amendment to volume ii - sakaw...2018/08/17 · renewing the forest. the 8 shareholders, also...

1

“OPERATIONAL REALITIES”

AMENDMENT TO VOLUME II OF THE

2018-2038 FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE PRINCE ALBERT FOREST MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT AREA

Draft for Initial Review

Submitted to Government of Saskatchewan

Forest Service Branch

August 17, 2018

Sakâw Askiy Management Inc.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... 4

2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 5

3 LEAVING PULPWOOD UNUTILIZED WHEN HARVESTING SOFTWOOD ................................. 6

4 LEAVING HARDWOOD STANDING IN AREAS HARVESTED FOR SOFTWOOD .......................... 7

4.1 Proposed Practices ............................................................................................................................... 7

4.1.1 Measures to avoid leaving excess hardwood standing in harvested areas: .................................. 7

4.1.2 Measures to limit the practice of leaving excess hardwood when it occurs ................................. 9

4.1.3 Harvest Implementation ................................................................................................................ 9 4.2 Sustainability ...................................................................................................................................... 10

4.2.1 Ecological Sustainability ............................................................................................................... 10

4.2.2 Economic and Social Sustainability .............................................................................................. 13

4.3 Learnings – Hardwood Retention Modeling ...................................................................................... 13 4.4 Operational Controls and Monitoring for Hardwood Retention ....................................................... 14

5 HARVESTING SOFTWOOD SAWLOGS TO A LARGER TOP (12.5 CM) ................................. 16

5.1 Proposed Practices ............................................................................................................................. 16

5.2 Sustainability ...................................................................................................................................... 16 5.2.1 Ecological Sustainability ............................................................................................................... 16

5.2.2 Economic and Social Sustainability .............................................................................................. 16

5.3 Learnings ............................................................................................................................................ 17

5.4 Operational Controls and Monitoring for 12.5 cm Tops.................................................................... 17 5.5 Renewal Fee Adjustment ................................................................................................................... 17

6 COMBINED SCENARIOS ....................................................................................... 18

6.1 Learnings ............................................................................................................................................ 18

6.2 Operational Controls and Monitoring for Combined Impacts ........................................................... 18 6.3 Annual Reporting to a Management Implementation Team ............................................................ 19

7 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ........................................................................................ 19

7.1 Materials ............................................................................................................................................ 20

7.2 Public Advisory Group (PAG) Meeting ............................................................................................... 20 7.3 Letter Campaign ................................................................................................................................. 20

7.4 Summary of Input and Responses ..................................................................................................... 20

8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................. 20

3

APPENDIX A – MODELING ASSUMPTIONS REPORT ......................................................... 22

APPENDIX B – MODELING RESULTS ............................................................................ 24

APPENDIX C – PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT MATERIALS ........................................................... 25

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Prince Albert Forest Management Agreement (PA FMA) area...................................................... 5

Figure 2 Blocks harvested for softwood in 2014, before and after harvest. ............................................... 8

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS CSG Cover Species Group

H Hardwood HS Hardwood/Softwood SH Softwood/Hardwood (SH) S Softwood

EMEND Ecosystem Management Emulating Natural Disturbance FMA Forest Management Agreement FMP Forest Management Plan FTG Free to Grow ha Hectare HVS Harvest Volume Schedule m Metre m3 Cubic Metre MGM Mixedwood Growth Model Km Kilometre PA FMA Prince Albert Forest Management Area PAG Public Advisory Groups PFMS Preferred Forest Management Scenario Sakâw Sakâw Askiy Management Inc. SGR Silviculture Ground Rules

DEFINITIONS Incidental Timber: Any timber harvested within a Planning Area to which the Party harvesting is not entitled (including, as applicable, incidental Hardwood, incidental Softwood and incidental Pulpwood) and which forms part of the Allocation of another Party. Excess Hardwood Retention: Retention of hardwood trees at a level that would exceed a total retention level of 15%.

4

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A 20-year Forest Management Plan (2018-2038 FMP) for the Prince Albert Forest Management (PA FMA) area came into effect on April 1, 2018. The FMP outlines broad forest management strategies that are implemented through the operating plans that are developed each year.

This document is an Amendment to Volume II of that FMP. It was written to address current operational realities that were not sufficiently addressed in the FMP itself:

- Pulpwood is largely unutilized when softwood sawlogs are harvested

- Hardwood trees are left standing in areas harvested for softwood, and

- Softwood sawlogs are harvested to a 12.5 top size (instead of a 10 cm top).

In response to concerns raised during the technical review of the FMP, various wood supply model runs were done for this Amendment to learn about the impacts of these operational realities on the sustainable wood supply. The learnings from that modeling work have been used in developing the practices, operational controls and monitoring proposed herein for dealing with these current utilization issues.

The desired outcome of this Amendment is a framework for managing sawlog and hardwood utilization issues that is ecologically appropriate and ensures the sustainability of the forest is not compromised, while providing flexibility in forest management planning and compliance to deal with changing market conditions.

Public engagement will be carried out to ensure that these realities and the proposed practices for addressing them are understood, and that all stakeholder issues can be heard, addressed, and accommodated to the best extent possible.

This version of the FMP Amendment will be updated with the results from that public engagement before a final version of it will be submitted for ministerial approval.

5

2 INTRODUCTION The Prince Albert Forest Management Agreement (PA FMA) area consists of 3,354,418 ha of provincial forest located north of Prince Albert in the heart of Saskatchewan, shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 Prince Albert Forest Management Agreement (PA FMA) area

Sakâw Askiy Management Inc. is a corporation that holds the PA FMA on behalf of a partnership of six forest companies with mills that use timber from the area, and two First Nations partners. These 8 shareholders hold softwood and hardwood allocations in operating zones within the FMA area, and carry out forestry operations that involve planning, harvesting timber, building and maintain roads, and renewing the forest. The 8 shareholders, also called allocation holders, are AC Forestry, Carrier Forest Products, Edgewood Forest Products, L&M Forest Products, Meadow Lake Mechanical Pulp Inc., Tolko Meadow Lake OSB Division, Montreal Lake Business Ventures L.P. and NorSask Forest Products L.P.

A 20-year Forest Management Plan (2018-2038 FMP) for the PA FMA area came into effect on April 1, 2018. The FMP outlines strategies that are implemented through operating plans developed each year.

This document is an Amendment to Volume II of the FMP. It was written to address current operational realities that were not sufficiently addressed in the FMP itself. Those realities are:

1. Pulpwood is Largely Unutilized when Harvesting Softwood Sawlogs

- Pulpwood supply currently exceeds demand in the PA FMA area due to the lack of an operating pulp mill. Post and rail producers, a pulpmill in The Pas MB, and a bioenergy plant take small amounts of pulpwood, but most pulpwood goes unused. Softwood operators require access to softwood sawlogs and thus often leave small diameter pulp logs within harvest areas unused when they are unable to find a market for them.

- This situation will persist until a large-scale small wood user (e.g. pulpmill, biomass energy plant) is active in the FMA area.

6

2. Leaving Hardwood Trees Standing in Areas Harvested for Softwood

- Hardwood supply currently exceeds demand in the FMA area which leads to limited markets for higher cost hardwood logs, typically those located on the east side of the FMA area. Softwood operators require access to the softwood located in mixedwood stands on the east side and thus propose to leave hardwood trees standing when they are unable to market the hardwood logs.

- This situation will persist for the balance of the current FMP term or until market demand for hardwood on the east side increases (e.g. existing OSB mills increase their requirements for hardwood or lose other supply sources, the pulp mill restarts, or new mills open).

3. Harvesting Softwood Sawlogs to a 12.5 cm Top Size

- The sawlog profile in Saskatchewan includes small trees with crooked tops (e.g. in BS/JP stands) that cannot be sawn into lumber. Existing pulp markets vary, depending on geographic location of a sawmill.

- Softwood operators propose to each have the ability to shift from utilizing trees down to a 10 cm top diameter (inside bark) to a 12.5cm top diameter (inside bark) on an annual basis in an effort to accommodate the lack of a pulp market. While this means that less of each tree is utilized for lumber, it improves sawmill production and lumber recovery.

- This situation will persist for the balance of the current FMP period or until market demand for small softwood pulp increases.

In response to concerns raised during the technical review of the FMP, various wood supply model runs were done to learn about the impacts of these operational realities on the sustainable wood supply. The scenarios modeled looked at the impacts of leaving hardwood unharvested, the impacts of moving to a 12.5 top size for sawlogs, and the impacts of both of those practices combined if they persisted for the term of the FMP (20 years) or the long-term (200 years).

It is important to note that some of the modeling assumptions used (such as current realities persisting for 200 years) are highly unlikely. In any given year, markets will fluctuate and mill configurations, and fiber sourcing from other tenure can influence these assumptions. Nonetheless, the modeling has provided valuable information for refining the practices dealing with the operational realities described above, and developing related operational controls and monitoring.

The desired outcome of this Amendment is a framework for managing sawlog and hardwood utilization issues that is ecologically appropriate and ensures the sustainability of the forest is not compromised, while providing flexibility in forest management planning and compliance to deal with changing market conditions.

3 LEAVING PULPWOOD UNUTILIZED WHEN HARVESTING SOFTWOOD In the FMP, at the provinces request, dedicated pulpwood stands were identified spatially and set aside for the Paper Excellence pulpmill located in Prince Albert. That mill is currently idled and has been for at least a decade. In light of having almost no market for small wood (pulpwood) in Saskatchewan, pulp volumes are largely being left unutilized within harvest blocks.

7

Those dedicated pulp stands were put back into the regular landbase and considered part of the planning inventory for every modeling run done in preparing this Amendment. The scenarios modeled for this Amendment do not include any dedicated pulp stands, and do not attempt to achieve any specific harvest volume targets for pulp. All scenarios simply tracked pulp output as an incidental byproduct of harvesting sawlog material.

When the FMP Preferred Management Strategy (PMS) is rerun without any requirements or objectives for pulpwood volume, a 10% increase in sawlog volume is seen because the previously dedicated pulpwood stands are now able to contribute their sawlog volume to the sawlog HVS.

4 LEAVING HARDWOOD STANDING IN AREAS HARVESTED FOR SOFTWOOD There are currently 2 mills with hardwood allocations on the PA FMA area (Tolko Meadow Lake OSB Division, Meadow Lake Mechanical Pulp). These mills have multiple options for sourcing hardwood logs, only one of which is the PA FMA area. Because of where these mills are located in the province, sourcing hardwood logs from the eastern part of the PA FMA area is generally a higher cost, less attractive option.

This has led to the current surplus of hardwood volume on the east side of the FMA area. If companies holding softwood allocations are precluded from leaving excess hardwood standing in softwood harvest areas where no market for incidental hardwood exists, they will not be able to access a significant portion of the softwood volume that has been allocated to them.

Leaving hardwood standing in some softwood harvest areas, as described below, is a practical, ecologically appropriate solution to this real-world situation.

4.1 PROPOSED PRACTICES A strategy was included in the 2018-2038 FMP to provide softwood allocation holders flexibility to leave incidental hardwood standing in areas being harvested for softwood when the hardwood allocation holder cannot use it, and no other market can be found. That strategy was not approved until the impacts of leaving excess hardwood standing on the sustainable wood supply, should that practice be carried out in perpetuity, were examined in this Amendment.

The following practices will be used to avoid leaving hardwood standing in the first place, limit the practice to specific stand conditions which ensure acceptable outcomes, and ensure better information is available for the next FMP.

4.1.1 Measures to avoid leaving excess hardwood standing in harvested areas: - The preparation of Sakâw’s Operating Plan for the PA FMA area will be coordinated to ensure that,

to the extent reasonable possible, incidental timber is being fully planned for utilization in a manner consistent with the requirements of Sakâw’s Operating Zone Agreement.

- Areas with high proportions of non-marketable hardwood will be deferred from harvest.

Where hardwood harvest is limited, blocks will be designed to exclude hardwood leading stand types (H/HS) that could reasonably be harvested in a separate entry in the current rotation, up until the time a harvest event is closed. The images in Figure 2 are examples of blocks harvested for

8

softwood in 2014, before and after harvest, where excess hardwood was left standing. They show that the planned block boundaries (on the left side) could have been drawn differently based on the actual harvest (on the right side), to leave H and HS stands around block edges for harvesting with adjacent hardwood stands.

Figure 2 Blocks harvested for softwood in 2014, before and after harvest. Block boundaries could have been drawn to leave H and HS stands around block edges to be harvested with adjacent hardwood stands. Ares outlined in white show where block boundaries and transitions between stand types have been adjusted.

9

- Harvest will be distributed spatially and by stand types using limits on the maximum harvest area by FMA zone/stand type over a 5-year period (FMP Indicator 24). This will ensure the appropriate stand profile is harvested over time and specific stand types or locations are not overharvested. Specifically, performance in JP/BS stands will ensure less hardwood is left standing.

4.1.2 Measures to limit the practice of leaving excess hardwood when it occurs

Excess hardwood retention (total retention exceeds 15% due to unharvested hardwood) is expected to occur on approximately 450 ha/yr on average, but may vary up to 1000 ha in a given year. Appendix A provides a description of how the 450 ha/yr was determined. These are largely S or SH-Spruce leading types as the inventory shows that the hardwood proportion in S-JP stands is almost always <10% (avg of 7%) and thus within standard retention levels.

- Before starting their own seasonal harvesting operations, allocation holders will confirm general intentions to use the Incidental Timber to which they are entitled. Specific blocks where excess hardwood will be retained will be reported in advance of harvest starting to the Forest Service, in the Integrated Harvest Schedule used for weekly activity reporting.

- Excess hardwood will only be left in the three economic zones on the east side of the PA FMA area that were used for the timber supply modeling (see Appendix A).

- Only softwood leading blocks (defined as containing >50% softwood) within the hardwood retention zones will be considered for hardwood retention. While these areas are softwood leading overall, they may contain S, SH, HS, H stands.

- The maximum amount of retention left within:

o Spruce leading blocks will not exceed 50% of the standing block volume (after excluding hardwood leading types >1ha).

o Pine leading blocks will not exceed 25% of standing block volume (after excluding hardwood leading types > 1ha).

Retention will be composed of 4% insular retention representative of the harvested timber (except where all jack pine is removed for mistletoe management considerations), plus 5% proximal retention that can be made up entirely of hardwood retention, plus excess hardwood retention.

4.1.3 Harvest Implementation

In blocks where excess hardwood is being left unutilized, the objective is to leave hardwood types of at least 1ha in size untouched, while harvesting softwood from the remainder of the block.

Leave hardwood:

- The excess hardwood being left standing may occur as scattered (disbursed) hardwood trees, small patches, or larger patches of H and HS types. Any patch over 1ha in size where hardwood is >60% of the standing volume will be left intact (machines will not enter except where an in-block haul road or access trail must be built through them).

10

- Harvest machine operators will stay out of hardwood patches > 1ha, but extract merchantable softwood from the stand transition boundary that is within reach without the machine entering the stand.

- Operators will be provided with maps highlighting the boundaries of such patches when identified on the inventory or in reconnaissance. Various tools can be used to identify the hardwood patches, including satellite or photo imagery, inventory information, drone footage, and reconnaissance information. The delineated boundaries will help guide the operators, however the transitional boundary decisions still need to be made by equipment operators on site. Operators may also identify patches during the harvest operations. Areas outlined in white in Figure 2 show adjustments to transition lines and boundaries made by harvest machine operators, based on what they found on the ground.

- Regeneration obligations will apply to the harvested portions of the block only and will be treated as per the SGRs outlined in the 2018-2038 FMP for the softwood stand types present. (i.e. planting at 1,200 stems per ha or scarifying/leave for natural).

Leave some felled incidental hardwood onsite

- Where hardwood trees are felled they are to be moved to roadside and hauled away, or if <10 stems/ha, processed and distributed back within the block such that regeneration success will not be impacted. Where it occurs, felling of hardwood will contribute to increase suckering and higher hardwood yields in the future.

- Hardwood trees felled for the construction of roads and trails may be left on site to contribute to downed woody debris. Such incidentals will be scattered randomly on-site so that regeneration success will not be impacted.

4.2 SUSTAINABILITY

4.2.1 Ecological Sustainability

Landscape ecologists have indicated that the most important thing to maintain biodiversity on a landscape is to ‘not do the same thing everywhere’1. The NFP strategy in the FMP targets a minimum of 9% retention in each event. Leaving extra hardwood retention will add diversity to the landbase. Dr. David Andison’s work with natural disturbance patterns in boreal forests shows that hardwood is often a remnant after fires occur - due to increased fire resistance - and that remnant amounts can vary widely.

Conifer regen under aspen overstories is a natural successional pattern that often occurs in boreal forests. The stand dynamics associated with mixed wood stands are being been studied in the EMEND (Ecosystem Management Emulating Natural Disturbance) project. This and other studies have shown that spruce regeneration improves when it occurs under retained aspen trees because of reduced aspen

1 Andison, David. Pers Comm with Cam Brown, Nov 2017.

11

suckering (i.e. reduced competition).2345678 In the proposed spruce leading hardwood retention (which will almost always be planted at 1200 sph), it is expected that the reduced competition from aspen will show similar improvement in spruce regeneration, although to be conservative no gains were modeled. Where hardwood retention occurs in JP stands (to a maximum of 25% retention) no improvement in growth rates is expected due to shading of this pioneer species, and potentially less effective scarification when going around dispersed hardwood trees. To be conservative a slight (10%) decrease in JP growth gains was modeled. Monitoring programs will be necessary to more fully understand the longer-term impacts on softwood regeneration in these stands.

The EMEND study showed that aspen suckering is significantly reduced9 when mature aspen trees are not cut (a 50-80% reduction). This will reduce the amount of hardwood in future stands unless additional suckering occurs as mature stems fall over in the years following harvesting. As aspen is a very resilient species, it is expected that this will occur. Monitoring programs will be necessary to more fully understand the longer-term impacts on hardwood regeneration in these stands.

