 10 2,271 2, % Total 5,842 5, % Figure 23. Rehab area by block size class - Preferred Silviculture Strategy.

49 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 41 Figure 24. Number of rehab. blocks by size class - Preferred Silviculture Strategy. Figure 25. Rehab block statistics by period - Preferred Silviculture Strategy.

50 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page TIMBER SUPPLY. 8. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Timber supply in the Jamieson Block of TFL 35 is limited by a significant gap in the age class distribution between age 35 and 100 years. Reductions to the mature growing stock brought about through MPB mortality and increased harvesting has eliminated much of the flexibility in the short-term harvest schedule and has removed any ability to buffer this age class gap using existing mature growing stock. Incremental silviculture generally focuses treatments on young and / or future managed stands with any increases in stand yield realized when the stand is harvested 60 to 80 years in the future. These treatments do little to affect the existing mature growing stock and aside from changing utilization specifications, there is very little that can be done to affect mature volume and improve short-term timber supply. Consequently, reductions to minimum utilization specifications from 150m 3 /ha to 100 m 3 /ha and 50 m 3 /ha have the most significant impact on timber supply in the short-term. Rehabilitation treatments are able to increase harvest volume in the mid-term (60 to 80 years in the future) but can do nothing to change the available volume 20 to 30 years from today. The Preferred Silviculture Strategy for the Jamieson Block utilizes a combination of reduced utilization specifications and intensive rehabilitation program to increase timber supply by up to 22% immediately 21 (Table 13). Rehabilitation treatments focus on stands in which significant volume has been lost due to MPB as well as residual unsalvaged stands from the McClure Fire. The amount of area treated ranges from 5,539 ha to 7,143 ha across the three Preferred Silviculture Strategy harvest flow scenarios with total rehabilitation investments ranging from $7.8 million and $10 million over a 10 year period. A spatial analysis conducted on both the base case and the Preferred Silviculture Strategy (One Step Up scenario) indicates that spatial constraints serve to reduce timber supply by up to 12.8% and 15.2% respectively. The accompanying maps for these scenarios demonstrate spatially the location and timing of both harvesting and rehabilitation treatments over the first 20 years. Table 13. Summary of harvest levels relative to the base case. Scenario Short-Term (1 to 80 years) Long-Term (81 to 250 years) Total Base Case One Step Up (150 m³/ha) 22% 21% 21% Non-Declining Yield (150 m³/ha) 48% 12% 21% Even Flow (150 m³/ha) 22% -23% -13% 21 The Non-Declining Yield scenario increases timber supply by 48% in the first 80 years but has no impact on timber supply until 35 years in the future.

51 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 43 APPENDIX I. INGRESS STUDIES Over the past 5 years, ingress data have been collected on the TFL. The results of these studies are summarized below. 1) Modeling Temporal Ingress Patterns The ingress patterns from a number of PHR stands destructively sampled (in 2001, 2002) were compared against the TASS default ingress model, to help evaluate the potential long-term impacts of modeling different ingress distribution patterns. 22 The site types were selected from PHR stands known to have naturally regenerated to high density Pli. Destructively sampled blocks included: CP MSdm1/04 CP MSdm1/04 CP MSdm2/01 CP MSxk/01 CP MSxk/05 The TASS comparison between all sampled blocks consistently showed that predicted merchantable volumes of naturally regenerated pine stands were overestimated from 2-4 % when using the TASS default ingress model, as opposed to using actual ingress data. A simple way to approximate this impact in TIPSY would be to shift the MSYTs using an additional regeneration delay of between 2-years. # total stems / ha 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% (MSdm1/04) (MSdm2/01) (MSxk/01) TASS Default Series Year Figure 26. Comparing Ingress patterns between three of the destructively sampled PHR stands, vs. the TASS default ingress distribution. 22 JST projects WCK-068, and WCM-020.

