Cariboo Recommended Changes

Here’s Jean!Here’s Jean!

INTERIOR Free Growing Crop Tree Appendix 9 Interpretation 2012

Is the Herb and/or Shrub vegetation taller than the crop tree in more than

1 quadrant?

1# TestShrub/Herb

NotFG

Is there Broadleaf Ep, At and/or Act vegetation within 1.0 m. of the crop tree?

2# TestBroadleaf

Yes

No

Is ANY vegetation taller than the crop tree in more than one quadrant?

FG

NoYes Yes

Does the crop tree meet the Conifer/Brush Ratio (considering Ep, At

and/or Act only)?

No

Yes

No

Appendix 9 Interpretation 2012 - continued

Does the crop tree meet the Conifer/Brush Ratio (considering Ep, At

and/or Act only)?

No

Potentially FG1. Determine all Potentially Free Growing crop trees & calculate Median Height;

2. Count the Ep, At, & Act in 3.99 m. radius plot that are taller than the Median Height of the Potentially Free Growing crop trees.

Is the number ofEp, At & Act > the

allowable from the table?

NotFG

FG

NoYes

Changing the way we assess FG Changing the way we assess FG

What are we proposing for pine in the SBSdw1/dw2?What are we proposing for pine in the SBSdw1/dw2?

• Changes to individual FG assessment criteria, including conifer/brush ratio, allowable # occupied quads, definition of countable aspen, # countable aspen

AND

• Changes to the FG survey protocol – each pine assessed on the basis of a 1.8 m neighbourhood; no more “potentially FG” trees

4

• To be tested as a Pilot Project in the Cariboo in 2014

5

Considering broadleaves only, does the PL meet the conifer/brush ratio within a 1-m cylinder? (150% in SBS)

Is herb/shrub vegetation taller than the crop pine in > 1 quadrant?

Are countable aspen in the 3.99 m plot ≤ to maximum allowed?)(2 in the SBS)

This is a potentially FG pine

NFG

NFG

FG

← No

No

No

↓

↓

↓

This is the current FG decision treeThis is the current FG decision tree How will it change?How will it change?

Does the crop pine meet min height (2 m), and damage and WS criteria?

↓

NFG ← YesNo

Yes

No

← YesFG

↓

Is > 1 quad occupied by aspen taller than the crop pine?← YesNFG

Same

Same

Modify

Modify

Yes

6

Are ≥ 2 adjacent quadrants occupied within a 1-m cylinder? (An occupied quad has AT >1.25 times the pine height)

Is herb/shrub vegetation taller than the crop pine in > 1 quadrant?

FG

NFG ← No

No

↓

↓

New survey protocol for pine in the SBSdw1/dw2New survey protocol for pine in the SBSdw1/dw2

Does the crop pine meet min height (2 m), and damage and WS criteria?

↓

NFG ← Yes

No

Yes

Yes

← YesNFG

↓

Is the #of countable aspen stems within 1.8 m ≤ the maximum allowed?(A countable AT is >1.25 times the pine height and the

allowable # is 1 per plot in the SBS)

← NoNFG

Same

Same

Revised

New

Changes to individual criteria for the SBSdw1/dw2Changes to individual criteria for the SBSdw1/dw2Plot size, min height, WS, health Plot size, min height, WS, health

7

Current Proposed

Sample plot size (3.99 m) No change

Minimum ht, WS, health No change

Conifer/brush ratio 150% 80%

Definition of occupied quadrant AT taller than pine AT >1.25 times pine height

(ie, PL <80% AT ht)

Allowable # occupied quads 1 2 adjacent

Definition of “potential” FG trees Overtopping AT in 1 quad

Definition of countable aspen

AT is > median height of all potential PL

Subject PL is ≤ 80% as tall as the AT

How are countable aspen assessed? In the 3.99 m plot In 1.8 m plots around

individual PL

Allowable # countable aspen 400 1000

Changes to individual criteria for the SBSdw1/dw2Changes to individual criteria for the SBSdw1/dw2Conifer/brush ratioConifer/brush ratio

8

Current Proposed

Sample plot size (3.99 m) No change

Minimum ht, WS, health No change

Conifer/brush ratio 150% 80%

Definition of occupied quadrant AT taller than pine AT >1.25 times pine height

(ie, PL <80% AT ht)

Allowable # occupied quads 1 2 adjacent

Definition of “potential” FG trees Overtopping AT in 1 quad

Definition of countable aspen

AT is > median height of all potential PL

Subject PL is ≤ 80% as tall as the AT

How are countable aspen assessed? In the 3.99 m plot In 1.8 m plots around

individual PL

Allowable # countable aspen 400 1000

Conifer/brush ratio of 150% versus 80%Conifer/brush ratio of 150% versus 80%

Conifer/brush ratio =150%

2 m

2.5 m

1.3 m

2 m

Conifer/brush ratio =80%

Why decrease the conifer/brush height ratio from Why decrease the conifer/brush height ratio from 150% to 80%? 150% to 80%?

• Our research shows that if pine is at least 80% as tall as surrounding aspen, the density of the aspen doesn’t matter to pine diameter growth.

• This sounds scary, but it isn’t really because of aspen’s natural growth characteristics. We sampled sites across a range of ecosystems and where pine was able to attain 80% the height of aspen by FG age:

• The aspen was NOT very vigorous or very dense

• Pine was almost always growing AT LEAST AS FAST as aspen

• The 80% conifer/brush ratio is supported by work by Phil Comeau (U of Alberta). His work showed that light availability increases steeply in the top third of the aspen canopy.