An assessment of the risk to ecological targets in the approved FMP from the hardwood retention practice is provided below:

Retention (FMP Indicator 4)

- The target is to ensure a minimum of 9% retention is achieved in each harvested event.

- Leaving excess hardwood retention will not compromise this target, as it will only increase the retention levels.

Stand conversion (FMP Indicator 6)

- The target requires harvested proportions of H, HS, SH and S types should be the same as the regenerating proportions (significant stand type conversions are not occurring).

- Excess hardwood retention will only occur in softwood leading types (S/SH):

o S stands – any reduction in hardwood density in these stands types will not shift the stand type. Stands will remain as S stands.

o SH stands – the regeneration densities for hardwood assumed in the MGM runs were based on the EMEND study (% reduction in suckering) and professional opinion (Sakâw and Forest Service staff). The density reductions that were modeled appear to shift the stand to being on the

2 Stewart, James D. et. al. Spruce and aspen regeneration following variable retention harvests at EMEND. SFM Network Research Note Series

No 41. 2009. 3 Canadian Forest Service. Regeneration of White Spruce Under Aspen Canopies: Seeding, Planting, and Site Preparation. Western Journal of

Applied Forestry Vol. 15, No 4. October 2000. 4 Man, Rongzhou and Victor J Lieffers. Are mixtures of aspen and white spruce more productive than single species stands? The Forestry

Chronicle. Vol 75, No3. May/June 1999. 5 B.C. Ministry of Forests Research Program. Planting White Spruce under Trembling Aspen: 7-year Results of Seedling Condition and

Performance. Working Paper 54. 2000. 6 Kabzems, Richard et. al. Creating boreal mixedwoods by planting spruce under aspen: successful establishment in uncertain future climates.

Canadian Journal of Forest Research 46. 2016 7 MacPherson, Daniel N. Is growth of trembling aspen affected by white spruce understories in Alberta’s boreal mixedwood forests? Faculty of

Graduate Studies and Research, Dept of Renewable Resources. University of Albert. 2000 8 Lieffers, Victor J. et. al. Age structure and growth of understory white spruce under aspen. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 26. 1996. 9 Regeneration of Populus nine years after variable retention harvest in boreal mixedwood forests. Gradowski, T. et. al. Dept. of Renewable

Resources, University of Alberta. 2009.

12

border of S and SH at rotation based on the future stand type prediction tables found in the SGR’s (no future ingress assumed). Because of the lack of good information about hardwood regeneration outcomes in these treatment types, monitoring will be completed to better understand the likelihood of turning SH stands into S stands. This is a new concern, as experience has been that it is difficult to stop aspen from regenerating, and it is the softwood component of SH stands that is harder to regenerate. Modeling done for this Amendment showed that hardwood regeneration volume reductions do not exacerbate hardwood harvest levels in the long term. There is less regeneration, but that is not an issue if the demand for hardwood remains low in the future. If the practice only occurs for 20 years, there was negligible impact to long term harvest levels.

Successful regeneration (FMP Indicator 9)

- The target is to ensure harvested areas are successfully regenerated to acceptable stocking levels within established timeframes.

- Harvested areas where excess hardwood has been left will be planted at 1200 sph (primarily) or scarified (rarely), while some level of hardwood regeneration is also expected to occur. The expectation is that stands will regenerate at similar or better densities/growth rates than regular clearcut harvest areas. Jack pine stands will be monitored for any sign of regeneration failure, but it is not expected due to the low levels of hardwood expected to be in these stands.

Harvest distribution (FMP Indicator 24)

- This target ensures the sustainable harvest of specific stand types (H/HS, SH, S-BS/JP, S-WS/Other) within geographic divisions of the FMA area. Five-year maximum harvest areas, set by stand type and zone, ensure that a zone/stand type combination cannot be overharvested. Where limited harvesting occurs in a zone/stand type combination, it results in an effective reduction the volumes that can be harvested overall. The only way the full volumes will be available over the 5-year term is if the target harvest areas occur in each of the zone/stand type combinations.

- An adjustment of the planning units/zones used in the approved FMP for this Indicator is proposed (see section 4.4 below), to improve the linkage to the zones where excess hardwood retention can occur.

Harvest Levels (FMP Indicator 21)

- Counting retained hardwood volume in harvested blocks against the hardwood HVS ensures that hardwood is not overcut in the FMA area.

- Long term softwood volumes are expected to be similar or slightly lower due to the loss of access to some H/HS/S-JP stands on the east side of the FMA area and slightly reduced JP yields.

- Long term hardwood volumes are expected to decline due to reduced suckering when left unharvested. However, the volume is not required if demand remains suppressed, and this reduction is also expected to occur even if hardwood retention treatments do not occur because the stands would not get harvested at all (i.e. go through succession). The reduction in long term hardwood volume is not an issue if the demand for hardwood remains low in the future, and if it increases after 20 years, modeling shows the long-term impacts as negligible (1-2%).

13

- Available long-term hardwood harvest volumes will decline if hardwood demand remains low for extended periods of time, but a 20-year duration showed negligible impacts of 1-2%. This is predominately because uncut H/HS stands will age and naturally fall apart over time or be renewed through natural disturbance – creating stand cycles well in excess of culmination ages. The small areas of hardwood retention (estimated at 450 ha/yr on average) will have reduced hardwood volumes as well but this issue is dwarfed by the H/HS stand age issue. Note that because of the extended stand ages resulting from reduced harvesting, total hardwood growing stock on the landbase is considerably higher than what is forecast for the FMP scenario (i.e. full harvest). This increased hardwood growing stock offers considerable flexibility to increase the harvest of hardwood in the future.

Leaving felled hardwood onsite

- Hardwood trees felled for the construction of roads and trails may be left to contribute to downed woody debris, scattered randomly in a way that does not impede regeneration treatments.

- This can improve softwood regeneration (particularly for JP) by opening the canopy and increasing the amount of sunlight to the forest floor, and will increase aspen suckering.

4.2.2 Economic and Social Sustainability - Allowing excess hardwood to be left standing in S/SH harvest areas allows softwood mills to

continue to operate on the east side of the FMA area.

4.3 LEARNINGS – HARDWOOD RETENTION MODELING The modeling done to look at the impacts of leaving excess hardwood retention in softwood harvest areas on the east side of the PA FMA area, showed that:

For hardwood:

- The hardwood harvest falls by 36% in the short and long term, although this is because a management choice to not harvest the full sustainable HVS was built into the modeling assumptions.

- Reductions in the hardwood volume regenerating is not exacerbating (worsening) the hardwood harvest in long term. There may be less hardwood regeneration, but it is not needed under the assumption that the future demand for hardwood remains low. If the hardwood demand remains at the current level into the long term (650,000-700,000 m3/yr), there is an understanding that the amount of harvesting in the east would need to increase to offset the forecasted reductions in the west.

For softwood:

- The sustainable softwood sawlog harvest falls by 5% in the short and long term if hardwood harvest is 36% less than FMP levels, because operators cannot access the softwood in a portion of the H/HS/SH-JP stands on the east side of the FMA.

- The scale of excess hardwood retention (>15% total retention) expected by the model is 450 ha/yr – occurring almost exclusively in spruce leading S/SH stands. Excess retention was defined as >15%

14

total retention because Saskatchewan’s NFP guidelines10 suggest between 3 and 15% retention at the block level, with an overall weighted average of 9% at the event level.

o Modeled hardwood retention in S-JP types, which contain an average of 7% hardwood, did not count as excess hardwood retention

o Retention left in S-Spruce types, which contain an average of 9.6% hardwood, contributed 195 ha to the 450 ha of excess hardwood retention (The 195 ha is a subset of these types where hardwood is >15%).

o All the 255 ha of retention left in SH types, which contain an average of 36% hardwood, contributed to the 450 ha of excess hardwood retention

- Stands where excess hardwood is left are older, with more volume in the mid to long term. This is because the minimum merchantability standard of > 60m3/ha must be met with sawlog volume alone.

- Jack pine stands were modeled with slightly lower yield curves, but this impacts the long-term harvest in only a minor way.

- Softwood leading blocks with excess hardwood retention have less hardwood in them at the next rotation. However, at the forest level, reduced harvest area serves to maintains more hardwood and softwood growing stock on the landbase compared to the FMP scenario.

- Overall, the growing stock is higher for softwood and hardwood in the long-term and the harvest footprint is smaller (15,908 ha/yr vs 19,960 ha/yr).

4.4 OPERATIONAL CONTROLS AND MONITORING FOR HARDWOOD RETENTION The following controls will be used to ensure the practice of leaving excess hardwood standing, as described above, is being implemented as intended.

1. Coordinate planning and identify areas where hardwood will not be used.

2. Limit the practice to within the hardwood retention zone.

3. Limit the practice to softwood leading blocks with upper limits on the amount of retention that can be left (50% for Spruce leading, 25% for JP leading).

4. Patches at least 1ha in size that are hardwood leading (>60% hardwood) inside planned blocks will be left intact unless a road or trail needs to be built through them. Harvest contractors will be provided maps for guidance, but they will make decisions based on what is on the ground. Operators can extract softwood from stand transition boundaries within a block, if the harvesting machine does not enter the stand.

5. Blocks with hardwood retention treatments will be declared before harvest begins using the Integrated Harvest Schedule.

10 Natural Forest Patterns: An Approach to Emulating Natural Disturbances in Saskatchewan’s Provincial Forests. Draft Background Document.

June 2015

15

6. FMP Indicator 4 (amount/type of retention) will now include reporting on the types of retention occurring (patches vs dispersed, hardwood vs softwood) so a detailed record of this issue is captured in the annual reporting cycle. Stands of H/HS mapped in the inventory and falling in the block will not be counted as retention when assessing the maximum retention limits.

7. Excess hardwood retention (>15% of a block harvested for softwood) will be counted against the hardwood HVS targets.

8. Hardwood and softwood HVS’s will remain unchanged from FMP levels as the goal is to encourage as much hardwood harvest as possible (up to the HVS) and the impact on softwood harvest levels is better recognized using FMP Indicator 24 – Harvest Distribution. Modeling showed that the impact to softwood was largely realized from losing access to incidental volumes in H/HS stands, so underperforming on these area targets in Indicator 24 will ensure softwood harvest levels are in line with hardwood harvest levels. This approach is dynamic and sensitive to the actual level of hardwood harvest over time.

Indicator 24 will be updated to use geographic planning units that better capture the economic zones associated with hardwood retention (see map/table below).

5-year Maximum Harvest Areas

9. “Excess hardwood retention” will be added as a silviculture system for softwood leading types in FMP Silviculture Ground Rules for eligible stand types.

10. Information on whether significant stand type conversions are occurring when excess hardwood is retained in softwood leading harvest areas will be monitored in FMP Indicator 6. Blocks where excess hardwood retention has occurred will be flagged and have additional detail reported to show regenerating stem density information from FTG surveys broken down by retention levels at harvest.

11. FMP Indicator 9 will also have additional detail added to reporting that allows the regeneration success (stems/ha of hardwood and softwood) to be assessed at different retention levels.

12. The information tracked in FMP Indicator 9 will also be used to verify the growth and yield assumptions applied to areas of excess hardwood retention during the modeling, to better inform future FMPs.

16

5 HARVESTING SOFTWOOD SAWLOGS TO A LARGER TOP (12.5 CM)

5.1 PROPOSED PRACTICES The 2018-2038 FMP presents adjusted HVS estimates for a 12.5 cm top size to support decision making, recognizing that one or more softwood allocation holders in the FMA area may request to operate at that utilization standard in an Operating Plan submission. While a 12.5 cm top size means that less of each tree is utilized for sawlogs, it improves sawmill production and lumber recovery, particularly in stands with small trees and crooked tops, in areas where no pulp market exists. A more comprehensive analysis of a 12.5 cm top on the long-term wood supply was required through this FMP Amendment process.

The following practices around sawlog utilization are proposed.

- Softwood operators each have the ability to declare a utilization level (10 cm or 12.5 cm min top diameter inside bark) for a given year, given their access to a pulp market for that year.

- All softwood operators continuously work to find markets for the small material they cannot use. Wherever possible the additional small wood (pulp material) will be o Used as sawlogs where mill equipment allows o Marketed to third party operators for fence posts, rails etc. o Shipped as pulp material to available markets

- Consistent with current practice, pulp material that is not utilized will be left standing or piled at

roadside and burnt when conditions permit.

5.2 SUSTAINABILITY

5.2.1 Ecological Sustainability

Softwood allocation holders that have been approved to use a 12.5 cm top for a given year, will still be able to use sawlogs down to a 10 cm top size during that year if they are harvesting in stands with good sawlog material (straighter trees). This flexibility allows optimal use of the forest resource in the current circumstances, where there are limited markets for small softwood material. The use of a 12.5 cm top will help to distribute the harvest into more of the cover types (e.g. JP/BS) that have been less attractive for economic reasons.

5.2.2 Economic and Social Sustainability

Shifting from a 10 cm to a 12.5 cm top size will significantly improve sawmill production in several mills.

Allowing the utilization standard to vary by Sakaw shareholder provides flexibility that recognizes that shareholders have separate and varied businesses. Mill locations, sawmilling equipment, products made, the log profile in a given operating area, and access to markets for small wood are different for each business.

17

5.3 LEARNINGS The modeling done to look at the impacts of utilizing all sawlogs on the FMA to a 12.5 cm top in perpetuity, which is unlikely, showed that:

- Sawlog yields on a given hectare are reduced, and more of each stand is now pulp. This shift meant that 143,000 ha of the net landbase were now considered uneconomic to harvest for sawlogs.

- That shift of sawlog volume to pulp is less when harvested stands are older, taller, and larger in diameter. At a stand level, current operating plan blocks were shown to have a 14% reduction in sawlog volume.

- Sawlog flows decreased by 12% in the short term (older stands) and 19% in the long term (younger stands being harvested). The impacts on sawlog yields were partially offset by the removal of dedicated pulp stands/pulp targets.

- Hardwood flows were not impacted by a softwood utilization change.

5.4 OPERATIONAL CONTROLS AND MONITORING FOR 12.5 CM TOPS 1. Sawlog HVS (FMP PMS) remains at 1,265,000 m3/yr because it expresses the potential for the FMA if

all shareholders are using 10 cm top utilization.

2. Each allocation holder’s cut control will be managed based on their declared utilization level for each year in the cut control timeframe. Any year where 12.5 utilization is declared, their allowable volume for that year would be 14% less than their full allocation. The sum of the 5 individual years allocation values would then be used as the cut control maximum.

3. Forest Service would confirm utilization declaration and harvest year prior to assessing utilization performance in the field.

5.5 RENEWAL FEE ADJUSTMENT Sakâw proposes that renewal fees approved on Aug 21, 2017, which applied from April 1, 2018 to July 31, 2018 under a 12.5 cm top approval, be continued for the remainder of this Operating Year under any 12.5 cm top approvals resulting from the Amendment. Those fees are based on a 15% HVS adjustment, and are:

- $5.52 /m3 WS and BS

- $2.09 /m3 JP

- $0.60 /m3 BF

- $0,00 /m3 for Tamarack

- $0.50 /m3 for Softwood pulp (S1ad & S1bd)

The fees would then be adjusted on April 1, 2019 to reflect a 14% HVS decrease, based on the results of the Amendment modeling work to look at the impact of a 12.5 cm top.

18

6 COMBINED SCENARIOS The impact of combining 12.5 cm utilization assumptions with hardwood retention assumptions was modeled in perpetuity, as well as for just the next 20 years (the term of the 2018-2038 FMP).

The impact of harvesting more hardwood, combined with a 12.5 cm top, was also modeled. See modeling report document in the appendix for more details.

6.1 LEARNINGS When hardwood retention and 12.5 cm utilization are combined, the timber supply impact on sawlogs is magnified (not just additive). This is because candidate stands must meet minimum merchantability specifications (60 m3/ha) based on their sawlog volume alone (pulp and hardwood are not being used) and there is less sawlog at 12.5 cm utilization.

Model runs show that if hardwood harvest is reduced to 36% of FMP values and combined with 12.5 cm sawlog utilization in perpetuity, sawlog flow decreased by 24% in the short term and 32% in the long term. When the impact of hardwood retention or 12.5 cm utilization were modeled alone, 5% and 12% impacts were seen on sawlog harvest in the short term (additive would mean 17% impact). The incremental impact beyond 17% (24-17 = 7%) is arising largely from extending harvest ages for JP stands in the midterm (with very little hardwood in them). If we accept that JP stands with <10% hardwood in them do not fit the definition of hardwood retention, then this impact has been exaggerated by the model and would likely have been in the 2-3% range if remodeled. The yield impact applied on JP stands also appears pessimistic due to the low levels of hardwood in these stands – which would offset some of this incremental impact.

If more hardwood was harvested in perpetuity (20% less than FMP vs 36% less), the sawlog flow decreased by only 19% in the short term (vs 24%) and 26% in the long term (vs 32%). This shows that as hardwood harvest levels fluctuate, so does the impact on softwood harvest levels.

When modeling limited hardwood harvest (36% below FMP) for only 20 years and assuming 12.5 cm utilization continues in perpetuity, the model showed little difference from just modeling 12.5 cm utilization alone. This is because the model spatially adjusted the harvest to eliminate the impact of the excess hardwood retention. The harvest shifted strongly to the west side of the FMA area for the first 20 years and then back to the east once the limit on hardwood production ended.

6.2 OPERATIONAL CONTROLS AND MONITORING FOR COMBINED IMPACTS 1. Hardwood retention operational controls already presented work well to address the impacts to

sawlog timber supply for hardwood retention. The harvest distribution indicator will produce an impact on sawlog harvest volume that is sensitive to the actual hardwood harvest level during each 5-year period (e.g. there is a 5% sawlog impact if only 700,000 m3/yr of hardwood harvested).

2. The 14% reduction in allocation volume for shareholders choosing to use 12.5 cm utilization works well to address the impact of the change in utilization.

3. When these two sets of controls are applied in combination, a 19% impact can be expected when hardwood harvested at ~700,000m3/yr but the spatial distribution indicator ensures the impact can be dynamic (up or down) relative to the hardwood harvest level.