52 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 44 TASS Volume Comparison - CP TASS Volume Comparison - CP Merch Volume (m3/ha) CP573-5 tass default CP573-5 ingress data Merch Volume (m3/ha) CP573-5 tass default CP573-5 ingress data total Age (yrs) total Age (yrs) Figure 27. A comparison of future TASS merchantable volume estimates between the four destructively sampled ingress stands, vs. the TASS default ingress distribution. 2) Estimating the Proportion of Stands Regenerating Naturally Over a three-year period ( ), modified silviculture survey data were collected from 155 PHR stands on TFL 15, 35, and Forest Licences within the Kamloops, Merritt, and Okanagan Timber Supply Areas, to provide operational information on whether naturally regenerated PHR stands met MOFR stocking standards. 23 Height data collected from each tree/plot, and destructive tree data collected from each surveyed block were used to generate height and temporal ingress patterns for all surveyed stands. These stands covered a broad range generally within a soil moisture regime (SMR) range of 3 5. From each group of defined stand types, the proportion of stands (or probability) of meeting MOFR free-to-grow criteria for the natural ingress component, were computed. 23 JST projects WCK-090, WCF-041, WCF-048.

53 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 45 Zonal sites (SMR 4) 30% % total stems / ha 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% MSdm1/01 (n=25) MSdm2/01 (n=31) MSxk/01/06 (n=43) 0% Year Figure 28. Comparing ingress patterns generated from modified silviculture survey data, averaged from SMR=4 sites surveyed by BGC subzone. % total stems / ha 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% All sampled stands MSdm1/all (n=39) MSdm2/all (n=44) MSxk/all (n=58) 0% Year Figure 29. Comparing ingress patterns generate from modified silviculture survey data, averaged from all stands surveyed by BGC subzone. 3) Proposed Regen Assumptions for Pl Managed Stand Yield Tables (MSYT s) Proposed regen assumptions based on the previous ingress studies are listed by SMR, and also grouped for all SMR s sampled by subzone. Due to limited sample sizes, it may be more appropriate to use either just the zonal sites (SMR = 4) or all sites combined within each subzone. For example, Pli leading MSYT s in the MSdm1/01 would be assigned 90% natural regen and 10% planted (if meeting MSS is the basis). Establishment density for the natural component is 10,000 sph, with a regen delay increased by an additional 3 years from what is specified by Weyco. Establishment density for the planted component is 750 sph.

54 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 46 a b c d e f g h i subzone smr ss # sampled blocks % natural regen (based on blocks meeting MSS) % natural regen (based on blocks meeting TSS) Natural establishment density 24 Incremental regen delay for natural component Fill Plant density to meet TSS MSdm , , , , ,4,5 1,4,5, , MSdm , , , , ,4,5 1,4,5,6, , MSxk 4 1, , ,3,4, , , ,4,5 1,2,3,4,5,6, , a) Subzone BGC subzones sampled. b) SMR soil moisture regime sampled. c) SS equivalent site series sampled. d) # sampled blocks sample size by SMR e) % natural regen MSS proportion of blocks in the same SMR that have met minimum stocking standards for WST at free growing. Equivalent to % of MSYT assigned as natural regen (if natural regen success is based on achieving MSS). f) % natural regen TSS proportion of blocks in the same SMR that have met target stocking standards for WST at free growing. Equivalent to % of MSYT assigned as natural regen (if natural regen success is based on achieving TSS). g) Natural establishment density total number of natural stems. h) Incremental regen delay for naturals additional number of years to add to regen delay for natural MSYT s, to account for different ingress pattern as modeled in TIPSY. 24 For the MSdm1/01, natural establishment density averages 14,000 sph, and for the MSdm1/04, averages 31,000 sph. A cap of 10,000 sph is used, to avoid TIPSY modeled repression, which is considered not applicable in PHR naturally regenerated Pli leading stands.