Changes to individual criteria for the SBSdw1/dw2 Changes to individual criteria for the SBSdw1/dw2 Definition of an occupied quadrant Definition of an occupied quadrant

11

Current Proposed

Sample plot size (3.99 m) No change

Minimum ht, WS, health No change

Conifer/brush ratio 150% 80%

Definition of occupied quadrant AT taller than pine AT >1.25 times pine height

(ie, PL <80% AT ht)

Allowable # occupied quads 1 2 adjacent

Definition of “potential” FG trees ≤1 occupied quad

Definition of countable aspen

AT is > median height of all potential PL

Subject PL is ≤ 80% as tall as the AT

How are countable aspen assessed? In the 3.99 m plot In 1.8 m plots around

individual PL

Allowable # countable aspen 400 1000

Changes to individual criteria for the SBSdw1/dw2 Changes to individual criteria for the SBSdw1/dw2 Occupied quads and “potential” trees Occupied quads and “potential” trees

12

Current Proposed

Sample plot size (3.99 m) No change

Minimum ht, WS, health No change

Conifer/brush ratio 150% 80%

Definition of occupied quadrant AT taller than pine AT >1.25 times pine height

(ie, PL <80% AT ht)

Allowable # occupied quads 1 2 adjacent

Definition of “potential” FG trees ≤1 occupied quad

Definition of countable aspen

AT is > median height of all potential PL

Subject PL is ≤ 80% as tall as the AT

How are countable aspen assessed? In the 3.99 m plot In 1.8 m plots around

individual PL

Allowable # countable aspen 400 1000

Changes to individual criteria for the SBSdw1/dw2 Changes to individual criteria for the SBSdw1/dw2 Definition of countable aspen Definition of countable aspen

13

Current Proposed

Sample plot size (3.99 m) No change

Minimum ht, WS, health No change

Conifer/brush ratio 150% 80%

Definition of occupied quadrant AT taller than pine AT >1.25 times pine height

(ie, PL <80% AT ht)

Allowable # occupied quads 1 2 adjacent

Definition of “potential” FG trees ≤1 occupied quad in 1-m

Definition of countable aspen

AT is > median height of all potential PL

AT >1.25 times pine height (ie, PL <80% AT ht)

How are countable aspen assessed? In the 3.99 m plot In 1.8 m plots around

individual PL

Allowable # countable aspen 400 1000

A countable aspen has conifer/brush ratio <80%A countable aspen has conifer/brush ratio <80%

2 m

2.5 m

Changes to individual criteria for the SBSdw1/dw2 Changes to individual criteria for the SBSdw1/dw2 Assessing countable aspen? How many? Assessing countable aspen? How many?

15

Current Proposed

Sample plot size (3.99 m) No change

Minimum ht, WS, health No change

Conifer/brush ratio 150% 80%

Definition of occupied quadrant AT taller than pine AT >1.25 times pine height

(ie, PL <80% AT ht)

Allowable occupied quads 1 2 adjacent

Definition of “potential” FG trees Overtopping AT in 1 quad

Definition of countable aspen

Aspen that is > median height of all potential pine

AT >1.25 times pine height (ie, PL <80% AT ht)

How are countable aspen assessed? In the 3.99 m (50 m2) plot In 1.8 m (10 m2) plots around

individual pine

Allowable # countable aspen

2 aspen per 3.99 m plot (400 sph)

1 aspen per 1.8 m plot (1000 sph)

What do six 1.8 m neighborhoods look like?What do six 1.8 m neighborhoods look like?

• A 1.8 m radius circle covers ~10 m2

• 6 well-spaced 1.8 m neighborhoods ~ cover the 50 m2 plot

3.99 m

1.8 m

PL

PL

PL

PL

PL

PL

17

Are ≥ 2 adjacent quadrants occupied within a 1-m cylinder? (An occupied quad has AT >1.25 times the pine height)

Is herb/shrub vegetation taller than the crop pine in > 1 quadrant?

FG

NFG ← No

No

↓

↓

New survey protocol for pine in the SBSdw1/dw2New survey protocol for pine in the SBSdw1/dw2

Does the crop pine meet min height (2 m), and damage and WS criteria?

↓

NFG ← Yes

No

Yes

Yes

← YesNFG

↓

Is the #of countable aspen stems within 1.8 m ≤ the maximum allowed?(A countable AT is >1.25 times the pine height and the

allowable # is 1 per plot in the SBS)

← NoNFG

Same

Same

Revised

New

What difference will the proposed changes What difference will the proposed changes make?make?

• The single biggest change we are making is to the conifer/brush ratio (80% instead of 150%).

• The new survey protocol is easier, but we get similar outcomes if we apply changes to individual FG criteria within the current survey protocol

• Changes will reduce the need to brush sites where the majority of pine are growing through the aspen.

• It won’t make any difference for sites where aspen is abundant and much taller than pine – these sites will still need to be brushed to meet FG guidelines.

• Pine FG will likely be assessed when stands are a little older. We anticipate that managers will choose to hang on to some sites for a couple of extra years if they are confident that pine are gaining in height relative to aspen.

Implementing the Cariboo Pilot ProjectImplementing the Cariboo Pilot Project

• Our industry partners Tolko, West Fraser, and BCTS will be testing proposed changes in 2014 within their operating areas in the Williams Lake TSA

• BEC units include IDFdk3, SBPSdc, SBPSmk, SBSdw1, SBSdw2 • Data collected during the Pilot Project will include comparison of the old and

new methods• After the 2014 field season, we will consider how to proceed: • We will work with Dave Weaver to consider how to move on to further

changes at the provincial level• Data have been collected for pine-aspen mixtures in the IDFdk1/dk2 in the

Kamloops region. We will make comparisons with the IDFdk3 to see whether similar changes would be appropriate

• We need to consider changes for more shade-tolerant conifers such as spruce and Douglas-fir

• We will consult with other researchers as to whether similar strategies would be appropriate for other broadleaf conifer combinations and other geographic areas