19

4. The ~2% incremental impact associated with the 60 m3/ha minimum operability rule is likely best addressed using the allocation reduction method. We propose to reduce sawlog allocations by 16% if both hardwood retention and 12.5 cm utilization are used in an operating year.

5. The combination of a 16% volume reduction and adhering to the harvest distribution limits is expected to fully address the implications of short term operational realties in the FMA area.

6. If markets change during a given year and substantially more hardwood is harvested than initially anticipated, a reconciliation will occur that would reduce the 2% incremental impact on the year’s cut control number based on the amount of hardwood harvested over 700,000 m3/yr. For example, if hardwood harvest was close to the full HVS, the incremental impact would fall to zero and only the 14% impact associated with 12.5 cm top utilization would be applicable.

6.3 ANNUAL REPORTING TO A MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION TEAM A Management implementation Team (MIT) made up of representatives from Sakâw Askiy, Sakâw Shareholders, the Forest Service has been formed to monitor implementation of the FMP. This team will be reviewing annual reports on progress made in achieving targets that have been set for 33 Indicators of sustainable forest management – including those related to the forest practices mentioned above.

7 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Public engagement will be carried out to ensure that the proposed practices of leaving of excess hardwood retention in some parts of the FMA area and harvesting softwood sawlogs to a 12.5 cm top are understood, and that all stakeholder issues can be heard, addressed, and accommodated to the best extent possible.

A condensed summary of the information in this Amendment will be presented to the Public Advisory Group for the PA FMA area. A letter and summary will also be sent to approximately 375 First Nations and Métis communities and contacts, outfitters, trappers, cabin owners, forest industry operators, municipalities, politicians, business owners, and interested public to provide information and invite comments.

Feedback received will be summarized and responded to, and a final version of this Amendment will be submitted to the Forest Service.

The remainder of this section will be completed once the public engagement has been completed, after which the final version of this Amendment will be submitted for ministerial approval.

20

7.1 MATERIALS

7.2 PUBLIC ADVISORY GROUP (PAG) MEETING

7.3 LETTER CAMPAIGN

7.4 SUMMARY OF INPUT AND RESPONSES

8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Key learnings from modeling were:

- Removing focus from generating pulp improves sawlog outcomes.

- Implementing 12.5 cm top size utilization decreases sawlog availability by 12-15%

- Reduced hardwood harvest can impact softwood harvest unless hardwood retention treatments are used to access the softwood in S/SH stands.

- Implementing hardwood retention in perpetuity impacts softwood availability because of the inability access softwood in H/HS/SH-JP stands without full utilization of the stand.

- Modeled results showed the scale of hardwood retention that could impact stand outcomes – 450 ha/year

- At the forest level, the reduced area of harvest under hardwood retention serves to maintains more hardwood and softwood growing stock on the landbase compared to the FMP scenario. Overall, the growing stock is higher for softwood and hardwood in the long-term and the harvest footprint is smaller.

- Impact of hardwood retention is magnified when combined with 12.5 cm top size utilization, because candidate stands must meet the minimum merchantability specification (of 60 m3/ha) on sawlog volume alone.

- If the future is different from today (which is likely) these answers could change. We want to encourage the harvest of hardwood, but ensure softwood harvest levels are responsive.

The practices around hardwood retention involve measures to avoid leaving excess hardwood standing in harvested areas. Where hardwood retention does occur, it is limited to softwood leading areas on the east side of the FMA area, and maximum total retention levels of 50% of the standing block volume in spruce areas, and 25% in pine areas. Harvest machine operators will leave patches of hardwood >1 ha intact, and harvested areas will be treated according to FMP silviculture ground rules.

The practices around sawlog utilization involve softwood operators working to find markets for the small material they cannot use, and having the ability to declare a utilization level (10 cm or 12.5 cm min top diameter inside bark) annually, depending on their ability to access pulp markets for that year. Pulp material that is not used will be left standing or piled at roadside and burned when conditions permit.

21

Operational controls and monitoring will ensure those practices are carried out as intended and adjusted if needed, and provide better information for the development of the next FMP. They have been built into existing processes and reports wherever possible.

The controls around Hardwood Retention include:

- coordinating planning, and identifying areas where hardwood will not be utilized

- adding detail to FMP Indicators 4, 6 and 9 (to track addition types of retention, regeneration under different retention levels, and verify growth and yield assumptions)

- updating FMP Indicator 24, which spatially distributes the harvest by cover type, to use geographic planning units that better capture the economic zones associated with hardwood retention

- counting excess hardwood retention against hardwood cut control targets (FMP Indicator 21), and

- adding excess hardwood retention to SGRs as a silviculture system for eligible stand types.

Operational controls associated with sawlog utilization, alone or in combination with Hardwood Retention, involve managing each allocation holder’s cut control based on their declared utilization level for each year in the 5-year cut control period, and the amount of hardwood actually harvested.

A Management implementation Team (MIT) composed representatives from industry, government and the public will be monitoring implementation of the FMP, including this Amendment. This team will be reviewing annual reports on progress made in achieving targets that have been set for 33 Indicators of sustainable forest management, including those related specifically to hardwood retention and sawlog utilization.

The practices proposed in this FMP Amendment are low risk and ecological appropriate. Operational controls have been identified and results will be monitored and publicly reported on. The solution provided here provides flexibility and fairness in dealing with the current utilization issues of the forest industry operating in the PA FMA area.

22

APPENDIX A – MODELING ASSUMPTIONS REPORT

MODELING ASSUMPTIONS REPORT

ADDENDUM TO VOLUME II OF THE

2018-2038 FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

FOR THE PRINCE ALBERT FOREST MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT AREA

AUGUST 15, 2018

PREPARED BY FORSITE CONSULTANTS INC.

SUBMITTED TO GOVERNMENT OF SASKATCHEWAN FOREST SERVICE BRANCH

Sakâw Askiy Management Inc.

Addendum to the PA FMA Area’s 2018-2038 FMP

2

BACKGROUND

The Prince Albert FMA area’s 2018-2038 Forest Management Plan (FMP), which came into effect on April

1st 2018, describes the potential short and long term harvest levels and landbase conditions associated

with full utilization of the wood in the FMA area. Sakâw is now exploring outcomes associated with

current operational realities in the Prince Albert FMA area, in an addendum to Volume II of the FMP.

Specifically, those realities are:

- Utilizing softwood sawlogs to a 12.5 minimum inside bark top diameter,

- Leaving the smaller top material up to an 8 cm top diameter (pulp volumes) unutilized due to

very limited markets, and

- Leaving excess hardwood volume standing in some softwood leading blocks on the east side of

the FMA area due to limited markets.

Forest estate modeling using Patchworks will be used to assess differences in harvest volumes and

landbase conditions over time, should these current operational realities continue perpetually.

This document describes the modeling assumptions that differ from the Preferred Management Scenario

(PMS) in the approved FMP. For full details on the modeling assumptions in the FMP PMS, see the July

2017 Forest Estate Modeling Assumptions Document. (FMP Volume II - Appendix C, found at

http://publications.gov.sk.ca/deplist.cfm?d=66&c=5954).

The FMP PMS scenario model has been recreated for this project to streamline it and eliminate unused

functionality. The new model’s output has been compared to the original model’s output and the results

are substantively the same, although some minor deviations do occur. For reference, the assumptions in

the PMS scenario, which are also the baseline for this amendment work, include:

► Net landbase of 1,467,907, ha (spatial), or 1,396,528 (net)

► Harvest depletion and fire impacts to the end of 2016

► 10 cm minimum top utilization for sawlogs, 8 cm top for pulp (cut-to-length harvesting assumed)

► Dedicated pulp stands where all softwood volume is credited to the pulp account. These stands are the highest pulp/lowest site productivity stands on the landbase and are used to ensure 200,000 m³/yr of softwood volume is under the control of a potential pulp mill operator

► Caribou deferral areas and disturbance limits (max 35% disturbance approximated in model)

► 4% inblock retention, within a 9% total insular and proximinal retention target for a harvest event

► Natural Forest Pattern (NFP) old and very old seral stage targets (3-5% very old, 6-10% old and very old, interior old forest requirements) by species groups are met within eleven geographic zones in the FMA area

► Event size targets applied to encourage a range of event sizes on the landbase. This target is not allowed to impact harvest levels.

APPROACH

The following six scenarios will be modeled in Patchworks using the baseline assumptions in the FMP PMS

described above:

1. Removal of pulp dedicated stands and pulp objectives so that all stands now contribute to sawlog

http://publications.gov.sk.ca/deplist.cfm?d=66&c=5954


3

volume. This change will be modeled in all of amendment scenarios.

2. Shift to a 12.5 cm minimum top size for sawlogs and assume the smaller top material is left

onsite (unutilized)

3. Leave excess hardwood standing in a portion of the softwood leading blocks on the east side of

the FMA area

4. Combine 12.5 cm top size utilization with leaving excess hardwood standing (scenarios 1 and 2)

5. Combine 12.5 cm top size utilization with leaving excess hardwood standing only in Zone 1

6. Combine 12.5 cm top size utilization with leaving excess hardwood standing for only 20 years

The modeling assumption changes associated with these scenarios is described in detail below.

Scenario 1: Assumptions for No pulp Objective Scenario In this scenario, pulp dedicated stands that were identified in the previous FMP PMS were removed and

put back into the regular landbase. They were considered part of the planning inventory for every

modeling run done in preparing this Amendment. The pulp target was also removed, and pulp output was

tracked as an incidental byproduct of harvesting sawlog material. These changes were modeled for all

scenarios in the Amendment.

Scenario 2: Assumptions for 12.5 cm Top Utilization Scenario Two changes were made to the model to reflect the 12.5 cm minimum top diameter utilization level for

sawlogs:

1) new sawlog and pulp yield curves were developed, and

2) stands considered to be uneconomic for sawlog harvesting were identified.

Yield Curve Changes: Forsite submitted a report to the Forest Service on March 14, 2018 titled “Sawlog

Yield Impacts from Shifting to a 12.5 cm Min Top Diameter in the Prince Albert FMA”. This report was

reviewed by Lane Gelhorn and Phil Loseth, editorial changes were made a final version is included here as

Appendix A. This report describes how PA FMA area plot data was compiled at 10 cm and 12.5 cm top

utilization standards to identify differences in sawlog volume over time for each yield group. This

difference was then used to adjust the 10 cm top yield curves that have been used throughout the FMP

process for the 12.5 cm tops, and ensure consistency with past modeling results. Any volume removed

from the 12.5 cm sawlog yield curves was added to the pulp yield curves, so that total merchantable

softwood volume remained the same.

When summarized over the net landbase (>60 years old) the results showed an average volume of 19%

shifted from sawlog to pulp material. The stands most impacted by this utilization adjustment are the low

site productivity jack pine and black spruce stands (small piece size stands). These stands were more

likely to see large percentages of each tree’s volume lost to pulp (sometime entire trees) due to being

unable to meet minimum log lengths before reaching a 12.5 cm top diameter. The analysis also showed

that when impacts are assessed at stand ages closer to the typical current harvest ages (approximately

110-120 years), the impacts are reduced to 14%.

Landbase Changes: In order to recognize that extracting less sawlog material from each tree has the

potential to make some stands uneconomic to harvest due to high pulp content (there is no current outlet

for pulp), the landbase was assessed for uneconomic stands. Uneconomic stands were defined as any


4

softwood leading stands unable to produce 60 m3/ha of sawlog OR stands with >40% of the softwood

volume as pulp. The following process was used for each stand in the net landbase:

► The stand’s Forest Cover Type (FCT) code representing its species type, 5m height class, and density classes was used to lookup the stand’s sawlog and pulp volumes at a 12.5 cm top utilization level from the province’s stand and stock tables. These tables were used instead of the FMP yield curves because they better reflect individual stand attributes (verses the average stand condition represent by each yield curve/ strata).

► All stands < 120 years had their age projected to 120 years. Heights and associated FCT codes were then assigned based on Site Index (SI) values assigned to the PA FMA area inventory using the Excel Sheet from the Saskatchewan Forest Inventory Site Index Project, Year 2 report (Guyla Gylas and Jim Thrower (2016), and Alberta’s SI to Breast Height Curves (also described in the Guyla Gylas and Jim Thrower report).

► Updated FCT codes were linked to the province’s 12.5 cm min top diameter utilization stand and stock tables.

► FCT codes that were not present in the tables were shifted to a best estimate of an FCT code available.

► Stands with < 60m³/ha of softwood sawlog were identified. Stands with >40% of the softwood volume as pulp were identified. A stand meeting either of these criteria was considered uneconomic to harvest

Stands selected as uneconomic from the net landbase total of 143,946 ha. Most of these stands (131,056

ha) were uneconomic because of high pulp content. Figure 1 shows the 143,496 hectares of the

uneconomic sawlog stands identified using FCT codes.

Figure 1 Location of uneconomic sawlog stands in the net landbase at 12.5 cm top utilization (FCT codes).


5

Pulp Utilization Changes

At the request of the Forest Service, the FMP PMS was targeted to produce 600,000 m³/yr of pulp

volume, of which 200,000 m³/yr was to come from dedicated pulp stands. The net landbase did not

contain any pure pulp stands for economic reasons so the lowest margin (highest % pulp) stands were

selected to be dedicated pulp stands (231,909 ha of poor site bS and jP stands). These stands had their

sawlog volume treated as pulp volume because they were meant to be under the control of a pulp mill

operator should the Prince Albert pulp mill ever reopen. This political commitment to commit sawlog

volume to the pulp mill operator meant a reduction in sawlog HVS.

Because the pulp mill is not operating, this 12.5 utilization scenario will not control the level of pulp

production and will assume there are no dedicated pulp stands. Pulp production will occur simply as a by-

product of harvesting sawlog stands. However, it should be noted that the 143,946 ha of stands that

become uneconomic at 12.5 cm top utilization are effectively the same stand profile (marginal sawlog

stands) that was previously treated as ‘dedicated pulp’ stands. Thus, from a modeling perspective, we

have shifted from excluding 231,909 ha from sawlog production in the FMP scenario to 143,946 ha in this

scenario.

Consistent with near term markets, this scenario assumes that softwood sawlog users will use all of their

allocated HVS, and that pulp volume is only generated as a by-product of sawlog harvesting and is left on

site.

Scenario 3: Assumptions for Excess Hardwood Retention Scenario

Hardwood Retention Zones: For the purpose of modeling this scenario and understanding how different

operating circumstances might influence harvest profiles, three hardwood retention zones were spatially

identified within the east side of the FMA area (Figure 2). Within each zone varying limits of hardwood

production can be set to reflect different operating circumstances. The assumptions and zones used here

represent just one of many potential scenarios that could transpire in the future as markets, mill

demands, and other factors influence the level of hardwood utilized from the PA FMA area.

- Zone 1 (Far East) – harvesting will only occur in softwood leading stands, and hardwood

production from those stands will be limited to 10,000 m³/yr (~4% of FMP PMS total hardwood

volume from this zone)

- Zone 2 (Candle Lake) – harvesting will be focused almost exclusively in softwood leading stands

and hardwood production will be limited to 52,000 m³/yr (~30% of FMP PMS total hardwood

volume from this zone). Harvest in only SH/S stands will not support this volume.

- Zone 3 (Weyakwin) – harvesting will be focused almost exclusively in softwood leading stands

and hardwood production will be limited to 14,000 m³/yr (~66% of FMP PMS total hardwood

volume from this zone). Harvest in only SH/S stands will not support this volume.


6

Figure 2. Hardwood retention zones used during timber supply modeling.

Hardwood Retention Treatments: For all softwood leading stands (AU’s) in the hardwood retention zones, an additional treatment option for hardwood retention (in addition to the 9% average retention to be left in harvest events under the FMP) is created (CC_RETN). If this treatment option is selected by the model over the standard CC treatment, only the softwood volume is harvested from the stand and it is reset to age zero. All hardwood volume conceptually remains standing but falls down and is no longer present by the next harvest entry. Post-harvest, the stand is assigned to regenerate on yield curves that have been modified to reflect hardwood retention stand dynamics.

Adjusted Yield Curves for Stands Where All Hardwood is Retained: Regenerating stand outcomes for proposed hardwood retention treatments were modeled in the Mixedwood Growth Model (MGM) by Dr. Phil Comeau at the University of Alberta. The assumptions used in the MGM were developed with Forest Service staff and Sakâw and are shown in Table 1. The MGM runs were then interpreted to inform expansion / reduction factors for the softwood and hardwood yield curves already in use in the model.


7

Table 1 Mixedwood Growth Model Scenarios

Scenarios to model in MGM Leading Species

Perm Sample Plot (PSP)

% HWD

% of HWD Retained

% of SWD Retained

SWG regen sph *

SWD Regen Delay

HWD Regen sph

HWD Regen Delay

Comments

White Spruce

300072 (S stand)

20 0% 0% Plant 1200

1 yr 3000 0 Clearcut and plant wS

20 100% 0% Plant 1200

1 yr 1500 0 Retain all hardwood. When not clearcut, suckering is suppressed by 50%

300705 (S Stand)

24 0% 0% Plant 1200

1 yr 5000 0 Clearcut and plant wS

24 100% 0% Plant 1200

1 yr 2000 +1000 sph within 20 yrs

Retain all hardwood. When not clearcut, suckering is suppressed by 50%

322307 (SH Stand)

39 0% 0% Plant 1200

1 yr 10000 0 Clearcut and Plant wS. More hwd regen because more roots on site to stimulate

39 100% 0% Plant 1200

1 yr 2000 +2000 sph within 20 yrs

Retain all hardwood. When not clearcut suckering is suppressed by 80%

Jack Pine

322302 15 0% 0% 6000 sph 2 yrs 4000 0 Clearcut all species and scarify

322302 15 100% 0% 5000 sph 2 yrs 1000 +1000 sph within 20 yrs

Less swd due to poorer scarification, less hwd because suckering suppressed (low levels of hwd to start)

522401 28 0% 0% 6000 sph 2 yrs 5000 0 Clearcut all species and scarify

522401 28 100% 0% 4000 sph 2 yrs 1000 +2000 sph within 20 yrs

Less swd due to poorer scarification, less hwd because suckering suppressed (higher levels of hwd to start)

*sph = stems per hectare

Yield curve adjustments were approximated by examining the relative difference between the “Clearcut”

and “Clearcut with Hwd retention” volumes at rotation ages for each stand type in MGM. MGM outputs

for JP stands were not helpful and thus professional judgement was used to arrive at the proposed

factors. As a general rule, hardwood regeneration densities were reduced because the mature, retained

stems occupied growing space. They also produced less suckers than if they had been cut down. This

reduction in suckering reduces competition on regenerating softwood stems and results in improved

softwood yields. While spruce will have gains on the areas that are logged/planted, this gain is offset by

leave areas within these stands (H pockets) that are not planted. In the case of jack pine, a decrease was

assumed because there is an additional offsetting impact resulting from less effective scarification when

working around standing residuals.