55 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 47 i) Fill plant density to meet TSS number of stems to plant for those MSYTs assigned as planted regen, in order to meet target stocking standards for WST free growing. 4) Reference of Previous Ingress Projects Completed for Weyerhaeuser Project # Title Description WCK-068 Pli Ingress Sampling Pilot Project Year 1 1 st year intensive ingress project to quantify ingress patterns on two blocks (TFL 35: MSdm2-01, and TFL 15: MSdm1-04). Destructive sampling and stem analysis measurements completed for every tree/plot. Ingress patterns used in TASS simulations to compare observed ingress vs. TASS default ingress model. WCM-020 Pli Ingress Sampling Project Year 2 2 nd year intensive ingress project (expanding on WCK-068) to quantify ingress patterns on two blocks (TFL 15: MSdm1-04 with & without site prep, and Merritt TSA: MSxk-01, MSxk-05). WCK-090 WCF-041 WCF-048 Developing Ingress Decision Support Tools Year 1 Developing Ingress Decision Support Tools Year 2 Developing Ingress Decision Support Tools Year 3 1 st year extensive ingress project to quantify ingress patterns using modified silviculture surveys. Goal was to develop probabilities at meeting MOFR stocking standards within FTG window for ingress stand component. Height data collected from each tree/plot, and destructive samples collected from each surveyed block. Height growth models fit to each block using destructive samples, to generate height and temporal ingress patterns for all plots. Samples collected from Merritt, Okanagan, Kamloops TSAs, and TFL 15 and 35, in the MSdm1, MSdm2, and MSxk (SMR 3-5). 2 nd year extensive ingress project (expanding on WCK-090) to quantify ingress patterns using modified silviculture surveys. Samples collected from the MSdm1, MSdm2, MSxk, ESSFdc1, ESSFxc, IDFdm1, IDFdk2 (SMR 3-5). 3 rd year extensive ingress project (expanding on WCK-090 and WCF-041) to quantify ingress patterns using modified silviculture surveys. Samples collected from the MSdm2, MSxk, ESSFdc1, ESSFxc, IDFdk1, IDFdk2 (SMR 3-5).

56 Type II TFL 35 Jamieson Block Page 48 APPENDIX II. SILVICULTURAL STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE Greg O Neill July 2007 Global circulation models indicate that we can expect significant changes to climate in the next 80 years. In BC we can expect mean annual temperature to increase 3-4 degrees, with the largest changes in the most continental (interior and northern) regions. Mean annual precipitation is expected to increase slightly (5-20%), mostly on the coast. However, summer precipitation is expected to decline. When combined with increases in summer temperatures, this may result in a significant increase in droughts, fires and pests. While expected changes to annual temperature and precipitation are relatively small, the frequency of extreme climatic events is expected to increase substantially. (Slide 6) This slide (Andreas Hamann and Tongli Wang, Ecology 2006) shows projected changes to the climates represented by BC s BEC zones. Many climate changes have occurred throughout history, and invariably forests have few survived. However, to ensure that forests thrive and productivity impacts are minimized, it is necessary to be proactive in our reforestation strategy. (Slide 7) Long-term provenance tests are good climate change laboratories because trees from each climate are planted in a range of climates, including climates resembling those of the future. This slide shows a very typical response. Height of Pli trees from Fort St. John is less when planted at sites significantly warmer or colder than its origin. (Slides 8-9) As the climate changes, trees will become increasingly maladapted, resulting in reduced productivity from the combined impacts of unseasonal frosts, drought, stem defects, increased incidence of pest and pathogen damage, and reduced survival. Three possible silvicultural strategies emerge. Increase diversity in plantations (Slide 10) Increasing diversity is a commonly accepted approach to minimize risk in the face of uncertainty in many disciplines. Increasing the number of species and the number of seedlots of each species at the individual cutblock and the landscape level may help ensure that a crop is obtained and risk is buffered in an uncertain climatic future. Work is underway to assess the potential benefit of this strategy. There is a