Table 2 Yield curve adjustment factors applied to stands regenerating after a Hwd retention treatment

Stand Type Typical Hwd Retention Level

Softwood Curve Adjustment Factor

Hardwood Curve Adjustment Factor

Spruce (S) 15-20% Dispersed 0% -20%

Spruce (SH) 35-40% Dispersed 0% -40%

Jack Pine (S) 15-20% Dispersed -10% -20%

While not quantified here, it is expected that as the retained hardwood trees age and fall out of the stands in the 20-30 years post harvesting, additional hardwood regeneration ingress will occur and provide merchantable harvest volume by the time the softwood stand is ready for harvest (70-90 yr rotations). The delayed onset of deciduous regeneration will prove helpful to softwood regeneration


8

while also working to better align rotation ages between softwood and hardwood in mixed stand types.

Stand Merchantability

As with the 12.5 Utilization scenario, the Hardwood Retention scenario will ensure softwood stands can provide 60 m3/ha of sawlogs before they are harvested. This is addressed adding an operability criteria to each Hardwood Retention treatment that requires 60 m3/ha to be present as well as meeting the minimum harvest ages defined in the FMP PMS run.

Scenario 4: Combined 12.5 cm Top Utilization and Leaving Excess Hardwood Standing

The two scenarios described above will be combined, by putting the 12.5 cm softwood yield curves and reduced sawlog landbase into the excess hardwood retention model, for a look at their collective outcomes if carried out in perpetuity.

Scenario 5: Combined 12.5 cm Top Utilization and hardwood retention only in Zone 1

This scenario is a modification from scenario 4 in which no hardwood harvest limits are imposed on Zone 2 and 3 and the hardwood harvest limit in Zone 1 is increased from 10,000 m³/yr to 50,000 m³/yr. This scenario is intended to explore the impact of increasing hardwood harvest relative to the what has been modeled so far.

Scenario 6: Combined 12.5cm Top Utilization and hardwood retention for 20 years

This scenario is a modification from scenario 4 in which hardwood harvest limits (and thus the use of hardwood retention treatments) only persist for 20 years instead of for the full planning horizon. The hardwood harvest caps in the three hardwood retention zones are the same as those in scenario 4 – but they are only active for 20 years.


9

APPENDIX A – REPORT ON IMPACT OF 12.5 CM TOP SIZE ON SAWLOG YIELDS

Final version of the report ““Sawlog Yield Impacts from Shifting to a 12.5 cm Min Top Diameter in the Prince Albert FMA”

Sawlog Yield Impacts from Shifting to a 12.5cm Min Top Diameter in the PA FMA

Technical Report

Version 1.0

April 16, 2018

Project 1062-12

Prepared for: Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment Forest Service Prince Albert, SK

Prepared by: Forsite Consultants Ltd. 330 – 42nd Street SW PO Box 2079 Salmon Arm, BC V1E 4R1 250.832.3366

Sawlog Yield Impacts from Shifting to a 12.5cm Min Top Diameter April 16, 2018

Technical Report – Version 1.0 i

Overview As a part of the submission of the Prince Albert (PA) FMP, Forsite quantified the volume impact that

would result from adjusting the current utilization standard to a larger minimum top diameter for sawlogs. This report provides detailed analysis of the impacts to softwood sawlog volume associated with shifting from a 10cm to a 12.5cm minimum top diameter (inside bark) utilization.

In order to maintain consistency and provide an accurate comparison with the harvest forecasts already created in the FMP’s timber supply modeling (using 10 cm top), a process was developed to adjust the existing sawlog yield curves using a recompilation of Prince Albert (PA) FMA plot volumes under both utilization levels. This approach gave a percent difference over time for each yield strata (linked to plot heights) and then this was used to adjust the 10cm top curves used in a previous modeling.

Results from the analysis showed that impacts to individual sawlog yield curves varied from 4 to 35% as calculated from current stands over 60 years old. When summarized over the net landbase (>60 years old) results showed an average volume shift of 19% from sawlog to pulp. The stands most impacted by this a utilization adjustment are the low site productivity jack pine and black spruce stands (small piece size stands) because these stands were more likely to see large percentages of each tree’s volume lost to pulp (sometime entire trees) due to being unable to meet min log lengths before reaching a 12.5cm top diameter. The analysis also showed that when impacts are assessed at stand ages closer to typical harvest ages in current practice (~110-120 years), the impacts are reduced to 14%. The following report outlines the methodologies used to derive the adjusted curves and quantify volume impacts in more detail. Detailed yield group information is contained within the attached appendices.


Technical Report – Version 1.0 ii

Table of Contents Overview .................................................................................................................................................. i

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 1

3 Results .............................................................................................................................................. 4

4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 5

Appendix 1 Species Acronyms ............................................................................................................ 6

Appendix 2 Polynomial Coefficients ................................................................................................... 7

Appendix 3 Bucking Specification Flow Chart .................................................................................... 8

Appendix 4 Percent Pulp Graphs ........................................................................................................ 9

Appendix 5 Height Equations and Inputs ......................................................................................... 28

List of Figures Figure 1 Best fit lines for proportion pulp with 10.01cm and 12.51cm bucking specifications 2

Figure 2 Percent pulp between utilizations with modification age applied 2

Figure 3 New Yield Curves including swing volume 3

Figure 4 Sawlog volume comparison on the net landbase (>60 yrs) by Yield Group 5

Figure 5 Softwood Utilization Flow Chart 8

List of Tables Table 1 Yield curve development definitions from the PA FMP remain unchanged for the

utilization adjustment analysis 1

Table 3 Modification age of Percent Pulp curves 3

Table 3 Net landbase (>60 yrs) properties for 10.01cm and 12.51cm bucking specifications 4


Technical Report – Version 1.0 1

1 Introduction

At the request of Sakaw shareholders, Forsite Consultants Ltd. initiated an analysis of the impact to softwood sawlog volumes resulting from adjusted minimum top diameters. This additional information is intended to support decision making in the PA FMA Forest Management planning process.

This analysis quantifies sawlog volume impacts as a result of shifting utilization from the current 10cm minimum top diameter to a 12.5cm diameter (inside bark). In order to maintain consistency with the current FMP and facilitate accurate comparisons with previously published timber supply forecasts, the yield strata and total softwood and hardwood yield curves remain unchanged (Table 1). Total softwood volume is not affected by changes in the diameter that defines the split between sawlog volume and pulp volume – but it will shift a portion of the sawlogs volume to pulp volume. Thus, an adjustment has been designed to shifts sawlog volume to pulp volume specific to each stand type over time.

Based on the increased minimum top diameter (12.5 cm) sawlog volume will shift to pulp from 1) larger top pieces, and 2) entire trees being shifted to pulp when they do not meet the minimum bole length requirements.

Table 1 Yield curve development definitions from the PA FMP remain unchanged for the utilization adjustment analysis.

Yield Group

Description Development

Type FMZ Site Class

Crown Closure

1 1_H_HW_B_Density HW 1, 2, 3 I, II, III B 2 1_H_HW_CD_Density HW 1, 2, 3 I, II, III C, D 3 2_HS_HjP_B_Density HjP 1, 2, 3 I, II, III B 4 2_HS_HjP_CD_Density HjP 1, 2, 3 I, II, III C, D 5 3_SH_jPH_B_Density jPH 1, 2, 3 I, II, III B 6 3_SH_jPH_CD_Density jPH 1, 2, 3 I, II, III C, D 7 4_HS_HxS_B_Density HxS 1, 2, 3 I, II, III B 8 4_HS_HxS_CD_Density HxS 1, 2, 3 I, II, III C, D 9 5_SH_SxH_B_Density xSH 1, 2, 3 I, II, III B

10 5_SH_SxH_CD_Density xSH 1, 2, 3 I, II, III C, D 11 6_S_bS_1_Site bS 1, 2, 3 II,III B, C, D 12 6_S_bS_23_Site bS 1, 2, 3 I B, C, D 13 7_S_jP_12_Site jP 1, 2, 3 III &>11.9 SI B, C, D 14 7_S_jP_3_Site jP 1, 2, 3 I,II B, C, D 15 8_S_jPbS_12_Site jPbS 1, 2, 3 III B, C, D 16 8_S_jPbS_3_Site jPbS 1, 2, 3 I,II B, C, D 17 9_S_wSbF_1_FMZ wSbF 2,3 I, II, III B, C, D 18 9_S_wSbF_23_FMZ wSbF 1 I, II, III B, C, D 19 10_S_tL_11_Comp tL (11-30%) 1, 2, 3 I, II, III B, C, D

2 Methods

To quantify the shift in softwood volume to pulp volume, Forsite generated unique pulp proportion curves based on the two utilization specs (10cm vs 12.5cm) for each yield group and then used the difference in these curves over time to adjust the existing sawlog yield curves. The following section provides a detailed methodology and examples from a single yield group. Additional information can be found within the appendices included with this report.



The pulp proportions were developed using the 76,219 trees found in the ~6000 PA FMA temporary sample plots. Any plot that did not contain softwood volume was removed from the analysis (1,038 plots removed). Trees were bucked to both utilization specifications (detailed specs in Appendix 3) then used to create plot volumes for both sawlog and pulp (and pulp % to of total softwood) for each utilization level. Each plot was assigned a yield group based on the forest inventory, and a height based on a basal area weighted average height calculation (Lorey height). Using this average height information a two dimensional best fit line for % pulp was then fit using Python 3.4, PANDAS and Numpy’s poly-fit for each yield group at the two utilization specifications. Poly-fit gives a least squares polynomial fit to the degree specified in the function. This best fit line provided the proportion of softwood volume that was considered pulp by height in each yield group.

Figure 1 shows the resulting scatter diagram and two best fit lines generated for yield group 10 using the methodology outlined above. The right side of the figure (on the Y-axis) shows a distribution graph of the % pulp for each utilization option. In this example, the distribution graphs shows that with a 10cm utilization specification, almost all plots are under 60% pulp (blue) with many under 25% pulp; whereas, the 12.5cm utilization shows some plots being 100% pulp (red) with a wider distribution of pulp %’s. The top of the figure (along the X-axis) illustrates the distribution of heights for each yield group. In this example for Yield Group 10 the figure shows that most of the heights are between 10m and 25m. The polynomial coefficients for all yield groups are listed in Appendix 2.

Ten of the pulp percentage curves had illogical outcomes at the tallest heights – sometimes showing that the 10 cm utilization curve had more pulp than the 12.5 cm utilization curve. These anomalies were caused partially by a lack of data at the tallest height categories. To rectify this problem, a maximum height/age was visually determined to provide the pulp percentage used for all older stands (Table 2). Figure 2 illustrates the application of the terminal pulp percentage beginning at the maximum age of 110 for Yield Group 10 (see below for how the shift to age was done).

Figure 2 Percent pulp between utilizations with modification age applied

Figure 1 Best fit lines for proportion pulp with 10.01cm and 12.51cm bucking specifications



Ages were required to generate % pulp over age curves. Heights were used to infer an age at five year time intervals for each yield group using the Saskatchewan Provincial Height curves. A Microsoft Excel extension developed by Gyula Gulyas1 using provincial height curves was used to create a height to age lookup at five year increments. In order to utilize the provincial extension, a weighted average site index and leading species was identified for each yield group. The height to age lookup resulted in a % pulp over age curve for each strata by each utilization specification (example in Figure 2).

The observed difference between the 10cm and 12.5cm modified pulp percentage curves were then applied to the existing PA FMA yield curves - which were based on a 10cm minimum top diameter. The volume identified by multiplying the existing sawlog curves by the percent difference (at the five year increments) was deemed to be the ‘swing volume’. Swing volume can be defined as softwood volume classified as sawlog in the 10.01cm utilization scenario, and as pulpwood in the 12.51cm scenario. Figure 4 shows the resulting yield curves for Yield Group 16 which has a high proportion of swing volume (orange).

Figure 3 New Yield Curves including swing volume

The three figures shown in this section (Figures 1, 2, & 3) are available for each of the yield groups in Appendix 4.

1 Thrower, J. & Gulyas, G. Saskatchewan Forest Inventory Site Index Project: Year 2 – 2013/14 Year-End Report. March 14, 2014.

Yield Group

Description Terminal age

1 1_H_HW_B_Density NA 2 1_H_HW_CD_Density 110 3 2_HS_HjP_B_Density 120 4 2_HS_HjP_CD_Density 100 5 3_SH_jPH_B_Density NA 6 3_SH_jPH_CD_Density NA 7 4_HS_HxS_B_Density 100 8 4_HS_HxS_CD_Density 140 9 5_SH_SxH_B_Density 95

10 5_SH_SxH_CD_Density 110 11 6_S_bS_1_Site NA 12 6_S_bS_23_Site 180 13 7_S_jP_12_Site NA 14 7_S_jP_3_Site NA 15 8_S_jPbS_12_Site NA 16 8_S_jPbS_3_Site NA 17 9_S_wSbF_1_FMZ 100 18 9_S_wSbF_23_FMZ 110 19 10_S_tL_11_Comp NA

Table 2 Modification age of Percent Pulp curves



3 Results

The new 12.5cm top diameter sawlog /pulp curves were used to summarize the impact to sawlog volumes at the landbase level and provide a comparison to the original sawlog volumes from the original FMP work. Sawlog volume was calculated for net landbase stands over 60 years old. The new 12.5 cm sawlog volume was then compared with the original 10 cm top sawlog volume. The results of the landbase level assessment are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3 Net landbase (>60 yrs) properties for 10.01cm and 12.51cm bucking specifications

Yield Group Area (ha) Sawlog Volume Bucked with

10.01 cm top(m³)

Sawlog Volume Bucked with

12.51 cm top(m³)

Volume

Switched to Pulp(m³)

Area Wtd

Average

Age (yrs)

%Diff

(Wtd Avg

on Vol)

1 H_HW_B_Density 36,539 1,080,248 939,354 140,894 93 13%

2 H_HW_CD_Density 154,871 4,803,590 3,928,638 874,952 93 18%

3 HS_HjP_B_Density 2,759 126,676 117,365 9,311 96 7%

4 HS_HjP_CD_Density 9,195 677,943 622,976 54,968 90 8%

5 SH_jPH_B_Density 2,650 148,348 125,684 22,664 103 15% 6 SH_jPH_CD_Density 6,803 644,695 535,050 109,645 94 17% 7 HS_HxS_B_Density 11,882 945,571 866,423 79,148 104 8% 8 HS_HxS_CD_Density 46,084 3,438,701 3,193,938 244,763 107 7% 9 SH_SxH_B_Density 7,325 636,004 578,172 57,832 115 9% 10 SH_SxH_CD_Density 23,815 2,933,859 2,786,062 147,797 111 5% 11 S_bS_1_Site 124,562 8,994,664 5,970,085 3,024,579 114 34% 12 S_bS_23_Site 50,418 5,264,754 4,328,662 936,091 105 18% 13 S_jP_12_Site 13,319 601,520 436,016 165,505 94 28% 14 S_jP_3_Site 111,549 11,795,435 9,657,334 2,138,100 91 18% 15 S_jPbS_12_Site 26,913 1,343,831 966,913 376,918 95 28% 16 S_jPbS_3_Site 99,128 9,184,029 7,245,724 1,938,305 96 21% 17 S_wSbF_1_FMZ 12,343 1,716,940 1,594,661 122,279 127 7% 18 S_wSbF_23_FMZ 19,707 2,969,386 2,856,410 112,977 117 4% 19 S_tL_11_Comp 26,465 1,192,354 774,065 418,289 107 35%

Total 786,325 58,498,548 47,523,532 10,975,017 101 19%

All stands summarized in Table 3 are from within the net landbase, and are over 60 years of age. Within the selected stands, the area weighted average age is 101 years old, and 10,975,017 m³ is converted to pulp when the utilization shifts from the 10cm to 12.5cm top diameter (landbase volume weighted average = 19% shift to pulp). The landbase assessment shows the stands with the highest volume impact are those with small piece sizes (high jP and bS component- Figure 4).

The 12.5cm sawlog volumes were also calculated for 2017 AOP blocks to represent a more operationally realistic sample of stand ages at time of logging, and this resulted in a 14% shift to pulp.



Figure 4 Sawlog volume comparison by Yield Group on the net landbase (>60 yrs)

4 Conclusion

Based on the results of this analysis, the current mature (>60 yr old) stands on the PA FMA net landbase are expected to yield a 19% reduction in sawlog volume if utilization is shifted from 10cm to 12.5cm minimum top diameter. This weighted average reduction is directly linked to the stand profile (ages/heights) that are currently present on the net landbase. The reduction in sawlog volume does not impact all stands equally. The stand types that would experience the greatest impact are those with small piece sizes (small diameters / short heights) such as younger stands or low productivity jack pine (28% reduction) and black spruce (33% reduction) stands. White spruce, balsam fir and mixedwood stands, particularly those with a higher site index (and presumably taller trees), would be impacted the least if utilization was adjusted to a 12.5cm minimum top diameter.

The 12.5cm sawlog volumes were calculated for 2017 AOP blocks to represent a more operationally realistic/accurate sample, which resulted in a 14% shift to pulp.



Appendix 1 Species Acronyms Code Genus Species Common Name Aggregate

wS Picea glauca White Spruce Softwood

bS Picea mariana Black Spruce Softwood

jP Pinus banksiana Jack Pine Softwood

lP Pinus contorta Lodgepole Pine Softwood

bF Abies balsamifera Balsam Fir Softwood

tL Larix laricina Tamarack/Larch Softwood

tA Populus termuloides Aspen Hardwood

bP Populus balsamifera Balsam Poplar Hardwood

wB Betula papyrifera White Birch Hardwood

gA Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Hardwood

wE Ulmus americana White Elm Hardwood

mM Acer negundo Manitoba Maple Hardwood



Appendix 2 Polynomial Coefficients Yield Group 0 1 Intercept

1 0.0003724 -0.0262481 0.4934494

2 0.0017704 -0.0820807 1.0831199

3 0.0005971 -0.0395495 0.6521654

4 0.0022290 -0.1046431 1.2925372

5 -0.0004580 -0.0094560 0.4801271

6 0.0008878 -0.0576800 0.9018061

7 0.0017912 -0.0825688 1.0190362

8 0.0021825 -0.1069092 1.3779381

9 0.0014970 -0.0724891 0.9475133

10 0.0011822 -0.0659077 0.9458593

11 0.0012167 -0.0825697 1.2174381

12 0.0030566 -0.1402151 1.6533982

13 -0.0013753 -0.0035572 0.6874537

14 0.0030552 -0.1432215 1.7117331

15 0.0004440 -0.0683754 1.1784974

16 0.0027262 -0.1304654 1.5986595

17 0.0017542 -0.0865059 1.1185916

18 0.0010689 -0.0556527 0.7616275

19 0.0004588 -0.0433384 0.7958789

Yield Group 0 1 Intercept

1 0.0005146 -0.0431886 0.9181043

2 0.0020800 -0.1073072 1.6527902

3 0.0004028 -0.0554469 1.1593138

4 0.0010850 -0.0930834 1.6424378

5 0.0014531 -0.0977561 1.5958392

6 0.0013815 -0.1015906 1.7111744

7 0.0038961 -0.1816926 2.2559605

8 0.0026752 -0.1492428 2.1756631

9 0.0047098 -0.2149395 2.6000835

10 0.0027650 -0.1505264 2.1181095

11 0.0000203 -0.0805710 1.7489180

12 0.0023162 -0.1464467 2.2023678

13 -0.0001720 -0.0581012 1.5068885

14 0.0018375 -0.1313581 2.0783385

15 -0.0026613 -0.0019822 1.1740353

16 0.0022036 -0.1395682 2.1264995

17 0.0040878 -0.1972059 2.4935010

18 0.0020519 -0.1113138 1.5814505

19 -0.0000753 -0.0478793 1.2912870

10.01 cm Utilization 12.51 cm Utilization



Appendix 3 Bucking Specification Flow Chart

Figure 5 Softwood Utilization Flow Chart

Note – defect was removed from the bucking process here to avoid confounding the relationship between different minimum top diameters and % pulp.



Appendix 4 Percent Pulp Graphs



Appendix 5 Height Equations and Inputs

Yield Group

Age Lead Species

Equation Wt Avg SI50 (m)

Height (m)

1 0 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 0

1 5 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 3.130933

1 10 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 5.151034

1 15 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 7.023184

1 20 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 8.737405

1 25 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 10.30218

1 30 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 11.73058

1 35 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 13.0363

1 40 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 14.23232

1 45 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 15.3304

1 50 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 16.34103

1 55 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 17.27348

1 60 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 18.13588

1 65 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 18.93538

1 70 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 19.67826

1 75 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 20.37005

1 80 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 21.01561

1 85 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 21.61924

1 90 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 22.18472

1 95 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 22.71545

1 100 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 23.21441

1 105 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 23.68429

1 110 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 24.12746

1 115 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 24.54609

1 120 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 24.94209

1 125 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 25.31721

1 130 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 25.67299

1 135 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 26.01087

1 140 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 26.33213

1 145 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 26.63793

1 150 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 26.92933

1 155 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 27.20731

1 160 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 27.47274

1 165 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 27.72645

1 170 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 27.96917

1 175 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 28.20159

1 180 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 28.42433



1 185 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 28.63797

1 190 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 28.84306

1 195 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 29.04007

1 200 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 29.22948

1 205 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 29.4117

1 210 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 29.58712

1 215 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 29.75611

1 220 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 29.91902

1 225 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 30.07616

1 230 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 30.22782

1 235 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 30.37428

1 240 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 30.5158

1 245 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 30.65262

1 250 TA NIGH2002B 16.34103 30.78497

Yield Group

Age Lead Species


Height (m)

2 0 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 0

2 5 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 3.21608

2 10 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 5.322628

2 15 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 7.267909

2 20 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 9.043226

2 25 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 10.6589

2 30 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 12.12972

2 35 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 13.47087

2 40 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 14.69652

2 45 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 15.81946

2 50 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 16.85098

2 55 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 17.80101

2 60 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 18.67824

2 65 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 19.49026

2 70 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 20.24372

2 75 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 20.94445

2 80 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 21.59755

2 85 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 22.20754

2 90 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 22.77838

2 95 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 23.3136

2 100 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 23.81631

2 105 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 24.28931

2 110 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 24.73506

2 115 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 25.15579

2 120 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 25.55349

2 125 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 25.92995

2 130 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 26.28678



2 135 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 26.62543

2 140 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 26.94723

2 145 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 27.25337

2 150 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 27.54495

2 155 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 27.82294

2 160 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 28.08827

2 165 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 28.34175

2 170 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 28.58415

2 175 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 28.81616

2 180 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 29.03842

2 185 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 29.25152

2 190 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 29.456

2 195 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 29.65236

2 200 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 29.84108

2 205 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 30.02257

2 210 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 30.19724

2 215 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 30.36546

2 220 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 30.52756

2 225 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 30.68389

2 230 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 30.83472

2 235 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 30.98034

2 240 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 31.12101

2 245 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 31.25698

2 250 TA NIGH2002B 16.85098 31.38846

Yield Group

Age Lead Species


Height (m)

3 0 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 0

3 5 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 3.036016

3 10 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 4.959162

3 15 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 6.748778

3 20 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 8.39364

3 25 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 9.900312

3 30 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 11.28004

3 35 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 12.54494

3 40 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 13.70664

3 45 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 14.77582

3 50 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 15.76207

3 55 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 16.6739

3 60 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 17.51884

3 65 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 18.30356

3 70 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 19.03391

3 75 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 19.71507

3 80 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 20.35162



3 85 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 20.94761

3 90 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 21.50666

3 95 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 22.03195

3 100 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 22.52635

3 105 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 22.99242

3 110 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 23.43243

3 115 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 23.84846

3 120 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 24.24234

3 125 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 24.61576

3 130 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 24.97022

3 135 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 25.30709

3 140 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 25.62761

3 145 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 25.93291

3 150 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 26.22403

3 155 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 26.50191

3 160 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 26.76741

3 165 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 27.02132

3 170 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 27.26436

3 175 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 27.4972

3 180 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 27.72046

3 185 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 27.93471

3 190 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 28.14046

3 195 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 28.3382

3 200 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 28.52839

3 205 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 28.71143

3 210 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 28.88771

3 215 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 29.0576

3 220 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 29.22143

3 225 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 29.37951

3 230 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 29.53213

3 235 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 29.67956

3 240 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 29.82207

3 245 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 29.95988

3 250 TA NIGH2002B 15.76207 30.09323

Yield Group

Age Lead Species


Height (m)

4 0 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 0

4 5 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 3.064428

4 10 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 5.016662

4 15 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 6.831098

4 20 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 8.496862

4 25 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 10.02108

4 30 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 11.41554



4 35 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 12.69281

4 40 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 13.86493

4 45 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 14.9429

4 50 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 15.93657

4 55 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 16.85469

4 60 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 17.70497

4 65 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 18.49421

4 70 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 19.2284

4 75 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 19.91282

4 80 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 20.55213

4 85 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 21.15047

4 90 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 21.7115

4 95 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 22.23847

4 100 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 22.73428

4 105 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 23.20153

4 110 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 23.64252

4 115 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 24.05936

4 120 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 24.45391

4 125 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 24.82785

4 130 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 25.18273

4 135 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 25.51992

4 140 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 25.84067

4 145 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 26.14614

4 150 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 26.43736

4 155 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 26.71527

4 160 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 26.98076

4 165 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 27.23462

4 170 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 27.47757

4 175 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 27.71029

4 180 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 27.93339

4 185 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 28.14746

4 190 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 28.35301

4 195 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 28.55054

4 200 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 28.74049

4 205 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 28.92328

4 210 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 29.09931

4 215 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 29.26892

4 220 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 29.43247

4 225 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 29.59027

4 230 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 29.7426

4 235 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 29.88974

4 240 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 30.03194

4 245 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 30.16945



4 250 TA NIGH2002B 15.93657 30.3025

Yield Group

Age Lead Species


Height (m)

5 0 JP FANG2007 13.68079 0

5 5 JP FANG2007 13.68079 2.657098

5 10 JP FANG2007 13.68079 3.987236

5 15 JP FANG2007 13.68079 5.417593

5 20 JP FANG2007 13.68079 6.848228

5 25 JP FANG2007 13.68079 8.222824

5 30 JP FANG2007 13.68079 9.511867

5 35 JP FANG2007 13.68079 10.70245

5 40 JP FANG2007 13.68079 11.79169

5 45 JP FANG2007 13.68079 12.78248

5 50 JP FANG2007 13.68079 13.68079

5 55 JP FANG2007 13.68079 14.49402

5 60 JP FANG2007 13.68079 15.22998

5 65 JP FANG2007 13.68079 15.89636

5 70 JP FANG2007 13.68079 16.5004

5 75 JP FANG2007 13.68079 17.04874

5 80 JP FANG2007 13.68079 17.54739

5 85 JP FANG2007 13.68079 18.00173

5 90 JP FANG2007 13.68079 18.41652

5 95 JP FANG2007 13.68079 18.796

5 100 JP FANG2007 13.68079 19.14389

5 105 JP FANG2007 13.68079 19.4635

5 110 JP FANG2007 13.68079 19.75773

5 115 JP FANG2007 13.68079 20.02913

5 120 JP FANG2007 13.68079 20.27998

5 125 JP FANG2007 13.68079 20.51227

5 130 JP FANG2007 13.68079 20.72778

5 135 JP FANG2007 13.68079 20.92807

5 140 JP FANG2007 13.68079 21.11455

5 145 JP FANG2007 13.68079 21.28846

5 150 JP FANG2007 13.68079 21.45091

5 155 JP FANG2007 13.68079 21.60288

5 160 JP FANG2007 13.68079 21.74528

5 165 JP FANG2007 13.68079 21.87889

5 170 JP FANG2007 13.68079 22.00444

5 175 JP FANG2007 13.68079 22.12256

5 180 JP FANG2007 13.68079 22.23385

5 185 JP FANG2007 13.68079 22.33882

5 190 JP FANG2007 13.68079 22.43796

5 195 JP FANG2007 13.68079 22.53169



5 200 JP FANG2007 13.68079 22.62042

5 205 JP FANG2007 13.68079 22.70449

5 210 JP FANG2007 13.68079 22.78424

5 215 JP FANG2007 13.68079 22.85997

5 220 JP FANG2007 13.68079 22.93194

5 225 JP FANG2007 13.68079 23.00041

5 230 JP FANG2007 13.68079 23.0656

5 235 JP FANG2007 13.68079 23.12773

5 240 JP FANG2007 13.68079 23.187

5 245 JP FANG2007 13.68079 23.24357

5 250 JP FANG2007 13.68079 23.29762

Yield Group

Age Lead Species


Height (m)

6 0 JP FANG2007 14.26348 0

6 5 JP FANG2007 14.26348 2.751708

6 10 JP FANG2007 14.26348 4.167092

6 15 JP FANG2007 14.26348 5.680919

6 20 JP FANG2007 14.26348 7.186606

6 25 JP FANG2007 14.26348 8.625437

6 30 JP FANG2007 14.26348 9.967757

6 35 JP FANG2007 14.26348 11.20161

6 40 JP FANG2007 14.26348 12.32548

6 45 JP FANG2007 14.26348 13.34367

6 50 JP FANG2007 14.26348 14.26348

6 55 JP FANG2007 14.26348 15.09343

6 60 JP FANG2007 14.26348 15.8423

6 65 JP FANG2007 14.26348 16.51855

6 70 JP FANG2007 14.26348 17.13005

6 75 JP FANG2007 14.26348 17.68394

6 80 JP FANG2007 14.26348 18.18663

6 85 JP FANG2007 14.26348 18.64381

6 90 JP FANG2007 14.26348 19.06051

6 95 JP FANG2007 14.26348 19.44117

6 100 JP FANG2007 14.26348 19.78966

6 105 JP FANG2007 14.26348 20.1094

6 110 JP FANG2007 14.26348 20.40341

6 115 JP FANG2007 14.26348 20.67433

6 120 JP FANG2007 14.26348 20.92448

6 125 JP FANG2007 14.26348 21.1559

6 130 JP FANG2007 14.26348 21.37043

6 135 JP FANG2007 14.26348 21.56965

6 140 JP FANG2007 14.26348 21.755

6 145 JP FANG2007 14.26348 21.92774



6 150 JP FANG2007 14.26348 22.08899

6 155 JP FANG2007 14.26348 22.23976

6 160 JP FANG2007 14.26348 22.38094

6 165 JP FANG2007 14.26348 22.51335

6 170 JP FANG2007 14.26348 22.6377

6 175 JP FANG2007 14.26348 22.75464

6 180 JP FANG2007 14.26348 22.86477

6 185 JP FANG2007 14.26348 22.96861

6 190 JP FANG2007 14.26348 23.06663

6 195 JP FANG2007 14.26348 23.15928

6 200 JP FANG2007 14.26348 23.24695

6 205 JP FANG2007 14.26348 23.33

6 210 JP FANG2007 14.26348 23.40875

6 215 JP FANG2007 14.26348 23.48351

6 220 JP FANG2007 14.26348 23.55453

6 225 JP FANG2007 14.26348 23.62209

6 230 JP FANG2007 14.26348 23.6864

6 235 JP FANG2007 14.26348 23.74767

6 240 JP FANG2007 14.26348 23.8061

6 245 JP FANG2007 14.26348 23.86187

6 250 JP FANG2007 14.26348 23.91513

Yield Group

Age Lead Species


Height (m)

7 0 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 0

7 5 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 3.074862

7 10 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 5.037763

7 15 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 6.861289

7 20 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 8.534699

7 25 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 10.06533

7 30 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 11.46516

7 35 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 12.74694

7 40 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 13.92286

7 45 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 15.00402

7 50 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 16.00039

7 55 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 16.9208

7 60 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 17.77301

7 65 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 18.56389

7 70 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 19.29947

7 75 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 19.98507

7 80 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 20.62538

7 85 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 21.22457

7 90 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 21.78632

7 95 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 22.31389



7 100 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 22.81021

7 105 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 23.27788

7 110 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 23.71923

7 115 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 24.13636

7 120 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 24.53114

7 125 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 24.90528

7 130 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 25.2603

7 135 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 25.5976

7 140 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 25.91844

7 145 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 26.22396

7 150 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 26.51521

7 155 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 26.79314

7 160 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 27.05862

7 165 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 27.31246

7 170 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 27.55537

7 175 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 27.78805

7 180 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 28.0111

7 185 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 28.2251

7 190 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 28.43058

7 195 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 28.62803

7 200 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 28.81789

7 205 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 29.00059

7 210 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 29.17652

7 215 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 29.34604

7 220 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 29.50949

7 225 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 29.66718

7 230 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 29.8194

7 235 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 29.96643

7 240 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 30.10853

7 245 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 30.24593

7 250 TA NIGH2002B 16.0004 30.37886

Yield Group

Age Lead Species


Height (m)

8 0 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 0

8 5 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 3.198328

8 10 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 5.286892

8 15 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 7.216995

8 20 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 8.979659

8 25 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 10.58481

8 30 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 12.04688

8 35 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 13.38073

8 40 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 14.6003

8 45 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 15.71813



8 50 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 16.74537

8 55 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 17.6918

8 60 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 18.566

8 65 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 19.37547

8 70 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 20.12677

8 75 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 20.82568

8 80 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 21.47725

8 85 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 22.08594

8 90 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 22.6557

8 95 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 23.19

8 100 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 23.69196

8 105 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 24.16433

8 110 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 24.60957

8 115 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 25.02987

8 120 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 25.42723

8 125 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 25.80342

8 130 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 26.16004

8 135 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 26.49854

8 140 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 26.82024

8 145 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 27.12632

8 150 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 27.41786

8 155 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 27.69586

8 160 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 27.96121

8 165 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 28.21475

8 170 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 28.45721

8 175 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 28.68931

8 180 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 28.91167

8 185 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 29.12488

8 190 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 29.32949

8 195 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 29.52599

8 200 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 29.71484

8 205 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 29.89649

8 210 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 30.07131

8 215 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 30.23969

8 220 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 30.40196

8 225 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 30.55845

8 230 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 30.70946

8 235 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 30.85525

8 240 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 30.9961

8 245 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 31.13224

8 250 TA NIGH2002B 16.74537 31.2639

Yield Group

Age Lead Species


Height (m)



9 0 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 0

9 5 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 2.322222

9 10 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 3.619317

9 15 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 5.020656

9 20 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 6.478034

9 25 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 7.956494

9 30 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 9.430396

9 35 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 10.88092

9 40 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 12.29439

9 45 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 13.66104

9 50 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 14.97411

9 55 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 16.2292

9 60 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 17.4237

9 65 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 18.55641

9 70 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 19.62719

9 75 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 20.63673

9 80 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 21.58633

9 85 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 22.47776

9 90 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 23.31308

9 95 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 24.09462

9 100 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 24.82483

9 105 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 25.50624

9 110 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 26.14141

9 115 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 26.73291

9 120 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 27.28325

9 125 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 27.79489

9 130 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 28.27021

9 135 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 28.71151

9 140 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 29.12099

9 145 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 29.50073

9 150 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 29.85273

9 155 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 30.17887

9 160 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 30.48093

9 165 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 30.7606

9 170 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 31.01943

9 175 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 31.25892

9 180 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 31.48045

9 185 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 31.68532

9 190 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 31.87473

9 195 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 32.04981

9 200 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 32.21162

9 205 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 32.36113

9 210 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 32.49926



9 215 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 32.62686

9 220 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 32.74471

9 225 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 32.85355

9 230 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 32.95404

9 235 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 33.04683

9 240 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 33.13249

9 245 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 33.21156

9 250 WS ZHOG2010 14.97411 33.28455

Yield Group

Age Lead Species


Height (m)

10 0 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 0

10 5 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 2.383439

10 10 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 3.764543

10 15 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 5.25773

10 20 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 6.808841

10 25 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 8.379054

10 30 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 9.940232

10 35 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 11.472

10 40 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 12.95979

10 45 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 14.39341

10 50 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 15.766

10 55 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 17.0733

10 60 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 18.31298

10 65 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 19.48423

10 70 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 20.58738

10 75 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 21.62359

10 80 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 22.59469

10 85 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 23.50292

10 90 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 24.35085

10 95 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 25.14126

10 100 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 25.87703

10 105 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 26.56111

10 110 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 27.19645

10 115 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 27.78593

10 120 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 28.3324

10 125 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 28.8386

10 130 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 29.30717

10 135 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 29.74064

10 140 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 30.1414

10 145 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 30.51174

10 150 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 30.8538

10 155 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 31.1696

10 160 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 31.46106



10 165 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 31.72996

10 170 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 31.97795

10 175 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 32.20661

10 180 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 32.41738

10 185 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 32.61162

10 190 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 32.79058

10 195 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 32.95543

10 200 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 33.10726

10 205 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 33.24707

10 210 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 33.3758

10 215 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 33.4943

10 220 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 33.60338

10 225 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 33.70377

10 230 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 33.79615

10 235 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 33.88116

10 240 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 33.95938

10 245 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 34.03133

10 250 WS ZHOG2010 15.766 34.09753

Yield Group

Age Lead Species


Height (m)

11 0 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 0

11 5 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 2.121693

11 10 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 2.878228

11 15 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 3.69386

11 20 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 4.532937

11 25 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 5.373923

11 30 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 6.203039

11 35 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 7.011365

11 40 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 7.793234

11 45 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 8.545214

11 50 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 9.265442

11 55 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 9.953156

11 60 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 10.60836

11 65 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 11.23161

11 70 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 11.82379

11 75 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 12.38603

11 80 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 12.91963

11 85 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 13.42594

11 90 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 13.90633

11 95 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 14.36221

11 100 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 14.79492

11 105 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 15.20579

11 110 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 15.59608



11 115 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 15.967

11 120 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 16.31969

11 125 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 16.65523

11 130 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 16.97465

11 135 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 17.2789

11 140 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 17.56888

11 145 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 17.84543

11 150 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 18.10935

11 155 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 18.36136

11 160 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 18.60215

11 165 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 18.83238

11 170 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 19.05264

11 175 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 19.26349

11 180 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 19.46546

11 185 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 19.65903

11 190 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 19.84468

11 195 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 20.02282

11 200 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 20.19386

11 205 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 20.35817

11 210 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 20.51611

11 215 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 20.668

11 220 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 20.81416

11 225 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 20.95487

11 230 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 21.09041

11 235 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 21.22104

11 240 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 21.34698

11 245 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 21.46848

11 250 BS HUAN1997 9.265441 21.58574

Yield Group

Age Lead Species


Height (m)

12 0 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 0

12 5 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 2.533349

12 10 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 3.644108

12 15 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 4.815881

12 20 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 5.994363

12 25 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 7.148995

12 30 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 8.262188

12 35 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 9.324218

12 40 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 10.33033

12 45 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 11.27894

12 50 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 12.17049

12 55 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 13.0067

12 60 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 13.79001



12 65 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 14.5233

12 70 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 15.20961

12 75 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 15.85205

12 80 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 16.45362

12 85 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 17.01727

12 90 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 17.54573

12 95 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 18.04162

12 100 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 18.50735

12 105 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 18.94516

12 110 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 19.35712

12 115 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 19.74514

12 120 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 20.11098

12 125 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 20.45625

12 130 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 20.78243

12 135 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 21.09089

12 140 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 21.38288

12 145 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 21.65954

12 150 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 21.92192

12 155 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 22.171

12 160 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 22.40766

12 165 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 22.63273

12 170 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 22.84695

12 175 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 23.05103

12 180 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 23.2456

12 185 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 23.43126

12 190 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 23.60855

12 195 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 23.77799

12 200 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 23.94004

12 205 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 24.09513

12 210 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 24.24367

12 215 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 24.38604

12 220 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 24.52258

12 225 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 24.65361

12 230 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 24.77945

12 235 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 24.90036

12 240 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 25.01661

12 245 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 25.12845

12 250 BS HUAN1997 12.17049 25.2361

Yield Group

Age Lead Species


Height (m)

13 0 JP FANG2007 13.36004 0

13 5 JP FANG2007 13.36004 2.606132

13 10 JP FANG2007 13.36004 3.890053



13 15 JP FANG2007 13.36004 5.274859

13 20 JP FANG2007 13.36004 6.664251

13 25 JP FANG2007 13.36004 8.003307

13 30 JP FANG2007 13.36004 9.262677

13 35 JP FANG2007 13.36004 10.42901

13 40 JP FANG2007 13.36004 11.49873

13 45 JP FANG2007 13.36004 12.47399

13 50 JP FANG2007 13.36004 13.36004

13 55 JP FANG2007 13.36004 14.16369

13 60 JP FANG2007 13.36004 14.89222

13 65 JP FANG2007 13.36004 15.55289

13 70 JP FANG2007 13.36004 16.15258

13 75 JP FANG2007 13.36004 16.69768

13 80 JP FANG2007 13.36004 17.19394

13 85 JP FANG2007 13.36004 17.64658

13 90 JP FANG2007 13.36004 18.06022

13 95 JP FANG2007 13.36004 18.43898

13 100 JP FANG2007 13.36004 18.78649

13 105 JP FANG2007 13.36004 19.10599

13 110 JP FANG2007 13.36004 19.4003

13 115 JP FANG2007 13.36004 19.67197

13 120 JP FANG2007 13.36004 19.92319

13 125 JP FANG2007 13.36004 20.15596

13 130 JP FANG2007 13.36004 20.37202

13 135 JP FANG2007 13.36004 20.57292

13 140 JP FANG2007 13.36004 20.76004

13 145 JP FANG2007 13.36004 20.93461

13 150 JP FANG2007 13.36004 21.09775

13 155 JP FANG2007 13.36004 21.25042

13 160 JP FANG2007 13.36004 21.39351

13 165 JP FANG2007 13.36004 21.52782

13 170 JP FANG2007 13.36004 21.65405

13 175 JP FANG2007 13.36004 21.77286

13 180 JP FANG2007 13.36004 21.88481

13 185 JP FANG2007 13.36004 21.99044

13 190 JP FANG2007 13.36004 22.09022

13 195 JP FANG2007 13.36004 22.18459

13 200 JP FANG2007 13.36004 22.27392

13 205 JP FANG2007 13.36004 22.35859

13 210 JP FANG2007 13.36004 22.43892

13 215 JP FANG2007 13.36004 22.51521

13 220 JP FANG2007 13.36004 22.58773

13 225 JP FANG2007 13.36004 22.65673



13 230 JP FANG2007 13.36004 22.72244

13 235 JP FANG2007 13.36004 22.78508

13 240 JP FANG2007 13.36004 22.84483

13 245 JP FANG2007 13.36004 22.90187

13 250 JP FANG2007 13.36004 22.95638

Yield Group

Age Lead Species


Height (m)

14 0 JP FANG2007 14.03886 0

14 5 JP FANG2007 14.03886 2.71493

14 10 JP FANG2007 14.03886 4.097258

14 15 JP FANG2007 14.03886 5.578802

14 20 JP FANG2007 14.03886 7.05554

14 25 JP FANG2007 14.03886 8.469661

14 30 JP FANG2007 14.03886 9.791539

14 35 JP FANG2007 14.03886 11.00883

14 40 JP FANG2007 14.03886 12.11948

14 45 JP FANG2007 14.03886 13.12723

14 50 JP FANG2007 14.03886 14.03886

14 55 JP FANG2007 14.03886 14.86247

14 60 JP FANG2007 14.03886 15.60645

14 65 JP FANG2007 14.03886 16.27897

14 70 JP FANG2007 14.03886 16.88766

14 75 JP FANG2007 14.03886 17.43946

14 80 JP FANG2007 14.03886 17.94063

14 85 JP FANG2007 14.03886 18.39675

14 90 JP FANG2007 14.03886 18.81274

14 95 JP FANG2007 14.03886 19.19296

14 100 JP FANG2007 14.03886 19.54124

14 105 JP FANG2007 14.03886 19.86094

14 110 JP FANG2007 14.03886 20.15504

14 115 JP FANG2007 14.03886 20.42615

14 120 JP FANG2007 14.03886 20.67657

14 125 JP FANG2007 14.03886 20.90833

14 130 JP FANG2007 14.03886 21.12323

14 135 JP FANG2007 14.03886 21.32286

14 140 JP FANG2007 14.03886 21.50864

14 145 JP FANG2007 14.03886 21.68182

14 150 JP FANG2007 14.03886 21.84353

14 155 JP FANG2007 14.03886 21.99475

14 160 JP FANG2007 14.03886 22.1364

14 165 JP FANG2007 14.03886 22.26926

14 170 JP FANG2007 14.03886 22.39406

14 175 JP FANG2007 14.03886 22.51145



14 180 JP FANG2007 14.03886 22.62202

14 185 JP FANG2007 14.03886 22.72628

14 190 JP FANG2007 14.03886 22.82473

14 195 JP FANG2007 14.03886 22.91779

14 200 JP FANG2007 14.03886 23.00586

14 205 JP FANG2007 14.03886 23.08929

14 210 JP FANG2007 14.03886 23.16842

14 215 JP FANG2007 14.03886 23.24354

14 220 JP FANG2007 14.03886 23.31493

14 225 JP FANG2007 14.03886 23.38283

14 230 JP FANG2007 14.03886 23.44747

14 235 JP FANG2007 14.03886 23.50907

14 240 JP FANG2007 14.03886 23.56781

14 245 JP FANG2007 14.03886 23.62388

14 250 JP FANG2007 14.03886 23.67744

Yield Group

Age Lead Species


Height (m)

15 0 JP FANG2007 11.94989 0

15 5 JP FANG2007 11.94989 2.391547

15 10 JP FANG2007 11.94989 3.478482

15 15 JP FANG2007 11.94989 4.666638

15 20 JP FANG2007 11.94989 5.875563

15 25 JP FANG2007 11.94989 7.056984

15 30 JP FANG2007 11.94989 8.182994

15 35 JP FANG2007 11.94989 9.238947

15 40 JP FANG2007 11.94989 10.21873

15 45 JP FANG2007 11.94989 11.12158

15 50 JP FANG2007 11.94989 11.94989

15 55 JP FANG2007 11.94989 12.70788

15 60 JP FANG2007 11.94989 13.40062

15 65 JP FANG2007 11.94989 14.03348

15 70 JP FANG2007 11.94989 14.61182

15 75 JP FANG2007 11.94989 15.14071

15 80 JP FANG2007 11.94989 15.62494

15 85 JP FANG2007 11.94989 16.06885

15 90 JP FANG2007 11.94989 16.47641

15 95 JP FANG2007 11.94989 16.85121

15 100 JP FANG2007 11.94989 17.19644

15 105 JP FANG2007 11.94989 17.51499

15 110 JP FANG2007 11.94989 17.80942

15 115 JP FANG2007 11.94989 18.08202

15 120 JP FANG2007 11.94989 18.33484

15 125 JP FANG2007 11.94989 18.56969



15 130 JP FANG2007 11.94989 18.78823

15 135 JP FANG2007 11.94989 18.99189

15 140 JP FANG2007 11.94989 19.18199

15 145 JP FANG2007 11.94989 19.3597

15 150 JP FANG2007 11.94989 19.52607

15 155 JP FANG2007 11.94989 19.68204

15 160 JP FANG2007 11.94989 19.82846

15 165 JP FANG2007 11.94989 19.96611

15 170 JP FANG2007 11.94989 20.09566

15 175 JP FANG2007 11.94989 20.21776

15 180 JP FANG2007 11.94989 20.33296

15 185 JP FANG2007 11.94989 20.44178

15 190 JP FANG2007 11.94989 20.54469

15 195 JP FANG2007 11.94989 20.64212

15 200 JP FANG2007 11.94989 20.73446

15 205 JP FANG2007 11.94989 20.82206

15 210 JP FANG2007 11.94989 20.90524

15 215 JP FANG2007 11.94989 20.9843

15 220 JP FANG2007 11.94989 21.05953

15 225 JP FANG2007 11.94989 21.13115

15 230 JP FANG2007 11.94989 21.19942

15 235 JP FANG2007 11.94989 21.26453

15 240 JP FANG2007 11.94989 21.32669

15 245 JP FANG2007 11.94989 21.38607

15 250 JP FANG2007 11.94989 21.44284

Yield Group

Age Lead Species


Height (m)

16 0 JP FANG2007 13.28418 0

16 5 JP FANG2007 13.28418 2.594193

16 10 JP FANG2007 13.28418 3.867257

16 15 JP FANG2007 13.28418 5.241332

16 20 JP FANG2007 13.28418 6.620977

16 25 JP FANG2007 13.28418 7.951608

16 30 JP FANG2007 13.28418 9.203924

16 35 JP FANG2007 13.28418 10.36448

16 40 JP FANG2007 13.28418 11.42953

16 45 JP FANG2007 13.28418 12.40106

16 50 JP FANG2007 13.28418 13.28418

16 55 JP FANG2007 13.28418 14.08551

16 60 JP FANG2007 13.28418 14.81225

16 65 JP FANG2007 13.28418 15.47153

16 70 JP FANG2007 13.28418 16.07018

16 75 JP FANG2007 13.28418 16.61448



16 80 JP FANG2007 13.28418 17.11017

16 85 JP FANG2007 13.28418 17.56239

16 90 JP FANG2007 13.28418 17.97575

16 95 JP FANG2007 13.28418 18.35433

16 100 JP FANG2007 13.28418 18.70174

16 105 JP FANG2007 13.28418 19.02121

16 110 JP FANG2007 13.28418 19.31554

16 115 JP FANG2007 13.28418 19.58726

16 120 JP FANG2007 13.28418 19.83858

16 125 JP FANG2007 13.28418 20.07146

16 130 JP FANG2007 13.28418 20.28765

16 135 JP FANG2007 13.28418 20.48869

16 140 JP FANG2007 13.28418 20.67596

16 145 JP FANG2007 13.28418 20.8507

16 150 JP FANG2007 13.28418 21.014

16 155 JP FANG2007 13.28418 21.16684

16 160 JP FANG2007 13.28418 21.3101

16 165 JP FANG2007 13.28418 21.44457

16 170 JP FANG2007 13.28418 21.57098

16 175 JP FANG2007 13.28418 21.68995

16 180 JP FANG2007 13.28418 21.80206

16 185 JP FANG2007 13.28418 21.90785

16 190 JP FANG2007 13.28418 22.00779

16 195 JP FANG2007 13.28418 22.1023

16 200 JP FANG2007 13.28418 22.19179

16 205 JP FANG2007 13.28418 22.2766

16 210 JP FANG2007 13.28418 22.35707

16 215 JP FANG2007 13.28418 22.4335

16 220 JP FANG2007 13.28418 22.50615

16 225 JP FANG2007 13.28418 22.57528

16 230 JP FANG2007 13.28418 22.64112

16 235 JP FANG2007 13.28418 22.70387

16 240 JP FANG2007 13.28418 22.76374

16 245 JP FANG2007 13.28418 22.8209

16 250 JP FANG2007 13.28418 22.87552

Yield Group

Age Lead Species


Height (m)

17 0 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 0

17 5 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 2.344243

17 10 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 3.671511

17 15 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 5.105858

17 20 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 6.596967

17 25 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 8.108505



17 30 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 9.613935

17 35 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 11.09388

17 40 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 12.53432

17 45 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 13.92534

17 50 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 15.26014

17 55 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 16.53435

17 60 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 17.74545

17 65 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 18.89238

17 70 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 19.97517

17 75 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 20.99466

17 80 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 21.95234

17 85 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 22.85014

17 90 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 23.69031

17 95 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 24.47533

17 100 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 25.20782

17 105 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 25.89044

17 110 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 26.5259

17 115 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 27.11688

17 120 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 27.66601

17 125 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 28.17586

17 130 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 28.64889

17 135 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 29.08749

17 140 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 29.49393

17 145 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 29.87037

17 150 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 30.21886

17 155 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 30.54133

17 160 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 30.83961

17 165 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 31.11542

17 170 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 31.37037

17 175 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 31.60596

17 180 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 31.8236

17 185 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 32.02462

17 190 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 32.21024

17 195 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 32.3816

17 200 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 32.53977

17 205 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 32.68575

17 210 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 32.82044

17 215 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 32.9447

17 220 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 33.05933

17 225 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 33.16507

17 230 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 33.26257

17 235 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 33.35249

17 240 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 33.43541



17 245 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 33.51185

17 250 WS ZHOG2010 15.26014 33.58232

Yield Group

Age Lead Species


Height (m)

18 0 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 0

18 5 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 2.44147

18 10 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 3.902568

18 15 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 5.483048

18 20 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 7.122867

18 25 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 8.779444

18 30 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 10.42226

18 35 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 12.02951

18 40 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 13.58583

18 45 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 15.08068

18 50 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 16.50721

18 55 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 17.86133

18 60 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 19.14108

18 65 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 20.34606

18 70 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 21.47709

18 75 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 22.53586

18 80 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 23.52468

18 85 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 24.44631

18 90 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 25.3038

18 95 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 26.10038

18 100 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 26.83937

18 105 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 27.5241

18 110 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 28.15788

18 115 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 28.74393

18 120 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 29.28539

18 125 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 29.78527

18 130 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 30.24644

18 135 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 30.67163

18 140 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 31.06345

18 145 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 31.42431

18 150 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 31.75653

18 155 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 32.06224

18 160 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 32.34346

18 165 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 32.60206

18 170 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 32.83979

18 175 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 33.05827

18 180 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 33.25902

18 185 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 33.44342

18 190 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 33.61277



18 195 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 33.76828

18 200 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 33.91104

18 205 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 34.04208

18 210 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 34.16236

18 215 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 34.27273

18 220 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 34.374

18 225 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 34.46691

18 230 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 34.55214

18 235 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 34.63033

18 240 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 34.70204

18 245 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 34.7678

18 250 WS ZHOG2010 16.50721 34.82812

Yield Group

Age Lead Species


Height (m)

19 0 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 0

19 5 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 2.274725

19 10 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 3.164445

19 15 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 4.115489

19 20 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 5.085135

19 25 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 6.048217

19 30 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 6.989223

19 35 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 7.898636

19 40 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 8.770864

19 45 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 9.602953

19 50 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 10.39373

19 55 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 11.14324

19 60 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 11.85231

19 65 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 12.5223

19 70 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 13.15487

19 75 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 13.75189

19 80 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 14.31527

19 85 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 14.84698

19 90 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 15.34892

19 95 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 15.82296

19 100 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 16.27086

19 105 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 16.69433

19 110 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 17.09494

19 115 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 17.4742

19 120 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 17.83349

19 125 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 18.17412

19 130 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 18.49731

19 135 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 18.80419

19 140 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 19.09579



19 145 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 19.3731

19 150 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 19.63702

19 155 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 19.88838

19 160 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 20.12797

19 165 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 20.35649

19 170 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 20.57463

19 175 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 20.783

19 180 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 20.98218

19 185 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 21.1727

19 190 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 21.35508

19 195 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 21.52977

19 200 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 21.6972

19 205 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 21.85778

19 210 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 22.01188

19 215 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 22.15985

19 220 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 22.30203

19 225 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 22.43872

19 230 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 22.5702

19 235 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 22.69675

19 240 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 22.81861

19 245 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 22.93601

19 250 BS HUAN1997 10.39373 23.04919

24

APPENDIX B – MODELING REPORT

Operational Realities Modeling Report for the PA FMA 2018-2038 FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

Version 1.0

August 16, 2018

Project 1062-12

Prepared for: Sakâw Askiy Management Inc Prince Albert, SK

Prepared by:

Forsite Consultants Ltd. 330 – 42nd Street SW

PO Box 2079 Salmon Arm, BC V1E 4R1

250-832-3366

Operational Realities Modeling Report for the PA FMA August 16, 2018

2018-2038 Forest Management Plan i

Acknowledgements Forsite would like to thank the following for their knowledge and input while conducting this analysis:

Diane Roddy (Sakâw GM) Michelle Young (Tolko) Chad Wilkinson (Tolko) Rod Pshebnicki (Tolko) Ed Kwiatkowski (Carrier) Brogan Waldner (Carrier) Doug Braybrook (Edgewood) Travis Hedger (Edgewood) Robert Follet (NorSask) Lane Gelhorn (Ministry of Environment, Forest Service) Phil Loseth (Ministry of Environment, Forest Service) Xianhua Kong (Ministry of Environment, Forest Service) Mark Doyle (Ministry of Environment, Forest Service) Vicki Gauthier (Ministry of Environment, Forest Service) Dean Mamer (Ministry of Environment, Forest Service)

The Forsite staff supporting this project included: Cam Brown, Anita Li, Heather Tumber, and Kat Gunion.


2018-2038 Forest Management Plan ii

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................................................... i Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................ ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................................. iii List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................................................. iii List of Acronyms ......................................................................................................................................................................... iii

1 Background ............................................................................................................................................................. 1

2 Modeling Assumptions ........................................................................................................................................... 1

3 FMP Scenario Benchmarking .................................................................................................................................. 2 3.1 Description ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................. 2 3.3 Key Learnings .................................................................................................................................................................. 4

4 No Pulp Objectives Scenario ................................................................................................................................... 4 4.1 Description ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4 4.2 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4 4.3 Key Learnings .................................................................................................................................................................. 5

5 Sawlogs with 12.5cm Top Scenario ........................................................................................................................ 5 5.1 Description ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5 5.2 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................. 6 5.3 Key Learnings .................................................................................................................................................................. 7

6 2018 Hardwood Retention Scenario (10cm Tops) .................................................................................................. 7 6.1 Description ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7 6.2 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................. 8 6.3 Key Learnings ................................................................................................................................................................ 11

7 2018 Hardwood Retention + 12.5 Top Scenario................................................................................................... 11 7.1 Description .................................................................................................................................................................... 11 7.2 Results ........................................................................................................................................................................... 12 7.3 Key Learnings ................................................................................................................................................................ 15

8 Increased Hardwood Harvest Scenario ................................................................................................................ 15 8.1 Description .................................................................................................................................................................... 15 8.2 Results ........................................................................................................................................................................... 15 8.3 Key Learnings ................................................................................................................................................................ 16

9 Reduced Hardwood Harvest for 20 Yrs Scenario .................................................................................................. 16 9.1 Description .................................................................................................................................................................... 16 9.2 Results ........................................................................................................................................................................... 16 9.3 Key Learnings ................................................................................................................................................................ 18

10 Summary of Scenarios .......................................................................................................................................... 18

11 Summary of Key Learnings ................................................................................................................................... 19


2018-2038 Forest Management Plan iii

List of Figures Figure 1 Harvest flow for FMP benchmark. .............................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 Geographic zones used to summarize harvest levels across the FMA area. ............................................................... 3 Figure 3 Harvest flow for no pulp objective scenario. .............................................................................................................. 4 Figure 4 Growing stock for no pulp objective scenario. ............................................................................................................ 5 Figure 5 Harvest flow for 12.5cm top utilization scenario. ....................................................................................................... 6 Figure 6 Growing stock for 12.5cm top utilization scenario...................................................................................................... 7 Figure 7 Harvest flow for hardwood retention scenario. .......................................................................................................... 8 Figure 8 Harvested area by treatment type in the first 20 years. ............................................................................................. 9 Figure 9 Annual harvest area by treatment types in hardwood retention zones. .................................................................... 9 Figure 10 Annual harvest area in the first 20 years by stand types . ...................................................................................... 10 Figure 11 Growing stock for hardwood retention scenario. ................................................................................................... 11 Figure 12 Harvest flow for combined scenario - hardwood retention + 12.5cm top. ............................................................. 12 Figure 13 Average harvest age for amendment scenarios. ..................................................................................................... 13 Figure 14 Harvested area by treatment type in the first 20 years. ......................................................................................... 13 Figure 15 Growing stock for combined scenario - hardwood retention + 12.5cm top. .......................................................... 14 Figure 16 Harvest flow for combined scenario - hardwood retention Zone 1 + 12.5cm top. ................................................. 15 Figure 17 harvest flow for combined scenario - hardwood retention for 20 years + 12.5cm top. ......................................... 16 Figure 18 Harvest flow for combined scenario (hwd retn 20 years + 12.5cm top) comparing with 12.5cm top scenario...... 17 Figure 19 Harvested area by treatment type in the first 20 years. ......................................................................................... 17 Figure 20 Summary of changes on harvest flow between FMP benchmark and amendment scenarios. .............................. 18

List of Tables Table 1 Spatial harvest area distribution by species groups for FMP benchmark. ................................................................... 3 Table 2 Spatial harvest volume distribution by species groups for FMP benchmark. ............................................................... 3 Table 3 Harvest area by hardwood retention treatment (annual average in the first 20 years). ............................................. 8 Table 4 Spatial harvest area distribution by species groups for hardwood retention scenario. ............................................. 10 Table 5 Spatial harvest volume distribution by species groups for hardwood retention scenario. ........................................ 10 Table 6 Spatial harvest area distribution by species groups for combined scenario – hwd retention + 12.5cm top. ............. 14 Table 7 Spatial harvest volume distribution for Combined scenario - hwd retention + 12.5cm top. ..................................... 14

List of Acronyms CSG Cover Species Group

H Hardwood

HS Hardwood/Softwood

SH Softwood/Hardwood (SH)

S Softwood

FMA Forest Management Agreement

FMP Forest Management Plan

HVS Harvest Volume Schedule

PA FMA Prince Albert Forest Management Area

PAG Public Advisory Groups

PMS Preferred Forest Management Scenario

Sakâw Sakâw Askiy Management Inc.

SGR Silviculture Ground Rules


2018-2038 Forest Management Plan 1

1 Background This document describes the results of forest estate modelling conducted for the Prince Albert Forest Management Agreement (PA FMA) area as part of preparing amendment #1 to the 2018-2038 Twenty Year Forest Management Plan (FMP). The 2018-2038 FMP came into effect on April 1, 2018 and reflected the harvesting and practices that could occur on the FMA assuming a fully functioning and integrated industry. Portions of the plan were not approved pending further modeling of the operational realities currently at play on the FMA. This document provides the learnings obtained from the associated modeling work and supports the preparation of amendment #1 to Volume II of the FMP. The current operational realities that are modeled here include:

Leaving Pulpwood Largely Unutilized when Harvesting Softwood

- Pulpwood supply currently exceeds demand in the PA FMA due to the lack of an operating pulp mill. Softwood operators require access to softwood sawlogs and thus often leave pulp logs unutilized within harvest areas as they are unable to find a market for the small diameter logs.

- This situation will persist until a large scale small wood user is active in the FMA (e.g. pulpmill, biomass energy plant, etc).

Leaving Hardwood Trees Standing in Areas Harvested for Softwood

- Hardwood supply currently exceeds demand in the FMA which leads to limited markets for higher cost hardwood logs, typically those located on the east side of the FMA. Softwood operators require access to the softwood located in mixedwood stands on the east side and thus propose to leave hardwood trees standing when they are unable to market the hardwood logs.

- This situation will persist for the balance of the current FMP term or until market demand for hardwood on the east side increases (e.g. existing mills increase input requirements or lose other supply sources, the pulp mill restarts, or new mills open).

Harvesting Softwood Sawlogs to a 12.5 cm Minimum Top size

- The sawlog profile in Saskatchewan includes small trees with crooked tops (e.g. in bs/jp stands) that are very inefficient to saw into lumber. Some mills have equipment that allows them to use more of the smaller log profile, and all softwood operators work to find markets for the small material they cannot use.

- Softwood operators propose having the ability to shift from utilizing trees down to a 10cm top diameter (inside bark) to a 12.5cm top diameter (inside bark) when sawmill economics or their log profile for the year are poor. While this means that less of each tree is utilized for sawlogs, it improves sawmill production and lumber recovery.

The various model runs described below were done to learn about the impacts of these operational realities on the sustainable wood supply. The scenarios modeled looked at various combinations of practices (10 cm top size combined with hardwood retention, 12.5 cm top size with hardwood retention, etc.) and provided information about short-term (20 year) and long-term (200 year) impacts. Some of the assumptions used (e.g. current realities will persist for the next 200 years) are highly unlikely, and none of the scenarios will be exactly what happens because mill configurations and markets will shift. Nonetheless this modeling is intended to provide information that can help understand the implications and interactions between various practices.

2 Modeling Assumptions All modeling assumptions are consistent with the modeling work completed for the approved FMP unless otherwise stated here. See the Prince Albert FMA Forest Estate Modeling Report (Forsite, Nov 10, 2017) for full details on the base model (Net landbase is 1,323,142 ha after non-spatial netdowns).



The alternative modeling assumption used here vary by scenario and are described in detail in the ‘Sakaw FMP Amendment Modeling Assumptions Document (Forsite Aug 8, 2018)’. A brief summary of key changes is provided below prior to presenting scenario results.

3 FMP Scenario Benchmarking

3.1 DESCRIPTION

The FMP PMS scenario model has been recreated for this project to streamline it and eliminate unused functionality. There are changes to dedicated pulp stands (which stands are selected) and flow objectives. The approach is adopted to provide a cleaner comparison between this benchmark and the amendment scenarios.

3.2 RESULTS

The new FMP PMS benchmark’s output is compared to the original model’s output (Figure 1). The initial sawlog harvest level (1,267,000 m³/yr) can be maintained for 35 years and then steps down to a long-term level of 940,000 m³/yr. The current hardwood harvest (1,123,000 m³/yr) can be maintained for 30 years before stepping down to a long-term harvest level of 913,000 m³/yr. The pulp harvest level is 600,000 m³/yr in the short-term and 463,000 m³/yr in the long term. Compared to the original FMP PMS, the results are substantively the same, although some minor deviations do occur. The long term sawlog harvest flow is slightly higher and pulp harvest flow is lower than the original model’s output due to the changes on selected dedicated pulp stands.

Figure 1 Harvest flow for FMP benchmark.

Table 1 and Table 2 summarize the annual harvest distribution (1st 10 yr average) by species groups and geographic zone (Figure 2) for the FMP benchmark scenario as a reference when looking at later scenarios. Table 1 provides harvest areas and shows that 61% of H/HS harvest area (4700 ha/7680 ha) occurred in the West zone, whereas only 23% of S/SH harvest is in the west zone (see figure below). It also shows that ~900 ha/yr of H/HS harvest would occur in the East zone in support of full HVS levels.



Figure 2 Geographic zones used to summarize harvest levels across the FMA area.

Table 1 Spatial harvest area distribution by species groups for FMP benchmark.

Table 2 shows that for hardwood volume, 157,000 m³/yr is generated from the east zone (all stand types) but the

majority of this volume is associate with H/HS stands (only 44,000 m³/yr comes out of S/SH stands). As for sawlog

volume, 125,000 m³/yr is associated with H/HS stands outside of the west zone – indicating the sawlog HVS that

could be lost if no harvesting of H/HS stands occurred outside of the west. Approximately 843,000 m³/yr of sawlog

volume (66% of total) is coming from outside of the west zone.

Table 2 Spatial harvest volume distribution by species groups for FMP benchmark.



3.3 KEY LEARNINGS

This updated FMP benchmark has very similar harvest flows as the previously submitted FMP PMS (Nov, 2017) with small differences arising because of the change in approach to defining harvest flows (they are now automated). This scenario confirms that the rebuilt model and automated harvest flow approach provides a solid base for comparing alternative modeling assumptions. The harvest distribution statistics for this scenario provide an estimate of the stand types being harvested and the associated volumes being realised from them across the FMA under a full utilization HVS scenario.

4 No Pulp Objectives Scenario

4.1 DESCRIPTION

The FMP PMS was required to produce 600,000 m³/yr of pulp, of which 200,000 m³/yr had to come from

dedicated pulp stands. This was accomplished by selecting 231,909 ha of poor site bS and jP stands to be dedicated

pulp stands (all softwood volume allocated to pulp account). The new scenario is based on the FMP Benchmark but

the pulp harvest target and dedicated pulp stands are dropped. This change is carried through all other scenarios

discussed in this report.

4.2 RESULTS

Compared to FMP benchmark, sawlog harvest levels increase by 10% in both the short term and long term. Short

term harvest is 1,400,000 m³/yr and can be maintained for 35 years and then steps down to 1,040,000 m³/yr in the

long term (Figure 3). This occurs because the removal of dedicated pulp stands increases the sawlog growing stock

as these stands are no longer considered 100% pulp. Hardwood flow remains unchanged while pulp harvest flow

decreases significantly to an average of 375,000 m³/yr, which is about 19% below the long term in the FMP

benchmark.

Figure 3 Harvest flow for no pulp objective scenario.



Figure 4 shows that sawlog growing stock increases from 52.3 to 59.5 million m³ (+11%) because dedicated pulp

stands now have volume counting toward sawlog, and this results in the 18% decrease on pulp growing stock

compared to FMP benchmark. Hardwood growing stock remains the same since there are no changes to hardwood

stands or modeling assumptions.

Figure 4 Growing stock for no pulp objective scenario.

4.3 KEY LEARNINGS

Removing pulp harvest objectives and dedicated pulp stands improves sawlog timber supply by 10% in both short

term and long term. This occurs because: 1) all stands in the net landbase are able to contribute to sawlog target;

2) harvest profile now no longer focuses on providing pulp harvest.

5 Sawlogs with 12.5cm Top Scenario

5.1 DESCRIPTION

The changes implemented in this scenario compared to the FMP Benchmark scenario are as follows:

1. Softwood yield curves were adjusted to reflect a 12.5cm top utilization by recompiling plot data and developing an adjustment curve for each yield group. This adjustment curve was sensitive to stand age and was used to shift a portion of the sawlog curve to the pulp curve and keep the total softwood volume constant. This ensured consistency with all previous FMP modeling.

2. Softwood stands that are now uneconomic for sawlog harvest were converted to 100% pulp stands. In order to be considered economic, stands must be able to produce 60 m³/ha sawlog in 120 years and must have less than 40% pulp volume at this age. This assessment was done using each stand’s attributes (FCT code and site index) not yield curve strata. This leads to 143,946 ha of the net landbase being uneconomic for sawlog harvesting.

3. Pulp objectives and dedicated pulp stands were removed.



5.2 RESULTS

When a minimum top size of 12.5 cm for sawlogs is applied, the short term sawlog harvest falls 12% to 1,114,000 m³/yr (Figure 5) and can only be maintained for 25 years before stepping down to 746,000 m³/yr in the long term (19% less than FMP benchmark). The harvest reduction seen here is slightly less than what was published in the FMP Forest Estate Modeling Report (Nov 2017) because the removal of pulp objectives is offsetting some of the impact. The model effectively has 143,946 has of dedicated pulp stands in this run whereas the FMP had 231,909 ha. The net effect of just the 12.5cm top utilization (dedicated pulp stands remain in place) is expected to be ~14% (see Yield Curve reduction report in appendix of the Modeling Assumptions document). The impact is smaller in the short term than in the long term, because the average harvest age is older in the short term, and older/larger stands are impacted less by the shift to a 12.5cm top.

There is no impact to hardwood harvest in this scenario.

Pulp harvest increases substantially as a result of the change in utilization. The removal of the pulp objective reduced pulp harvest levels but the shift to 12.5 has completely offset this reduction and long term pulp harvest levels are now ~35% higher than the FMP benchmark.

Figure 5 Harvest flow for 12.5cm top utilization scenario.

Figure 6 shows that sawlog growing stock has an immediate decrease of 21% as every stand on the landbase now has less sawlog in it, and is lower by 34% in the long term because average stand age is younger. Hardwood growing stock remains the same. Pulp growing stock increases by the same amount that sawlog decreases but it is a much large percentage (+87% in the long term).



Figure 6 Growing stock for 12.5cm top utilization scenario.

5.3 KEY LEARNINGS

The shift from 10 cm to 12.5 cm top utilization leads to less sawlog in each stand and increased pulp volume. The size and timing of this shift is dependent on species and site productivity. In general, stands that are older, taller and larger have less sawlog volume shift to pulp.

The short term impact of shifting to 12.5 utilization was shown to be 12% here but the true impact of the utilization change alone is expected to be 14%. This difference occurs because of the removal of pulp objectives which are currently imbedded in the approved FMP and expected to remain in place.

6 2018 Hardwood Retention Scenario (10cm Tops)

6.1 DESCRIPTION

This scenario depicts one of many possible future outcomes for hardwood harvest on the FMA and should not be consider in any way a definitive characterization of future hardwood harvest.

The changes implemented in this scenario compared to the FMP Benchmark scenario are as follows:

1. Three hardwood retention zones were identified and the hardwood volume produced from each zone was capped to reflect an estimated 2018 volume:

a. Zone 1 – 10,000 m³/yr b. Zone 2 – 52,000 m³/yr c. Zone 3 – 14,000 m³/yr d. Remaining Area (West) – full utilization

2. Within the hardwood retention zones, a second harvest treatment was made eligible in the model that allowed all S stands and SH spruce leading stands with >60m3/ha of sawlog to be harvested without generating any hardwood harvest volume. These stands were reset to



age zero after harvest, the retained hardwood was assumed to fall down before the next rotation (i.e went away), and the new stand was regrown on adjusted yield curves. Spruce curves had no changes, JP curves were reduced by 10% and hardwood curves were reduced by 20 or 40% depending on the level of hardwood present.

3. The model was asked to meet the FMP softwood harvest level while not exceeding the hardwood caps, and thus used the hardwood retention treatment to access softwood in eligible stands.

4. This scenario used 10cm top yield curves and removed all pulp objectives.

6.2 RESULTS

Figure 7 shows that when 716,000 m³/yr of hardwood is logged (36% less than FMP), the sawlog harvest level is reduced by 5% to 1,199,000 m³/yr for the first 30 years and then steps down to 885,000 m³/yr (also 5% below the FMP benchmark). This impact on sawlogs occurs because the hardwood retention treatment is not available in H/HS/S-jP stands, and thus the sawlogs in these stands are not accessible once the hardwood harvest volume caps are reached. Pulp harvest flow fluctuates overtime and has an average of 297,000 m³/yr.

Figure 8 illustrates the location and type of harvest treatments occurring in the first 20 years of the model run, and shows a significant area (avg of 4,876 ha/yr) of hardwood retention treatments occurring on the east side of the FMA. Only 450 ha/yr of this area would actually fit the definition of hardwood retention (i.e. total retention in block exceed 15%) because of low levels of hardwood in the stands. With low levels of hardwood, standard retention practices would apply. For example, only 0.1% of the JP area called hardwood retention had hardwood levels >10%.

Table 3 Harvest area by hardwood retention treatment (annual average in the first 20 years). Species Group Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone3 Total Area Avg Hwd % Area with >=15% Hwd

SH - Spruce 157 91 7 255 36% 255

S - Spruce 937 385 70 1,391 9% 195

S- JP 2,160 945 125 3,230 7% 0

Totals (ha/yr) 3,254 1421 202 4,876 450

Figure 7 Harvest flow for hardwood retention scenario.



Figure 8 Harvested area by treatment type in the first 20 years.

When looking at the amount of hardwood retention by zone, Figure 9 shows that Zone 1 harvests were ~85% hardwood retention. This occurs because of the very limited hardwood harvest allowed in this zone (only 10,000 m3/yr when it produced ~250,000 m3/yr in the FMP scenario). In Zone 2, about half of the area is treated by hardwood retention and in Zone 3, about 25-30% of the area is treated by hardwood retention.

Figure 9 Annual harvest area by treatment types in hardwood retention zones.

Figure 10 shows how the harvested area by species groups changes between the FMP Benchmark and Hardwood Retention scenario. As expected, the harvest area in H/HS stands is largely reduced in hardwood retention zones because of the hardwood harvest volume caps.



Figure 10 Annual harvest area in the first 20 years by stand types (comparison between retention scenario and FMP Benchmark).

Table 4 shows the distribution of harvest area by geographic zones and stand types (as per Figure 2 and comparable to Table 1). Table 4 shows that the total harvest footprint has shrunk by 25% to 15,080 ha/yr and now 80% of H/HS harvest area is coming from the West zone (was 61% in FMP benchmark scenario). While the harvest footprint is smaller, the avoidance of H/HS stands is causing a slightly more fragmented landbase on the east side.

Table 4 Spatial harvest area distribution by species groups for hardwood retention scenario.

Table 5 summarizes the harvest volume by geographic zones and stand types (as per Figure 2 and comparable to Table 2). Compared to the FMP Benchmark, hardwood contribution from the east zone is now much smaller (7,000 m³/ha vs 154,000 m³/ha). Due to the hardwood harvest caps, only 154,000 m³/yr (22%) of the hardwood harvest comes from outside of the west zone. Sawlog harvest distribution remains similar by zones (vs FMP Benchmark), but there is there is less volume coming from H/HS stands – which helps to explain the 5% reduction in sawlog harvest overall.

Table 5 Spatial harvest volume distribution by species groups for hardwood retention scenario.



Figure 11 shows that sawlog growing stock increases significantly over time compared to the FMP Benchmark due to reduced harvest levels and no pulp objective (increase is much less relative to the No Pulp Scenario). Hardwood growing stock change is clearer because it starts at the same level and significantly more hardwood volume is present on the landbase at the end of the planning horizon – despite the fact that hardwood yield curves are adjusted lower after hardwood retention treatments. Again this is directly linked to reduced harvest levels in H/HS/SH-JP stands. In summary, hardwood retention has positive implications on standing volume in the PA FMA.

Figure 11 Growing stock for hardwood retention scenario.

6.3 KEY LEARNINGS

Compared to the FMP Benchmark, sawlog harvest flow falls by 5% in the short and long term, primarily because a portion of the H/HS/SH-Jp stands are no longer accessible. Stands that are treated with hardwood retention tend to be older and have more volume (>60 m³/ha of sawlog). Although long term jack pine stands have slightly lower yield curves after hardwood retention treatment, it only slightly impacts long term sawlog flow. In total, 4,876 ha/yr of hardwood retention treatments are modeled to keep sawlog impacts to 5%, but only 450 ha/yr of this area has hardwood volume greater than 15% (i.e. exceeding standard retention levels).

Hardwood harvest falls by 36% (a management choice) in the short and long term, with 78% of the hardwood volume coming from the west side. Because of the perpetual low harvest level on the east side, reductions on regeneration volume do not exacerbate hardwood harvest in the long term.

Overall growing stock is higher in the long term and the harvest footprint is smaller. Hardwood retention stands have less hardwood in future rotations but the reduction in harvesting maintains more growing stock on the landbase, so it is net positive.

7 2018 Hardwood Retention + 12.5 Top Scenario

7.1 DESCRIPTION

This scenario combines 12.5 cm top utilization and hardwood retention into a single scenario. For reference, the key changes compared to FMP benchmark scenario are:

1. There are no pulp objectives or dedicated pulp stands.



2. Yield curves for sawlog and pulp are adjusted to reflect a 12.5cm top utilization. 3. Uneconomic stands at 12.5 utilization are setup as pulp stands. 4. Hardwood retention treatments allowed in Spruce/Spruce-mixed/Jack pine stands as long as sawlog volume is

greater than 60 m³/ha 5. Hardwood harvest caps are:

a. Zone 1 - 10,000 m³/ha b. Zone 2 - 52,000 m³/ha c. Zone 3 - 14,000 m³/ha

7.2 RESULTS

Figure 12 shows that the hardwood flow is virtually identical to the hardwood retention scenario, while the sawlog flow is now 24% below the FMP Benchmark (962,000 m³/yr) for the first 20 years and then steps down to 638,000 m³/yr (32% less) in the long term. This pattern is consistent with that seen when implementing of 12.5 utilization but the sawlog impact has been magnified by the hardwood retention treatment. While the hardwood retention scenario showed a sawlog impact of 5% and the 12.5 utilization scenario showed an impact of 12% the impact seen here is larger than the addition of the two (5+12=17%). The incremental impact (24-17= 7%) occurs because stands must have 60 m³/ha of sawlog in order to be eligible for the hardwood retention treatment, and achieving this goal with 12.5 cm top yield curves means that stands need to grow older before they are can be harvested. It should be noted this impact is exaggerated when the fact that 90% of all the hardwood retention treatments applied by the model would have met standard retention levels (<15% total retention) – and thus should not really have had the 60 m3/ha of sawlogs test applied.

Figure 12 Harvest flow for combined scenario - hardwood retention + 12.5cm top.

Average harvest age varies among each scenario and is more obvious in the long term (Figure 13). Average harvest age is the lowest for the FMP Benchmark. When pulp objectives are removed, it climbs slightly. The Hardwood Retention scenario increases harvest ages because stands must have 60 m³/ha of sawlog. The Combined scenario increases further because stands take longer to get 60 m³ using 12.5 cm top utilization.



Figure 13 Average harvest age for amendment scenarios.

The harvest area pattern by treatment types for this scenario is very similar to that of hardwood retention scenario (Figure 14 and Figure 8): in the east and north side of PA FMA, most stands are harvested through hardwood retention treatment because of hardwood volume caps.


In terms of spatial distribution of harvest area (Table 6), total harvest area falls to 14,320 ha/yr, compared to 19,960 ha/yr in FMP scenario and 15,090 ha/yr in hardwood retention scenario. The majority (79%) of H/HS again comes from the west zone.



Table 6 Spatial harvest area distribution by species groups for combined scenario – Hwd retention + 12.5cm top.

Table 7 summarizes the spatial distribution of harvest volume by geographic zone and species groups. Hardwood amounts and distribution are very similar to hardwood retention scenario. Sawlog volume is 7-8% lower than 12.5cm top scenario, and there is less volume coming from JP/BS stands.

Table 7 Spatial harvest volume distribution for Combined scenario - Hwd retention + 12.5cm top.

Figure 15 shows how the growing stock changes between FMP Benchmark scenario and this combined scenario. The initial sawlog growing stock is 11.4 million m³ less than before due to 12.5cm top yield curves. In the long term, it is increasing gradually and only slightly higher than FMP scenario. This is the combination effect of removing pulp dedicated stands, 12.5cm yield curve changes and reductions in sawlog harvest. In general, the growing stock has significantly increased overtime due to reduced harvest levels.

Figure 15 Growing stock for combined scenario - hardwood retention + 12.5cm top.



7.3 KEY LEARNINGS

When combining the 12.5 cm top scenario and Hardwood Retention scenario, a 7% incremental sawlog impact occurs beyond the impacts seen from 12.5 cm top and hardwood retention alone. This incremental impact occurs because of reduced sawlog volumes and the requirement for hardwood retention stands to have 60m3/ha of sawlog volume before they can be harvested – but this impact is exaggerated relative to reality because 90% of the stands called hardwood retention in the model could have been harvested using standard retention levels (<15% total retention).

The total reduction on sawlog flow in this scenario is 24% in the short term (note – is exaggerated as discussed above). The spatial harvest distribution is similar to that of the hardwood retention scenario, with 78% of hardwood volume coming from the West zone and only 38% of sawlog volume coming from the West. Compared to the previous scenarios, this combined scenario has the lowest harvest flow for sawlog and hardwood, smallest footprint on net landbase, and oldest average harvest age in the long term.

8 Increased Hardwood Harvest Scenario

8.1 DESCRIPTION

This scenario explores the impact of increasing the hardwood harvest on the FMA. It is identical to the Combined scenario (Section 7) but the hardwood harvest limit in Zone 1 was increases from 10,000 m³/yr to 50,000 m³/yr, and the harvest limits in Zone 2 and 3 were completely removed.

8.2 RESULTS

Figure 16 shows that when the hardwood harvest on the FMA is at 927,000 m³/yr (18% below FMP), the sawlog flow in 1,033,000 m³/yr (19% below the FMP Benchmark) in the short term and 684,000 m³/yr (26% less) in the long term. Relative to the Combined scenario (Section 7), the sawlog impact is reduced by 5% because of increased hardwood harvest levels.

Figure 16 Harvest flow for combined scenario - hardwood retention Zone 1 + 12.5cm top.



8.3 KEY LEARNINGS

Increased hardwood harvest levels in the FMA reduce the impact on sawlog harvest. A hardwood harvest level of 927,000 reduced the sawlog harvest impact by 5%, compared to the previous Combined scenario.

9 Reduced Hardwood Harvest for 20 Yrs Scenario

9.1 DESCRIPTION

This scenario explore the outcomes of implementing the 2018 estimated hardwood harvest levels for only 20 years. All modeling assumptions are identical to the Combined scenario (Section 7) but hardwood harvest caps are only applied for the first 20 years. The caps applied were:

1. Zone 1 – max 10,000 m³/yr of hardwood 2. Zone 2 – max 52,000 m³/yr of hardwood 3. Zone 3 – max 14,000 m³/yr of hardwood

9.2 RESULTS

Figure 17 shows that the full hardwood harvest is able to be obtained for a slightly shorter period of time, and the long term harvest is lower by <1%. The sawlog harvest level is 1-2% lower than that seen in the 12.5 cm top scenario, indicating that the hardwood retention has a very small impact on long term harvest levels. In summary, applying a reduced hardwood harvest for only 20 years had very little impact - the vast majority of the impacts seen are related to the use of 12.5cm top utilization.

Figure 17 harvest flow for combined scenario - hardwood retention for 20 years + 12.5cm top.



Figure 18 Harvest flow for combined scenario (hwd retn 20 years + 12.5cm top) comparing with 12.5cm top scenario.

The hardwood harvest limits and associated use of hardwood retention in this scenario had little impact because the model spatially adjusted harvest to maintain the highest possible harvest flow. Figure 19 shows that the model reduces the amount of hardwood retention (CC_RETN) treatment while maintaining sawlog harvest volumes by shifting harvest to the West zone for the first 20 years. By doing this, it virtually eliminates the hardwood retention impact. This is unlikely to be practical option in reality, so the impacts shown here should be considered underestimated.




9.3 KEY LEARNINGS

If hardwood harvest levels on the east are only reduced for 20 years, the impacts on sawlog and hardwood harvest flow are almost negligible because the model was able to lean heavily on the west side for harvest volume during that time, and reduce the amount of hardwood retention treatments applied. The hardwood retention treatments that were applied were still significant but the area with reduced future yields was not enough to see a meaningful impact in the long term because the harvest of this area was spread over several decades. The amount of hardwood was also quite low in the vast majority of stands treated with hardwood retention, so the overall impact from yield reductions was low. The bulk of the hardwood harvest opportunity lies in the H/HS stands, and those on the east side simply aged by 20 years before being considered for harvest.

10 Summary of Scenarios Figure 20 summarizes the changes to sawlog and hardwood harvest flow for each scenario when compared to the FMP benchmark.

Figure 20 Summary of changes on harvest flow between FMP benchmark and amendment scenarios.

- Removal of pulp objectives and dedicated pulp stands improves sawlog harvest by 10% - Shift to 12.5 cm top utilization reduced sawlog harvest volume by 12% in the short term and 19% in the

long term - Limiting hardwood harvest to 728,000 m³/yr (36% below FMP level) resulted in a 5% impact on sawlog

harvest. - Combining 12.5cm top utilization and hardwood retention maintained the hardwood harvest at ~720,000

m³/yr (36% below FMP level), but increased the sawlog impact to 25%. This impact is considered exaggerated because of the way in which the 60m3/ha minimum volume test was applied in the model.

- Limiting hardwood harvest to 927,000 m³/yr (19% below FMP level) resulted in 5% less impact on sawlog harvest relative to the Combined scenario.

- Limiting hardwood harvest on the east side of the FMA for only 20 years resulted in negligible (1-2%) impacts on sawlog harvest in the short or long term (impacts almost identical to 12.5cm top scenario alone).



11 Summary of Key Learnings Key learnings extracted from the modeling work are as follows:

1. Removing focus from generating a minimum pulp volume from the FMA improves sawlog harvest flow. 2. Implementing 12.5 cm top utilization impacts sawlog availability by 12%, or 14% if the dedicated pulp stands

are to remain in place. 3. Hardwood retention treatments are needed to access sawlogs in some S/SH stands on the east side of the PA

FMA. Most stands can still be accessed using standard retention levels but approximately 450 ha/yr was harvested where total retention is >15% of the stand volume.

4. Implementing hardwood retention in perpetuity impacts sawlog availability because sawlogs are inaccessible in H/HS/SH-JP stands.

5. Impact of hardwood retention is magnified under 12.5 utilization because candidate stands must meet minimum merchantable specification (60m³/ha) on sawlog alone.

6. Varying the timing and levels of hardwood harvest change the impact on sawlog harvest levels.

25

APPENDIX C – PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT MATERIALS

amendment to volume ii - sakaw...2018/08/17 · renewing the forest. the 8 shareholders, also...

Documents